When testing mail armour use riveted mail covering a soft target (ballistics gel) from a reasonable distance. Not butted mail covering wood from point blank.
Someone said they layered the mail up to an inch thick but that doesn't change much at all there's still the same space in the rings instead use a tighter pattern. (6in1; 8in1 even)
First off very few people still make mail correctly. (in terms of the armour of olden days)
It would've been riveted and even that alone improves the strength substantially.
an arrow being shot at butted mail simply has to push open a single round bit of steel wire to puncture the mail; this kind of mail would be used mainly for sword blows, spreading the force out preventing cuts.
riveted mail has each and every ring completely closed and has much
Anyway crossbows generally paled in comparison to longbows in terms of penetrative strength. One main reason being crossbow bolts being these tiny rather pathetic things.
Riveted chain mail will hold up against a longbow at close range. Thing is you could still get wounded by an arrow that has a narrow enough head which could slip by the rings and push in about an inch. While it might not kill you definitely aren't running through a rain of arrows if they do that to you. Plate is more or less complete proof and offers way better blunt protection.
Butted mail isn't historically accurate and doesn't mean jack, the rings in butted mail split pretty easily.
Repeating crossbows had nowhere near the same power as a crossbow using a windlass to brace the bow. These bows had draw weights in the 100s of pounds,impossible to achieve that with a repeating mechanism.
Most of England's armor was forged from other countries. Both Italians and the Germans had a monopoly on the arms and armor trade of the time. Armor crafting was one of the few arts that complement the human form.
i think we can all agree that the gothing armour with the salet helm is the most BADASS type of armour of the medieva;l period, matched possibly only by the helmes and armor of the teutonic order.
I put there video with my suit of armor.. I have 205 cm as Henry VIII... so you can realize how big it is :O))... If I have all weapons with me i have almost 200 kg..
Popular medieval way to kill a knight in shining armour: get some peasants, pull the knight off his horse or knock him over, stand over him with a hammer and an iron peg and simply hammer through his armour through either the faceplate or the chestplate. If you ever go to one of these fine places that have examples of real medieval armour, you will see many suits with these pegs in them. Not a nice way to go. Economical way to deal with a knight problem though. Not very chivalric mind :D
@Th3BritishGuy wow i love how u just make shit up. Maybe the easier way to kill one would be to knock him off his horse, pull his helmet off and cut his throat
Don't be stilly, his helmet would be secured to make sure it doesn't fall off. Anyway, I can't be bothered to play little games with you. Dunno why you've decided to attack me for what I have said considering it's truth. Perhaps a relative of yours was a knight and died in a similar way and I have offended you. If so, I apologise.
Pegs? Complete and utter bollocks. Preferably, a knight wouldn't be killed, he'd be captured and ransomed. If, however, he did have to be killed, why drive a peg through the (expensive) armour, when you have some convenient holes at the eyes, and various joints? *this* is where you'd strike a knight on the ground.
@salagadula84 War hammers and pollaxes were great weapons for disabling an opponent, but weren't designed to kill. Every knight would carry a dagger of some form, usually a rondel, designed for killing an opponent on the ground.
The rondel was for more than just defending the hand, it allowed pressure to be added to short range stabs through the use of a mans palm, to get between gaps.
@Th3BritishGuy thats dumb, all that work will get most of your peasant volunters killed, the best way is to throw some flamable fluids like wine or whatever flamable they had, then and throw some torches at him. If the fire don't kill ya the heat will. If you can lead a group of peasants, chances are you can get a xbow instead, and but some fire on the other end of an extended bolt. Or Lasso the srry ass into a river or pour a kettle or hot tar on him.
@ongolos Presumably you are meant to carry gallons and gallons of this liquid in order to kill knights in the battlefield. Yes, there are lots of other ways to kill a knight, but using flammable liquids would have been immensly difficult (not easy to create back then) and expensive (wine? Seriously expensive back then). Liquid weighs lots, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, hardly practical in a battle environment.
@Th3BritishGuy oh ok, good point, but a fire arrow does good ;D. I saw this doculmentary about how well arrows and x bows go through plate armor, looks pretty exciting.
@ongolos If you can lead a bunch of peasants then you could probably afford a crossbow yes, but to lead a bunch of peasants into a battlefield all you'd need to do is promise them the riches of the people they'd kill. And if you could afford enough flammable liquid to defeat an opposing army you'd be rich enough to hire one of the largest armies ever seen in medieval Europe in the first place.
@666satanification666 thanks for being the medival expert for us, you seem to have cleaver ideals to how to kill a medival knight. However I still can't seem to grasp that a buncha peasents can have the guts to bring down the knight , doing so would incure the wraith of the government body the knight represented- the whole kingdom. Within days of investigation there would be scrutiny from the land Lords and perhaps even burning and pillaging villages The villagers would have you to blame.
@ongolos not only... to unhorse a knight, you have to get close. And pushing him down is not so easy as it seems. After all, it is a killing machine, surrounded by other knights. A battle is not a duel, men work together to form units.
many armours have small dents at the breast height. It was called "proof", because armorers, from XVI cent. onwards, used to shoot a pistol or crossbow bolt against the armor to show it was bullet-proof.
@salagadula84 wait so whats ur point? I saw a doculmentary that showed the armor they used could not hold up to crossbow fire or the repeating crossbow.
@salagadula84 hmm hmm the Chinese had it , but its not the point, cuz the repeating xbows r same as regular ones except they have an attached mechanism thingy that reloads and fires semi auto style... but they do same damage its just faster rate of fire. nvm me I was jus wondering what ur tryin to tell me jus all.
@DerFerret yea, true, I remember the Billhook. But I thought it was used in a different way (i.e.: hook the knight and break his back using the force and the rigidity of armor) or, if unhorsed, he was simply killed with a misericorde or a dagger, without the help of a peasant swarm... in my opinion a simpler method.
Obviously, the medieval art of combat spans over 700-800 years of history, in different countries and with different weapons, so there is not always a definitive answer..
@Th3BritishGuy That´s why they attack in groups of knights with some soldiers to defend them. And yes, it´s not necessary a pick hammer, with a heavy war hammer and enough strength you can cause a conclusion blow and kill him.
@Th3BritishGuy Yep, chivalary was not a practice common to the peasant :) another way is to pull them off, force open their visor and puncture the eye, its fast and clean.
@Th3BritishGuy The problem would be when the knight, who's actually trained in his horse armor to the point where he can move in it effectively, althought not as much as his field plate, to be able to take care of opponents. Keep in mind that peasants are almost always untrained and always uneducated and that knights have high-quality weapons and some serious brawn...
Um, you need to educate yourself. There is a reason chain armours were worn for nearly 2000 years. There is a reason plate armours were used. They were proof against arrows. Sure there was always a chance of getting hit in the visor or a weak point in the chain, however it was proof against arrows, crossbows, lances,swords etc. Thats why it was ARMOUR. Before making an ass of yourself, educate yourself.
Lapping armour means nothing. Did you use flat links, round links? Did you rivit? What type of rivet? There is PLENTY of documentation during battles of people getting shot with arrows and it stopping them.
@Th3BritishGuy You know that an armed plated knight would never stand alone? But most likely come at those peasants with 100 brothers in arms with lances and crushing them under horse hooves? ;)
@YuriPRIME I'm sure many a brave Knight thought him and his brothers in arms invincible when charging simple footsoldiers, only to be overwhelmed by the sheer number of bodies once in the thick of it, to be then pulled from his horse by lowly serfs and having his life ended by a peasant with a rusty iron peg and a smithing hammer. Having said that, If another opposing Knight was present, his life would most likely have been spared in favour of demanding a ransom payment from the Knight's family.
@DCTriv Yeah, maybe I don't have enaugh pro knowledge about how it worked in Uk and France... if they did charged formations and fought in such way to be overwhelmed by peasants... well sucks to be them :P If you check out battle records of eastern heeavy cavalery, like Polish winged hussars you'd see that 4 thousands of them disposed of 30 thousand jannisaries.(Battle of Khotyn) And no one was stupid enagh to block them with sheer number of boddies :P because seeing such onslaught
@YuriPRIME ...most of them just fleed. Saying that there would be a formation of super-heroic peasants who get slayed trhough row and row and row of their group just to band up and on the pile of bodies pull someone off the horse? Strange, cause I've never heard of such thing besides some exceptions that are carried mostly in legends. Should that be truth, we would see that best anti-kinght units in all armies would be sheer numbers of peasants, but they werent. Even if, such formation would be
@YuriPRIME ...just too easy to won with arrows. Check out battle of Vienna 1683, Turks had 138 thousand huge army! they lost just 15k - morale broke, the rest fled. And that's how it works. This argument would be valid if it was a fantasy game or something. In reality there was no heroic peasants standing against cavelery action. They saw couple rows owned by lances, crushed under hooves, then cut open with swords, the rest panicked and fled... thats how people work, they are no Zerg from SC
@YuriPRIME There are some cases where peasants stood against heavy cavalry. However, each of these engagements the peasants had time to prepare the field against a cavalry charge (digging pits, making pikes, etc). In most cases, peasants (and infantry in general) got slaughtered by cavalry though.
eww katans are slashing and the best way to go through knights armor is percing so your little samuri will die srry for spelling but tis true knights are better in every way
Though it looks heavy, it's mostly empty space. The steel itself is usually 3 or less millimeters thick, with the helmet and breastplate containing most of the armor.
The only time plate armor was so heavy was when Ned Kelly and his gang came with their "90 pound bullet eatting junk suits". They could stop bullets, but there was barely any limb protection, which led to their deaths.
Real armor weights 50-60 pounds. If you can't move well in your armor the next thing you'll wear is a coffin. This armor here is likely to be for tournaments only or just a decoration.
Actually more along the lines of 40-45 pounds and its actually extremely movable. I just wanted to point that out because that whole non movable thing is a common myth.
Well they must've wanted to die if they wore that. Do you realise how heavy that armor is? Sure it protects you from a couple of hits, but as soon as the enemy realises you can't move 5 feet without getting winded, they'll murder you!
Except the soldiers that wore armor were more then physically fit enough to wear it for long periods of time in combat. And of course all knights wore armor, as it protected them from such things as getting body parts cleaved off by the enemy. Believe it or not people weren't always as weak and pussified as they are now. They had things called muscles.
The point of armor was to protect people from death in battle. They're certainly not going to go fight in just pants and a shirt. Battle was the whole reason plate armor was ever invented! And to answer your earlier question, a full suit of plate armor weighs about 80-90 pounds. A small weight to carry when the other option is death.
I realise that completely. But when it comes to a massive amount of armor, protection doesn't make much of an option when you can hardly move. By the way a basic javelin could easily pierce that armor. Im not saying armor is useless, but when if comes to hundreds of pounds of armor, what's the point?
Unless said javelin was thrown by Thor, then it wouldn't have "easily" pierced plate armor. Plate subplanted mail armor because of the more wide use of arrows. It wasn't till the wider use of firearms did plate armor begin seeing a decline in use. And back then the average person was around 5'10, with people rarely getting over 6'2 so at most they'd see 100 pounds. And since they really lived in the armor, it wasn't a problem since they built up the stamina to wear it for long periods in battle.
and the point of wearing it was to, you know, not die. You'd have better luck spending a couple hours bashing a knights helm in then you would actually piercing the metal.
even medieval armours had weak spots, and those were at articulations. if the armor weighed 100 pounds, you'd move very slowly, and any old peasent would be able to stab you in the throat, armpit, groin, elbow or even in your visor slot, given he most probably would have a friend around to help him.
even if you are wearing mail under it, repeated hitting will eventualy break the mail. if he's got a hammer or a rock, he can hammer his knife into you. mail won't help there.
armor didnt even weigh 60 pounds and was VERY movableand if a peasant even got that close he'd be obliterated with the sword because knights were highly trained warriors. Also no slashing attack can pierce mail not even claymores or katanas
I'm pretty sure claymores are designed to crush and crack bones. If someone took a full swing to the shoulder say whilst wearing chainmail they'd be completely useless and would be vulnerable as they would be curled up in a ball or even passed out from the pain ^^
A renaissance claymore was just a greatsword or longsword, generally made from a German blade with a distinct hilt. They are designed to cut and thrust, and also to be "half-sworded" and used like a short spear against armour. :)
to armored opponents, yes the claymore is useful for crushing, but to unarmored opponents(leather armor or cloth armor) they get cut up really easily. but if your opponent has armor, your not gonna grab for your claymore, your gonna go for a morning star, hammer, or something that actually meant for taking on plate armor.
the reason people go to battle is to kill. the longer they stay alive, the more they kill, and if they survive, they go on to the next battle. if you're too heavy to move, maybe a spear, sword or anything won't hurt you, bet eventualy you'll tire, and an easy, weel aimed stab will kill you. you'll be useless then.
plus if you're too slow you won't be able to hit anybody who's dressed lighter than you.
Which is why you get you make sure you kill them before you get tired. There's a reason knights rode horses mate. Suits of armor were developed for the purpose of not getting killed. Their other uses were just a bonus.
Often they were even lighter like 20kg (what makes about 50 pounds). And this weight was well spread all over the body, so you really wouldn't feel it.
man... and i recall that for some reason, the average height at this time was pretty small, like 5 and a half. (generally, the smallest were nobility)
actually, that's a bit of a victorian myth, that one.
there's some fascinating data, both from archaeology, and from records that indicate that the average height, and the average weight of equipment has'nt changed significantly for a soldier in 400 years.
the poor are generally shorter, but the nobility had just as good a nutrition as modern people, and grew to the same stature.
Now I beleive they once argued the shroad of turin couldnt be the christ because the figure was 5'11'', and that wasnt the average height. Of all the good arguements(carbondatting,ect) this ones silly. The adverage person has brown eyes, but I have blue eyes, it isnt illogical a person would be 5'11''. Most doesnt= all.
I was just at the Hofsburg palace, if you're referring to the armory there. Didn't get to see the armory though but I hear it's a wonderful collection. I heard the biggest collection of weapons (medieval, I think) was in New York, but I didn't know the biggest collection of armor was in vienna.
are you shiting me thats it i demand someone with alot of free time and a forge to make a bigger one! try and brake the world record it would be awesome
There was a German Knight that tall as well. My had a friend that went to Germany and saw a suit of Gothic armor over 7 feet tall in a museum! And he showed me the pictures of it!!
