[Tony Brass]

I have read that a man in plate armor was like a tank. But was he? Did men actually wear the tournament style of plate armor in battle, and if so, how thick was it? Could it be thrust through with a really rigid sword and a good square hit? If swords were relegated to just looking for gaps in the armour, it seeme to me that I would rather use an axe or mace.

The reason I bring this up is that i just acquired a type XVII hexagonal cross section sword. Tough, rigid, brutal, and despite the profile taper - slow. In order to keep its strong point, it sacrifices the velocity of a nice distal taper blade. Indeed, is this a sword trying to do a job better accomplished by an impact weapon, and ultimately a good rondel dagger? Or could such a robust yet pointy sword pose a real threat to the man behind the plate

[Marton Pap]

Hi!
I didn't read too much about armoured combat, but about the gaps of armour Liechtenauer says in the von Danzig manuscript:

[Matthew R.]

As far as I know, the ideal weapon for fighting against a heavily armoured opponent would have been the billhook:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(weapon) (the one shown here is not the best example). Such a weapon was useful in grabbing at the lose parts of a soldier's plate and dragging him to the ground. What's best about it is that it was cheap and was used heavily by the English against their often better armoured French adversaries.

[Justin King]

I have personally read/seen a number of conflicting things about this subject. It seems that at it's peak of development plate armor (perhaps just the most expensive, highest quality stuff) was hardened and could survive an arrow from an English war bow at reasonably close range. I have seen tests performed on a "traditionally made" breastplate that appeared to confirm that this was at least possible. If true I think this would mean that under most circumstances the same breastplate would be proof against a sword thrust as well. From one account I remember, when the French first faced the English archers in massed formation their armor was found to be insufficient and somewhat later armor began to appear that was considered to be proof against arrows, but that it remained so expensive that only the very wealthy could afford it. Not all armor was created equal. Later armor was proof tested by firing a lightly-loaded pistol at it at close range. The dent was called a proof mark.
Breastplates and other pieces of armor were commonly made thicker where direct or frontal damage would most commonly occur, so hitting a thinner area may make a difference. Quality probably varied a great deal from period to period and region to region, not to mention price factor, so it may depend entirely on who you are attacking.

All in all I would say that penetrating plate with a sword is probably not impossible in all cases, but honestly I think that if one were unarmored, with only a sword, facing an opponent in full plate with a sword, you probably have the wrong weapon. You might, in fact, want to leave...quickly...

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Military writers such as Machiavelli and Fourquevaux thought armored men would beat unarmored men rather handily. It's clear armor was a huge advantage in close combat.

[George Hill]

The answer is that a man in armor was almost invunerable. You cannot directly compromise the breastplate with anything short of a couched lance at the full gallop.

Although tournament armor was not worn in the field, this was because tournament armor needed to repeatedly withstand massive blunt impacts from blunted lances. In much the same way an SCA helmet is much heavier then an original, because the SCA man may get hit in the head with a stick a few hundred times a year.

A knight in battle would be hit less frequently, as he would not leave the person who did it alive to do it again. There are accounts of helmets being deformed onto men's heads, such that they could not be removed, in tournaments.

But a metal weapon will not penetrate. It is more inclined to glance off. Most of the weapons you have heard called 'armor penetrating' are not referring to plate armor, but to mail or scale or cloth armor, which is much easier to get through then a solid plate. The long bow will penetrate mail. It will not penetrate plate. The "Epic armor failures" are almost uniformly from periods where mail was the predominant armor on the field. A windlass crossbow may penetrate plate, as it can be much more powerful then a longbow. Do a search, we have several threads on the topic.

So to consider a combat in armor, you must first consider the plates almost impenetrable. But there are gaps in the plates, which are covered in excellent mail for the most part.

This means you are going to have a devil of a time doing the fellow in. You can hit him with huge blunt impacts, and hope to shift the armor enough to break his bones, you can go for the gaps in the armor (which got smaller every year as the armor improved over time) and hope to penetrate the mail with a VERY acute point, or you can wrestle him to the ground and sit on him long enough to shove a dagger through his eyeslot.

And that's what the fightbooks tell us to do. Aim for the gaps, or remove part of the armor and stick him there.

Of course, doing any of that is going to be almost impossibly difficult, if he's well trained, and chances are he will be.

The last way you can get to a man in plate armor is to get a gun and shoot him. This in the end proved the easiest way. Armor responded, but guns got better and eventually most of the armor was dropped as it had to be so heavy to withstand the low-end firearms, and could not withstand the high-end firearms.

[Craig Peters]

I can't back this up with specific evidence (so don't ask, and take it as hearsay) but as I understand, in all probability men fighting in harness with swords would have ended up on the ground, with one man finally triumphing with his dagger over the other by stabbing him in an articulated area.

[Jean Thibodeau]

I would add exhaustion as well as being seriously outnumbered could eventually bring down a single fully armoured knight but a group of knights would be very much more difficult to defeat if they could take turns fighting on a narrow front and go back to the rear to recover.

Heat would also be a problem and being able to keep hydrated in warm climates.

[Jared Smith]

[Hugh Knight]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I generally agree with George, but it depends on the quality of the armor. Even Fourquevaux, a huge fan of armor, wrote that lower-quality stuff could be defeated by an extended barrage of bolts or arrows. Tests suggest spears could pierce inferior breastplates.

And then there's Cesare d'Evoli's text on the matter. According to Sydney Anglo, d'Evoli thought almost anything other than swords could pierce both plate and mail. I'd really like to read d'Evoli for myself, but I don't know if there's a translation available. His work is extremely obscure. I don't know what to make of it, because nothing else so much as hints that armor was that easy to penetrate.

Either way, head blows from heavy staff weapons could clearly incapacitate or kill through the best helmet. If a man in full armor left his head undefended, any lusty fellow with a halberd, pollaxe, bill, or maul might well ruin his day. That's rather far from invulnerability in my opinion.

[Chuck Russell]

numbers is the best thing to beat a guy in full plate. due to: if he's got full plate he knows how to wear it, knows how to fight, has been training so he can probably outlast most unarmoured guys on teh field. i know when we (Lord Greys) do mock battles etc its really hard to get in close etc as an unarmoured guy. you know your gonna get hit and hit bad while all of your swings bounce off metal.

but that being said, in the paston letters, the son got hit all day with arrows on teh field but 1 arrow cracked his forarm and scratched him. i believe and he frekked out, stripped down, ran into town and wrote mommy that he had lost everything.

[Chad Arnow]

[Andreas Auer]

my 2 cent.. when i fight in my harnisch i don't like following things...

...a hot day (after 20 to 30 minutes a fight must be won, otherwise exhaustion...)
...quick moving enemys (bad sight because of helmet and enemy getting behind me..)
...unmounting my horse (ok i have no horse but...giving up a horses mobility would be like giving up my biggest advantage)
...uneven ground (making me stumble or even falling in combat is sure death)


...my next 2 cents i also see fully plate armoured Knights a Tanks...you have to choose the right tactics for a tank, a Plate armour is not fool proof and need a good infrastructure on the battlefield (safe places to rest for drinking water changing weapons etc...) a Knight is a very expensive weapon that needs to be used very clever... sending Knights in a close encounter with cheap troop with lances, halberts or even clubs is a bad decision by my military leader.

[Steven H]

To follow on Chad about the weapons: weapons like couched lances, braced spears/pikes, polearms (like the bill or halberd) or pollaxes are all better at killing a plate armoured foe.

In a limited sense the sword can be seen like a modern sidearm. A versatile weapon and good in close in fighting. But not what you start a fight using, it's what you finish a fight with.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Peter Lyon]

And don't forget shields, and how they were dispensed with once the plate armour could be trusted to withstand most impacts. This is coincidental with the increased use of large weapons in the 15th century in particular (though was likely occuring with higher-end harnesses in the 14th century as well), and some changes in the role of the knight/man at arms from a principally mounted warrior, to one where combat could be either mounted or dismounted, with the need to change quickly (and shields,especially larger ones, are quite awkward when mounting and dismounting). This does not mean shields were used a lot less overall, but their role was changing, to one where they were used more by foot soldiers or the less heavily armoured, and as pavises to hide behind and fire crossbows and handguns from. But for the heavily armoured warrior, shields pretty much disappear except in tournaments, and then they are used as targets to aim at, more than for protection.

[Dan Howard]

[Greg Coffman]

Halfswording. I found the word in this thread yet so I'd thought I'd mention it. Halfswording seems to be THE way to use a sword to defeat plate. One on one, I think the armoured fighter with a longsword might have some advantage to the fighter with a rondel. At least the one with the sword is not at any disadvantage.

Armour is great because it takes away the vunerability of being cut at. However the armoured fighter is not invunerable and expecially not when facing off against another armoured fighter. On the battle field when formations of armoured fighters would clash together, the armour provides excellent protection from so many things such as missle weapons. The idea was that groups of unarmoured soldiers were poor match for heavily armoured formations. But there were still plenty of ways to defeat an armoured fighter both on and off the battlefield. You don't have to kill the guy, just take him out of the fight. For example, while wearing an 80 pound harness if you kick somebodies knee, that knee will break and the sombody will go down. Anytime you can put somebody on the ground in the middle of a battle, they are pretty much a gonner.

[Chuck Russell]