Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Chain armor Vs plate armor, MMO armors makes no sense

12346

Comments

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bhug

    11.9.11

    From the time of 16th to 4th century BC Achaen bronze plate to 4th century BC cast iron mail (5-7mm rings) the advances in armor has sought improvements over organic sinew/leather.

    The implementation of alloys from copper into bronze and iron into steel reflects the application of technology and research into metalurgy.



    In the OP opinion of mail vs plate he seems to ignore bronze and overlook the fundamental difference of 8th century work-hardened iron to 3rd century BC quench-hardened steel.

    Since swords and axe were intended as cutting weapons iron-ring mail was utilized for slash protection, but for pierce dmg going from 4 in 1 to 8 or 6 in 1 patterns were common.

    ref

    In advancing from 1500bc Achaean cast bronze to 900bc plates (lamellae, Hittite iron) to 300bc Celtic iron mail (chain) armor; steel full plate armor does not supersed these until the 13th century AD, and it was rendered obsolete by crossbows and 16th century flintlock muskets.

     That's grossly oversimplified. A lot of it had to do with material availability and technology but social conditions playd a greater part. It's not a straight timeline from one type of armor to another. The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars. for no aparrent reason, and their promary weapon was still the sword. Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries. Armor had largely been abandoned as unworkable by the matchlock era. If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight and not because of the armor but because it ended the dominance of cavalry over infantry. Quite simply the armored knight died with the feudal system and the rise of well trained professional armies.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • bhugbhug earth, FLPosts: 1,033Member

    11.9.12


    posted by zymurgeistThat's grossly oversimplified. A lot of it had to do with material availability and technology but social conditions playd a greater part. It's not a straight timeline from one type of armor to another. The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars. for no aparrent reason, and their promary weapon was still the sword. Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries. Armor had largely been abandoned as unworkable by the matchlock era. If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight and not because of the armor but because it ended the dominance of cavalry over infantry. Quite simply the armored knight died with the feudal system and the rise of well trained professional armies.

    i am surprised you are not ashamed in posting a reply to my facts when almost EVERYTHING in your reply is WRONG!
    "The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars.for no aparent reason,"
    ref1 A VERY few calvary wore flamboyant helmets presumably to offer some protection against enemy calvary sabres.
    The huge majority of French troops equipped with bi & tricorn hats, cloth Shako or bearskin caps.


    "and their promary weapon was still the sword"
    ref2 The primary weapon of Napoleonic troops was the .69 cal Musket with afixed bayonet that should fire a round every 20 seconds capable of hitting targets past 80 yards.


    "Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries."
    The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century. Longbows and crossbows could pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 meters.
    Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 tried to have banned the use of crossbows against Christians. Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor.
    Plate armor was becoming passe by the end of the 15th century.


    After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by dragoons. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour.
    ref3 Combat crossbows preceded steel plate armor by 400yrs and xbows were largely replaced by muskets by the 1600s. Steel plate armor was effective for only about 200yrs by the 1700s most troops were in cloth armor.


    "If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight"
    Most of the Napoleonic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm

    image

  • PhryPhry HampshirePosts: 6,289Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bhug

    11.9.12




    posted by zymurgeistThat's grossly oversimplified. A lot of it had to do with material availability and technology but social conditions playd a greater part. It's not a straight timeline from one type of armor to another. The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars. for no aparrent reason, and their promary weapon was still the sword. Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries. Armor had largely been abandoned as unworkable by the matchlock era. If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight and not because of the armor but because it ended the dominance of cavalry over infantry. Quite simply the armored knight died with the feudal system and the rise of well trained professional armies.


     

    i am surprised you are not ashamed in posting a reply to my facts when almost EVERYTHING in your reply is WRONG!

    "The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars.for no aparent reason,"

    ref1 A VERY few calvary wore flamboyant helmets presumably to offer some protection against enemy calvary sabres.

    The huge majority of French troops equipped with bi & tricorn hats, cloth Shako or bearskin caps.



    "and their promary weapon was still the sword"

    ref2

    The primary weapon of Napoleonic troops was the .69 cal Musket with afixed bayonet that should fire a round every 20 seconds capable of hitting targets past 80 yards.



    "Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries."

    The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century. Longbows and crossbows could pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 meters.

    Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 tried to have banned the use of crossbows against Christians. Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor.

    Plate armor was becoming passe by the end of the 15th century.



    After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by dragoons. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour.

    ref3

    Combat crossbows preceded steel plate armor by 400yrs and xbows were largely replaced by muskets by the 1600s. Steel plate armor was effective for only about 200yrs by the 1700s most troops were in cloth armor.



    "If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight"

    Most of the Napoleonic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm

  • ArcheAgeArcheAge stormspikePosts: 363Member

    I really can't see chainmail being more restrictive than full plate armour.

    I mean imagine trying to move in these..

    Chainmail..

    Although the chainmail does look restrictive.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Sagasaint

    its indeed hard to believe that this

    restricts movement more and is a lot heavier than this

    Yeah, if you take a chainmail that leaves the legs free and most of the arms against a full plate suit. But that is about as fair as me wearing a helmet and nothing more while you were a full covering chainmail...

    A chainmail that covers the entire arms and legs as well are a very different matter.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ArcheAge

    I really can't see chainmail being more restrictive than full plate armour.

    I mean imagine trying to move in these..

     

    Chainmail..

     

    Although the chainmail does look restrictive.

    You really need to have a look on how the plate looks from up close, it is a very well made system that is surprisingly easy to move in.

    It is easiest to see on a pair of  gauntlets (I own a very similar pair BTW):

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bhug

    11.9.12

    i am surprised you are not ashamed in posting a reply to my facts when almost EVERYTHING in your reply is WRONG!

    "The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars.for no aparent reason,"

    ref1 A VERY few calvary wore flamboyant helmets presumably to offer some protection against enemy calvary sabres.

    The huge majority of French troops equipped with bi & tricorn hats, cloth Shako or bearskin caps.



    "and their promary weapon was still the sword"

    ref2 The primary weapon of Napoleonic troops was the .69 cal Musket with afixed bayonet that should fire a round every 20 seconds capable of hitting targets past 80 yards.



    "Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries."

    The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century. Longbows and crossbows could pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 meters.

    Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 tried to have banned the use of crossbows against Christians. Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor.

    Plate armor was becoming passe by the end of the 15th century.



    After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by dragoons. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour.

    ref3 Combat crossbows preceded steel plate armor by 400yrs and xbows were largely replaced by muskets by the 1600s. Steel plate armor was effective for only about 200yrs by the 1700s most troops were in cloth armor.



    "If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight"

    Most of the Napoleonic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm

  • lennpelllennpell madawaska, MEPosts: 109Member

    If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lennpell

    If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.

    The padding you wear under both a chainmail and a platearmor is surprisingly good on taking impacts so I don't think so.

    You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet.

    The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.

  • HarafnirHarafnir VikingvillePosts: 1,324Member Uncommon

    I am amazed that so many ignore actual facts, and write post after post with no other facts to support them than Google Pictures. And Ivanhoe...

    It is useless to even talk here, it started with a slightly flawed thread of logic and turned into a complete garbage fest. Fine, either people used 16th century full plate with chain underneath and leather and cloth padding, like the nobles of 16th century playjousting.... Or they wore a chain bikini... There has never been anything between those two and there... you have your conclusion. Solid facts... solid. You make this forum proud, all of you.

    "This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
    It should be thrown with great force"

  • RequiamerRequiamer ???Posts: 2,034Member

    Originally posted by Harafnir

     Or they wore a chain bikini...

    Ho no, you just asked for it

    http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/366341

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bhug

    11.9.12

     




    posted by zymurgeistThat's grossly oversimplified. A lot of it had to do with material availability and technology but social conditions playd a greater part. It's not a straight timeline from one type of armor to another. The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars. for no aparrent reason, and their promary weapon was still the sword. Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries. Armor had largely been abandoned as unworkable by the matchlock era. If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight and not because of the armor but because it ended the dominance of cavalry over infantry. Quite simply the armored knight died with the feudal system and the rise of well trained professional armies.


     

    i am surprised you are not ashamed in posting a reply to my facts when almost EVERYTHING in your reply is WRONG!

