So was medieval armour actually good at its job or is it just a case of historical accounts and making assumptions?
For example, looking back on modern day history, many people could assume that our current military protective gear would be very effective at stopping the majority of projectiles and modern weaponry because their design didn't significantly change over a long period of time. When, from my understanding, most weapons have a pronounced advantage and ease at breaking through infantry armour.
Is this the same case for medieval armour where we just assume it was effective or was it genuinely good at its job? For context I am referring to the likes of chainmail and helmets(Normans) and Plate armour (1300-1500).
>>1332880
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Just like any armor from any period.
>>1332880
Just watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN911OjPQ7E
Of course it worked. Why would they go through the labour and burden of wearing it, if it didn't.
>>1332880
Don't know much about chainmail but plate was super effective. Literally almost impervious to arrow fire, swords mostly useless against it unless you manage to get inside the gaps. (Which is hard against a moving target).
>>1332907
Thanks anon.
>>1332910
Well it was less if it worked and more so how well it worked. Modern day weaponry to a certain point renders much of military infantry based armour, least to my understanding, useless. Soldiers wear the armour outside of uniformity because its at least has the chance to work but still not all that great.
>>1332880
Armour throughout the middle ages was extremely effective. Mail less so, in that percussive attacks could still hurt as it wasn't a rigid defense, and thrusts or strikes with heavier weapons could split the rings, but a mail hauberk with a gambeson underneath would still massively improve your survivability on the battlefield.
During the transitional period of armour, there was something of an arms race as knights and men-at-arms sought to patch up the vulnerabilities of mail armour with the addition of coats of plate and other rigid metal defenses that were worn in addition to mail. These would eventually develop into the late medieval plate harness and brigandine, which was the height of armour design.
A full plate harness is an extremely effective protection against the threats of the day. The only things that have a decent chance of penetrating the plate portion are lance charges, windlass crossbows (at decently close range) and firearms (again, close range). Contemporary combat treatises dealing with armoured fighting universally advise going for weak spots when fighting armoured opponents - stabbing through the visor, the armpit or the groin, which would only be protected by mail and gambeson at most. Weapons such as pollaxe and becs de corbin intended to combat armour were popular, which suggests that they were somewhat effective, but even then you wouldn't guarantee that your strike will be effective because armour is designed in such a way as to deflect strikes, and in order to get a penetrating hit even with a beaked weapon you'd need something close to a 90 degree angle on your strike relative to the armour.
That's not quite perfect, but a hell of a lot better than going in naked, or with just a gambeson, where one good thrust is liable to leave you dead. A full plate harness will make you mostly invulnerable to cuts, sword thrusts and the like, too, and those were fairly common battlefield threats.
>>1332880
Yes it was very good at its job, much better than people think, thanks to movies and games showing it to basically not do anything.
Full 14th century Knight armour makes you basically invulnerable to anything but a total battering into submission or a knife through a weak spot.
>>1332880
If armor was that good at its job, how did lightly armored soldiers ever stand a chance?
>>1332949
unrelated
Its hard enough to kill a homo sapien no matter what. To outright kill it you need to destroy the head where the brain is kept or get a good stab through the heart, or lungs which takes a little longer to kill them.
One in full metal armour is going to be even harder to do critical damage to
>>1332949
Knights and heavily armored units moved slowly and lacked maneuverability. Lightly armored forces were good for maneuvering around, and could be used against them. Many victories in the Hundred Years War were won because England used it's peasant long bowmen to rip through French knight's armor.
>>1333061
>Many victories in the Hundred Years War were won because England used it's peasant long bowmen to rip through French knight's armor.
>>1333073
Do you not understand? Read about Crecy.
The French sent waves of cavalry charges at the English but they got wrecked by longbows.
>>1332967
lol.
ok.
>>1333061
Please stop spreading this stupid video game meme. Firstly, knight was a social class and title. Secondly, full plate harness did not significantly impede wearers' mobility, especially if the men-at-arms in question happen to be mounted. It is both lighter and more evenly distributed over the body than modern soldiers' kit, and allows an almost full range of motion. Thirdly, the French at Agincourt were defeated by a combination of inclement weather and lack of effective command, as they lacked a single commander who could act decisively and instead were lead into the muck by a gaggle of uncoordinated French noblemen.
>>1333079
That does not mean that the longbows penetrated their armour. It was their horses who got killed. Horses who, incidentally, were not wearing full armour. Fully armoured men would have been nigh-impervious to arrows, albeit helpless against the obstacle of knee-high mud.
>>1333122
To ignore the impact of the longbow is meme-tier, friend.
>knights were idiots, their extremely expensive armours did le nothing! We're so much smarter today!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ
>>1333149
It may have penetrated plate but not the gambeson. At any rate, it was very influential.
>>1333151
The impact of the longbow is negligible. The impact of the peasant archers is considerable, but I guaran fucking tee you that things would have turned out the same if those archers were equipped with contemporary crossbows instead. People act like the longbow is some uncounterable wunderwaffe that can pierce right through plate armour and offer free blowjobs on Sundays, and isn't just a big retarded crossbow that you need decades of practice to use effectively. I'll grant you that it might be a little faster to shoot and you can unstring it so wet weather doesn't ruin it, but it occupies the same tactical role as the easier-to-use crossbow and had about the same effectiveness as later crossbows which also didn't make plate armour obsolete.
If anything, it's ignoring the tactical circumstances of Agincourt and Crecy that's meme-tier.
>>1332915
Helmets and vests are worn to protect against indirect fire and work quite well for that purpose.
It is not supposed to protect you against direct fire.
>>1333196
The longbow is the katana of missile weapons for a number of people.
>>1332907
How the hell can they see through that tiny hole?
>>1333196
Of course the longbow took on an almost mythical status after Agincourt, similar in respect to a Katana. I don't think you could really say that using crossbows would have the same result. The sheer rate of fire is ultimately what made the longbow so effective, it's hard to imagine just how devastating 10,000+ archers who could rapid fire their arrows would be, the sky would turn darker as the arrow storm was in motion and many of those arrows would ultimately find their way down into the unprotected slits between parts of armour.
>>1332910
Well, to be fair, if it didn't work, you wouldn't know until it was too late to stop wearing it everywhere.
>>1332880
Most current military gear IS effective at stopping most fire.
Nothing short of .50mg is penetrating a good vest with plates, that the .50 came about as a tank killer.
You need multiple hits to the same plate, or you need to shoot an unarmored area.
>>1333203
No.
Level 3a helmets will protect against shrapnel, pistol fire, sub machine gun fire, and long range rifle fire. Bear in mind, all of this depends on caliber, and the exact round-+p++ 9mm out of a 16" barrel may very well defeat armor that would laugh at other 9mm at close ranges. Ammo like this is also very rare.
Level III-which are the plates first world armies have over the 3a vests they wear-WILL stop the aforementioned threats, and will also defeat most intermediate caliber rifles at all ranges, and are generally rated for multiple hits.
The US military uses level 4 plates with a "roughly) 3a vest underneath, with the plates able to stop full caliber AP rounds.
The armor is absurdly effective, and you should stop posting about things you have no knowledge of.
>>1333277
>it's hard to imagine just how devastating 10,000+ archers who could rapid fire their arrows would be
Not very, given that the few hundred mounted french at agincourt REACHED the English despite being outnumbered by the archers by an order of magnitude.
If it didn't soldiers wouldn't have used them. The normans especially where no strangers to war so all their tools was fine tuned to their conditions (kite shield, norman (arching) helmet, mail and lots of padding underneath etc)
/thread
>>1333151
Agincourt was won by itself, the longbowmen's arrows weren't and couldn't be effective unless at very very close range
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuVtP_xepU
>>1334344
If someone's unwilling to watch that, the French defeat was caused by
>French arrogance and poor tactical performance. Battle was not fought as was planned
>Cavalry charge failed utterly, retreating cavalry caused confusion and chaos in the lines
>deep thick mud, severely inhibiting movement, making a fallen soldier unable to get up and even drowning some. Especially harmful for the heavily armoured French
>A field of battle that thinned notably towards the English lines, crowding the French together too much for them to fight, or even move properly
>these two combined allowed the longbowmen to affect the French more than they normally would, as well as join the battle once the French finally reached their lines, exhausted and attritioned by arrows
>Longbowmen did not give a fuck about chivalry or the ransom, so they killed everyone they could, causing far more casualties to the French in melee than by arrow
>>1334344
Just to add, archers were used because they were cheap, not because of their absolutely domineering effectiveness. Henry V would've definitely filled his ranks with more men-at-arms and knights if he could.
Also, the irony with agincourt is that the lightly clad archers could easily move around in the mud of agincourt while the french knights would most likely have been bogged down and suffocated or unable to move forward effectively. The archers would just easily maneuver and pick off their targets with daggers and other crude weapons.
Later in the hundred years war when at the battle of verneuil the french deployed milanese knights who had milanese armor, which was lighter yet stronger than conventional armor made through new techniques, the arrows would literally just bounce off, and only make a dent in the armor at kill-range of 20 meters - any other armor and the arrows would've penetrated. It's probably one of the few battles in the hundred years war where knights actually got up to english archers and slaughtered them.
The battle was still won by the english, but not because of archers but because of melee combat
tl;dr archers are overrated
>>1334376
pretty much. People forget that a medieval battle is chaos, if people stumble over and are incapable of getting up it's very likely that you get trampled to death or suffocate. Especially at agincourt where the field made a bottleneck for the french.
Ironically, the french outnumbering the english was a liability
>>1334404
This shit happens to this day too. When you have masses of people crashing into each other without effective communication and discipline, you get a stampede and people get trampled to death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Mina_stampede
>>1332880
Armor can be penetrated in theoretically perfect conditions, but remember the other guy is trying to kill you as well. Your poleaxe might manage to penetrate a few cms through a piece of plate, the padding and give your opponent a nasty cut, but at the same time he may have taken the opportunity to close in to make a precise upwards lunge under your aventail or rondel or catch something with his billhook allowing him to jerk you forwards so his comrades in the 2nd rank and beside him can have a go at you.
A competent professional soldier would keep his distance from armored opponents and spar with them until they see an opening.
Considering Turks were amazed by how durable were the ''men of iron'' aka knights I would say it did it's job. Besides no one would fucking bother with armor if it was useless.
>>1333061
You have to be over 18 to post on this board.
>>1334409
It can be quite effectively stopped by proper planning and architecture though.
>>1334438
>a nasty cut
when fighting armored opponents they used the hammer part of the poleaxe not the blade you can't just fucking chop through armor you retarded autistic failed fucking abortion
>>1334438
Yes, what you're referring to is tempo
If you're able to strike at an enemy, then so is he at you. The trick is to disable your opponent.
It's thought that most heavy armor fights probably ended with one or both of the parties on the ground. Either one of them would manage to leaver their opponent to the ground where they could finish them off with blunt trauma or a ballock/rondell dagger, or they both end up on the ground where one of them get a stab through the armor or in the gaps of the armor with a dagger
>>1333122
Actually no, it is you who is memeing.
While its true that plate armour didn't make you a slow immovable block who needed lifting onto horses, like total historical illiterates would say, this constant parroting that Knights were mobile fast people needs to stop. They were slowed down to a degree, a troop with no or little armour would have been much more mobile, and crucially, get tired much less quicker.
There's a reason that, though prominent more in antiquity, certain troop types or nations didn't bother with much armour. The Hellenic Greeks for example widely adopted a troop called Thureophoroi, these men wore very little armour, they were a mobile force or semi skirmishers and semi spearmen. They specifically had an armour version of themselves, called Thorakitai, who, due to their armour, were less mobile, but better protected.
When i say mobile i don't mean physically in the body, i mean their mobility around the battlefield. It mostly comes down to stamina, a knight in full plate can move very well and has good flexibility, but he'll tire quicker, and that is the crucial difference.
Though it didn't make as much difference in medieval times as i dare say tactics and strategy were much simpler.
>>1334489
Explain how modern soldiers who wear gear as heavy or sometimes even heavier than knights can run around just fine then.
>>1334494
Define just fine? Its not about being "Just fine" we're making comparisons here. They can run around fine but a soldier with nothing other than his gun and ammo will do even better when it comes to covering ground quickly and moving to where he's needed. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were consistently complaining about the heat and the effects all their equipment had on them with the heat, but at the end of the day they'd rather have their food and body armour than be cooler and less tired.
There's nothing to disagree with here, a Knight in 20kg of equipment with inadvertently insulating padding underneath is obviously going to get tired and over heat quicker than a man with little or no armour. But as i said, in medieval times this wasn't as important, battles were smaller, it was mostly sieges, and there was a lot of projectiles flying about, it was better to have the armour than not. In antiquity whereas, it was often better to be lightly armoured, on the huge 3 mile long battle fields with tens of thousands of troops, battlefield mobility was often more important. If knights existed in antiquity they'd have been like the Romans and needed lighter auxiliaries to supplement them.
>>1334494
>modern soldiers who wear gear as heavy or sometimes even heavier than knights
They don't wear armor that protects their full body, it's mostly a vest with a helmet.
>>1334494
If you think a soldier in battlerattle is as agile and fast as a soldier in PT shorts and a t-shirt, you're deluded.
>>1334494
Probably has something to do with the fact that firefights are far less physically exhausting than melee combat.
>>1332880
Aren't the first accounts of PTSD from knights who would go wading into melee cutting down peasants as the latters' weapons rattled ineffectually against the armor?
What is medieval armor? That period lasted for a long time across many nations. Plate armor was designed to stop some projectiles, and largely created because of them, but would be made obsolete by advancements in them.
>>1334555
I think he means the classic "cover everything in fitted steel plates."
>>1334555
I guess we're talking 12th-16th centuries. I dont know if plate was made just to stop projectiles. Its just overall better and the logical direction
>>1334555
>Plate armor was designed to stop some projectiles
By no means only for that, but against protection in melee as well.
>>1334446
>they used the hammer part of the poleaxe
not always, many poleaxes didn't have hammers
>retarded autistic failed fucking abortion
>it is summer
How did I trigger you?
>>1334474
What would happen if they are fighting in a formation? I imagine that once they were on the ground they might proceed to pummel them repeatedly which might explain the overkill head injuries at the battle of Towton.
>>1334494
Have you ever worn a combat kit? As someone who has, I can tell that it does in fact slow you down and makes you tire faster.
>>1334563
No idea. Depends on how tight the formation is and how much room they have to move around really. The poleaxe especially requires a bit of room if you're going to swing it, maybe they'd just swing it from the roof and down or stab at the face and legs with the spike/pummel or something.
Weapons that made britain implies that the battle lines at Barnet would mingle quite a bit and that the soliders would fight in small groups and watch each others backs and try to let tired fighters have a breather before continuing again. Maybe the line wouldn't be held firm throughout the battle and allow for some 1v1 action, like the two soldiers at the front here
>>1334558
arrows and lance impacts. Mail + padding was quite effective against arrows, especially if the arrows hit at an angle, and mail has always been good against slashing attacks, but bad at piercing attacks, especially lances. It just so happens that plate is also great against slashing too and so all the rich nobles made a meme out of it by trying to arms race as much as possible
>>1334641
I also read some first hand accounts that seem to imply this, there was evidently time to switch ranks and let tired people breath a little and occasionally it is said someone pressed so hard into the enemy that he was surrounded.
Good plate armor on a person would not hinder their mobility much other than them being a little bit slower in a run
>>1332880
It was literally worthless since katanas cut through the toughest steel.
>>1334661
I would assume that combat involved some level of back-and-forth movement as a crowd, with the formation not truly pushing into the enemy before they're at a clear disadvantage. Trading blows, retreating a few steps and in general trying to not bind yourself utterly into the combat. Tight formations like shield and spearwalls would obviously differ from this as well as highly professional and motivated shock troops. Conjencture, certainly, but that's the idea I've got from it.
>>1332880
>from my understanding, most weapons have a pronounced advantage and ease at breaking through infantry armour.
Modern armour is pretty good at stopping bullets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg
>>1334693
Modern armour is pretty good at stopping a single intermediate round*
Battle rifles, or rounds between intermediate and rifle like the .280 British are the solution.
>>1334692
Yeah it makes sense. Someone mentioned crecy earlier and although archers played a major role in bringing down unarmored horses, it was probably sorties of english men-at-arms that did the actual killing of knights in melee combat, then they'd go back and repeat once a new wave of french knights gets dismounted by archers.
>>1334489
>They were slowed down to a degree, a troop with no or little armour would have been much more mobile, and crucially, get tired much less quicker.
While this is true, I think the 'meme' around knights being 'just as fast' arises as sort of a counter to the conception of them being slow and sluggish.
Certainly, a man in armour will be less agile. Especially if we look at early 15th century armour, when full plate armour first came up and they were still experimenting when it came to finding the right ratio between mobility and protection. However, he will not be 'generally' less agile. Most of the movement he needs to be able to do in combat, he will be able to perform just fine - the armour is usually made in such a way to make sure of that. In fact, the shape of the armour itself can tell us about the combat preferences of its wearer (is it symmetrical or asymmetrical, are there certain armour parts that others might not wear or certain sections unusually reinforced, etc.). The sword of an armoured man travels just as fast as the sword of an unarmoured man and weapons move faster than people. The general agility one might gain by no wearing armour is easily counter-acted by the additional care one needs to put into avoiding being hit and hitting the right spots when facing armoured opponents - who in turn can hit an unarmoured man just about anywhere.
What I want to know is if man at arms wearing helmets or visors that cover their face, would wear them into a melee, or would they just wear them for protection against arrows then take them off/lift their visor once the fight got close quarters. It seems it would be difficult to breath and see with them on.
>>1334901
They usually lift the visor up
A paragraph from Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror describing the fighting as Jean, the King of France, was captured at Poitiers in 1356
>The King's guard, surrounding him in a mighty wedge, tottered under the assault. "Some, eviscerated, tread on their own entrails, others vomit forth their teeth, some still standing have their arms cut off. The dying roll about in the blood of strangers, the fallen bodies groan, and the proud spirits, abandoning their inert bodies, moan horribly."
I would guess kingsguard would be well armoured, but how could they be eviscerated or "vomit forth their teeth"?
>>1335906
>"vomit forth their teeth"?
Having your face smashed in will do that for you, but I highly doubt a kingsguard would "tread on his own entrails". It takes more than a man to cut open a stomach through plate.
>>1333073
Longbows didn't penetrate armor. Even chainmal can resist this shit. Only knights' horses were killed and english infrantry finished the job.
>>1335906
>narrative history
Implying the author didn't use artistic license to describe the horrors of battle rather than what actually took place.
>>1336415
Wasn't aware of that. Was just a paragraph I came across when looking for accounts of a medieval battle. Poster was kind enough to have his source there.
But it still makes me think just how good armour was back then in theory and in practice.
