winny257 Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 this is trumpet sheet metal a normal bow pierced it effortlessly. a medieval crossbow had a 100-fold through clout.
Skjall Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 this is trumpet sheet metal a normal bow pierced it effortlessly. https://youtu.be/q-Xp56uVyxs. https://youtu.be/D3997HZuWjk. a medieval crossbow had a 100-fold through clout. https://youtu.be/qsAUKRbaZ9E. https://youtu.be/HagCuGXJgUs. vid1: stop at 1:33 - side shot of your "armor". Let's ignore material it is made of. This thing did not even lie next to this: https://s-media-cach...9a08738996c.jpg. It does not even look like a breastplate. vid2: so, we have hole in metal, but the gambeson beneath is not touched at all, the guy lives, still runs at you, and soon you're impaled on his sword/lance. vid3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poszGytTHf0. winny please. vid4: an archer shooting faster than crossbowman. who would have known And what does this have to do with the OP question? Also, History Channel: http://images.memes.com/meme/tile/30936.jpg
winny257 Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 this is the last video, then I will be silent. fight, a man in plate armor and one without. the man in the armor pumps like a cockchafer (to gasp for air)
Skjall Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 We have a significant language barrier preventing discussion about those matters in depth, but to sum up from last post to the beginning: -could you kill a knight in full armor ? -Yes, of course you can, as shown on the last vid, he ended him rightly with a pommel strike to the head and piercing under arm. Just what Talhoffer says you should do. -could an archer or a crossbowman kill said knight ? -Yes obviously, as shown in a video, but also as shown in previous videos it's not that easy as it seems, as even piercing metal plates might not kill a knight. But as they say: throw enough sh*t at wall and some of it will eventually stick. - was a knight an immobile object clad in metal head to toe? - Well, he indeed was clad in metal head to toe, but hardly an immovable object, unable to roam battlefields without a horse. -was he as nimble and fast as an unarmored opponent, able to fight for an extended amount of time? - No he was not as fast as nimble, and it costs the guy about 2x as much energy to whack the other guy with his sharp over-sized knife. But he added protection compensates for loss of speed. and finally: -would a guy with exceptional strength be nimble and fast with elastic enough plate? - yes, even more so if he's of superhuman strength and toughness compared to us, puny humans. I think this sums up our heated debate
Guest endgameaddiction Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 That's why skimpy armor makes you invincible. Notice how the man in the clothing was kicking ass. If it was a female in ultra skimpy armor, she would be unstoppable.
GimmeBACON Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 -was he as nimble and fast as an unarmored opponent, able to fight for an extended amount of time? - No he was not as fast as nimble, and it costs the guy about 2x as much energy to whack the other guy with his sharp over-sized knife. But he added protection compensates for loss of speed. I always wondered what the appeal or allure of wearing plate armor in cinematography was, personally I see that and think to myself, dodge his attack, put him in an armbar and break it. That armor has got to be draining, and while it has some maneuverability, I doubt many people would have the ability to properly protect themselves whilst being weighed down by said armor. inb4 nobody did armbars back then, Greco-Roman wrestling existed so grounding someone through said means would be known to some extent, and anybody with knowledge could apply a simple lock, it doesn't have to be fancy.
Kaz Aanh Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 -was he as nimble and fast as an unarmored opponent, able to fight for an extended amount of time? - No he was not as fast as nimble, and it costs the guy about 2x as much energy to whack the other guy with his sharp over-sized knife. But he added protection compensates for loss of speed. I always wondered what the appeal or allure of wearing plate armor in cinematography was, personally I see that and think to myself, dodge his attack, put him in an armbar and break it. That armor has got to be draining, and while it has some maneuverability, I doubt many people would have the ability to properly protect themselves whilst being weighed down by said armor. inb4 nobody did armbars back then, Greco-Roman wrestling existed so grounding someone through said means would be known to some extent, and anybody with knowledge could apply a simple lock, it doesn't have to be fancy. The same as tactical vests today. It offered a lot of protection and increased the survivabillity of the wearer. Not to mention it reduced the chance for severed limbs. It just made sure you wouldn't die by some random first arrow or blade hit. People who wore heavy armour like this weren't a slim guys that only sit in front of the computer playing video games and they think its too heavy to wear and exhausting. Also in reality medieval battles with plate armours were very brutal, it doesn't look like in the Holywood movies with all that sluggish and slow movements. A unarmored person like I said before to beat plate user needs to topple him over first and immobillize, which isn't easy task. And plate-users were also proficient with the swords so half-swording wasn't always a success. I mean you needed to rip his plates in order to reveal weak spot and he just needed to hit unarmored guy once.
Skjall Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 Also, notice, how the unarmored guy also had difficulties catching his breath. Also notice again, the last winny's vid is a part of the first I posted. Its a NGC show about Tallhoffer's Fechtbuch - full show here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=johsROyZLSk. One has to wonder, pommel strike was one of the tactics against armored knight in the book. It would be unwise decision to show that this hit might not be successful, and the unarmored guy died like 3-4 times before he managed to deliver decisive blow.
Guest endgameaddiction Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 That loss of breath could be due to stamina and age.
GimmeBACON Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 But could you imagine the kind of detriment wearing plate armor could be against a skilled catch wrestler or bjj fighter?
Skjall Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 The problem with wrestlers would be reach. Having a sword and armor gives you one meter long sharp and pointy object to deliver a blow before an enemy closes enough, and a plate to negate most of possible damage to himself. Also if its real combat, there's like another 100 people around you, killing another 100 people, so there's danger of being hit by a knight's buddies. If it's a duel, you most likely have a confined space to fight, so you move towards a wrestler to reduce his area of movement and limit his possibilities to grapple. Remember you need one semi decent blow to unarmored opponent. Even if it's not lethal, a damaged hand or leg severely limits our wrestler. But what Dagren says. Forcing armored guy to go to ground and then stabbing a gap in armor is the way. Every manual of the era we know of advises that.
GimmeBACON Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 ...so you move towards a wrestler to reduce his area of movement and limit his possibilities to grapple. ... what???? When the gap is closed, that's when a wrestler shines. To answer the rest of your statement, yes, reach is the issue, but, a wrestler is trained from day one to get as close as possible to an opponent to reduce resistance when throwing, and a full suplex onto their neck from a near 6 foot slam would likely break the person in armors neck upon impact as the armor would act like an anchor. While his cuts would be a serious threat if it occurred no doubt, a good hand to hand fighter would dodge the first strike then close the gap immediately. In hand to hand combat, the armor would be a detriment and not an asset. Regarding war... break the first person quickly and continue, don't let the fight draw out so you can get stabbed by his friend.
Skjall Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 ...so you move towards a wrestler to reduce his area of movement and limit his possibilities to grapple. ... what???? When the gap is closed, that's when a wrestler shines. To answer the rest of your statement, yes, reach is the issue, but, a wrestler is trained from day one to get as close as possible to an opponent to reduce resistance when throwing, and a full suplex onto their neck from a near 6 foot slam would likely break the person in armors neck upon impact as the armor would act like an anchor. While his cuts would be a serious threat if it occurred no doubt, a good hand to hand fighter would dodge the first strike then close the gap immediately. In hand to hand combat, the armor would be a detriment and not an asset. Regarding war... break the first person quickly and continue, don't let the fight draw out so you can get stabbed by his friend. Ehm, what i mean is push him to the wall, force him back at the crowd behind and still keep him at a sword distance, not to go grapple. Yes, but he is trained to go at full contact with equally (un)equipped opponent. I'm sure he wouldn't go to grapple knowing he might loose an arm in the process. Reach is an enormous advantage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEjl7BLjlVY. Try to dodge something like that. How long wrestler's arm is? around 2 feet/60 cm at best. Add to that 2 times as long sword blade. So unless we dress our wrestler with armed gloves and arm protection, to deflect the initial blow I see him at a severe disadvantage. There's a reason why there were no wrestler armies back then.
GimmeBACON Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 ...so you move towards a wrestler to reduce his area of movement and limit his possibilities to grapple. ... what???? When the gap is closed, that's when a wrestler shines. To answer the rest of your statement, yes, reach is the issue, but, a wrestler is trained from day one to get as close as possible to an opponent to reduce resistance when throwing, and a full suplex onto their neck from a near 6 foot slam would likely break the person in armors neck upon impact as the armor would act like an anchor. While his cuts would be a serious threat if it occurred no doubt, a good hand to hand fighter would dodge the first strike then close the gap immediately. In hand to hand combat, the armor would be a detriment and not an asset. Regarding war... break the first person quickly and continue, don't let the fight draw out so you can get stabbed by his friend. Ehm, what i mean is push him to the wall, force him back at the crowd behind and still keep him at a sword distance, not to go grapple. Yes, but he is trained to go at full contact with equally (un)equipped opponent. I'm sure he wouldn't go to grapple knowing he might loose an arm in the process. Reach is an enormous advantage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEjl7BLjlVY. Try to dodge something like that. How long wrestler's arm is? around 2 feet/60 cm at best. Add to that 2 times as long sword blade. So unless we dress our wrestler with armed gloves and arm protection, to deflect the initial blow I see him at a severe disadvantage. There's a reason why there were no wrestler armies back then. Push them to a wall, but not holding him against the wall so you have strike range? I don't see that working to well. I will admit the reason wrestling wasn't used as a mainstream form of war was because weapons had the advantage of being easier to kill with, as well as that wrestling is more taxing on the body, but, never disregard the ease of which a good hand to hand fighter could kill a man with a weapon. Regarding dressing wrestlers with arm protection, I wouldn't imagine anybody wanting to fight completely unarmored anyway.
winny257 Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 That loss of breath could be due to stamina and age. it is an old man of 21 century! We talk all the time about armours, who bears this had to have a lot of power! a very important point is not considered here, to any armor includes a weapon and partly a shield. these swords are not made of cardboard, a two-handed sword can from 3.5 until 10 kilograms weigh. I know what I'm talking, I own an original two-handed sword!
Varithina Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 the armor is pretty much an extremely strong metal that lets say someone hit it with the force of 3 supernova's, no dent. Heat works but that's it. Folks unless the sword/weapons or such like are really exotic types then they are all useless, this is what the original poster said about the armours affect. In other words the stuff you are posting is nice and good, but pretty much useless in this case.
winny257 Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 very interesting, there were some female warriors (proof) also in plates armor. Female warriors in the Middle Ages https://womenshistorymonth.wordpress.com/resources/women-and-series/women-and-war/female-warriors/ what were the most effective weapons against plates armours? not that sword, but rather these! Medieval War Hammer, Morning Stars and Maces
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.