    "The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars.for no aparent reason,"

    ref1 A VERY few calvary wore flamboyant helmets presumably to offer some protection against enemy calvary sabres.

    The huge majority of French troops equipped with bi & tricorn hats, cloth Shako or bearskin caps.



    "and their promary weapon was still the sword"

    ref2 The primary weapon of Napoleonic troops was the .69 cal Musket with afixed bayonet that should fire a round every 20 seconds capable of hitting targets past 80 yards.



    "Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries."

    The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century. Longbows and crossbows could pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 meters.

    Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 tried to have banned the use of crossbows against Christians. Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor.

    Plate armor was becoming passe by the end of the 15th century.



    After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by dragoons. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour.

    ref3 Combat crossbows preceded steel plate armor by 400yrs and xbows were largely replaced by muskets by the 1600s. Steel plate armor was effective for only about 200yrs by the 1700s most troops were in cloth armor.



    "If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight"

    Most of the Napoleonic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arm

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by zymurgeist

     Point out where I said ALL french  wore brass helmets. It's an example of the type of anachronism that's quite common throughout history.

    Napoleonic cavalry, you know the people that used brass helmets, used swords not muskets with few exceptions.

    Crossbows were used at Hastings in 1066 and were quite common in Europe at 1000 A.D.and I'm  pretty sure five hundred years qualifies as "centuries" You can't even get your own cites right. The use of hand held crossbows dates back to the Romans.

    The chances of piercing plate armor with a crossbow or long bow at 200 meters is slim to none. Hence people continued to wear plate armor for centuries.

    Plate armor was passe by the time the matchlock became common but was already on it's way out of widespread use due to the adoption of professional militaries to fight wars. Primitive handgonnes and plate armor coexisted for nearly two centuries before that.

    The Grand armee didn't have armored  knights either. Pikemen eliminated the usefullness of knights three hundred years before that. Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Oddly curiassuers still wore plate armor chest pieces.

    The point was and is that you can't say with any certainty when any type of armor or weapon was obsolete solely due to technology  because they all coexisted for centuries.

    And for God's sake get a better history resource than Wikipaedia. But if you must use it at least learn something about the rise of professional armies nad the end of the armored knight  Here

    I would prefer to call the standard Napoleonic bladed weapon a "sabre" and not a sword. But it was not uncommon, particularly with marines and officers. Muskets were more common though.

    Crossbows were earlier than the Romans, Alexanders troops already had them and the Chinese had a interesting version with a magazine for over 2000 years ago. It wasn't until the 13th century though that newer winches increased the power a lot of it while cutting the loading times a lot. I read that X-bows are from around 400BC in one of my Osprey books but it is possible that they were invented even earlier.

    The last large armies having plate armor were besides the Polish who had them until 1655 probably the Landsknechts of the 16th century. Pikemen and halbardiers did hurt the usefullness of the knights a lot but it was really the blackpowder weapons that are considered the final straw for them.

    There have always been a war between weapons and armors. When chainmails became more common again in the 10th century the swords were made so you also could pierce with them. Two handed swords became common to counter better amors. But there are plenty of weird exceptions, Scottish Claymores are made for footsoldiers fighting mounted troops and are earlier then zweihanders and so on.

    Attila had a steel blade made from metorite steel called the blade of Mars that were far superior to ther blades at the time, history are full of weird weapons that doesn't follow any logical rules.

    And no new weapon just take out an old one since many blades and armors were passed on from father to son, and particularly armors were repaired and could last 3 generations.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by lennpell
    If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.
    The padding you wear under both a chainmail and a platearmor is surprisingly good on taking impacts so I don't think so.
    You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet.
    The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.



    You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lizardbones



    You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.

    Warhammers.. Yeah and there are plenty of other weapons as well, but warhammers are really hard to get in killing blows with, flails are great for dismounting knights, there are a variety of weapons against plates.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by lizardbones

    You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.
    Warhammers.. Yeah and there are plenty of other weapons as well, but warhammers are really hard to get in killing blows with, flails are great for dismounting knights, there are a variety of weapons against plates.




    So after reading all of this, do you have sufficient information to understand why developers don't really bother with trying to come up with a 'realistic' armor system?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • EmeraqEmeraq Medical Lake, WAPosts: 927Member Uncommon

    I don't play MMORPG's for things to make sense. I just spoke a fireball into existance, held it in my hand and tossed it 40 yards at my opponents and it exploded burning all of their asses, does that make sense? :)

    I understand your point that armors draw real life comparisons, and magic doesn't, but you have to consider the fantasy setting.

    Now if you are just upset that your Rogue or Ranger doesn't get to wear heavy armor, I don't know that logic will change anything. Regardless of your opinion on what makes send for game balance, it's the way devs see things, and often tims the way many other gamers see things and in the end that is going to win argument.

    We tend to overanalyze things to the point that something isn't fun anymore.

  • Nerf09Nerf09 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,953Member

    Originally posted by jinxxed0

    They also need to realize that all female armor should be super skimpy. Yes, should be.

     

    You see Sir Scan Tallyclad did tests that proved, the more skin a female fighter exsposes to the air around her, the more powerful she becomes and the more resistance she has against attacks.

     

    So true

  • mizanyxmizanyx Mexico CityPosts: 70Member

    Nice thread.

    I agree that having a coherent setting helps with the immersion of a game. I like medieval weaponry, I don't own any but its a topic that always has fascinated me.

    A game with realistic combat would be interesting. Where by example wizards didn't use spells but some sort of grenades like in the 300 movie, having greek fire, toxics or hallucinogens inside, and melee skills were like 'piercing sword thrust' 'shield bash' 'wide slash', etc.

    I have a question for Loke666...

    Why did the longbow was replaced by the crossbow if the crossbow has way greater recharge cooldown?

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by mizanyx
    Nice thread.
    I agree that having a coherent setting helps with the immersion of a game. I like medieval weaponry, I don't own any but its a topic that always has fascinated me.
    A game with realistic combat would be interesting. Where by example wizards didn't use spells but some sort of grenades like in the 300 movie, having greek fire, toxics or hallucinogens inside, and melee skills were like 'piercing sword thrust' 'shield bash' 'wide slash', etc.
    I have a question for Loke666...
    Why did the longbow was replaced by the crossbow if the crossbow has way greater recharge cooldown?


    Here's my uneducated guess. Once armies stopped just standing across fields from each other, the longbows became much less effective in military situations. You were walking into a situation and you had to hit a specific target. Xbows could pack a lot of power in a small package, and didn't take a lifetime of training to get really good at hitting that guy sitting about 10 yards from you. Plus a longbow probably wouldn't punch through decent armor, where an xbow bolt would.

    Longbows were great for raining down a bunch of arrows on people, but you've got to have a bunch of the enemy all clustered together in one spot. I'm pretty it wasn't anything like Robin Hood.

    But that's just my guess.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon

     



     



    Originally posted by Loke666

    I would prefer to call the standard Napoleonic bladed weapon a "sabre" and not a sword. But it was not uncommon, particularly with marines and officers. Muskets were more common though.



     

    Not among cavalry which was still dominated by swords, of one type or another, including mainly sabers. Dragoons had carbines but still relied on sabers when mounted.  There were still lancers of all things including many from Poland on both sides.

     




    Crossbows were earlier than the Romans, Alexanders troops already had them and the Chinese had a interesting version with a magazine for over 2000 years ago. It wasn't until the 13th century though that newer winches increased the power a lot of it while cutting the loading times a lot. I read that X-bows are from around 400BC in one of my Osprey books but it is possible that they were invented even earlier.


     

    True but people tend to date these things oddly by dividing them into various types and quibbling over what is or isn't a "true" crossbow. Suffice to say they were around for a very long time.

     




    The last large armies having plate armor were besides the Polish who had them until 1655 probably the Landsknechts of the 16th century. Pikemen and halbardiers did hurt the usefullness of the knights a lot but it was really the blackpowder weapons that are considered the final straw for them.


     

    By some, but even  so full suits were well on their way out of use by then. I suspect even without advent of the matchlock they would have fallen completely out of favor. The greater significance of pikemen wasn't the weapons they used but the societies that spawned them and the discipline required for their tactics. Maneuver warfare returned to the battlefield insted of war being a series of frontal assaults.

     




    There have always been a war between weapons and armors. When chainmails became more common again in the 10th century the swords were made so you also could pierce with them. Two handed swords became common to counter better amors. But there are plenty of weird exceptions, Scottish Claymores are made for footsoldiers fighting mounted troops and are earlier then zweihanders and so on.

    Attila had a steel blade made from metorite steel called the blade of Mars that were far superior to ther blades at the time, history are full of weird weapons that doesn't follow any logical rules.

    And no new weapon just take out an old one since many blades and armors were passed on from father to son, and particularly armors were repaired and could last 3 generations.

     

     



     



    I hate the editing functions on these forums with a passion.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCPosts: 542Member

    Originally posted by Corehaven

    I figure the OP knows his stuff.  Most of what he says makes good sense.  I personally have no idea having never tried any of this stuff on myself. 

    Just more misconceptions.  Im hardly surprised.  But thanks for the education.  I would have assumed chain would be lighter than plate myself having never really considered it any other way.  So thanks. 

     

     

    Sorry cant take the OP as knowing his stuff as he uses Deadliest Warrior as his basis for expertise.   Thats like me quoting Dora The Explorer as a master of the Spanish Culture. 

     

    Here is some pages on ACTUAL armour, and some great pictures.

     

    http://www.armourarchive.org/armour_dukes_burgundy/

    This page in itself has enough pictures to break the concept of the 1 inch thick armour weighing in excess of 200lbs.   The fact is, IF YOU CANT MOVE IN IT, YOU CANT FIGHT IN IT!!!!

     

    A set of Maximilian Plate armour, weighed close to 80 to 90lbs, at most.   A set of  gendarme armour,  worn by the French during the late 1400s, weighed around 60-80lbs.   

     

    No doubt that plate is noisy, but so is chainmail.   I know I wear it when I fight in the SCA, and in WMA.   But I have also worn some italian milianise plate, that weighed no more than 80lbs.   It wasnt a exact fit but it was REAL close.  

     

    I could do cart wheels in plate, pushups, run, sprint, jump, get up from falling down, front rolls, and move mostly unimpeded.   The only problem I had was sitting up from flat on my back, I had no flexibility in my torso thanks to the breast plate.  

     

     

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • newkidznewkidz Iowa, IAPosts: 19Member

    I agree with OP!  but we cant do anything!

    image

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Hodo

    Sorry cant take the OP as knowing his stuff as he uses Deadliest Warrior as his basis for expertise.   Thats like me quoting Dora The Explorer as a master of the Spanish Culture. 

    Here is some pages on ACTUAL armour, and some great pictures.

    http://www.armourarchive.org/armour_dukes_burgundy/

    This page in itself has enough pictures to break the concept of the 1 inch thick armour weighing in excess of 200lbs.   The fact is, IF YOU CANT MOVE IN IT, YOU CANT FIGHT IN IT!!!!

    A set of Maximilian Plate armour, weighed close to 80 to 90lbs, at most.   A set of  gendarme armour,  worn by the French during the late 1400s, weighed around 60-80lbs.   

    No doubt that plate is noisy, but so is chainmail.   I know I wear it when I fight in the SCA, and in WMA.   But I have also worn some italian milianise plate, that weighed no more than 80lbs.   It wasnt a exact fit but it was REAL close. 

    I could do cart wheels in plate, pushups, run, sprint, jump, get up from falling down, front rolls, and move mostly unimpeded.   The only problem I had was sitting up from flat on my back, I had no flexibility in my torso thanks to the breast plate.  

    Yeah, ignore the part where I said that I actually own an armor and were talking out of personal experience. You ain't the only member of SCA around here.

    Still, DW is just like Mythbusters not scientific but slightly amusing, and even they are not so incompetent that they would mess this up. At least I didn't refer to Wikipedia. ;)

  • FusionFusion VaasaPosts: 1,391Member Uncommon

    I fail to see the point in this thread, since if MMO armors should make sense, why do they have magic, floppyeared honkers, horned monsters and dragons?

    You want imaginary armor to be comparable to real world statistics, but you're ok with hurling fireballs and lightning from your hands / wooden sticks etc. while wearing this real world historically accurate armor? :D

    Currently playing: -

    Waiting for: Class4.

    Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

Sign In or Register to comment.