According to a press release by the Royal Armories, it is 6ft 8in tall, and is actual, wearable armor. Its owner was rumored to be John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, but the suit is probably of German origin.
It took me all day to watch this video -
ADAMKTN 7 months ago
More defensive strength than butted.
When testing mail armour use riveted mail covering a soft target (ballistics gel) from a reasonable distance. Not butted mail covering wood from point blank.
Someone said they layered the mail up to an inch thick but that doesn't change much at all there's still the same space in the rings instead use a tighter pattern. (6in1; 8in1 even)
Ranting done.
DanDavis10 7 months ago
I hate these arguments about mail armour.
First off very few people still make mail correctly. (in terms of the armour of olden days)
It would've been riveted and even that alone improves the strength substantially.
an arrow being shot at butted mail simply has to push open a single round bit of steel wire to puncture the mail; this kind of mail would be used mainly for sword blows, spreading the force out preventing cuts.
riveted mail has each and every ring completely closed and has much
DanDavis10 7 months ago
Anyway crossbows generally paled in comparison to longbows in terms of penetrative strength. One main reason being crossbow bolts being these tiny rather pathetic things.
Wings012 8 months ago
Riveted chain mail will hold up against a longbow at close range. Thing is you could still get wounded by an arrow that has a narrow enough head which could slip by the rings and push in about an inch. While it might not kill you definitely aren't running through a rain of arrows if they do that to you. Plate is more or less complete proof and offers way better blunt protection.
Butted mail isn't historically accurate and doesn't mean jack, the rings in butted mail split pretty easily.
Wings012 8 months ago
thats not the largest
they found suits for giants in Norway
ONLY1LEONITAS 9 months ago
Repeating crossbows had nowhere near the same power as a crossbow using a windlass to brace the bow. These bows had draw weights in the 100s of pounds,impossible to achieve that with a repeating mechanism.
kerbouchard73 10 months ago
imma steal it and ware it >:D
zerosuper420 1 year ago
6'9" of steel coming at you with a sword is pretty impressive
xnotseenx 1 year ago
@xnotseenx Even more impressive when either on horseback or with a vicious-looking battlehammer.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
6ft 8in tall i could totally where that, only need to grow 1 1/2 more inch
GootarDood 1 year ago
thats my armor!
theCriticX3 1 year ago
Most of England's armor was forged from other countries. Both Italians and the Germans had a monopoly on the arms and armor trade of the time. Armor crafting was one of the few arts that complement the human form.
spliffslider 1 year ago
..crossbow ftw.
oreshy 1 year ago
@oreshy Only at 20 meters, bub.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@MerlinsJester ..that's enough ^^
oreshy 1 year ago
@oreshy Not really.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
aw, father takes son to work, isnt that cute?
WolfClant 1 year ago
@WolfClant The kid wouldn't have such a steady arm, dude.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@MerlinsJester surprisingly, kids also had armor back than
WolfClant 1 year ago
@WolfClant True, true, but that's one skinneh-ass kid if it is...
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@MerlinsJester oops, srry this comment was ment to the other vid
WolfClant 1 year ago
@WolfClant Mmhmm. Sure.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@MerlinsJester thnks bro
WolfClant 1 year ago
1500's iron man ehh
ozzyexo 1 year ago
the coolest suit of armour... iron man
moschino123 1 year ago
holy shit. people of the past were big
latexadib 1 year ago
too short :<
IzzyBunneh 1 year ago
that armour was massive when I saw it at the Tower! It was probably how Darth Vader would have looked like if he lived in the middle ages
4duff5 1 year ago
i think we can all agree that the gothing armour with the salet helm is the most BADASS type of armour of the medieva;l period, matched possibly only by the helmes and armor of the teutonic order.
elgostine 2 years ago
I put there video with my suit of armor.. I have 205 cm as Henry VIII... so you can realize how big it is :O))... If I have all weapons with me i have almost 200 kg..
kolodej111 2 years ago
Just take a Godendag, and use it well.
fiscornioman 2 years ago
Popular medieval way to kill a knight in shining armour: get some peasants, pull the knight off his horse or knock him over, stand over him with a hammer and an iron peg and simply hammer through his armour through either the faceplate or the chestplate. If you ever go to one of these fine places that have examples of real medieval armour, you will see many suits with these pegs in them. Not a nice way to go. Economical way to deal with a knight problem though. Not very chivalric mind :D
Th3BritishGuy 2 years ago 31
@Th3BritishGuy wow i love how u just make shit up. Maybe the easier way to kill one would be to knock him off his horse, pull his helmet off and cut his throat
dave997 2 years ago
Don't be stilly, his helmet would be secured to make sure it doesn't fall off. Anyway, I can't be bothered to play little games with you. Dunno why you've decided to attack me for what I have said considering it's truth. Perhaps a relative of yours was a knight and died in a similar way and I have offended you. If so, I apologise.
Th3BritishGuy 2 years ago
Pegs? Complete and utter bollocks. Preferably, a knight wouldn't be killed, he'd be captured and ransomed. If, however, he did have to be killed, why drive a peg through the (expensive) armour, when you have some convenient holes at the eyes, and various joints? *this* is where you'd strike a knight on the ground.
Alex231291 2 years ago 2
@Alex231291 more easily than the "bunch of peasant" dubious tactic, use a poleaxe or a warhammer, weapons invented to pry open/smash armours.
salagadula84 1 year ago
@salagadula84 War hammers and pollaxes were great weapons for disabling an opponent, but weren't designed to kill. Every knight would carry a dagger of some form, usually a rondel, designed for killing an opponent on the ground.
The rondel was for more than just defending the hand, it allowed pressure to be added to short range stabs through the use of a mans palm, to get between gaps.
Alex231291 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy thats dumb, all that work will get most of your peasant volunters killed, the best way is to throw some flamable fluids like wine or whatever flamable they had, then and throw some torches at him. If the fire don't kill ya the heat will. If you can lead a group of peasants, chances are you can get a xbow instead, and but some fire on the other end of an extended bolt. Or Lasso the srry ass into a river or pour a kettle or hot tar on him.
ongolos 1 year ago
@ongolos Presumably you are meant to carry gallons and gallons of this liquid in order to kill knights in the battlefield. Yes, there are lots of other ways to kill a knight, but using flammable liquids would have been immensly difficult (not easy to create back then) and expensive (wine? Seriously expensive back then). Liquid weighs lots, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, hardly practical in a battle environment.
Th3BritishGuy 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy oh ok, good point, but a fire arrow does good ;D. I saw this doculmentary about how well arrows and x bows go through plate armor, looks pretty exciting.
ongolos 1 year ago
@ongolos wine only ignites once heated to the flash point :]
dorano103 1 year ago
@ongolos If you can lead a bunch of peasants then you could probably afford a crossbow yes, but to lead a bunch of peasants into a battlefield all you'd need to do is promise them the riches of the people they'd kill. And if you could afford enough flammable liquid to defeat an opposing army you'd be rich enough to hire one of the largest armies ever seen in medieval Europe in the first place.
666satanification666 1 year ago
@666satanification666 thanks for being the medival expert for us, you seem to have cleaver ideals to how to kill a medival knight. However I still can't seem to grasp that a buncha peasents can have the guts to bring down the knight , doing so would incure the wraith of the government body the knight represented- the whole kingdom. Within days of investigation there would be scrutiny from the land Lords and perhaps even burning and pillaging villages The villagers would have you to blame.
ongolos 1 year ago
@ongolos not only... to unhorse a knight, you have to get close. And pushing him down is not so easy as it seems. After all, it is a killing machine, surrounded by other knights. A battle is not a duel, men work together to form units.
many armours have small dents at the breast height. It was called "proof", because armorers, from XVI cent. onwards, used to shoot a pistol or crossbow bolt against the armor to show it was bullet-proof.
salagadula84 1 year ago
@salagadula84 wait so whats ur point? I saw a doculmentary that showed the armor they used could not hold up to crossbow fire or the repeating crossbow.
ongolos 1 year ago
@ongolos did repeating crossbows exist?
salagadula84 1 year ago
@salagadula84 hmm hmm the Chinese had it , but its not the point, cuz the repeating xbows r same as regular ones except they have an attached mechanism thingy that reloads and fires semi auto style... but they do same damage its just faster rate of fire. nvm me I was jus wondering what ur tryin to tell me jus all.
ongolos 1 year ago
@salagadula84
The most common way of doing this was called a Billhook.
It's a polearm that has... a hook on the end.
Catch a knight and pull him down, then he gets swarmed by peasants with daggers and pegs and bludgeons...
Head gets bashed, joints get severed, and he's dead or useless in under three seconds.
DerFerret 1 year ago
@DerFerret yea, true, I remember the Billhook. But I thought it was used in a different way (i.e.: hook the knight and break his back using the force and the rigidity of armor) or, if unhorsed, he was simply killed with a misericorde or a dagger, without the help of a peasant swarm... in my opinion a simpler method.
Obviously, the medieval art of combat spans over 700-800 years of history, in different countries and with different weapons, so there is not always a definitive answer..
salagadula84 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy I doubt that was used a lot. One clean hit from hammer to head would kill even with helmet on.
LancerFIN 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy That´s why they attack in groups of knights with some soldiers to defend them. And yes, it´s not necessary a pick hammer, with a heavy war hammer and enough strength you can cause a conclusion blow and kill him.
chanchi789 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy Yep, chivalary was not a practice common to the peasant :) another way is to pull them off, force open their visor and puncture the eye, its fast and clean.
areusirius 1 year ago
@areusirius That's supposing that the opening's a slit-visor, not a solid piece with tight grating.
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy The problem would be when the knight, who's actually trained in his horse armor to the point where he can move in it effectively, althought not as much as his field plate, to be able to take care of opponents. Keep in mind that peasants are almost always untrained and always uneducated and that knights have high-quality weapons and some serious brawn...
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy Nowadays they use depleted uranium pegs of course.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
@Kenzofeis Of course :D
DCTriv 1 year ago
@Th3BritishGuy Or get one peasant, give him a crossbow, and say "See that guy? Yeah, him. Aim and fire."
2639scorch 1 year ago 3
@2639scorch
And watch as the arrow or bolt bounces off of the armour. Even decent chain protects against arrows and bolts.
EvilxMerlin 11 months ago
@EvilxMerlin Perhaps it does in RPGs, but not in real life...
Cerbyn 10 months ago
@Cerbyn
Um, you need to educate yourself. There is a reason chain armours were worn for nearly 2000 years. There is a reason plate armours were used. They were proof against arrows. Sure there was always a chance of getting hit in the visor or a weak point in the chain, however it was proof against arrows, crossbows, lances,swords etc. Thats why it was ARMOUR. Before making an ass of yourself, educate yourself.
EvilxMerlin 10 months ago
@EvilxMerlin i make chain armor and i have shot it with my bow and not even when i lapped it to 1 inch thick did it stop an arrow
crowofdeath2 9 months ago
@crowofdeath2
Lapping armour means nothing. Did you use flat links, round links? Did you rivit? What type of rivet? There is PLENTY of documentation during battles of people getting shot with arrows and it stopping them.
EvilxMerlin 9 months ago
@Th3BritishGuy You know that an armed plated knight would never stand alone? But most likely come at those peasants with 100 brothers in arms with lances and crushing them under horse hooves? ;)
YuriPRIME 7 months ago
@YuriPRIME I'm sure many a brave Knight thought him and his brothers in arms invincible when charging simple footsoldiers, only to be overwhelmed by the sheer number of bodies once in the thick of it, to be then pulled from his horse by lowly serfs and having his life ended by a peasant with a rusty iron peg and a smithing hammer. Having said that, If another opposing Knight was present, his life would most likely have been spared in favour of demanding a ransom payment from the Knight's family.
DCTriv 7 months ago
@DCTriv Yeah, maybe I don't have enaugh pro knowledge about how it worked in Uk and France... if they did charged formations and fought in such way to be overwhelmed by peasants... well sucks to be them :P If you check out battle records of eastern heeavy cavalery, like Polish winged hussars you'd see that 4 thousands of them disposed of 30 thousand jannisaries.(Battle of Khotyn) And no one was stupid enagh to block them with sheer number of boddies :P because seeing such onslaught
YuriPRIME 7 months ago
@YuriPRIME ...most of them just fleed. Saying that there would be a formation of super-heroic peasants who get slayed trhough row and row and row of their group just to band up and on the pile of bodies pull someone off the horse? Strange, cause I've never heard of such thing besides some exceptions that are carried mostly in legends. Should that be truth, we would see that best anti-kinght units in all armies would be sheer numbers of peasants, but they werent. Even if, such formation would be
YuriPRIME 7 months ago
@YuriPRIME ...just too easy to won with arrows. Check out battle of Vienna 1683, Turks had 138 thousand huge army! they lost just 15k - morale broke, the rest fled. And that's how it works. This argument would be valid if it was a fantasy game or something. In reality there was no heroic peasants standing against cavelery action. They saw couple rows owned by lances, crushed under hooves, then cut open with swords, the rest panicked and fled... thats how people work, they are no Zerg from SC
YuriPRIME 7 months ago
@YuriPRIME There are some cases where peasants stood against heavy cavalry. However, each of these engagements the peasants had time to prepare the field against a cavalry charge (digging pits, making pikes, etc). In most cases, peasants (and infantry in general) got slaughtered by cavalry though.
DistendedPerinium 5 months ago
@Th3BritishGuy, yeah, not to much honor in that lol, but if that knight wants you dead, you gotta "cheat" and kick his ASS :D
Virsidus 3 months ago
dont fuck wi this guy lol
death12282 2 years ago
eww katans are slashing and the best way to go through knights armor is percing so your little samuri will die srry for spelling but tis true knights are better in every way
Gim6759 2 years ago 4
Well, it is percing the gaps of the armor, thats why long swords were much better for that...
255Knights 2 years ago
tell that to the mongols.
elgostine 2 years ago 9
haha...
kolodej111 2 years ago
I saw this two weeks ago at the Tower. Quite formidable!
nrlsky 2 years ago
I have bigger fullplate, really... whose armor was that?
kolodej111 2 years ago
If I'm not mistaken, Henry VIII from his later, um, "jollier" years.
ev8d8 2 years ago
The keys are how the wearer is used to moving in it, how well it is designed and maintained, the terrain, and the balance of the mass.
sturnfield7783 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey looks its the worls 1st trash can lol
PyroAcid 2 years ago
Though it looks heavy, it's mostly empty space. The steel itself is usually 3 or less millimeters thick, with the helmet and breastplate containing most of the armor.
The only time plate armor was so heavy was when Ned Kelly and his gang came with their "90 pound bullet eatting junk suits". They could stop bullets, but there was barely any limb protection, which led to their deaths.
ManintheArmor 2 years ago
Real armor weights 50-60 pounds. If you can't move well in your armor the next thing you'll wear is a coffin. This armor here is likely to be for tournaments only or just a decoration.
Ranziel1 2 years ago
Actually more along the lines of 40-45 pounds and its actually extremely movable. I just wanted to point that out because that whole non movable thing is a common myth.
WolfsApprentice 2 years ago 2
Very true, I have a suit of Gothic German armor.... Armor is much, MUCH more movable then people thik!
My armored arms and legs can do just about any thing a man with no armor can.
How? Well, it is call rivets and overlapping plates!
255Knights 2 years ago
donkeys
KarateChopWonder 2 years ago
did people actually wear that in combat or was it for tournaments only?
xMATTSTERx 2 years ago
Of course they wore it for combat! Why the hell wouldn't they? Think they WANTED to die?!
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
Well they must've wanted to die if they wore that. Do you realise how heavy that armor is? Sure it protects you from a couple of hits, but as soon as the enemy realises you can't move 5 feet without getting winded, they'll murder you!
Mugen123456789 2 years ago
Except the soldiers that wore armor were more then physically fit enough to wear it for long periods of time in combat. And of course all knights wore armor, as it protected them from such things as getting body parts cleaved off by the enemy. Believe it or not people weren't always as weak and pussified as they are now. They had things called muscles.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
And those muscles had things called lactic acid. Are you missing the point?
Mugen123456789 2 years ago
The point of armor was to protect people from death in battle. They're certainly not going to go fight in just pants and a shirt. Battle was the whole reason plate armor was ever invented! And to answer your earlier question, a full suit of plate armor weighs about 80-90 pounds. A small weight to carry when the other option is death.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
I realise that completely. But when it comes to a massive amount of armor, protection doesn't make much of an option when you can hardly move. By the way a basic javelin could easily pierce that armor. Im not saying armor is useless, but when if comes to hundreds of pounds of armor, what's the point?
Mugen123456789 2 years ago
Unless said javelin was thrown by Thor, then it wouldn't have "easily" pierced plate armor. Plate subplanted mail armor because of the more wide use of arrows. It wasn't till the wider use of firearms did plate armor begin seeing a decline in use. And back then the average person was around 5'10, with people rarely getting over 6'2 so at most they'd see 100 pounds. And since they really lived in the armor, it wasn't a problem since they built up the stamina to wear it for long periods in battle.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
and the point of wearing it was to, you know, not die. You'd have better luck spending a couple hours bashing a knights helm in then you would actually piercing the metal.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
even medieval armours had weak spots, and those were at articulations. if the armor weighed 100 pounds, you'd move very slowly, and any old peasent would be able to stab you in the throat, armpit, groin, elbow or even in your visor slot, given he most probably would have a friend around to help him.
even if you are wearing mail under it, repeated hitting will eventualy break the mail. if he's got a hammer or a rock, he can hammer his knife into you. mail won't help there.
walatalalaw 2 years ago
armor didnt even weigh 60 pounds and was VERY movableand if a peasant even got that close he'd be obliterated with the sword because knights were highly trained warriors. Also no slashing attack can pierce mail not even claymores or katanas
WolfsApprentice 2 years ago
that's what I meant, armour wasn't as heavy as it looks, because knights wouldn't be able to fight in them
walatalalaw 2 years ago
In fact the Katana tips had to be redesigned because the Mongol's armour fractured them.
That is why one uses a Maul, or even a mace to deal with bryne.
sturnfield7783 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure claymores are designed to crush and crack bones. If someone took a full swing to the shoulder say whilst wearing chainmail they'd be completely useless and would be vulnerable as they would be curled up in a ball or even passed out from the pain ^^
AmonAmarthJunkie 2 years ago
A renaissance claymore was just a greatsword or longsword, generally made from a German blade with a distinct hilt. They are designed to cut and thrust, and also to be "half-sworded" and used like a short spear against armour. :)
Kunstdesfechtens 2 years ago
to armored opponents, yes the claymore is useful for crushing, but to unarmored opponents(leather armor or cloth armor) they get cut up really easily. but if your opponent has armor, your not gonna grab for your claymore, your gonna go for a morning star, hammer, or something that actually meant for taking on plate armor.
LeonTasume 2 years ago
the reason people go to battle is to kill. the longer they stay alive, the more they kill, and if they survive, they go on to the next battle. if you're too heavy to move, maybe a spear, sword or anything won't hurt you, bet eventualy you'll tire, and an easy, weel aimed stab will kill you. you'll be useless then.
plus if you're too slow you won't be able to hit anybody who's dressed lighter than you.
walatalalaw 2 years ago
Which is why you get you make sure you kill them before you get tired. There's a reason knights rode horses mate. Suits of armor were developed for the purpose of not getting killed. Their other uses were just a bonus.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
Often they were even lighter like 20kg (what makes about 50 pounds). And this weight was well spread all over the body, so you really wouldn't feel it.
papcio 2 years ago
Have you tried wearing padding, chainmail and platemail? You do feel it, especially if youve been walking and running around in it a whole day.
Darinor 2 years ago
Yeah I tried wearing chainmail once. BTW just think about modern soldiers wearing much more weight over long distances...
papcio 2 years ago
Actually, medieval warriors and soldiers carried just about the same amount of weight.
-The combat gear with normal essentials in a rucksack, normal or ancient, the burden was similar.
Try wearing a chainmail armor for 15 hours straight, while running up and down the slope, sprinting and sneaking...
-I walked like an old man next morning.
ArmaFennica 2 years ago
Go tell that Ronny Coleman :P
zhhrah 2 years ago
Comment removed
Alex231291 2 years ago
Comment removed
Alex231291 2 years ago
For Gregor Clegane, the Mountain that Rides.
Claizen 3 years ago
I'm glad he died, the asshole.
Ionicknight 3 years ago
Wrong period and style for his armour, though.
halfassedfart 3 years ago
i have seen it,, its on the Tower of london museum
gggt59vke4 3 years ago
iron monger man
masterpockets211 3 years ago
ive been there i remeber seeing that its like 8 feet tall i think
DarkMagician74 3 years ago
thats sexy lol
medievallover120 3 years ago 4
The plaque in the tower of London reads who the man was who possessed it, it was indeed a Duke and it listed the armor as 6 foot 9
rakaevampire 3 years ago
man... and i recall that for some reason, the average height at this time was pretty small, like 5 and a half. (generally, the smallest were nobility)
HotForgeNClover 3 years ago
actually, that's a bit of a victorian myth, that one.
there's some fascinating data, both from archaeology, and from records that indicate that the average height, and the average weight of equipment has'nt changed significantly for a soldier in 400 years.
the poor are generally shorter, but the nobility had just as good a nutrition as modern people, and grew to the same stature.
suzerain01 3 years ago 5
Now I beleive they once argued the shroad of turin couldnt be the christ because the figure was 5'11'', and that wasnt the average height. Of all the good arguements(carbondatting,ect) this ones silly. The adverage person has brown eyes, but I have blue eyes, it isnt illogical a person would be 5'11''. Most doesnt= all.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 3 years ago
The biggest chamber of medieval armour is in vienna!
WinrichvonKniprode 3 years ago
I was just at the Hofsburg palace, if you're referring to the armory there. Didn't get to see the armory though but I hear it's a wonderful collection. I heard the biggest collection of weapons (medieval, I think) was in New York, but I didn't know the biggest collection of armor was in vienna.
Giantdwarf34 3 years ago
DAMMIT I went to the tower of London but didn't go in! Now I'm wishing I did :'(
cruddiestcrudever 3 years ago
are you shiting me thats it i demand someone with alot of free time and a forge to make a bigger one! try and brake the world record it would be awesome
acetenken 4 years ago
There's also a very 'tall' suit of Maximilian armour, in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, about 7 feet high.
sightvisit 4 years ago
I wonder how thick is the breastplate of that armour?
dzuboar 4 years ago
If I remember correctly, it is almost 7ft tall, and was actually made for an English noble during the Renaissance.
almkUK 4 years ago
There was a German Knight that tall as well. My had a friend that went to Germany and saw a suit of Gothic armor over 7 feet tall in a museum! And he showed me the pictures of it!!
Roman55Legions 4 years ago 4
is this nobel named or unknown
FinalFreek 4 years ago
According to a press release by the Royal Armories, it is 6ft 8in tall, and is actual, wearable armor. Its owner was rumored to be John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, but the suit is probably of German origin.
almkUK 4 years ago 3
so eh, how big exactly is it? 10ft? is it wearable?
mariosage 4 years ago