I recently (today even) got into an argument with a friend of mine concerning certain facts about Plate mail. It got pretty heated, so I was wondering if there are any good sources I could direct my friend to, and if anyone knows where he gets some of his information from.

He declares;

Plate mail saw its highest peak of use and technology during the Twelfth century and sharply declined until it wasn't used at all (save for the occasional Cuirass) during the fourteenth century, and that this was caused by the presence of longbows on the battlefield which could actually rip /through/ a knight in full plate and kill his horse on the exit.

That a Bastard sword wasn't at all like a longsword, and was in fact a seven foot long "sword-spear" that lancers would use on a charge.

Early guns, and even modern handguns can not penetrate a suit of plate, and that the Longbow single handedly ended the age of armor.

ok, first and foremost, your friend is wrong :)

I'm not good at citing sources, but just I'm sure you can use the myriad of replies you get from this post to show your friend that he's wrong.


Ok, I'm sure you know this but obviously your friend doesn't: Platemail reached it's pinnical in the 15th c. though I'm sure that may be debated to the 16th, although platemail was dying at that time. A longbow could only do that if shot at like...10 paces and even then it's pretty doubtful. Now, it has been proven that arrows can penetrate plate if hit plumb, and certainly anything lighter than that is fresh meat to a good archer with a strong bow and well made bodkin arrows. Armor was well worn into the 16th c. though, as I said before, it was on it's decline. This had nothing to longbows but an increased effectiveness of infantry and guns. The longbow wasn't even a serious weapon used in england during the crusades (12th c.) and england was the only country to ever master it's use, as seen by the havok it wrecked during the 100 years war. A bastard sword is the same as a longsword, although the denotation of a longsword is a later sword used in the contemporary fechtbuchs (I'm sure more experienced members like Bill Grandy can give you a much better example) while a bastard sword was an earlier weapon primarly used for cutting (like a type XIII bastard sword and a type XVIIIb longsword). I'm not sure about EARLY hangonnes penetrating plate though. though it's obvious that later ones did. I read somewhere that cuirasses were tested by firing shots at them, although that may be a myth.

Yea, that was all pretty much my argument (Evidence states you have you be REALLY close in order to penetrate Plate sufficiently with a longbow, and Why would Johannes Lichtenauer teach about fighting guys in Plate if Plate was almost completely gone by the time he reached instructing age). Oh, and I forgot to mention another couple claims;

Chain mail was a much more efficient means of armor defense than Plate, and not even bodkin points could penetrate it.

Plate Mail was inefficient because of how heavy it is, and that you will never find a suit of plate under 70 pounds.


Apparently Mythbusters did an episode on Plate, and he cited this as his evidence. Does anyone have any information about the obvious inaccuracies in this episode?

well....

There seems to be a dearth on longbows altogether regarding bow poundage and the fact that many of the tests are probably not done with historically accurate weight.


If chainmaille was much better devense as plate, I'll let him go fight in it. Me and my trust mace would pound him to a bloody pulp without even shattering his armor. Maille's main weakness was it's felxibility that didn't absorb blunt trauma and tranfered slashing attacks into blunting ones. So you wouldn't have your arm severed, it would only be fractured beyond repair :). Plate could vary in weights, the most common I've heard being 50-60 lbs. But most of this weight was evenly distributed on strong areas like the shoulders so one would barely feel the weight. Some members here own full sets of armor so I'll let them attest to how restraining or lack thereof) they are.

I've never seen that episode of mythbusters but I whatch it moderatly. I'll see if I can look for it. But don't trust historical accuracy from mythbusters.

Yea, that's pretty much the information I've gotten as well. Something tells me he's looking at information from WAY back when(early 1900s, perhaps?). And I've seen ARMA videos of guys Flouryshing in Full Plate, so I don't think they're that restrictive if they can move that fast. :3

Joshua;

I would suggest doing a lot of searches here as many Topic thread dealing with plate and maille armour have discussed much of this ( over and over again ).

You may find a lot of contrary opinions about how effective arrows were against plate or maille but most of it will be different from what you have written about maille being better than plate, or if I understood you correctly, that plate being abandoned and replaced by maille ( what you call chain maille which is sort of a 19th century way of calling all types of armour maille: Chain maille, plate maille, scale maille etc ..... It's more correct to just talk about plate, or maille or scale armour. )

Anyway, you have a mix of good information and erroneous information but seem to be closer to the facts than your friend who has the chronology and sequence completely wrong.

There is no permanent harm or shame in being partially misinformed as long as one looks for reliable sources of information to add to and correct information: If you love the subject and take the time, get a few good books you should be able to get the real facts.

I hope you take this as positive advice and not as some sort of negative putdown as I only mean to help. :D

One thing to completely discount as sources are computer game how to play manuals that explain the various advantages of armour and arms and their history: There may be some accurate information there but a lot of it is just invented to quantify the effects of the weapons / armour in the game and the background history given is written by people who know games much more than they know anything about history.

Yea, but part of the reason I wanted to make this thread was because I was wondering where he got his information from. Thanks for the advice though, I make no claims I'm an expert, I've really only gotten into studying this stuff in the past year. Do you know of any good books I could look towards? :>

Whoops, I forgot about that feature, thanks for the reminder.

Yea, I've been puttering around a little bit, this is one of my favorite sites.

I certainly don't agree that plate armor was dying in the 16th century. Perhaps at the end of it, but men kept on wearing plate armor well into the 17th century and beyond. I think the early and middle parts of the century were likely the height of plate armor, with nearly entire armies wearing the stuff.

One of the things I'd like to quip about is something I had expected to come earlier:

I'm not aware of historical references to "plate mail." Plate-and-mail suits were everywhere, but can somebody enlighten me about whether such suits were ever really called "plate mail" by anything other than Victorian antiquarians and modern gamers?

This site already has more information than whatever I can say here. It would also pay to be careful in talking about penetration vs. plate armors because not all armor plates were made to the same thickness and quality. For example, gunpowder weapons prompted the development of reinforced plates that could resist pistol shots a short range and musketballs at longer ranges. This made the plate very thick and heavy compared to earlier models, though, so they were used only on the most vulnerable parts of the body--especially the plastrons/breastplates.

And, if I remember correctly, the Mythbusters episode actually showed how difficult it is to penetrate plate!

(If there's any such episode, that is. I don't really remember them doing any stuff on plate armor vs. historical weapons.

I'm having a hard time finding information about that episode too, he might have been BSing me.

The only program on plate armour and its qualities I know, including penetration by arrows is Channel 4's Weapons that made britain. Do not know if that helps as I cannot even find a way to see it but there it is. many debates have arisin about it but from the info online regarding it it seems like it proved penetration possible in relation to certain distances.

RPM

About arrows versus plate armour check this german site: http://www.plattnerwerkstatt.de/beschuss.html .#
They tried it and did not came thru the plates of a breast...
I cann´t agree to the opinion, arrows could not penetrate mail armor, just because the rings would bend (even if good made) and let the arrowhead thru. If the impact power is high, the tiny rings around holes of air would not resist (just remember the shape of a bodkin arrowhead) imo.

Well, I do remember that there were special bodkins that were used against maille. If I remember properly, the arrowhead was especially narrow and long like a javelin.

Bodkins are more useful than other typologies against mail but they are useless against felt and layered textiles. Bodkins just bounce off where broadheads cut their way through. However, broadheads are no good against mail. So the combination of mail and padding was efffctive against all types of arrowhead.