| Author |
Message |
|
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
|
|
  |
 |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
  |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"the overall best mix of protection, mobility, weight and practicality for combat."
Really? Maybe for the owner, but not for me. The intermixture of style looks rather awkward to my eyes. And, on a slightly different note, on an armor that complete I'm rather surprised to find that it doesn't include an arret.
The point is that the effectiveness of armor depends not only on its physical and mechanical qualities, but on personal taste. I, for one, prefer to have just a cuirass and a helmet with light arm defenses (or just cuirass, helmet, and a pair of very thick gloves)--when acting as a heavy cavalryman. When going light or on foot, I'd just ditch the armor completely and rely on the snooping and sneaking skills I learned from my Boy Scout days.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, that being said, I've never been a fan of white armor. I would have blacked it or put a jupon on top of it in order to satisfy my sense of aesthetics. ;P
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Well, that being said, I've never been a fan of white armor. I would have blacked it or put a jupon on top of it in order to satisfy my sense of aesthetics. ;P |
How about a nice blue, with gold accents? 
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, I'd hate the gold accents. Damned hard to maintain, they are. But I won't mind the blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
was the blue and gold regards to scouts????
Sneaking on a battle field.... annoying little peasants with their bloody knives... 
I like the suit although I like milanese mid 15th more or 1480's gothic.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | "the overall best mix of protection, mobility, weight and practicality for combat."
Really? Maybe for the owner, but not for me. The intermixture of style looks rather awkward to my eyes. And, on a slightly different note, on an armor that complete I'm rather surprised to find that it doesn't include an arret.
The point is that the effectiveness of armor depends not only on its physical and mechanical qualities, but on personal taste. I, for one, prefer to have just a cuirass and a helmet with light arm defenses (or just cuirass, helmet, and a pair of very thick gloves)--when acting as a heavy cavalryman. When going light or on foot, I'd just ditch the armor completely and rely on the snooping and sneaking skills I learned from my Boy Scout days. |
Effectiveness of armour has nothing to do with personal tastes. That is like saying that a matchlock rifle is as effective as an M-16 just because you happen to prefer the way it looks or a Sherman tank instead of an Abrams.
"Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend." - Liechtenauer
Ars Gladii
Detroit, MI
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gordon,
busy is a good word for it. I like it though!
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Blair
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Mar, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Age of Armour wrote: | | In my opinion, this style of armour was about the overall best mix of protection, mobility, weight and practicality for combat. |
I think the first three words from the webpage sums it up for me: "In my opinion". Your mileage may vary.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - The Lord Jesus Christ, from The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, chapter x, verse 34, Authorized Version of 1611
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Mar, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R Smith wrote: | | Effectiveness of armour has nothing to do with personal tastes. That is like saying that a matchlock rifle is as effective as an M-16 just because you happen to prefer the way it looks or a Sherman tank instead of an Abrams. |
I would respectfully disagree. It takes much dedicated effort to get used to an armor, and a fighter will naturally fel best in the kind of armor he/she is most accustomed to even though its coverage might not be the most complete or its range of movement might be more restricted than other types of armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I've looked at that armor now (yesterday the connection sort of got cut off) and...well, it is quite a "busy" one. Way too busy for me, certainly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | R Smith wrote: | | Effectiveness of armour has nothing to do with personal tastes. That is like saying that a matchlock rifle is as effective as an M-16 just because you happen to prefer the way it looks or a Sherman tank instead of an Abrams. |
I would respectfully disagree. It takes much dedicated effort to get used to an armor, and a fighter will naturally fel best in the kind of armor he/she is most accustomed to even though its coverage might not be the most complete or its range of movement might be more restricted than other types of armor. |
But anyone in the 16th century who could afford this sort of armour would have been trained from childhood to wear and fight in this armour. Feeling good in what you are wearing in combat is very important but good feelings do not stop arrows or blows from swords or war hammers. That is truly how effectiveness is judged. Of course plate is slightly restrictive but the armours of the earrly 16th century had a greater range of motion then types of earlier plate until they became very heavy to deal with guns. If you have never worn full harness, I would suggest that you try it out especially if it is close to being fitted for you. You will see how effective it is just by the feeling that you have in it. You'll feel like an unstoppable tank. A living wrecking ball. Have someone hit you really hard with a sword on your breastplate and you'll feel a vibration but that's it. This is why shields were disposed of except in the joust. With a full harness the armour became the shield.
But this is a long dead horse that has been abused for far too long. 
"Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend." - Liechtenauer
Ars Gladii
Detroit, MI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | I would respectfully disagree. It takes much dedicated effort to get used to an armor, and a fighter will naturally fel best in the kind of armor he/she is most accustomed to even though its coverage might not be the most complete or its range of movement might be more restricted than other types of armor. |
Personal preference is largely irrelevant. A warrior puts in "much dedicated effort to get used to" the kind of armor that best counters the threat he'll be facing—or at least the best that he can afford—or he has a short career. Trust me, even if you’re uncomfortable at first, when you know that a particular garment will protect your life better than the particular garment you were wearing before, it becomes your favorite very quickly with training.
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
|
|
|
Torsten F.H. Wilke
Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
What if several armour styles are only separated by a few degrees from being the best for countering a particular threat? Having only a single "best of" tactical advantage supporting your effort does not guarantee a succsessful result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote: | | What if several armour styles are only separated by a few degrees from being the best for countering a particular threat? Having only a single "best of" tactical advantage supporting your effort does not guarantee a succsessful result. |
Then more than one style could arguably be the best and personal preference and financial ability would take over. I interpreted his comment to imply that a person might favor a clearly obsolete form of armor—one with obvious tactical weaknesses—out of personal preference. This is not unheard of, but most militaries adapt after a few defeats. Then again, many warriors have short careers, too. 
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I've never tried a 16h-century full harness, but I've tried on a replica plate-and-mail harness of an early 15th-century model sized for somebody of about my height (which was a surprise since I'm just 5'3 and was even shorter back then), albeit a little heavier and more muscular. Tightening a few straps gave a reasonably good fit and I wasn't surprised to find the armor very easy to move in. That's when I hadn't had any training to fight in armor at all. With all its obvious advantages, though, I still say it's not the kind of armor I would have preferred. I'm a light cavalryman by temperament, given to sneaking and snooping and even disguising myself, so I would have naturally preferred something lighter. A cuirass under a jupon or a loose coat and a small iron cap under a hat would have been more my style if we restrict ourselves to late Medieval or early Renaissance armor.
Mind that I wasn't talking about obsolete armor and the like. I said a given person might prefer something other than the most complete or the most flexible kind of armor available even if he/she could afford it, because he/she preferred a different kind of mix between protection and flexibility. This is important since major, open battles--where a fighter would naturally seek as much protection as he/she could reasonably wear--made up only a small fraction of a person's lifetime, or even of a person's military experience. There would have been plenty of other occasions (i.e. marches, raids, scouting expeditions) where a less protective set of armor might have been preerable. We also have plenty of historical evidence that paranoid noblemen wore cuirasses and iron caps under their civilian clothing when walking in dangerous places or attending negotiations that might get hairy--not to mention poleyns, which could easily be explained away as (particularly expensive) civilian riding gear!
So, anybody who's trying to convince me of the merits of a full plate harness is preaching to the choir. But anybody trying to persuade me to prefer one has only an infinitesimal chance to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're in accord with this?: the maximilian armour came after the gothic armour, so the maximilian was better; the peascod armour came after the maximilian, so the peascod was better.
And I'm curious about if this composite armour that I show in the beginning of this topic is actually a peascod armour
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic
