Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How would Merc be if it was realistic?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#41 IHaTeCookie, BIYONIK

IHaTeCookie
  • Member of DireWolfs
  • 64 posts
  • 26575 kills

Posted 08 September 2019 - 19:57

Just because someone referred to it as chainmail , like you did does not mean it was a historical thing but that is not the topic. Also on the videos only the first one was a properly shaped breastplate. Rest either didnt have enough curvature or was poorly made. Also all of those tests were done on a target that was on a solid place so they do not behave like a human. If you shoot somebody with a bow they wont just stand there. And because of that some force of the hit is lost. Also just because it "penetrates" the armor does not mean it actually does anything significant to the wearer. Because there is still a mail shirt beneath and also a gambeson. Even on the videos you suggested us watching shows just that. (Poorly) Made breastplates are penetrated but not too far to injure the wearer


#42 Elendir, Nickname of Nickname: Elly

Elendir
  • Member of Akai
  • 373 posts
  • 25728 kills

Posted 08 September 2019 - 20:37

one more point for the "50 KG Armor" thing

 

https://youtu.be/eJiZ9PypUX8?t=427

Edited by Elendir, 08 September 2019 - 20:38.


#43 RAPT0R, A_R_C_H_E_R

RAPT0R
  • 25 posts
  • 19450 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 12:57

Just because someone referred to it as chainmail , like you did does not mean it was a historical thing but that is not the topic. Also on the videos only the first one was a properly shaped breastplate. Rest either didnt have enough curvature or was poorly made. Also all of those tests were done on a target that was on a solid place so they do not behave like a human. If you shoot somebody with a bow they wont just stand there. And because of that some force of the hit is lost. Also just because it "penetrates" the armor does not mean it actually does anything significant to the wearer. Because there is still a mail shirt beneath and also a gambeson. Even on the videos you suggested us watching shows just that. (Poorly) Made breastplates are penetrated but not too far to injure the wearer

Then you explain the battle of Agincourt. How can English archers destroy multiple French army, composed mostly of heavily armored knights? Heavy armor and tin can helmet cannot be penetrated by arrows, by your words. Or someone here wrote that there is very little chance of killing the wearer of such armor with an arrow. But in this battle this chance was 100%. Why?

 

All the French knights, the men in arms attacking the Englishmen were killed, wounded, caught or they managed to escape.

The last hundreds of attacking French knights have been defeated in melee combat by English archers and their light swords and daggers.

Losses: English, 400 of 6,000; French, 5,000 of 30,000. (each article gives different numbers)

 

Heavy armor was a burden in this battle.

https://www.history....le-of-agincourt ("French knights, weighed down by their heavy armor")

https://www.britanni...le-of-Agincourt ("under intense fire from the English archers and hampered by the weight of their armor")

https://www.telegrap...rench-lost.html ("the armour of the French army was so heavy" or "weighing up to 50kg")

 

But I know that many of you will do the same in place of French generals and nobles. They're just archers. :D

 

You were right about the weight of armor, which did not exceed 30 kilograms, although many articles mention more. But you can't compare plate armor made in the present and medieval plate armor. Different properties, durability. We can only look at history and how it was then.


#44 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 13:28

Plate armour is a historical type of personal body armour made from iron or steel plates. The steel they used was mild steel with small concentration of carbon. Carbon is a lightweight element, the more it is in steel, the lighter it is. Iron is almost 2x heavier, mild steel only 10% heavier like carbon steel, but its heavier. And I know that aluminium armors was used much later and maybe not like a full set, but they were used.

 

 

But we got a little off the topic. Look at this: http://www.benjaminr...medieval-armor/  and watch videos at the bottom of the page. There is proof that a bow with power 110 lbs can penetrate the breast plate, one of the toughest parts of plate armor.

 

Cast Iron (Click to Show)

 

Is it just more or something is up with your iron to steel weight comparison.

 

https://gyazo.com/e7...e2a7a5fa24c959e

 

https://gyazo.com/91...f13b280bb94a046

 

Page I was using:

http://www.calculato...material wt.htm

 

---------------------------------

https://www.youtube....h?v=KCE40J93m5c

 

These armour doesn't look all that great, they didnt post any info about it even where they got it from. To be honest it looks like one of these armours you could get for 10euro at any reenacting event. Plus they have disabled comment section and view of like to dislikes which leads me to belive that some people pointed out that their test seems a bit 1 sided ( rigged).

 

----------------------------------

https://www.youtube....h?v=q2lbB3OMNns

 

Just like previous one it looks like its poorly made plus its put up against something like a wall behind that means it can not go back (it would decrease punch arrow gives).

 

-----------------------------------

 

"And I know that aluminium armors was used much later and maybe not like a full set, but they were used."

 

Give me some sauce for that. I don't know how did you come up with that shit but im impressed not gona lie.

Edited by Mr_THEJaManes, 09 September 2019 - 15:37.


#45 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 13:29

omfg just stop already

 

Sorry Solda, but people need to be educated.


#46 Aristotel, Semen Philosopher

Aristotel
  • 1481 posts
  • 31336 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 13:48

Then you explain the battle of Agincourt. How can English archers destroy multiple French army, composed mostly of heavily armored knights? Heavy armor and tin can helmet cannot be penetrated by arrows, by your words. Or someone here wrote that there is very little chance of killing the wearer of such armor with an arrow. But in this battle this chance was 100%. Why?

 

All the French knights, the men in arms attacking the Englishmen were killed, wounded, caught or they managed to escape.

The last hundreds of attacking French knights have been defeated in melee combat by English archers and their light swords and daggers.

Losses: English, 400 of 6,000; French, 5,000 of 30,000. (each article gives different numbers)

 

Heavy armor was a burden in this battle.

https://www.history....le-of-agincourt ("French knights, weighed down by their heavy armor")

https://www.britanni...le-of-Agincourt ("under intense fire from the English archers and hampered by the weight of their armor")

https://www.telegrap...rench-lost.html ("the armour of the French army was so heavy" or "weighing up to 50kg")

 

But I know that many of you will do the same in place of French generals and nobles. They're just archers. :D

 

You were right about the weight of armor, which did not exceed 30 kilograms, although many articles mention more. But you can't compare plate armor made in the present and medieval plate armor. Different properties, durability. We can only look at history and how it was then.

If you read about the battle of Agincourt even on wikipedia (not the best source) you'll notice that England not only had archers, but heavy infantry and heavy cavalry AND most of them were professional soldiers. French army, although it was way bigger, was mostly composed of common folk majority of which was obviously infantry. 

 

Heavy english cavalry did easy job of those peasants, and with support from heavy infantry and archers they destroyed the small amount of those elite warriors Frenchies had.

 

If you re-read my previous message, you'll see that i mentioned how arrows even if they don't penetrate the armor, can deal some dmg or even kill the enemy, and obviously the englishmen with long bows contributed a lot to a victory in that battle, but for you, thinking that they just deployed tons of archers and gatling gunned every single frenchie is just ridiculious. If archers were so effective in destroying even the heavily equipped enemies, every single army in the history would be completely composed of them

Edited by Aristotel, 09 September 2019 - 13:49.

  • Elendir likes this

#47 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 13:58

Then you explain the battle of Agincourt. How can English archers destroy multiple French army, composed mostly of heavily armored knights? Heavy armor and tin can helmet cannot be penetrated by arrows, by your words. Or someone here wrote that there is very little chance of killing the wearer of such armor with an arrow. But in this battle this chance was 100%. Why?

 

All the French knights, the men in arms attacking the Englishmen were killed, wounded, caught or they managed to escape.

The last hundreds of attacking French knights have been defeated in melee combat by English archers and their light swords and daggers.

Losses: English, 400 of 6,000; French, 5,000 of 30,000. (each article gives different numbers)

 

Heavy armor was a burden in this battle.

https://www.history....le-of-agincourt ("French knights, weighed down by their heavy armor")

https://www.britanni...le-of-Agincourt ("under intense fire from the English archers and hampered by the weight of their armor")

https://www.telegrap...rench-lost.html ("the armour of the French army was so heavy" or "weighing up to 50kg")

 

But I know that many of you will do the same in place of French generals and nobles. They're just archers. :D

 

You were right about the weight of armor, which did not exceed 30 kilograms, although many articles mention more. But you can't compare plate armor made in the present and medieval plate armor. Different properties, durability. We can only look at history and how it was then.

 

You naught boy you took some things out of context, "History" channel says:

 

"The English stood their ground as French knights, weighed down by their heavy armor, began a slow advance across the muddy battlefield."

They were weighed down in mud.

 

Again:

 

"Under intense fire from the English archers and hampered by the weight of their armor, the muddy ground, and the rows of stakes, they were soon in trouble."

 

Good thing that both of Telegraph's redactors have some sources that they could share, oh wait they don't.

Then maybe they have some experience in the field. That renders their article not that reliable.

 

-------------------

Truth be told they were probably tired of walking in mud. But it was in this given battle because of the terrain.

-------------------

 

Now lets tackle the problem of battle of Agincourt, battle took place in 1415 (That's very early 15th century)

Back then fully plated armours weren't that common, in armour there were a lot of  gaps that were covered only by mail. And as we all know arrows go through mail. Another thing that we could consider about high body count of knights is the fact that when someone falls from his horse he can not only break some of his limbs etc. but he also shows his back that wasn't always covered by plate. ( take a look at Churburg type breastplate ).

There is also a point to be made about after battle killing of prisoners - we can't be sure.

Edited by Mr_THEJaManes, 09 September 2019 - 14:15.


#48 LastKnightOfCydonia, EIN CLAN, EIN DERP, EIN CYDONIA. HAIL THE PURPLE ONE.

LastKnightOfCydonia
  • Member of BOC
  • 3540 posts
  • 20600 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 16:01

Yeah but no, arrows are magical and plate armour makes you unmovable.

 

Like, even a modern soldier in full battle gear cannot move at all carrying 30-40 kg of equipment on his battlevest and backpack.

 

Why can't you guys believe Raptor is infallible. Its just silly to think armour was usefull against the very thing it was supposed to protect you from.

 

Cereal.

  • Elendir likes this

#49 RAPT0R, A_R_C_H_E_R

RAPT0R
  • 25 posts
  • 19450 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 16:09

If you read about the battle of Agincourt even on wikipedia (not the best source) you'll notice that England not only had archers, but heavy infantry and heavy cavalry AND most of them were professional soldiers. French army, although it was way bigger, was mostly composed of common folk majority of which was obviously infantry. 

 

Heavy english cavalry did easy job of those peasants, and with support from heavy infantry and archers they destroyed the small amount of those elite warriors Frenchies had.

 

If you re-read my previous message, you'll see that i mentioned how arrows even if they don't penetrate the armor, can deal some dmg or even kill the enemy, and obviously the englishmen with long bows contributed a lot to a victory in that battle, but for you, thinking that they just deployed tons of archers and gatling gunned every single frenchie is just ridiculious. If archers were so effective in destroying even the heavily equipped enemies, every single army in the history would be completely composed of them

yes, England have except for 5000-6000 archers also 1000-1500 men at arms (heavy infantry, heavy cavalry) ... but everyone in the French army was elite warrior, there were no peasants, it was one of the largest and most trained French army of that time ... they have more like 2000 heavy cavalry in first attack, followed by unmounted knights and crossbowman / archers

 

you can read the whole fight here https://www.newworld...le_of_Agincourt ... it is a great victory for the English archers, against the French knights - no cavalry, no peasant

 

the archers were just as support, the first lines of the French lines were held by unmounted English knights ... but the archers won the battle

 

the same thing as battle of Crécy, English army composed mainly of archers

 

I fully agree with your and Me_Manes previous messages, but these battles I recall are the famous victories of the archers who destroyed heavy armored enemies


#50 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 16:10

LastKnightofCydonia rolls for persuasion.

 

*die rolls* 

 

 20 - everyone belives you.

  • Elendir likes this

#51 RAPT0R, A_R_C_H_E_R

RAPT0R
  • 25 posts
  • 19450 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 16:26

Now lets tackle the problem of battle of Agincourt, battle took place in 1415 (That's very early 15th century)

Back then fully plated armours weren't that common

Yes, it was very early 15th century ... but the more you go in time, the more bows have been replaced by firearms. Why compare bow (thousands of years old weapon) with full plate armor from late 15th or early 16th century. This is the time of firearms. 


#52 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 16:56

We were comparing them because that was the topic of our conversation. smh


#53 RAPT0R, A_R_C_H_E_R

RAPT0R
  • 25 posts
  • 19450 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 17:56

We were comparing them because that was the topic of our conversation. smh

full plate armor from 14st century

https://steel-master...th-century.html

 

full plate armor from 15st century

https://www.ancient....5th-century-ce/

 

That's a bit of a difference. It is no longer the middle ages but the era of firearms (modern age).

 

But in the article next to the second picture is written -  "In addition, armour was still not capable of stopping such arrows as the bodkin with a long head and no barbs."

https://www.ancient....edieval-knight/


#54 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 18:20

full plate armor from 14st century

https://steel-master...th-century.html

 

full plate armor from 15st century

https://www.ancient....5th-century-ce/

 

That's a bit of a difference. It is no longer the middle ages but the era of firearms (modern age).

 

But in the article next to the second picture is written -  "In addition, armour was still not capable of stopping such arrows as the bodkin with a long head and no barbs."

https://www.ancient....edieval-knight/

 

First link shows armour that most likely was there in Agincourt. It has a lot of mail through which arrows will got like it's nothing.

 

Second link shows armour from second quarter of 15th century still there are very little chance that archer's arrow could sneak through and fatally wound the knight.


#55 IHaTeCookie, BIYONIK

IHaTeCookie
  • Member of DireWolfs
  • 64 posts
  • 26575 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 19:02

full plate armor from 14st century

https://steel-master...th-century.html

 

full plate armor from 15st century

https://www.ancient....5th-century-ce/

 

That's a bit of a difference. It is no longer the middle ages but the era of firearms (modern age).

 

But in the article next to the second picture is written -  "In addition, armour was still not capable of stopping such arrows as the bodkin with a long head and no barbs."

https://www.ancient....edieval-knight/

14th century armor you posted is very close to battle of agincourt era armor because that armor is late 14th century. And the second so called 15th century armor has a gorget and gorgets started appearing in the 16th century and not the 15th.So the second armor actually has nothing to do with early 15th century and not even with late 15th century


#56 Mr_THEJaManes

Mr_THEJaManes
  • Member of RoseCroix
  • 66 posts
  • 37795 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 19:09

Would you look at that, you learn everyday. Didn't know about the gorget thingy was that late.


#57 LastKnightOfCydonia, EIN CLAN, EIN DERP, EIN CYDONIA. HAIL THE PURPLE ONE.

LastKnightOfCydonia
  • Member of BOC
  • 3540 posts
  • 20600 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 19:27

LastKnightofCydonia rolls for persuasion.

 

*die rolls* 

 

 20 - everyone belives you.

 

When you have everything but charisma as a dump stat.


#58 IHaTeCookie, BIYONIK

IHaTeCookie
  • Member of DireWolfs
  • 64 posts
  • 26575 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 19:45

Would you look at that, you learn everyday. Didn't know about the gorget thingy was that late.

It is usually paired with early armets in historical fighting simulations for safety purposes so many people think they are earlier


#59 Uchiha_Madara, Querion

Uchiha_Madara
  • Member of Tempest
  • 329 posts
  • 19740 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 20:46

From what I heard the Elven and the Dwarfish armor can be pierced by Mordor arrows, anyone wants to discuss it?

Edited by Uchiha_Madara, 09 September 2019 - 20:46.

  • Elendir likes this

#60 Varys, Mean-Outlaw

Varys
  • Member of Teutonic
  • 37 posts
  • 11171 kills

Posted 09 September 2019 - 21:03

them french bois got clapped because they decided to charge over a swamp and got bogged down and kept charging into spikes like noobz then the archers ran out of arrows and picked up clubs and shit and clapped those knights when they finally got close in a bottle neck made by spikes and the swamp. French leader was a 0 star total war general and the english one was a 20 star chad.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users