[Edward Hitchens]

[Hugh Knight]

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Randall Moffett]

I don't know Glen, myself looking at the illustration looks like it is penetrating through above the fauld where as far as I can see looks solid. There are tons of pieces of art with men being pierced by melee weapons. I suppose the real question is how accurate are they.

I always figured trying to piece through a shield a bad idea as it will get wedged possibly and you lose you weapon while your enemy is fine.

Nice plate. what is the context? is it ECW?

RPM

Here are two of random pierceness from the cotton nero E's.

[Randall Moffett]

one more. I am sure there are hundreds more but in the end it comes out to what you interpret the artists accuracy or what his meaning was as well....

RPM

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Allen Andrews]

I think this is an interesting thread, especially because of the plates that have been posted showing the various battles and weapons. I don't feel qualified to comment on the matter, but I did want to post an excerpt from Peter Johnsson's information about the "Dane", which is Albion's upcoming type XVIIIe:

"Even if a sword cut can never really be expected to cleave armour, a blow from a blade with the mass and stiffness of these swords would still deal terrible damage, stunning or perhaps even killing. The point could conceivably penetrate the thinner parts of plate armour with a good hit, but thrusts would naturally be aimed at gaps and openings, where only mail and/or padding was the protection."

[Sean Flynt]

Since the original question concerned cutting plate armour, it's worth noting that these illustrations show only successful stabbing attacks against plate--lance, spear, dagger, Oakeshott Type XV....Plate was effective against cuts. If it wasn't, why would people spend so much and so hinder themselves when their lives were on the line? Why did thrusting weapons become so common?

It's worth noting, too, that the development of firearms technology forced armourers to rethink plate armour. They realized that hardened steel plate, though, ideal for defense against edged weapons, was more easily defeated by firearms than was softer plate. Just before the demise of plate armour, some armourers experimented with what scholars now refer to as "duplex armour," with hard outer layer to stop edged weapons and soft inner layer to stop shot.

See this thread for more info:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ght=duplex

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Randall Moffett]

Sean,

The poster asked about piercing damage later in the thread.

I worked with armour for a while and I was just impressed by the pure thickness of some of the later breastplates. Once on the weight did not really bother me really. I have heard about the later uses of heat treating but have not seen enough study done on it to make me think it is conclusive really as a general change. It would be interesting if so indeed. I just cannot imagine a gun penetrating many of those late breastplates and helmets. Of course their is the heavy cavalry stories from the ECW where the men are firing point blank at them and doing no damage at all but these are fthe last before armour gets discarded, albeit piece by piece.

RPM

[Jeff Hughes]

1. as my wife is a artist i would think these are painted more from memory than actual reference. i doubt any painter had a easle out on a hilltop during a battle. so in the fray it would hard to pinpoint the strike it would be more like he saw some one hit in the head area,torso or legs. not the exact penatration point.


2. i am not well educated in sword technique but i always assumed. the cutting strikes from a sword on plate was more to unbalance, daze or otherwise put one self in a advantageous position to then thrust a open gap or soft spot in the defenses.

3. does any one know the foot lb's of pressure it take to pierce say 18,16,14 gauge steel and is it even possible for a man of average size say 5' 10" 175 lbs to exert that kind of force. im sure any blacksmith here could tell you more about the amount of force it takes to form unheated steel with a heavy hammer. and that is with perfect placement of metal and a hard surface to strike on unlike that of a man.

any of you with more knowledge please chime in

[Elling Polden]

First of all, there is a HUGE variance in thickness of plate armour.
Cheap munition grade armour might be thin enough to be pierced with a particularly sucsessfull polearm/spear attack.

Those with enough money to order custom pieces, would of course make sure that the plate was just thick enoug to defeat the arms of the day.

[Michael Edelson]

Regarding Dan's comment about the few people in the world that can reproduce good mail, I'd like to add that even cheap riveted mail is, unless it's a really bad example, swordproof in almsot every respect. I have been able to break open rings with a type XV thrust, but it was a monumental effort and not something I think I could reproduce if my opponent were not completely stationary and infinitely patient.

As for artwork... today, with the flow of information exceeding anything that has ever been possible in history, we have a severe disconnect between artists (movie producers, writers, painters) and the reality of what our weapons do to people, vehicles, etc. Why would we expect this disconnect to have been less when there was no internet, telephones, global mail or even printed books?

Artwork is often about drama, and blood is dramatic. If you are painting a battle scene between armored knights and you want to add drama, you will add blood, whether it is realistic or not. And, just as most of us do not complain when people get shot and fly 20 feet in a movie, the patrons of medieval art would likely have preferred drama to realism.

I believe that as these artworks are some of our greatest links to the past, we are tempted to use them as more than they were...we want them to be photographs and/or accurate chronicles of past events, when they were just art, created to entertain, amuse and decorate the homes of wealthy patrons.

[Eric Myers]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Michael Edelson]

Using artwork as something other than what it was intended to be is just as bad as using it in an arbitrary manner.

There is also this belief that while most people today have never seen anyone shot or otherwise killed with their own two eyes that medieval people saw this on a daily basis. Many records of manorial justice survive that show that murder was just as rare (or common) then as it is today. Decades seperate famous battles, and while many less than famous battles were far more frequent, I woudl argue that the 20th century was by and large the most bloody century of all time, yet how many people have most of us seen killed on the battlefield?

There is a tendency, when studying history, to try to see a period through the major events of that period...most dinosaur movies end with the meteor impact...a sinlge day in a period spanning hundreds of millions of years. Most medieval movies either focus on an epic battle, the black death or other major historical event, forgetting that most people in the middle ages lived lives of routine and drudgery, just like most of us do today. Except we have better food.

As for swords piercing armor, there are simple ways to find out. While the more hard core among us would cry out for period metallurgy, I would contend that using mild steel as a test medium would give us results that are accurate enough to form a general opinion. Take an 18 gauge mild steel breastplate, such as can be bought on ebay for 120 dollars, and see if you can thrust through it with a sword. 18 gauge is generally considered the thinnest possible option for useful armor, and if you can't thrust through that, then I'd say the sword piercing armor debate is settled.

Is it possible that some really junky armor was made in the middle ages that could be pierced with a sword? Sure it is, but I doubt such armor would have been anything other than an oddity, considering who purchased armor for much of that period.

[James Barker]

Hey guys

Just saw that you are talking about swords going through armor from manuscripts. As an artist who studied art history I worn you not to take these images at literal. The images often represent battles from the bible where men did get killed all the time but did not actually wear the kind of armor they are depicted in. Basically you have an iconic representation of a historic battle staring modern (for the time of production) troops.

Now chronicles tend to be more of the realistic side, lances, spears, axes, and polearm doing their job.

Lets not forget artists not soldiers create these images, what do they know about combat. Look at what fencing masters had to say on the subject, who better than soldier to tell us how armor really worked.

[Randall Moffett]

James,

As someone who has studied Art History to some extent I would say it not to use art as long as you understand its context. The majority of the pictures I posted were of 100 Years War battles. I would doubt that most artist were so far removed from war they would not have heard stories fairly detailed accounts of what took place in battle as most had brothers and fathers involved as soldiers.

The chronicles are often wrote by the same people or people in the same circles as the one who drew the artwork, why are they then more reliable? Both are mediums to convey the artists theme. I would guess most chroniclers were monks and other clergy. I thend to have the same belief on chronicles as artwork. Know the context and account for it.

As far as the fighting manuals. I do not think most of the were professional soldiers per se. It seems training intended more for one on one fighting in the medieval period not battle scenarios.

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[Dan Howard]