[Insert favorite armor based game]. A NY tribesman prepares for an internet fight.. 101 likeag Some mam call me .'ttw buyer. some men are not prepared for battl Armor Men beard
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#11 - bestfoxgirl (06/20/2014) [+] (9 replies)
stickied by xxbandwagonxx
**bestfoxgirl rolled image**

My armor
#14 - thegrimgenius (06/20/2014) [-]
No pauldrons, no gambeson, no breastplate, and no tabard.
0/10 would not crusade with.
#23 to #14 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
You would not want to crusade in an armor like that.
Crusaders wore chain hauberks, and even replaced leather under it with thick woven wool, to get some air going. They would only put armor on right before battle and take it off as soon as they could. Even so many died from dehydration, even chain hauberk is HOT.
Putting on a full plate would be a suicide in Israel. 15 minute into the battle you'd be boiled.
User avatar #27 to #23 - atomicman (06/20/2014) [-]
Depends what you would use the armor for. Full plate isn't that hot particularly, remember it's only but thin steel with some wool underneath is aswell.

You don't use full plate in hand to hand(or sword to sword as you will) combat because that's ridiculously impractical. Your mobility will be absolutely zero compared to leather armor(even with thin plates, if you've ever seen a man in full plate you should look at the knight attempting to walk in the clumsy thing). It does offer superb protection against projectiles though. So it's commonly used when on horseback. Which are obviously the more rich soldiers.

Actual heavy plate was only used ceremonially for it had no combat utility, if you would fall flat on your back you wouldn't be able to stand up by yourself.
#28 to #27 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Its very hot because its metal that has no air flow. You know how it feels when you enter a car that's been sitting under the sun for a while? Its much worse then that because it takes much less time to heat up, due to smaller volume of air under it.

And you are right, full plate was used mainly on horseback. Where its main use was to protect you from other knight's lances and crossbows. But as such it wasn't used in the first Crusade, because it wasn't invented yet.

Heavy plate was used for jousting and its a common missconception it was not mobile. It only weights about 40-60lbs and its surprisingly flexible (not that plates flex, but they are arranged in very mobile way) Even someone like me, with very limited riding skills can mount a horse or get up in one.

but you are right, there are ceremonial armors, usually highly decorated ones that weigh as much as 100 lbs. And its where missconception comes from. They weren't really any different then jousting armors, only made to be pretty, not functional.
User avatar #46 to #28 - atomicman (06/20/2014) [-]
Ah I see what you mean with the heat issue.

Though, full plate limits the wielders ability to move. Not as much as I might have made it sound like, but it does somewhat. For example standing up would be difficult for the belt area and the body plate would collide. Running was possible, but you would be slowed down due to the weight. In hand to hand plate armor is inferior to leather armor.
#56 to #46 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Good full body plate is not too restrictive, as I said I've managed to get on a horse in one fairly easily.
And there is a roll and tuck trick to standing up if you are on your back that takes seconds.
I've seen guy in ARMA run at full speed and leapfrog over another guy squatting. I couldn't do it, that guy is a beast. No one would wear armor that's not useful.
Leather armor is not very good, if you would want to go with light and mobile then brigantine would be best choice. light metal plates sandwiched between layers of cloth or flexible leather. Fully trained knight in plate armor with someone in just leather would have an advantage.
#186 to #56 - Aftershock (06/21/2014) [-]
What does ARMA stand for?
#226 to #186 - angelusprimus (06/21/2014) [-]
Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

User avatar #157 to #27 - pinkfloyd (06/21/2014) [-]
Armour by itself in European settings so temperatures 75 degrees or 23 Celsius for you Metric dudes, Anyway in those setting it wasnt bad. But stick that Armour in 110-120 degree/43 celcius weather then its different. Also it may not be heavy in the beginning. When I was the Army I had to carry around a 60lbs on my back. At first it was easy as **** , I trained for it. But when I went on a 6 mile tactical road march it felt like I had 500 lbs on my back. so fatigue is a issue. In the battle of Agnicourt during the 100 hundred years war, 1000 longbowmen took out 5-8 thousand mounted infantry. The knights got stuck in the mud from the weight of the armour and where sitting ducks
#70 to #27 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
There are documented cases of the muslims leading crusaders out into the desert and waiting until they are dying of dehydration from their heavy armour. Entire armies died that way dude.
#35 to #27 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
Full of misconceptions brother.

Armour isn't really very heavy at all, a full set of standard plate was about 20 - 25kg, which isn't massively heavy to hold in one hand, but is even less across the whole body.

Anyways, Plate didn't really have much projectile protection, a result of this was that the Papacy banned 'Crossbows' for a period as they were considering unfair, as a fully armored knight would die before engaging in battle.

Plate doesn't restrict movement either, it was made from many overlaid segments to allow for full mobility, besides in leather, you'd get seriously injured by even a slightly determined sword stroke. Search up some videos of legit plate, not some bro science stuff, it's pretty impressive.

Armour was designed for hand-to-hand combat, it was flat plates to 'deflect' the blow, rather than absorb is, chain and leather is to absorb it, that just leaves you aching and bruised, plate effectively 'rolls' the attack away, at least from bladed weapons.
User avatar #43 to #35 - atomicman (06/20/2014) [-]
Wrong wrong wrong and wrong.

It's very difficult to move in full plate. I mention 'full plate' here. Not any other form of armor. It was made possible to move for the unit wearing it, but still very difficult and very inneffective against opponents wearing lighter and more agile armor.

Full plate armor was designed to deflect the blow in general. Goes both for armor and projectiles. That is for the most attacks were actually stabbing attacks during fighting rather than swinging(common misconception) so you're very much right there. Blunt weapons were best used against plate armor for it causes permanent damage to the armor(with a chance of breaking it in worst cases) and hurts the wielder below it.

You have many forms of armor. In hand to hand one would prefer mail armor rather than plate armor. For it, nomatter if you say it doesn't, restricts movement very harshly.

There is no such thing as standard plate. 20-25kg is not really heavy, and I think it's about what full plate would weight indeed. But the design of the armor restricts movement too much in comparison to the lighter alternative leather.

Full plate is objectively most used on horseback. That is just true. There're records to prove that if you don't believe me. I think you messed up by thinking full plate = mail armor. Mail armor was commonly used in hand to hand combat. Full plate was not. Ceremonial armor as in the picture above was never used in combat unless you're perhaps a commander or something.
#83 to #43 - thatknight (06/20/2014) [-]
Here is some footage from the polish battle of the nations finals from last year. This demonstrates how well knights could move in plate armour. But there are no examples of later harnesses of armour, as shown with gothic style plating.

Battle of the Nations 2013 - Most hardcore scenes - Final eliminations Poland
#63 to #43 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
Also, the picture above appears to be a Teuton Crusader from near Germany, he isn't wearing full Plate either, but instead Chain-Mail with Plated leg and arm protection.

The breastplate was one of the last pieces of Armour to be created, with Chain-Mail surcoats being worn underneath a 'Coat of Plates' Armour, to prevent piercing attacks from doing large amounts of damage to internal organs.

Anyways even Sabatons often had more than 6 different plates for the foot alone, to allow for all standing positions to be adopted. Once again, Armour was developed for Combat, not for show.

Also, the Helmet in the picture above appears to be a Winged Full-Helmet, quite a commonly used Crusader Helm from Northern Germany.
#60 to #43 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
I was talking about full Plate..

Also, it's not wrong, Plate isn't hard to move in at all, if you want proof, go look up the Hundred Years War. Although it was used on Horseback, it was not solely used for that purpose, in fact it was probably used more on foot than on Horseback.

Also, you talk of it's 'design' restricting movement, the whole design of overlapping plates was to prevent any form of movement debilitation. Leather was worn underneath as well to absorb the impact of a blow, this is not an RPG whereby Leather is built for a mobile attack stance, Leather was relatively heavy, and in fact Padded Cloth Gambesons were the main armour type for men-at-arms.
User avatar #49 to #43 - atomicman (06/20/2014) [-]
And by movement restrictions I mean certain actions such as standing up or sprinting. Just running should be very much possible in plate armor.
#66 to #49 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
Sprinting was possible in Armour, so was standing and jumping.

There are Medieval texts that discuss this situation. Even falling from a Horse would not prevent a Knight from standing up and carrying on the fight.

It is a real shame that Armour is really misunderstood.
User avatar #29 to #27 - Sethorein ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
Didn't they used to hoist knights onto their horses with poles? That always seemed hilarious to me...
#36 to #29 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
Nah, that's a Hollywood misconception.

In reality, there are medieval texts discussing how a Lord, can't remember who, ran across his Courtyard in full plate, then vaulted onto his horse and rode off.

It's not movement restricting at all, it's made for combat
User avatar #59 to #23 - shwoodle (06/20/2014) [-]
That's looks like a Teutonic crusader in appearance. if I'm correct they were crusading against pagans in eastern Europe (Lithuania) not in the holy lands so they could wear heavier armor.
#77 to #59 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Teutonic knight, yes, but for something to be a Crusade it has to be called by a Pope and open for all.
Teutons were fanatical christian order fighting Lithuanian Romunava pagans, but not technically crusaders.
User avatar #95 to #77 - threeeighteen (06/20/2014) [-]
They were the Northern Crusades up in Lithuania.
User avatar #18 to #14 - Sethorein ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
Bitch, barely anyone could afford proper armour during the crusades.

You get what you get and you don't get upset.
#30 to #18 - thegrimgenius (06/20/2014) [-]
Eh, plebis de Hispania ne imponas.
User avatar #32 to #30 - Sethorein ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
No! Reclaiming the Holy Land is a terrible idea!
User avatar #44 to #32 - thegrimgenius (06/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #45 to #44 - Sethorein ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #96 to #30 - adolfsatan (06/20/2014) [-]
What does that mean? It says something about the old Spain? I knew in Spain crusades were made.
User avatar #180 to #96 - thegrimgenius (06/21/2014) [-]
"Plebians from Spain don't count"
User avatar #144 to #96 - victhree (06/21/2014) [-]
There weren't proper crusades, it was the personal reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula by Spanish catholic kingdoms.
#171 to #18 - gerfox ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
I would prefer it though. During the Third Crusade the Knights basically wrecked the Arabs at the Battle of Arsuf. Butchering everything. They showed what armor could do.
User avatar #223 to #171 - theshadowed ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Battle of Hattin.
#230 to #223 - gerfox ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Yes? What about it? The battle of Hattin had nothing to do with the disadvantage of armor etc, but rather of plain stupid religious leaders who thought marching through the desert without supplies and heavy armor was a smart idea before a big battle because "God were watching over them"
User avatar #232 to #230 - theshadowed ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Well one of the main reasons for the defeat at Hattin was how the arabian horse archers could easily evade the European heavy knights
Same with the Mongol invasion of Europe.
#233 to #232 - gerfox ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Well, at Arsuf the arabs skirmished and bombarded the Crusader Column for a long long time. A lot of the horse archers unmounted to gain accuracy, and after a long while the Hospitaliers countercharged out of the lines, and basically butchered everything they could see - and the arabs couldn't flee fast enough.

You are much safer with armor, and if you are able to get into close combat with your opponent they're basically ****** .

