| Author |
Message |
Chuck Russell
|
|
    |
 |
Gary A. Chelette
|
 Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Take this into consideration:
May 18th, 1565, a Turkish fleet of 138 galleys approached the island of Malta. About 38,000 men disembarked at Marsaxlokk and eleven days later, another 3,000 men from another 38 ships joined them. Facing them on Malta were no more than 8000, of whom 700 were Knights of St. John and the rest were Maltese or mercenaries.
Malta had lost 219 Knights and 9,000 inhabitants before a relief force came from Syracuse with 8,000 Spanish and Italian soldiers to repel the Turks.
One account talked about a stone wall collapsing and 3 Knights filled the breach to hold off 2000 lightly armoured and armed Turks.
Heavy armour counts in the end, if you know how to use it.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: | One account talked about a stone wall collapsing and 3 Knights filled the breach to hold off 2000 lightly armoured and armed Turks.
Heavy armour counts in the end, if you know how to use it.
|
Like a tank against soldiers armed only with rifles and machine guns and no dedicated antitank weapons there is not much they can do until the tank runs out of fuel and ammunition.
They can force the tank commander to close his hatch and fight with reduced situational awareness ( visor down for a Knight) or fight with the hatch open ( visor open or no visor on helmet ) but more effectively: Gives the infantry the opportunity to shoot at the tank commander or a lucky toss of a grenade into the tank. But not easy to do if the tank is moving/crushing/firing as well as the tank commander using his machine gun.
With a knight the analogy is that exhaustion and/or heat exhaustion is the same as running out of fuel and ammunition and that an open faced helm and other " small " target give a large number of mixed lightly armoured fighters and missile troops a chance of bringing down a knight or a small group of knights but the fighting value of being heavily armoured is a great advantage.
Why bother with armour if it didn't greatly increase one's odds of survival and fighting effectiveness.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something else to throw into the equation when considering unarmoured or lightly armoured fighters taking down armoured fighters is manuverability and being overwhelmed. If the armoured fighter get's out of formation where his buddies can't protect him then he is much more vunerable to being flanked by quicker fighters. Of course getting seperated or spread out is always a bad idea anyways.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Something else to throw into the equation when considering unarmoured or lightly armoured fighters taking down armoured fighters is manuverability and being overwhelmed. If the armoured fighter get's out of formation where his buddies can't protect him then he is much more vunerable to being flanked by quicker fighters. Of course getting seperated or spread out is always a bad idea anyways. |
Hi Greg,
An armored combatant isn't that much less quicker or less manueverable than his unarmored foes--that's a Hollywoodism. The actual danger isn't "quicker" opponents, it's that several unarmored halberdeiers can attack you all at once from several directions if you get separated, but that can happen to unarmored troops, too, and they're even more vulnerable. Contrary to what most people think, there's almost no disadvantage to being fully armored other than heat. Of course, if an armored fighter makes the choice to leave his visor down in foot (and the evidence suggests that at least some did even after the arrow threat stopped) then his visibility is going to be poor making it easier for unarmored halberdiers to hit him from angles he isn't suspecting, but that's just a facet of combat to deal with.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, Smythe did say sleeves of mail instead of pauldrons and vambraces would allow halberdiers to use their weapons a bit better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Well, Smythe did say sleeves of mail instead of pauldrons and vambraces would allow halberdiers to use their weapons a bit better. |
I wonder if that's because the munitions-grade armor didn't allow as much freedom of motion as custom-fit knightly armor?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh, that also depends on the time period of the harness.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Hugh, that also depends on the time period of the harness. |
What does? I believe Smythe is a 16th-century source, which is when the generic munitions-grade armor was in vogue. Or are you referring to something else?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Aug, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, I responded to earlier in the conversation.
| Quote: | | An armored combatant isn't that much less quicker or less manueverable than his unarmored foes--that's a Hollywoodism |
I meant that this may depend on the time period of the harness. That was my comment. I do believe there is a difference, significant enough to take advantage of, between the speed and manuverability between being armoured and unarmoured. For example, the Italians don't seem to like guards directly over their head. That's because their harnesses don't allow that movement.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Craven
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Aug, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | Right, I responded to earlier in the conversation.
| Quote: | | An armored combatant isn't that much less quicker or less manueverable than his unarmored foes--that's a Hollywoodism |
I meant that this may depend on the time period of the harness. That was my comment. I do believe there is a difference, significant enough to take advantage of, between the speed and manuverability between being armoured and unarmoured. For example, the Italians don't seem to like guards directly over their head. That's because their harnesses don't allow that movement. |
What harness would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Aug, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | I meant that this may depend on the time period of the harness. That was my comment. I do believe there is a difference, significant enough to take advantage of, between the speed and manuverability between being armoured and unarmoured. |
Sure, a very minor one; but it's small enough that it's not really important in your original point, which was being flanked and outmaneuvered. When it comes to speed of attacks it might make a small difference, but the fact that you're wearing nearly impregnable armor allows you to get away with that. so what if your displacement isn't as fast as it is out of armor--it's still fast enough to deflect *most* of an incoming blow, and your armor takes the rest.
| Quote: | | For example, the Italians don't seem to like guards directly over their head. That's because their harnesses don't allow that movement. |
Where did you read that? No one uses guards directly over their heads in armored combat that I've seen, that's reserved for unarmored longsword. The Italians can certainly pick up a pollaxe into striking position, and that's all you'd need todo.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Aug, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Where did you read that? No one uses guards directly over their heads in armored combat that I've seen, that's reserved for unarmored longsword. The Italians can certainly pick up a pollaxe into striking position, and that's all you'd need todo. |
Seems to make sense as the armpit it a prime target and plate can't protect the area perfectly when the arms are down and not at all if held high.
At the very least a thrust to the armpit with a halfsworded sword would hurt like hell even if the maille shirt or voider wasn't pierced: Just poke yourself hard in the armpit.  " OUCH "
Just had the thought that we often judge the effectiveness of a weapons hit by how much damage is done to the armour or wounding the person under the armour, but a hit that causes " temporary " but intense pain or completely numbs a limb is more than enough to set up for a more deadly follow up.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Fri 31 Aug, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Of course getting seperated or spread out is always a bad idea anyways. |
That is so true! I speak from experience, It's really bad if your shield buddys are no where near and there is a bunch of guys smile'n at ya wearing the opposing colors.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hi Greg,
An armored combatant isn't that much less quicker or less manueverable than his unarmored foes--that's a Hollywoodism. The actual danger isn't "quicker" opponents, it's that several unarmored halberdeiers can attack you all at once from several directions if you get separated, but that can happen to unarmored troops, too, and they're even more vulnerable. Contrary to what most people think, there's almost no disadvantage to being fully armored other than heat. Of course, if an armored fighter makes the choice to leave his visor down in foot (and the evidence suggests that at least some did even after the arrow threat stopped) then his visibility is going to be poor making it easier for unarmored halberdiers to hit him from angles he isn't suspecting, but that's just a facet of combat to deal with. |
Hugh,
While this certainly is true in the highly controlled enviroment of the Judical duel or modern day training battle would be a diffrent matter. On the battle field the terrain and ground conditions could and would have a more significant effect on a fully armoured man than his unarmored opponent. A formation of dismounted men-at-arms have a rather diffrent tactical mobilitay compared to a formation of unarmoured/lightly armoured halberdiers. And they would accumulate exhaustion diffrently, witness the description of how the Burgundian men-at-arms had to be supported by their varlets and pages at Dendermonde in order to not fall down form exhaustion.
Or the diffrent impact of the muddy ground at Agincourt had on French men-at-arms and English archers.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | While this certainly is true in the highly controlled enviroment of the Judical duel or modern day training battle would be a diffrent matter. On the battle field the terrain and ground conditions could and would have a more significant effect on a fully armoured man than his unarmored opponent. A formation of dismounted men-at-arms have a rather diffrent tactical mobilitay compared to a formation of unarmoured/lightly armoured halberdiers. And they would accumulate exhaustion diffrently, witness the description of how the Burgundian men-at-arms had to be supported by their varlets and pages at Dendermonde in order to not fall down form exhaustion.
Or the diffrent impact of the muddy ground at Agincourt had on French men-at-arms and English archers. |
I have done reenactment combat in full plate, to include sabatons, against "reenactors" in sneakers and plastic "protection" (let's not say armor) and found that my mobility, in the sense we were using the term to mean quickness of turns, etc. to be fairly close to the lighter folks. I have done it in heavy mud as well, and found it adversely affected everyone about the same as regards that same kind of mobility. If others have a different experience I might attribute it to armor that doesn't fit or work as well as it ought.
When it comes to running, there I agree completely, and with regards to exhaustion issues you're absolutely correct as well, but in the limited sense in which we were using the term, again, the ability to turn against attackers from a flank, etc., I do not find a big difference. But I will say that we should have factored exhaustion issues into this discussion earlier, that is an *excellent* point.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | 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. |
Oh I mentioned exhaustion about 8 posts in on the first page of this Topic's posts. Nobody commented on it though until your comment below and Daniel's comment just before. 
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | But I will say that we should have factored exhaustion issues into this discussion earlier, that is an *excellent* point. |
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Auer
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
me too..post 14 first side...
...sun and heat are my worst enemy...esspecialy when on a Market with a parade, and you have to wait one hour in the glaring sunshine on midday for all participants to form and arrive...
...as i wrote before...a battle without a save place to retreat to get some water or take a few breaths is impossible...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toni Lozica
Location: Rotterdam, NL / Korcula, HR Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems to me a very good way to loose weight, isn't it?
Just kidding!
I've never done any sword fighting wearing any armour but have done some sword dancing in a dress compareable with a hauberk, at high noon in the July/August sun at abt 35-40C. That was exhausting like hell, so I can imagine how it could be with a full armour of any kind.
Just saw some time ago on History Channel that old Roman battle order was organised so that each legionary fought in the first line for abt 45 minutes. After that they were retreating to the bacmost line in order to get rest and be able to start again with full force after some time.
I was wondering very often how medieval warriors used to cope with general fitness problem at the time?
Did they practice all day long when not at war, or what?
Also some years ago I saw a documenary on some warrior organization somewhere in Middle East, possibly Iraq.They were trainig their hands and arms with broad and heawy wooden logs that had a handle in form of sword hilt. That looked quite impresive. Anything of a sort in Europe at the time?
Parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
romans were famous mainly because of their small-unit tactics, the ability to rest during a battle and mainly having fresh units face the tiring enemy was devastating. The younger hastate would fight the first rounds, be replaced by more experienced princeps when they were tired, then resting and readying to replace the principes, they would only get behind Triarii if the need was dire, the most experienced and well equipped troops around. Behind the Triarii, the regular troops could rally and counterattack. I do not remember anything like a roman small unit tactics in medieval times, perhaps because fighting was more individualistic, with often nobles not doing what they were told to do because they had the chance to capture some high ransom noble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic