Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mlamlah]

So, the Katana...

In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords. It's an impressive weapon when it comes to sheer cutting power, but requires the user to be mobile. Without mobility the katana becomes useless after that first strike, because the technique is all about positioning and footwork.

And European swordfighting isn't?  Katanas are pretty cool, I guess.  I won't deny that samurai duels are cool.  People give them too much credit though.  You can cut dudes with them, great.  The thousand folds bullshit also makes them pretty brittle.  They're very hard, yeah, but hard things break when you overstress them.

Most European swords let you stick to one place in the thick of battle, so it really depends if you're dueling or a common footsoldier. Though common footsoldiers were literally not allowed to even touch katanas so... yeah.

People nowadays are also taller, and less stocky than in middle ages. Which makes it harder to wear an armor. And they also don't start training since childhood.


Aaah, and let's not start the katan debate again. Some pretty good links had been posted, which concluded basically, that katana was good against unarmored people, while western swords were more oriented against armored enemies.

Fair enough, some people are overzealous about such things.

I remember seeing these roman re-enactors a while back who wore late republic style scale mail all day long.  It wasn't supposed to be comfortable but it was supposed to be something that you could live around the clock in so that if the germans appeared suddenly you just need to grab your shield and it's go time.

Mobility and comfort are like the second thing any decent armorsmith had to think about, the first being protection. So i could see that happening.

As long as you can get it under 80 pounds I think it'd be manageable. Of course it'd be much easier if I was riding a horse. As for mobility I can see it hampering it but with enough protection all you needed to do was watch out for axes and maces and you'd be fine. Any slashing weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate it in most places so you'd be fine.

As for plastic not being able to stop a knife I'm thinking if you used that bullet proof glass it'd work if it was thick enough qnd properly reinforced. 

That weight *is * going to wear you down pretty quick, unless you've been trained for years to fight and live in the stuff you're going to be fall down dead tired within the first couple of minutes of combat. Also, all armor has gaps, once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.
Okay, yes, that would work. Good luck getting your hands on the stuff in real life, nevermind in the 14th century. But you said plastic, that's why i assumed you meant plastic.
All in all, the first men at arms to come your way would mean your death on the battlefield. Training is far more important than the equipment, and a whole crap ton of weapons strapped to your back is not going to make you a better warrior. In fact with all of those things getting in the way, it might make you a *worse* warrior.

[Mlamlah]

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.

To put this into perspective... it's perfectly possible to do cartwheels in full plate armor.

[Cthulhu]

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

This is straight up not true.  Plate armor wasn't that heavy.  An athletic knight in properly fitted plate armor could fight on foot just fine.

[Aqizzar]

I've always wondered why platemail armor leaves the neck relatively exposed, considering actual head mobility wasn't that big of a concern.  If I were an armorer, I would make a single-piece head and torso set, like an old-fashioned diving suit, with a 'helmet' big enough to move your head around in.  That way your precious neck is good and protected without going the trouble of gorgets and pauldrons and such.

I think 'jousting armor' worked that way, since it was basically assembled around the rider, but obviously people didn't fight in that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm curious, how does modern day chainmail hold up to ye olde chainmail? I'm assuming it's better. In case you're wondering, I'm referring to the chainmail used by people who dive with sharks.

The shark chainmail has become obsolete. The cutting edge thing now is lightweight titanium alloy plate armor. The shark can't bite through it and can only barely bend it, keeping you relatively safe. You might get slightly crushed, but that's better than being bitten.

[Cthulhu]

I've always wondered why platemail armor leaves the neck relatively exposed, considering actual head mobility wasn't that big of a concern.  If I were an armorer, I would make a single-piece head and torso set, like an old-fashioned diving suit, with a 'helmet' big enough to move your head around in.  That way your precious neck is good and protected without going the trouble of gorgets and pauldrons and such.

I think 'jousting armor' worked that way, since it was basically assembled around the rider, but obviously people didn't fight in that.

Most plate armor did protect the neck, I figured.  Gorgets keep it pretty safe from people swinging at you and if the guy's forcing a knife down between the gorget and your helmet you've probably lost that fight either way.

[Mlamlah]

I've always wondered why platemail armor leaves the neck relatively exposed, considering actual head mobility wasn't that big of a concern.  If I were an armorer, I would make a single-piece head and torso set, like an old-fashioned diving suit, with a 'helmet' big enough to move your head around in.  That way your precious neck is good and protected without going the trouble of gorgets and pauldrons and such.

I think 'jousting armor' worked that way, since it was basically assembled around the rider, but obviously people didn't fight in that.

A lot of the armor you might be thinking about is probably historically innacurate, which is ussually the case when one looks at renditions of medieval armor. Though neck movement is actually kind of important because of sight restrictions with a visor, a compromise was set up involving interlocking plates that allowed free neck movement while still protecting it.

[Tellemurius]

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.

i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.

[Mlamlah]

When you're dragging a dude from a horse they are at a distinct disadvantage to the ground troops dragging them down. But plate armor was not restricted to calvary. Wealthy mercenaries and men at arms were also perfectly capable of fielding a decent suit of plate as footsoldiers.

[Andrew425]

As long as you can get it under 80 pounds I think it'd be manageable. Of course it'd be much easier if I was riding a horse. As for mobility I can see it hampering it but with enough protection all you needed to do was watch out for axes and maces and you'd be fine. Any slashing weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate it in most places so you'd be fine.

As for plastic not being able to stop a knife I'm thinking if you used that bullet proof glass it'd work if it was thick enough qnd properly reinforced. 

That weight *is * going to wear you down pretty quick, unless you've been trained for years to fight and live in the stuff you're going to be fall down dead tired within the first couple of minutes of combat. Also, all armor has gaps, once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.
Okay, yes, that would work. Good luck getting your hands on the stuff in real life, nevermind in the 14th century. But you said plastic, that's why i assumed you meant plastic.
All in all, the first men at arms to come your way would mean your death on the battlefield. Training is far more important than the equipment, and a whole crap ton of weapons strapped to your back is not going to make you a better warrior. In fact with all of those things getting in the way, it might make you a *worse* warrior.

It'd tire you out for sure, but all battles would do that. Of course you'd have to be fit and know how to handle a weapon. I'm just thinking that if you were going back, my outfit would probably be the safest you could realistically wear.

You could probably just dump the chainmaille and get a slightly thicker leather coat to go underneath the suit. Properly curated and with foam and plastic to dissipate blunt forces while the gothic plate armour would stop any slashing or penetration (unless you get a strong thrust with a sharp weapon)

And compared to what the men of arms at the time were wearing, you could keep them at range with the poleaxe and be able to take hits that would mortally wound an unarmoured guy. I'd say with a few months of weapons training and a few years of judo you could reliably go head to head with the average man at arms

[Cthulhu]

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.

i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.

You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down.  One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor.  But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in.  Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground.  Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily.  It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.

[Andrew425]

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

This is absolutely untrue. Plate armor was designed with protection *and* mobility in mind. It's not as hard to move around in armor as hollywood has made it out to be.

i dunno about that, there was some stories on the french and english wars where longbowmen would kill the french horses knocking their knights to the ground and were basically sitting-ducks to infantry. When they started combining leather and chain and scale together did mobility came to mind. Plate didn't see much use for anyone other than a horseman, or until the beginning of the firearms.

You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down.  One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor.  But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in.  Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground.  Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily.  It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.

From what I heard the arrows could puncture the plate mail of most of the knights. That wasn't what killed them though, it was people with little more then knives who ran up to the knights pulled them off and then stabbed them in the weak parts of the armour. Also the knights ran over their own people getting to the english and did multiple charges without orders.

It was all 3 that led to the knights dying and the French getting routed.

[mainiac]

There are plenty of medieval accounts of knights choosing to dismount before battle and fighting as a mass of heavy infantry.  They wouldn't have done that if they couldn't fight in heavy plate.

[Mlamlah]

It was reported that at least a few knights of old liked to show off by doing things like performing cartwheels and jumping directly into saddles in full plate, and these things have been verified as accomplish-able feats that are easier than it seems they should be. One more obvious seeming example are the maneuverable sword styles that were taught to men *specifically* for use in heavy armor. Why teach somone techniques they can't use and tell them to use them on the battlefield? You wouldn't that's why.
Tournaments are another example, it wasn't two buffoons stumbling around having difficulty moving properly, they were fighting with skill. Jousting was  far from the only skill displayed and tested in tourneys.

[Loud Whispers]

In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords.

I actually did a load of research into this; Katanas when not used in their very specialized role are very much inferior to Western swords. They weren't even used as the primary weapon of choice in feudal Japanese armies.

And about all that folding stuff, movies like "the last Samurai" would tell you that the Japanese were much more advanced than say the Irish at the time, and all that folding made superior blades and so on ad infinitum. Despite the fact that the Japanese went through recurring dark ages where they lost the skill to make decent Katanas several times, they were designed to be disposable at first (and so quite useless), while they were working with inferior iron there were Gauls making steel and if you want to see some truly beautiful metalworking:
Pattern forging. One ups folding. Europe was once the workshop of the world, it made the best swords. Post industrial world however didn't really care as much for quality swords as such as quality death dealing machines of big bigness.

In it's area of expertise the Katana is superior to most other swords. It's an impressive weapon when it comes to sheer cutting power, but requires the user to be mobile. Without mobility the katana becomes useless after that first strike, because the technique is all about positioning and footwork.

The whole first strike thing is accurate enough. There's a reason the Japanese adapted it to strike upon drawing: Draw in case of Mongolian horseman and spear is broken. European swords focused on adaptability or specialization. There were so many designs, changes, experiments in swords from a highly competitive continent whilst the Japanese kept the same design for 1400 years.

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

One of the most effective ways to deal with the best enemy pikemen was for Knights to dismount, get beneath the pikes and begin hacking. The heavily armoured men at arms would heavily outclass the pikemen, providing they didn't get stabbed to pieces.

Fair enough, some people are overzealous about such things.

PURGE THE KATANA

once you've been knocked over a guy with a dagger would be all that would be needed to do you in.

Ah Agincourt. Fun times.

Well, it's impossible to fight with a plate armor on foot. That's why knights had badass horses, and were killed by peasants with polearms if they fell of it.

More to do with falling off your horse generally killing you regardless. Momentum meets hard ground.

You're talking about Agincourt, and nobody's quite sure how that went down.  One story is that the arrows themselves killed the dudes, others say that bodkin arrows couldn't penetrate steel plate armor.  But no, either way it isn't proof that plate armor was impossible to maneuver in.  Agincourt was fought on a very muddy field after a big rain, which is not the same as a fight on firm ground.  Horses got mired, dudes got mired, while people in light or no armor could maneuver more easily.  It's an outlier, is what I'm saying, not something you should base a conclusion about plate armor on.

The French fought chivalrously. The English fought with peasants. They would drag the Knight down, fighting 3 to 1 and begin stabbing through visors and gaps.

and jumping directly into saddles in full plate

Who broke mah hoerse D: