so /his/, i was wondering about differences about middle age armors.
i love the oldest one (1000-1100 one, the "crusaders" or normans's one, with a basic chainmail+clothes on it and a very essential design) and also the more recent ones (plate armor and other stuff that was also used during renaissance), but it's believable a scenario were two population, one equipped with the first kind of armor and the other one with the second, could fight between each other without the second one easily win? were the armors so important during warfare, more than numbers of soldiers or general's ability?
in case, i'll go on weapons, but i tought this board was more appropriate
explain your picture to me
>>924292
I can't tell if you're shitposting or just foreign.
Either way, it would be funnily one sided. The whole reason plate came into being is because weaponry got better, and so did forging techniques. With better crossbows being developed, a Maille coat was no longer adequate protection.
>>924314
the guy on the left is historically inaccurate.
the other are basically right, crusaders wear the kinf of armor used basically in all northern europe (the normans helm of the fourth guy and the chainmail all over the body with a cloth on), the guy on the left wears a plate armor made and used just 1-2 centuries after last crusade
>>924318
foreign.
do i write so bad?
>>924327
Didn't mean to come off as an ass but you could certianly improve, sorry m8
>>924292
>in case, i'll go on weapons
>going to /k/ for any topic older than the mosin nagant
Top kek, might as well go ask /b/.
>>924340
my fault, a feedback it's always accepted.
i do the same with foreign people in my country
>>924292
Plate armor allows the shield to be discarded which is pretty useful. They also had lance (ar)rests on them which meant a guy in plate armor could use a heavier lance. It's a material advantage but not a gigantic one, Ottomans used mail clad heavy cavalry well into the 16th century against European forces.
>>924292
>were the armors so important during warfare, more than numbers of soldiers or general's ability?
Logistics is more important than any of those things in determining the outcome of a war.
>>924389
this desu.
Famine is worse than the sword.
op here, so supposing a context where two population equipped with the kind of armors go on war it's not implied that the one with just chainmail would automatically loose?
ottomans had just chainmail as armors, against the full plated europeans?
>>924414
Nope that is not implied.
Tribal Germans managed to beat the Roman legions, stone age canary island tribes beat the Spanish once etc etc.
Battles are really just a thing with odds, like rolling a dice. You can influence the odds but you can never eliminate them.
>>924420
well, spanish were in a smaller number than the canary island tribes, and romans didn't have plate armor
>>924427
At least the Romans had armor.
How did the Knights Templar go from a group of penniless knights begging for funds to be so rich that kings and princes around Europe were in debt to them?
>>924430
Banking.
Banking was preferable to having pilgrims travel with two or three years income on their person. The exchanging notes thing turned into banking and before you know it the whole upper management was burned at the stake.
>>924430
Banking.
>>924428
didn't germans had some kind of armor?
anyway romans won nmajority of battles against barbarian hordes, in the end germans won just because roman empire was collapsing on his own
>>924428
The naked barbarian charging at the Legions is largely a meme. By the time the barbarians started winning battles they utilized strategy, shields, and armour. Most of that coopted from the Romans/Greeks.
The Gauls got wrecked in comparison the the Germanic tribes because the Germanic tribes were more Romanized over time.
>>924443
Not around 9 AD. Unless they stole some from the Romans. They just had a shield and a spear, the rich ones might have had a helmet or sword and the super rich had mail shirts.
The last part of what you said is true but not really relevant to the OP's question I think.
>>924455
Not by 9 AD. Even Tacitus writing half a century later still suggests most of them had nothing but a shield and spear. All evidence indicates this was only changing or different by the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
>>924464
where do they get them? trading with romans?
>>924471
Or plundering them. But chiefly through joining the Roman army.
A few cavalry "regiments" at the battle of Teutenborg were entirely German and they sided with the other Germans there, these horsemen would have worn Roman armor. You get another Germanic revolt in the Netherlands around the 60s which involved an almost entirely Batavian legion revolting, again those folks would have been wearing roman armor. Even Caesar employed German mercenaries in his conquest of Gaul.
>>924292
give the first one maces, warhammers and really pointy arrows and it's a fair fight
>>924506
nope.
>>924292
>a scenario were two population, one equipped with the first kind of armor and the other one with the second, could fight between each other without the second one easily win?
So basically the later knights of the Crusades versus the Ayyubids and Mamelukes?
>>924427
Incidentally I recall a few anecdotes about Spanish-Moorish duels. Presumably the latter would have maille and the former plate armor. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a difference however, and a lot of times the Moor was said to have either won or else put up a very good even harrowing fight.
>>924430
Donations of land and money and the bureaucracy to transfer those resources across Europe and the Middle East.
>>924528
?
last crusade was, when, 1350 AC?
european still didn't have full plate armors, maybe just some piece (chest, shoulders, but not full).
>>924539
cool, i didn't know it.
so while europeans had full plate armors arabians, turks and other middle-east armies still had chainmail? moorish never had full plate armors like europeans?
>>924579
Nope.
Though Ottomans occasionally had small plates inserted in mail armor. Just google it and you'll find a few pictures.
>>924572
There were the Ottoman crusades like Nicopolis and Varna. Plus, major pieces of plate like the chest and shoulders would still matter wouldn't it if comparing advantages and disadvantages with straight chain.
>>924579
For the most part, chain with some pieces of plate sewn in would be the best they would produce. I would hesitate to say never, because while they didn't have armor factories like Milan, they did have the money and the proximity to have either bought or looted some plate armor. There doesn't seem to have been big demand though, at least nothing that left evidence of this demand like earlier papal bans on selling armor to the Saracens or peace treaties that specifically discussed the handover of plate armor.
>>924292
français ?
>>924292
so were the Templars the original state-sponsored mercenaries, drug/gun runners, and fund smugglers?
>>924653
italian ;)
>>924638
weird, so the point is, were the plate armors useless in battle or they didn't want armors made by infidels?
also, why making reverse-engineering muslims couldn't copy them from europe? i mean, a blacksmith is a blacksmith, even if he's from middle-east, so why they couldn't copy plate armors?
>>924516
yup... longbow wielding peasants dressed in (studded) leather and cloth literally obliterated the cream of the crop of the french army at agincourt...
>>924292
>>924767
>mean, a blacksmith is a blacksmith,
No that is simply not true. A nailer for example is not a furrier nor is an armorer a bladesmith. One could scarcely say the man who makes nails for a living is able to construct a suit of plate armor.
Besides that you have to realize plate armor is not made from the same quality of material as mail. You need large flat sheets of steel to make plate armor, to produce those requires some sophisticated techniques and machinery.
Why didn't they simply copy all that stuff? Well necessity is the mother of invention and the difference between the two sets of armor mentioned were not large enough to warrent it.
>>924785
>longbow wielding peasants
They defeated the French in melee combat after the enemy had closed in. Nor were they peasants in any traditional sense, they were largely drawn from urban craftsman and yeomanry, especially the latter. A "simple" peasant could not afford the equipment necessary for the job or to leave home for a military campaign.
>dressed in (studded) leather
nice b8
Have a (you)
>>924767
I think it the entire matter of plate armor was a question logistics and production rather than +4 to armor versus +6 or whatever. Just as important as physical resistance and rigidity was the question of how fast one could put on the armor, how long one could wear it, how far could one venture from the supply train and camp servants who helped maintain and transport the armor, etc.
Battles in, say, the Rhineland or Northern Italy could allow the full use of full plate without much problem, but take it to the wide, hot, and difficult terrain of North Africa, the Eurasian steppe, or the Middle East, and you'll start seeing the problems that come with it.
As far as manufacturing, it took a certain concentration of talent, industry, and resources in a very small area to be profitable. The Middle East lacked readily available fuel, sources of power, and raw materials as well as the manpower.
>>924292
Look up the Battle of Visby. It had guys in viking-age rust clothes fighting an up-to-date armoured mercenary army.
Of course the first group lost, but that's probably one of the few cases in which the scenario occurs at all.
>>924832
>It had guys in viking-age rust clothes fighting an up-to-date armoured mercenary army.
u wot m8
Why is the Teutonic guy so huge?
>>924832
thanks, so in reality the match between more well equipped army and poorly equipped one resulted in a lost for the second one, as i firstly imagined.
>>924855
he's old, look at the beard
>>924817
>As far as manufacturing, it took a certain concentration of talent, industry, and resources in a very small area to be profitable. The Middle East lacked readily available fuel, sources of power, and raw materials as well as the manpower.
so this works in the same way for weapons?
i mean, for example, after their invention crossbows were used only by some armies in europe? crossbows are mainly made of wood and a bit of iron (or steel, don't know) so i don't think it would be to hard to reverse-engineer them for someone else
>>924879
Not really. Crossbows didn't take nearly as much steel to produce, requiring only one or two skilled artisans to produce rather than a large waterwheel powered factory with ready access to lots of iron and wood for burning.
The Moorish Spain and Turkish Anatolia were both jammed pack with crossbowmen, as it was simply a very popular hunting weapon on top of it being very effective for skirmishing in the mountains and from the decks of galleys.
It didn't even apply for cannons, let alone later guns.
>>924864
An army with chainmail isn't poorly equipped. There's a substantial difference between a hastily assembled militia using literal relics dug up from graves versus an army of professional soldiers wearing finely made chain and mirror plate armor crafted by the Sultan's armorers.
>>924879
>so this works in the same way for weapons?
Weapons are a different issue since weapons require less steel.
The Middle East had earlier access to high quality steel than Europe since they could get crucible steel from Afghanistan, Iran and India which was in general of higher quality than the bloomery iron of Europe. There exist weapons of comparable quality in Europe (e.g. the weapons attributed to Ulfberht or the Sword of Saint Cosmas and Damien; likely also other weapons that just haven't been analysed yet), however, only after the invention of the blast furnace and oxidation techniques Europe had access to high quantities of high quality steel - enough to make armour that would cover the entire body in hardened and tempered steel plates. Blast furnaces required a lot of fuel, which meant that you needed a lot of forest nearby and they also were only economic with large quantities of iron ore gained from early mining efforts, not to mention that they were usually water powered, so having a river with a reasonably strong current was also a requirement.
>>924845
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm wrong sometimes. It happens. Give me better information on Visby if you have some.
Ooga booga
>>924292
If they're using the same tactics, the men in plate are going to win. Decisively.
>muh ottomans
you do all realize that the siaphi never faced western knights on plate armor, right?
By the time you the ottomans got around to attacking central Europe, European war had shifted to the point that the heaviest guys you'd see in most armies were harqubusiers with a helmet and breastplate.
>>924572
Limbs got plate armor before the torso did.
>>924817
It's an issue of environment, likely heats, fighting style, and technological base.
Plate also got used in europe because it was flat out cheaper than chain, and much faster to produce.
The middle east likely never saw the required social changes for this to happen.
>>924832
No it didn't. Visby is of note specifically because the dead didn't get their armor looted, and they had plenty of it. The visby coat of plates has the name for a fucking reason.
It's also fun because it shows what happens when everyone is wearing torso armor or using shields-people lose legs and arms at a prodigious rate, which reinforces that men typically simply go around armor rather than trying to defeat it.
>>924879
the only people in continental europe not using crossbows in huge numbers were the spanish, as far as I know.
Crossbows were a central part of field battles and sieges in european warfare.
Personal kit is a fairly minor part of what makes an army successful. Obviously you won't beat a modern army with sticks but assuming they're even remotely comparable it's not going to be decisive. Doctrine, tactics, discipline, numbers, logistics, morale and the rub of the green on the day are all more important.
>>927094
>siaphi
Are you trying to act knowledgeable by using the turkish name?
It's not working because that's the wrong name retard
>>927094
>you do all realize that the siaphi never faced western knights on plate armor, right?
stop posting on the history board please
>>926956
we invented internet n planes n sheeit
>>927094
>By the time you the ottomans got around to attacking central Europe, European war had shifted to the point that the heaviest guys you'd see in most armies were harqubusiers with a helmet and breastplate.
wrong