>>1334704
That IS a battle rifle, and plates in use are multi hit rated.
>>1336333
not the guy you replied to, and hes obviously wrong
but its still aint going to be a cake walk getting pelted with arrows, concussive damage is also a thing, also longbows outrange most bows, and archers usually arent heavily armored
>>1334494
You clearly knows nothing about modern warfare if you think that
Are there any analogues of Cambridge Medieval History from other publishers?
>>1332949
>If armor was that good at its job, how did lightly armored soldiers ever stand a chance?
Armor is very situational. There are a lot of advantages to wearing armor on a personal level, mostly related to not dying or not becoming horrifically wounded, but warfare is an enormous endeavor only some of which comes down to armed combat.
In a scenario where battlefields are highly restricted in size and location due to strategic and logistical reasons, armor is incredibly prevalent as the difficulty of preparing and maintaining armor, transporting it to a battle, and having need of it only in that narrow scope, are all issues that are resolved in a heavily industrialized and resource-rich country with extensive fortifications and stable weather.
But once you step away from this scenario and its assumptions, armor increasingly becomes as much a liability as an advantage. Your battlefield is no longer restricted to this or that field, fortifications are fewer, resources scarce or expensive, and so on. Lighter armor becomes effective because it is easier to transport over longer distances, easier to put on and wear for longer periods of time, and easier to discard for a burst of marching/riding speed.
Lightly armored soldiers stood a chance against heavily armored soldiers by taking the fight away from where heavy armor was best supported by logistics and towards wherever the advantages of better mobility and maneuver trumped all.
>>1332949
>If armor was that good at its job, how did lightly armored soldiers ever stand a chance?
If a tank was that good at its job, how did lightly armored soldiers ever stand a chance?
>>1334489
I agree with everything you say sans the memeing bit, but please note how I made absolutely no reference to stamina in there. I stand by my point that when asked how lightly armoured troops could have a chance against heavy armour, mobility is the wrong answer. The right answer is usually either numbers or clever tactics. The difference in stamina would be negligible in nearly all applicable situations.
If the French knights at Agincourt were unarmoured, I don't think they would have been any less tired by the time they reached the English lines. On the contrary, I think they would have been a lot more dead without protection from arrows. Likewise, if it was the Enlgish archers charging the French lines through the mud, shit would have ended the same way.
Lightly armed troops certainly have their uses, I'm sure, but their mobility does not trump armour to any degree. That is a stupid video game meme and I stand by those words. At least in the context of the middle ages, which the OP was talking about. Furthermore, I'd honestly like to see some hard evidence for a harness really making that much of a difference stamina-wise.
I don't know much about ancient Greek warfare, but I imagine the increased usefulness of lightly armed troops could have been due to the inferiority of contemporary armour compared to what would come in the middle ages. Being able to run 50 miles and fight a battle doesn't count for much if the battle you're fighting is against guys in full harness with pollaxes and you've only got swords and bucklers. On the other hand, with the ancient Greeks, heavy kit consisted of what? Shield, helmet, cuirass or linothorax and maybe greaves? The difference between light and heavy kit seems way less substantial there.
>>1334521
That actually works against the modern soldier. The weight of a medieval plate harness is evenly distributed over the whole body, as opposed to the modern kit, where most of the weight is situated on the torso.
>>1337738
Entering into the discussion late here, but thats all assuming youre talking about shock/ melee infantry. Light armored infantry playing a missile role is a whole different story, where mobility is the key way to beat heavy armor.
>>1337766
Even then it depends on what sort of missile infantry you're talking about. As armour and weapon technology improved out of step, there were periods of time when one trumped the other and vice versa.
>>1332924
good answer man. Here's the response you deserve
>>1337792
Such as?
Usually if heavy armor beats light its due to tactics/ terrain, where the heavy troops are in a place to corner the light ones. I wont bother citing examples of light ranged infantry running circles around heavy infantry because Im sure you know of them already.
Point being that in situations where heavy armor is at an advantage the advantage is due to tactics and terrain rather than the fact that theyre wearing heavier armor.
>>1337830
The types of weapon the light infantry are equipped with, mostly. There's substantial differences between bows, crossbows and firearms, and even then you have selfbows of various kinds, composite bows, hand-cocked crossbows and mechanically spanned crossbows, whether lever, cranequin or windlass, hand cannons and arquebuses. Some weapons are better against armour, some are worse. And that too depends on the level of development of available armour. There's a huge difference between the humble migration era mail shirt and the fully developed plate harness.
And anyway, if anything beats anything it's due to the fact that tactics and terrain allows the element in question to be used in the most effective way. You can make that point about anything.
If dudes in armour fighting hand to hand engage dudes in no armour fighting hand to hand, with all else being equal, the dudes in armour will win.
Anyway, as a matter of fact I actually don't know any of those examples. Could you point some out to me?
>>1337766
You're a retard.
The English archers in particular were FUCKING INFAMOUS for being unusually heavily armed and armored for archers, serving as dual purpose soldier,s willing, eager, and armed to engage in close combat. Given the chance, they'd be as heavily armored as the men at arms.
>>1337830
>Usually if heavy armor beats light its due to tactics/ terrain
No, it usually wins because it's flat out fucking better.
>I wont bother citing examples of light ranged infantry running circles around heavy infantry because Im sure you know of them already.
No, you're not citing them because you're ignorant and can't.
These examples are fucking rare, and UNIVERSALLY involve fucking awful terrain, usually of the sort that people aren't usually found fighting over at all.
The ONE example that doesn't involve terrain seriously favoring the light troops, involves a much, much smaller unit of spartans acting like retards in the face of overwhelming numbers.
And this occurred in an era where "light" troops were rapidly getting heavier, and would continue to do so.
>Point being that in situations where heavy armor is at an advantage the advantage is due to tactics and terrain rather than the fact that theyre wearing heavier armor.
THEN WHY ARE THEY WEARING ARMOR. ARMOR IS EXPENSIVE. ARMOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO FIGHT IN CLOSE ORDER OR USE SHOCK TACTICS.
>>1337857
He's going to cite an example where thousands of greek skirmishers-with hoplite support-managed to capture a hoplite force that outnumbered 27.7 to 1.
I imagine this'll be followed up with the one example of peltasts breaking a phalanx-again, badly outnumbered-and then a rapid time jump of centuries to the ONE battle where light infantry beat the Romans at teutoburg. He will of course ignore the psychology involved, the betrayal of the cavalry, or the terrain favoring the Germans. Also the total destruction of the tribes in question after.
>>1338401
Next he'll likely tlak about the english, and ignore that the longbowmen worse as much armor as they could afford, and died miserably when they got caught without mud, fortifications, and heavy infantry to protect them, or that England lost the damn war.
Also expect some knowledge ripped right from total war, mixed with an inability to grasp any facet of pre-modern war.
>>1337830
Your mad mate. Armour>less armour in virtually all situations. Real life is not a videogame
>>1333435
What are you talking about , the charge failed?
I can go get eye witness accounts for that if you want.
The arrows may not have killed many people but you try having an arrow hit you, that would still hurt and dent the armour.
>>1338412
Or just purely focusing on the 14th century for ever aspect of pre-modern war.
What i want to know is why javelins declined in use, as well as slingers.
>>1338932
In a word, armour. And also the fact that other missile weapons with greater range and power were developed.
Staff slings did see use in the middle ages though, and they seem to have made fairly effective weapons.
>>1338932
It's easier to carry 100 arrows than it is to carry 100 javelins.
Chain mail and plate are both effective against slashing attacks, so any given slash is not likely to cut the skin at all. That's great.
Both are weak to piercing attacks, however, chain mail is far weaker than plate. Pretty much any pointed sword tip, or spear, will have enough force behind it to break the links of chain mail and puncture any exposed flesh behind it, however, it takes a lot more force to pierce plate, and not every sword or spear is designed to provide that force, and would simply dent the plate, or glance off. Weapons like war hammers were designed to concentrate the force of any given blow in one small area at the tip of a spike, and that's all that was needed to punch through pretty much any armor, including plate.
Both are weak against crushing blows from any weapon, but again, the mail is weaker. Regardless of whether wearing mail or plate, taking a direct full force blow from a sword, axe, or whatever, in any limb, or on the head, is likely to break that limb, or give you a concussion, and that's because the armor doesn't absorb the energy as much as it simply prevents the skin from being sliced. All that energy is going to be absorbed by that limb, or your head, regardless, and the results can be devastating.
I would imagine that if you could observe medieval armored fighting, you'd see that a lot of the casualties resulted from blows to the head, or limbs, that concussed the victim, or made it easier to knock them off their feet, where they were more easily killed while on the ground.
>>1333073
Didn't armour their fuckin' horses, lad.
>>1339897
>Pretty much any pointed sword tip, or spear, will have enough force behind it to break the links of chain mail and puncture any exposed flesh behind it
thats been proven wrong
Having been knifed in chain, yes. Yes it does.
>>1338932
You don't see weapons come and go in the past based on purely utilitarian reasons. People learned what their parents or trainers taught them, and change didn't happen quickly without some kind of break in this tradition.
For the javelin, that break was game hunting. As the Germanic tribes of Europe settled and urbanized they lost much of their old hunting and herding habits (the latter causing the decline of the sling). Over time fewer men who were trained in the use of the javelin could be called up for service than before, until the weapon vanished outside of certain communities that did not adopt as quickly to settled culture.
It's all about psychology
Is a good way to boost your moral as you believe your armor will protect you from harm
>>1332880
If it didn't work it wouldn't be used for hundreds of years.
Think for a second. Procuring, maintaining, and using armor is a pretty involved and costly process. If it really was that bad at its job, the armies using armor would lose and more effective equipment and tactics would take its place.
>>1339953
Rounded tipped swords will stop mail, but a gladius, a long sword, and even a dagger will punch right through that shit.
>>1342142
vid related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM
You've got to remember that all of the weight and force of the user is going to be concentrated in that tiny little tip of a sharply pointed sword, and if the user is running, then you've got even more momentum, which means chain mail won't be able to stop it from penetrating.
>>1338921
It. Reached. The. English.
The arrows did jack shit to kill the men in their armor, as is obvious form the fact that the man leading it came out alive, despite riding into tens of thousands of the fucking things.
The charge failed because it was a paltry few hundred men charging into thousands of men-across a field of deep mud, with fortifications. The arrows are utterly irrelevant to this, the charge would have failed anyway.
>>1338932
Armor. Also, bows are not a static technology. they've improved massively over time, specifically in terms of efficieny and power. This improves range and the ability to beat armor.
>>1339897
Just fuck off. You don't understand basic fucking physics.
>>1342142
The vast majority of the time, no, it will not.
>>1342431
Oh, so now it's "the majority of the time" it can't be pierced?
And I'M the one that doesn't understand physics?
Idiot.
>>1332880
it was good if it was well made, like anything else.
sometimes it did the job but sometimes it didn't.
a hand-me-down quilted gambeson with holes in it could save your life or you could be in the best full plate and still get killed.
full suits were exotic sports car expensive so you know they wouldn't buy them if they didn't work
>>1338401
this, a lot of English bowmen were professional soldiers or not at the very least not complete poor cunts, so they could afford swords and armor, compared to most other bowmen used in other countries who were either some faggot Italian mercenaries with crossbows or however many peasant scrubs the Signeur could round up and give arms to
>>1338932
>What i want to know is why javelins declined in use
cant throw them very far my dude
