| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: | 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.
|
I'm not in accord with that statement at all. Arms and armour were adapted to advances in technology, changes in fashion, changes in the availability of materials, changes in tactics, etc. Each was appropriate for its uses during its heyday. Some styles evolved from others out of necessity, some out of fashion. Is one "better" than another?
To say "anything later is better" implies that a machine gun is better than a sword or a car is better than a horse. It all depends on your perspective.
You've asked similar questions to this one before. I'm not sure why there's a focus on what style is better. To really answer that you'd have to define: Better at what? Better looking? Better for foot soldiers? Better for mounted soldiers? Better for the tourney? Better against firearms? Swords? Impact weapons? Polearms? Etc. etc.
But does it matter? Are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges when we try to compare styles that come from different eras?
In general, it's difficult, at best, to apply the standards (aesthetic or functional or whatever) of one era/locale to another. Needs could have been different. Materials (or their availability) could have been different. Battlefield tactics could have been different.
We modern folks have the luxury of ruminating about our ancestors. For them, though, they went with what worked at the time. Their lives and livelihoods depended on it.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As Chad said the comparison is a skewed one. The time frame changes the threats posed as well. Some threats being nonexistant while in othertimes more so. Some changes take place and things change.
La Fayette- where did you get the figure 5'3" for an average height? I have read some of the most recent research as well as the main stays on the matter and have not heard that low a figure before. Most seem to state 5'6" or so as average and in certain places (north europe) being generally a bit taller (5'7" or even 8" depending on who's study you read). A good reference is Colin Platt's Medieval English Towns. I have worn a numebr of authentic suits from medieval to early modern and many fit me fairly well, though more heavy built by the extra room around and I am 6 foot 160ish. Here is me in a circa 1600 english suit. -- ok the image is too big. I will edit it and attach it later---
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Torsten F.H. Wilke
Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that the style of harness with the best dexterity, greatest strength to weight ratio, lowest weight, and most overall general protection would be a simple mid to late "Maximillian". One that does not have complete coverage, such as the following...
 Attachment: 114.67 KB
Attachment: 22.54 KB
Attachment: 13.99 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say that 5'3" was an "average" height. It is my current height, and note that I said I was surprised to find an armor made for an even shorter height (which fitted my height back then because all the others I could find were rather too large, being made for people much taller than me. Please pay closer attention to my actual words there:
| Quote: | | 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) |
(emphasis added)
As for whether the armor linked to in the first post is a peascod or not, I wouldn't call the breastplate a "peascod" one. "Ridged," yes, but not exactly "peascod" since the bulge right over the stomach isn't sufficiently pronounced. I might be wrong, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette,
my apologies.
Here is the promised picture.
RPM
Attachment: 55.34 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
Torsten F.H. Wilke
Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall, would you mind modeling one of the fine "Max" examples above, and posting the photo... lol 
(Yes, there is a slight hint of jealousy, lol!)
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We did hav a Max suit (Some question as to if the whole harness or parts of it are real, some bits looked very good others I was not sure about) but alas it was not my size. I could post me in some other ones but that might get boring for viewers.
Hope the picture was good it was a fun suit. I went for a run in it and jumped about to show some visitors how easy it was to move in. I got stopped by a drove of tourists for pictures, man hard work!
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | Hope the picture was good it was a fun suit. I went for a run in it and jumped about to show some visitors how easy it was to move in. I got stopped by a drove of tourists for pictures, man hard work! |
Tell them to get VCRs next time. That way they can convince their friends about just how mobile a full plate harness is. 
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Mar, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Tell them to get VCRs next time. That way they can convince their friends about just how mobile a full plate harness is. |
Well I will be back up there again this week.....
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic