Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Piercing Swords? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan, 2007 8:08 pm    Post subject: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

This may have been discussed before but, are there any swords that were designed to fight armor directly? And if so did they work well? I saw two handed swords with the wavy edges, are those for armor piercing?
View user's profile Send private message
R. D. Simpson




Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan, 2007 9:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
This may have been discussed before but, are there any swords that were designed to fight armor directly? And if so did they work well? I saw two handed swords with the wavy edges, are those for armor piercing?


I'm not precisely sure what you mean by fighting armour directly. Many of the later Oakeshott types (XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII) were designed with acute points to better facilitate thrusting attacks against joints and other areas not covered by solid plate. If you're asking about cutting or thrusting through solid plate, then the answer seems to be that these kinds of attacks rarely if ever succeeded.

The flamberge-bladed zweihanders were thought to cause more terrible wounds, but as far as I know were not designed for use against plate armour.

You can find a bit more discussion of the first part of your question here:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...c%2A+sword

Gloria Virtutem Sequitur
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Johnson
Industry Professional



Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 16 pages
Reading list: 20 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,421

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Tucks         Reply with quote

Sam

Swords evolved many variations over the time of there use, the type that was most successful against plate armor and often was used in duels and armoured combat was a Tuck style. This could be hilted as a sword of the appropriate period or several variations from giant rondels to spiked guards and pommels. These had blades of varying cross sections but most often where square or triangular and usually symmetrical. Basically these are long spikes.

Best
Craig
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jan, 2007 10:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Quote:
If you're asking about cutting or thrusting through solid plate, then the answer seems to be that these kinds of attacks rarely if ever succeeded.


That's what I meant. So no swords were designed to do that? Is it impossible for a two handed sword to thrust through thinner plate armor? In a battle people don't always have to attack the breast plate.

Quote:
The flamberge-bladed zweihanders were thought to cause more terrible wounds, but as far as I know were not designed for use against plate armour.


Yes, those are the swords are what I was talking about. So the curves are not there for penetrating plate right?

Quote:
Swords evolved many variations over the time of there use, the type that was most successful against plate armor and often was used in duels and armoured combat was a Tuck style. This could be hilted as a sword of the appropriate period or several variations from giant rondels to spiked guards and pommels. These had blades of varying cross sections but most often where square or triangular and usually symmetrical. Basically these are long spikes.

Can those penetrate reasonably thick plate?

Since plate armor is so hard to defeat, can any non-gunpowder personal weapons defeat it? Are warhammers and long pikes capable against plates as thick as the breast plate? Because since bows can't seem to be able to, can melee weapons do so? Because if not then isn't the men at arms invincible during the late Middle Ages?
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 5:59 am    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:

That's what I meant. So no swords were designed to do that? Is it impossible for a two handed sword to thrust through thinner plate armor? In a battle people don't always have to attack the breast plate.

Yes, those are the swords are what I was talking about. So the curves are not there for penetrating plate right?

Can those penetrate reasonably thick plate?

Since plate armor is so hard to defeat, can any non-gunpowder personal weapons defeat it? Are warhammers and long pikes capable against plates as thick as the breast plate? Because since bows can't seem to be able to, can melee weapons do so? Because if not then isn't the men at arms invincible during the late Middle Ages?


As Craig has pointed out that estoc was sort of the ultimate evolution of the anti-armor sword but of course there were other forms (also mentioned above) that were designed to help the user defeat an opponent in plate. There grew to be a greater and greater dependence on various configurations of hammers and axes as time went on however because often these types of weapon could either pierce plate, damage the opponent inside the plate through blunt force trauma or be used to damage all those articulated joints that full plate had.

Another thing to remember is that the vast majority of those on the medieval battlefield were not wearing full plate.

Another thing to remember is that there is rarely a "fair" fight on the battlefield even wearing full plate you can be swarmed under and killed by a levy of unarmored peasants or say English Archers wielding mauls. Still another thing is that the crossbow was invented well before gunpowder weapons.

No one is invincible, some are just tougher than others. Happy

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 7:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The curves on two handed swords were not there for penetrating plate. No sword was really designed to try to penetrate plate. A tuck would have the most chance, but that is not what it was made to do. There were many sword designs, most longswords during the age of plate, just as effective at defeating plate as the tuck. The advantage of the tuck is that it does not have any sharp edges (I could be wrong here) so you can't possible cut your hand when half-swording. Half-swording or course is the preferred method employed with any sort of longsword as well as the tuck precisely because of its effectiveness in facing plate armored opponents. (This is also the downside of the tuck since it can't cut against unarmored or less armored opponents as a longsword can.)

You seem to be under the impression that plate armor was extremely difficult to defeat. While it did offer the the best protection to date, it was still very vulnerable. A person in plate armor could be overwhelmed or knocked down. I am not saying that plate armor was so heavy that a person could not get back up again, but when the person who knocks you down then puts his foot on your neck or otherwise pins you down, you are certainly at his mercy. Maybe that's still not the end of the world, but it's close. There were always vulnerable spots in the armor that could be exploited. It is not unlikely that a well trained fighter possed the accuracy to thrust to these gaps including eye slits in helmets. Generally, as plate armor evolved to better protect more of these vulnerable spots flexibility and the ability to deal with threats declined. Therefore persons in plate might become even more vulnerable to being overwhelmed or knocked around even if the plate still stood up to the beating.

There were all sorts of weapons designed to defeat plate armor. The longsword evolved to feature a stronger taper. The tuck was an eventual derivative of this longsword. A dagger specially designed to fight heavy armor, the rondel, had been around before plate and would continue to be used. And of course, pikes, halberds, poleaxes, and other polearms were well suited to take on the plate armored opponent. In fact in most situations, battlefield or many duels, the longsword was in fact a sidearm to whatever polearm the fighter is carrying including the basic spear or pike.

Notice that I use the term "defeat" plate armor instead of "pierce" or "penetrate" plate armor. The ability for plate to be pierced or broken by even the weapons best suited to this task is up for debate. However, in comparison to the difficulty of piercing plate, it is relatively easy to defeat a plate clad opponent using the weapons as they were designed to be used and with the techniques taught and practiced by the fighters whose very lives depended on being able defeat anyone on the battlefield.

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
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 8:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Estoc cross sections vary, with the most extreme being square and quite thick. These also were acutely pointed, and I'm not sure they were intended for directly attacking plate. My understanding is that these blades are meant to exploit the small gaps in armour (including sights and between bevor and visor) and, perhaps, break through the mail links protecting some of those areas. To attack plate directly, you'd likely want a more robust, reinforced point like those seen on some axes, halberds and spears. And, yes, halfswording would be very helpful, considering the size of the gaps to be exploited and the force required to drive the point deep enough to break or deform mail rings (the point wouldn't have to be very deep to cause grave injury to groin, armpits, eyes, throat, brain, etc).

See this thread and take special note of the discussion on page 2.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7292&start=0

Also, keep an eye on this site's content updates. Maybe something on estocs will turn up!

-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 8:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So if the only way to defeat plate is to overwhelm them and try to thrust into the gaps doesn't mean that the men in plate will have a significant advantage over someone in older forms of armor like lamellae? I mean just think about what the kill ratio would be if the guys in lamellae have to go through all that to kill their enemy.

Quote:
Another thing to remember is that the vast majority of those on the medieval battlefield were not wearing full plate. Still another thing is that the crossbow was invented well before gunpowder weapons.


Wasn't every men at arms clad in full plate?

I thought according to what Alan Williams said a 1200lb crossbow can't penetrate a sheet of 2mm thick plate even if the bolt struck 90 degrees to the plate at point blank range?


Another question since half swording is brought up. For the two handed weapons, is a longer shafted weapon going to deal less of a force than a shorter two handed weapon because of the leverage? Like if a knight carried a 2m long halberd and the other carried a 1m long warhammer, if they are equally strong then will the shorter warhammer strike harder?
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 8:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's not that thrusting through the gaps is the only way to disable an armoured opponent. It's one of many ways to do so, and probably the best way as far as swords are concerned. Daggers can be used the same way. Personally, I'd want a poleaxe or halberd against an armoured opponent (or lance, if mounted). A mace can disable and kill an armoured opponent. There are lots of ways to damage the body without breaching the plate, but some weapons can do that, too. Firearms, lance, etc.
-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
So if the only way to defeat plate is to overwhelm them and try to thrust into the gaps doesn't mean that the men in plate will have a significant advantage over someone in older forms of armor like lamellae? I mean just think about what the kill ratio would be if the guys in lamellae have to go through all that to kill their enemy.

Wasn't every men at arms clad in full plate?

I thought according to what Alan Williams said a 1200lb crossbow can't penetrate a sheet of 2mm thick plate even if the bolt struck 90 degrees to the plate at point blank range?


Another question since half swording is brought up. For the two handed weapons, is a longer shafted weapon going to deal less of a force than a shorter two handed weapon because of the leverage? Like if a knight carried a 2m long halberd and the other carried a 1m long warhammer, if they are equally strong then will the shorter warhammer strike harder?


Yes I would expect that someone in plate would have an advantage over someone in older style armor... or they would never have switched to the newer armor.

Man at arms in and of itself is a slippery term, do you mean a knight? A non noble professional soldier? What? To answer the question though given the cost of things and historical record, no not every person on a medieval battle field or even most were fully armed in plate. In fact that is not true of even the upper classes. Armor was expensive and you often added pieces as you could afford it and made do with older stuff or nothing at all when you could not.

I'm certainly no experts on the offensive capabilites of crossbows nor the defensive capabilities of different armor thicknesses but the fact that various potentates throughout Europe at various times tried to outlaw the crossbow as a most "unchristian and cowardly" weapon leads me to believe that the crossbow must have been effective or else why bother?

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Szabolcs Waldmann





Joined: 01 Jan 2007

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi,

All your questions seem to be very mechanical. As if hitting harder would solve a fight. Well, as far as our research goes, what really counts in a duell or battle, first and foremost is fighting spirit, guts, endurance and speed. Recovery speed, to be precise. If you read Lichtenauer (1389) and you try to imagine a fight fought the way he taught, it is very fast, and decisive within seconds.

The armour is not there, to alone protect the man inside. That's why you have your weapon and your martial art! Of course, armoured men can be defeated in a number of ways, including smashing them to tin balls or piercing only one time through the right gap right to the heart, BUT before it comes to defeating the armour, you have to defeat the man and his weapon first.

If we are talking about duels, like juridical duels or knightly tournaments, when done in armour, one wears apropriate armour and the weapons used are duelling weapons, often two matching. Every dueling type has different requirements. If we are talking about a battle, the whole setting if different, yet before we discuss a weapon's penetrating abilities, we should discuss the psychology of armour, or warfare in general. Like, how men react when charged by a warhorse-line with knights in plate armour. Or how somebody reacts, when facing a helmet, for example, a problem which should not be underestimated. The face shows many things, in fact, it is one of our basic communication chanels. If you do not see the face of your enemy, your will find yourself facing strange feelings, like fear.

It is not right to overestimate the plate armour, yet the opposite could prove fatal as well.

But, to answer your questions directly, a sword cannot 'cut' through plate. It could, in a small degree, pierce a thinner plate, yet it would definetelly not cause a mortal wound. While halfswording, regardless if done with a tuck or a longsword or whatever kind of weapon one uses against an armoured opponent, the goal is to thrust inside the gaps. Not all thrusts are aimed, some go wide or glance away from the plate, and no single thrust would stop an armoured fighter.

Armoured fights are an ART. Yet, they are sure as sure brutal.

And no, not all men-at-arms had plate. Or no full plate. And definetelly not, if they fought on foot, in which case many abandoned their leg protection for better mobility.

Thanks for reading Wink

Szab

http://kardrendje.hu
Order of the Sword Hungary
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
Another question since half swording is brought up. For the two handed weapons, is a longer shafted weapon going to deal less of a force than a shorter two handed weapon because of the leverage? Like if a knight carried a 2m long halberd and the other carried a 1m long warhammer, if they are equally strong then will the shorter warhammer strike harder?

No. In fact, the exact opposite is true: a longer weapon has more momentum, and a longer grip with the hands wider apart generates more leverage. Basic textbook physics, really. Happy

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Max von Bargen




Location: Stanford, CA
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
Wasn't every men at arms clad in full plate?

I've heard some sources say that only about 5% of soldiers on a battlefield even in the heyday of the "age of plate" were actually armoured in such a manner. I don't know how reliable those sources are but obviously not everyone was armoured in full plate. Full plate was very, very expensive and could only be afforded by the richest of warriors. Later swords were equally capable of cutting as well as thrusting (except for the tuck and other such weapons) precisely because they had to face enemies armoured in full plate and also many who were not very well armoured at all.

To get back to your regular question, swords were used to, as Greg put it, defeat plate armour rather than pierce it. Supposedly hammers, axes, and maces were able to actually penetrate plate armour, and those were traditionally thought of as specifically "anti-armour" weapons, but I don't exactly know how effective they really were.

Hope this helped,
Max
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:29 am    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
Since plate armor is so hard to defeat, can any non-gunpowder personal weapons defeat it? Are warhammers and long pikes capable against plates as thick as the breast plate? Because since bows can't seem to be able to, can melee weapons do so? Because if not then isn't the men at arms invincible during the late Middle Ages?


Well, there was a weapon that could defeat plate armor with regularity. It was called "friends" or, in a more descriptive manner, "swarming." The tactics of massed battlefield encounters were not always identical with those of single combat, since single combat dealt with individual psychology while battlefields tended to deal with crowd psychology instead.

The men-at-arms' armor would have made them much braver than ordinary troops, but they were still human and there was a point beyond which they would still have broken and run. And once the enemy was routed the victors would have the leisure to figure out the most effective way to kill those enemies regardless of their armor.

Shorter weapons would have been handier and more maneuverable, I think, but the longer weapons would have had more leverage and packed more sheer force at the imapct point because they had a greater distance to accelerate through. I believe your'e familiar with the lever principle? Of course, the physics of a blow is not limited to the movement of the weapon before the strike--it also has to consider how the wielder would have to sustain the weapon's progress into the target material once it strikes--but that's another matter.

And for Russ, I believe Sam is talking baout it in the medieval sense of the homines armati--which were the best-equipped men in the field. The use of "men-at-arms" as a general term for "soldier" may exist in some primary sources (and even then I'm not sure), but they are greatly overwhelmed by the number of source that use "men-at-arms", "homines armati," or "homme d'armes" for the most well-equipped kind of warrior, the kind that had the dual role of heavy cavalry and heavy infantry regardless of their social origins.
View user's profile Send private message
Max von Bargen




Location: Stanford, CA
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:42 am    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
And for Russ, I believe Sam is talking baout it in the medieval sense of the homines armati--which were the best-equipped men in the field. The use of "men-at-arms" as a general term for "soldier" may exist in some primary sources (and even then I'm not sure), but they are greatly overwhelmed by the number of source that use "men-at-arms", "homines armati," or "homme d'armes" for the most well-equipped kind of warrior, the kind that had the dual role of heavy cavalry and heavy infantry regardless of their social origins.


Hmmm . . . I think I may have been using the term in a bit too general a sense too. I seem to recall "men-at-arms" in one source meaning a cavalryman but of slightly less status than a knight, and that was what I was using.

Max
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, the medieval use of "men-at-arms" would have included such men as well as knights, as long as they had the right balance of equipment, skill and mentality to serve as heavy cavalry and heavy infantry--although even this is a huge generalization. Some German men-at-arms seemed to have been reluctant to dismount, while some others (the French and Englishmen in the HYW come to mind, but it is by no means restricted to them) seemed to have "gone light" and conducted raids and chevauchees as light cavalrymen by taking off some of their armor and riding unbarded horses to gain speed at the expense of tactical shock power.
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 11:00 am    Post subject: Re: Armour Piercing Swords?         Reply with quote

Max von Bargen wrote:
Hmmm . . . I think I may have been using the term in a bit too general a sense too. I seem to recall "men-at-arms" in one source meaning a cavalryman but of slightly less status than a knight, and that was what I was using.

Max


Precisely and also called armed sargeants and various other things depending on which source you are reading from. I'm not aware of any standardization of the term, but even if there is there is the question as to whether this particular questioner is aware of said standard definition hence my attempt to find out just exactly what he is talking about. Happy

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 11:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Mikko Kuusirati"]
Sam T. wrote:

No. In fact, the exact opposite is true: a longer weapon has more momentum, and a longer grip with the hands wider apart generates more leverage. Basic textbook physics, really. Happy


But isn't your hand further away from the head of the weapon? That means that you are swinging the long stick holding to a very short end.

The men at arms I was referring to were those combatants that were armoured head to toe and were well trained just like a knight but without the status and the academic knowledges. To my impression plate armour was very widely available in Europe, because it was cheaper to make than mail thus rendering mail obsclete. During the last days of the Middle Ages (1450-1499) shouldn't all of the men at arms be armed in full plate? I read works by Anne Curry that the English shipments of troops to france during the HYW can have a MAA:Archer ratio as high as 1:3.


So if swarming with friends is the only way for an older army to beat a newer army, then that means that the plate armoured troops were clearly superior right? Since most of Western Europe had plate armor, when compared to Eastern Europe or the Orient, weren't the Western Men At Arms superior fighters due to technology?
View user's profile Send private message
Max von Bargen




Location: Stanford, CA
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam T. wrote:
Mikko Kuusirati wrote:

No. In fact, the exact opposite is true: a longer weapon has more momentum, and a longer grip with the hands wider apart generates more leverage. Basic textbook physics, really. Happy

But isn't your hand further away from the head of the weapon? That means that you are swinging the long stick holding to a very short end.


It may require more force for you to swing the weapon, but the weapon hits much harder when it does (making the extra force to swing it worthwhile). Think about swinging a golf club. Would a ball go anywhere if you were holding the club next to the head? Same thing with baseball and bunting. As Mikko said, it is basic textbook physics.

Sam T. wrote:
To my impression plate armour was very widely available in Europe, because it was cheaper to make than mail thus rendering mail obsclete.


Hmm . . . as far as I know, plate armour was not cheaper than mail. It was significantly more expensive, not least because each suit needed to be tailored for each individual. Perhaps making a breastplate or something might be cheaper than making a mail hauberk, but making a fully articulated plate harness was extremely expensive and was only affordable by the elite of the elite. Of course, I'm no expert, and I may quite possibly be wrong, but I seem to have gathered a very different impression. Perhaps someone else who knows more about the predominance of plate armour could weigh in?

Max
View user's profile Send private message
Sam T.





Joined: 20 Dec 2006

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jan, 2007 12:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
It may require more force for you to swing the weapon, but the weapon hits much harder when it does (making the extra force to swing it worthwhile). Think about swinging a golf club. Would a ball go anywhere if you were holding the club next to the head? Same thing with baseball and bunting. As Mikko said, it is basic textbook physics.


Do you actually swing the weapon like a golf club? Isn't that very slow and the enemy can stab you in the process? I was talking about merely chopping and thrusting, not to such an extreme degree. Because your hand is on the very end of the long lever, very far from the head you have to use more force to be able to move the head to the same degree.

Quote:
Hmm . . . as far as I know, plate armour was not cheaper than mail. It was significantly more expensive, not least because each suit needed to be tailored for each individual. Perhaps making a breastplate or something might be cheaper than making a mail hauberk, but making a fully articulated plate harness was extremely expensive and was only affordable by the elite of the elite. Of course, I'm no expert, and I may quite possibly be wrong, but I seem to have gathered a very different impression. Perhaps someone else who knows more about the predominance of plate armour could weigh in?


In the Knight and Blast Furnace, Williams said that mail is very labour intensive to make. And don't you have to tailor mail for each individual as well?
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Piercing Swords?
Page 1 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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