Any way, strategy is always important. At Hattin the Arabs played on their strengths because the crusaders became bold, and at Arsuf the Crusaders did the same.
User avatar #234 to #233 - theshadowed ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Yeh the knights in a straight up fight would win
But then look at Crecy
But it was never a straight up fight. It never is. Its why the crusades were lost.
You out-manouver your enemy, they're ******
Battle of Teutonberg, the Teutonic mounted cavalry was led on a dance of death by Lithuanian horse archers. Kept them from the battle, and nearly destroyed them. The knights didn't even get close.
Knights are extremely vulnerable until they get to close quarters as well. Agincourt, slaughtered by archers while they wallowed in the mud
And when you get close, if you're quicker, they're again, ****** .
Again at agincourt the English archers butchered them in hand-to-hand. The Knights couldn't move, while most of the archers didn't even have armor, so didn't get bogged down.
And I know its not legit, but the Mountain/Viper fight from Game of Thrones
#235 to #234 - gerfox ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Well, if you take an example like the Mountain/Viper fight in GoT I can take another fight to illustrate my example. When Khal Drogo was being "saved", and one of his lieutenants tried to "rescue" him and Jorah stood guard. A knight in full armor, against a faster more agile enemy. Do you remember how that went? The fast one hacked his blade into the knight, and the armor withstood it. Then he was ****** .

I definitely see your point, but if you managed to play on the strenghts of the knights they were basically unbeatable. The First (and Second tho unsuccessful) Siege of Rhodes are good examples, as well as the siege of Malta. I don't remember which of them, but at least in one of these instances a group of Knights defended a hole in the walls for days and just butchered every wave of attackers.
User avatar #237 to #235 - theshadowed ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
Oh yeh, I'm not saying that they're useless
**** I'd prefer a group of knights over some leather wearing spear wielding maniacs
But, they have some weaknesses that are easy to exploit.
And in a place like the Levant, they can't fight as well as they should.
#238 to #237 - gerfox ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
Agreed. Have a thumb!
User avatar #24 to #18 - atomicman (06/20/2014) [-]
Indeed. On the average crusade most soldiers were happy to have at least some armor
#2 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
'Tis but a scratch.
'Tis but a scratch.
#26 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
this is thin, transparent mail, and worn over a t-shirt. Not to mention he is wearing aventail on his head with nothing under or over it.
He isn't ready for battle either.
Mail to be useful has to be thick woven so it would absorb impact. You would have a thick leather coat under it, to protect you from getting chain rings into your body,
And never ever put chain on your hair without something under it. Padding to protect you from impact and because chain will pull half your haircut off when you take it off.
User avatar #54 to #26 - EpicAnon (06/20/2014) [-]
It wouldn't take half your haircut off...
It would take the other half off.
#65 to #26 - shambizzle (06/20/2014) [-]
I've felt chainmail on bare hare, it's loads of fun, you should try it!

It's like stepping on a lego!
User avatar #118 to #26 - nustix ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
Why does mail need to absorb the impact? I thought it was used to stop the sword from cutting your flesh when getting slashed and stabbed not for actually absorbing the impact.
#124 to #118 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Because speed and power of a sword striking you, even if you don't get hit with an edge, is enough to break bones.
Thick chainmail will distribute the impact, so it won't be all at the tightly concentrated area so instead of broken bones or internal damage you only get bad bruises.
#217 to #26 - fukerar has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #219 to #26 - fukerar (06/21/2014) [-]
i want you`r knowlegde
#108 to #26 - anon (06/20/2014) [-]
Thanks captain neckbeard
#160 to #108 - angelusprimus has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #132 to #108 - chewiewhatawookie (06/20/2014) [-]
Hey, leave him alone.
#76 to #26 - thatknight (06/20/2014) [-]
That my friend is a coif as opposed to an aventail. An aventail is usually attached to a helmet, usually bascinet, like the one in this image I began as a serious impulse buyer. No regrets. . But you're so right about the needed thickness and padding.

Sorry if I come across as a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to this

#82 to #76 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
you are right.
User avatar #47 to #26 - darthblam (06/20/2014) [-]
Making mail armor has to be some ******* tedious **** .
#53 to #47 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
You have NO idea.
Today its actually fairly easy to make, you just need pliers, cutters and a large spring.
But it takes forever and its mindnumbing.
Though if you have a lot of premade rings, and you gotten good at it, you can do it while watching tv.
#68 - frenulum (06/20/2014) [-]
**frenulum rolled image** my armor
User avatar #93 to #68 - timelordjam (06/20/2014) [-]
I salute you
User avatar #177 to #93 - frenulum (06/21/2014) [-]
>not bowing rike true japaneese worriur
dont touchu me, firfry gaijin.
User avatar #79 to #68 - the fuzzball (06/20/2014) [-]
man armor
User avatar #109 to #68 - newdevyx (06/20/2014) [-]
Glorious Nippon steel.
#172 to #109 - killerliquid ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #126 to #109 - zerpderp (06/20/2014) [-]
Glorious nipple steel
#127 to #126 - newdevyx (06/20/2014) [-]
That too.
That too.
#38 - bannor (06/20/2014) [-]
**bannor rolled image** What my armor looks like
**bannor rolled image** What my armor looks like
#51 to #38 - hydromatic (06/20/2014) [-]
Nice roll
Nice roll
#164 - slightlycynical (06/21/2014) [-]
Choose your Lord
#169 to #164 - anon (06/21/2014) [-]
isn't that from heroes of might and magic? the second one i think. great game
#159 - Classic ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
The later years

How did nobody else see this?
#151 - negan (06/21/2014) [-]
English pigdogs!
User avatar #105 to #97 - kennyh (06/20/2014) [-]
I can't wait for F4 to see this level of detail in an actual game.
#75 - kingsandravens (06/20/2014) [-]
my armor is disguise
#158 to #75 - fistmyass (06/21/2014) [-]
I still can't believe that's him.
#190 - benevolentpsycho (06/21/2014) [-]
My armor
#123 - edt (06/20/2014) [-]
User avatar #12 - thedutchs (06/20/2014) [-]
But chainmail is **** on it's own.

You need to put some goddamn hard leather or steel over it.
User avatar #15 to #12 - thegrimgenius (06/20/2014) [-]
What gauge steel would you recommend for a breastplate (full with back)?
#21 to #15 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Just about any steel you can find today will be superior steel to what they had in renaissance.
If you want a useful replica then simply go with any good tool steel. D-types work very well because they keep the shine and don't rust very quickly.
If you just want something for show, go for a titanium alloys, less weight.
#19 to #12 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Bull, chainmail is one of the most useful armors there is, especially in weigh/protection/mobility ratio.
Compared to chain, leather armor is fairly weak. So putting leather on top of chain would just give you more weight for very little more protection.
Armor is layered by first putting on a soft shirt, then leather then chain. leather is there to buff you from the chain going in your skin, not to protect from impact.
Hauberks have been used from 4th century BC to 14th century, that's 1800 years. That is not because its useless, its because its an amazing armor.
**** even Romans used lorica hamata as their primary armor all the way through to late imperial period. But yes, you are right, Romans, Franks and Mongols used mail over leather, but what do they know?
Only after developement of heavy lance charges and high impact crossbows does plate become necessary, and even then only mounted troops will wear it, because its heavy, hot and restricts movement.
User avatar #40 to #19 - thedutchs (06/20/2014) [-]
Yeah okay but you need something to buffer the blow. If you wear only chainmail, you're going to break bones
#58 to #40 - angelusprimus (06/20/2014) [-]
Yes, absolutely. Usually soft leather and/or heavy wool. But you'd wear it under the chain, not over.
#192 - wheretheheartroams (06/21/2014) [-]
**wheretheheartroams rolled image** my armor
User avatar #193 to #192 - baine (06/21/2014) [-]
nice roll
#189 - muhsweg ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
**muhsweg rolled image** My armor?
**muhsweg rolled image** My armor?
#181 - fabiform (06/21/2014) [-]
**fabiform rolled image** My armor
#145 - weskerwesker ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
**weskerwesker rolled image** My armour. #Canadian
**weskerwesker rolled image** My armour. #Canadian
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)