>full heavy armor was only 55 lbs (25 kg)
>scottish claymore was only 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg)
what the frick
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>full heavy armor was only 55 lbs (25 kg). >scottish claymore was only 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg)
>full heavy armor was only 55 lbs (25 kg)
>scottish claymore was only 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg)
what the frick
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>only
Are you stupid?
>only
Are you weak?
No, but just use your brain and try and think it through.
It's 55 pounds dispersed all over your body and unless you were some homosexual who stole or looted your set, you've been training to fight in it since you passed puberty. You were also mounted much of the time and you were a god on the battlefield in it. It was nothing.
You're one of those who fantasizes things in their head "i could fight 24/7 without even breaking sweat and run hundreds of miles per day!" when in reality you're probably some lard ass who'd roll over after 5 minutes of moving around and swinging sword couple times
US army backpacks are apparently between 50 to 100 pounds (25 to 50 kilos) when packed.
Have you ever lifted a weight, anon?
What the frick are you talking about? LMAO
this is the same in europe. and you have to be able to march on foot like 30 km on roads, 10-20 through a forest
Philip II of Macedon was actually the first to land on this range of weight as ideal for an infantryman.
More impressive when you realize Maceodnians were heightmaxxing at 5’5”.
In modern warfare most of your fighting involves pew pewing and they can take that shit off during the engagement. Wearing armor means it never comes off and you're engaged in CQC without a radio.
And they're heavy as frick. Your knees and back are basically fricked by the time you get out.
You're an absolute moron.
Not all of us are you anon
You are and idort. Any armour heavier than that or any sword heavier than that, would start to impede movement and efficacy. You mall ninja ass b***h.
>cuirass rests partially on waist/hips
>vambraces rest on arms
>helm rests mostly on head
and so on. do you think that plate armor is all just 1 solid piece
meant for
>cuirass rests partially on waist/hips
What kinda queerass are you wearing that would push down on your hips?
>vambraces rest on arms
One of the smallest parts of full armour probably only accounting for 5% of the total weight
>helm rests mostly on head
>The helmet itself was like 20% of the weight
Which is held by what? Head muscles? The neck holds it in place and takes the weight of your head you dofuss
All in all you've names only 3 parts, two of which are weight bearing on the shoulders and neck so what did you prove?
>cuirass
one with a belt, like most of them
>helmet
if you think that a compressive force on the head is equivalent to a tensile force pulling the shoulders you’re moronic. even literally mud hut tribesmen understand this easily.
>All in all you've names only 3 parts, two of which are weight bearing on the shoulders and neck so what did you prove?
a better question is what is actually resting on the shoulders? spaulders, part of the cuirass, the bevor, maybe the rerebraces depending on design… what else? everything else is on a limb or the hips
>a compressive force on the head
There is none tard.
You know modern soldiers hike and sprint with over 130lbs of gear right? Soldiers in the Middle Ages carried LESS weight into combat.
>It's 55 pounds dispersed all over your body
bro go strap a 45 pound weight to your body and go a walk
you'd last 5 minutes at best
Are you a sissy?
no I actually lift homosexual
Lift what, your lover's balls?
Cause it ain't weights
>bro go take a single 45lb plate
Does no one itt know what "dispersed" means?
?si=It__yaR0Pyx7Ov02
>cart wheels in full plate in your path
Whoa, dude. Look at how agile you can be in a bomb defusal suit.
These little clips mean nothing, any athletic man can do gymnastics in heavy clothing for a short period of time. Look at fireman competitions.
wow if you can be that agile in a 100+lb suit of armor a ~50 lb suit of armor should be nothing! thanks for backing up my argument.
How fricking fat are you that you consider those clips agile. I say this out of genuine concern, I think you actually are so utterly out of shape you have no idea what a normal human is capable of.
I can and have hiked miles in rough terrain carrying 50+lbs on my back and hips and i'm chronically ill and out of shape.
Hey man, the latter is the most realistic depiction of knight combat around.
2 morons Fighting.
No you havent
Anon, knights were not only able to move and fight in full plate, but get on their horses. It's not that heavy.
You're completely pathetic.
It's not heavy if it's all over your body
They don't have magical load bearing harasses that evenly disperse weight. The bulk of the weight will be pulling on your shoulders/neck area like a backpack.
incorrect.
>They don't have magical load bearing harasses that evenly disperse weight.
Black person, it's clothing that's attached to you not hanging from your back
The helmet itself was like 20% of the weight, these guys were lighter than modern firefighters.
This homie doesn't even know how to wear a backpack
Why are you comparing medieval armor to a modern backpack? Do you see waist straps on that breastplate?
You literally can't see the waist on that armor. Here is a better picture, you can clearly see how it bends in to rest on the hips
That doesn't mean anything in terms of where it is distributing weight.
Backpacks have actual straps that go across your waist to distribute the rearwards pull.
There, all it is, is that the armor is cut to flexible plates after your ribcage. It isn't resting on the waist at all. There isn't even a belt to make it do so.
Armor is literally worn around your hips with various straps, you dumb motherfricker
Feel free to post anything showing some kind of proper harness system like that, then.
There isn't. It just rides on the shoulders.
Literally I am not.
All the weight on your shoulders is the opposite of even dispersion.
>all the weight on your limbs is resting on your limbs
>the helmet rests on your head
>the pauldrons and breat plate rests on your shoulders
That's literally weight distribution across the body. You think the breastplate weights 40 pounds or something?
Just stop replying, either hes baiting or hes just not reading people's posts.
Plate everywhere except for my wiener? Shit design. Also what's with the pointy boots?
>plate everywhere except my wiener
Some places considered giant metal boners to be quite fashionable
>Also what's with the pointy boots?
Heavily debated. Boots being extra long kind of like that helped with riding, and its theorized that they just got longer and longer as some kind of fashion trend
Aside from the fact that THAT particular suit of armor never saw any sort of combat, the only reason to put two-foot-long points on your feet would be as a status symbol, in the same way covering your armor in intricate engravings was. It's basically saying "Yes, this is completely impractical, but I'm so rich I can afford armor that is pimped out just for display purposes.". Also, this kind of stuff is "gothic-era" which means 15th century, not so much English but French, German, etc. By this point armor was functionally obsolete in real battle because peasants had crossbows and guns and big fricking trebuchets, so it was more of a heritage/status thing than any practical design.
>and big fricking trebuchets
You just made me envision a knight refusing to join a battle because he's spotted a big sentient trebuchet pointing at him and miming that he's next. Truly the knight's most dangerous foe on the battlefield.
you have no idea what youre talking about
They removed the codpiece for being too lewd.
The point boots were a fashion thing, showing off your wealth by how long your shoes could be. Like ruffs were later on, kind of. At one point rich people walked around in shoes with such long points that they had to tie a string from them to their knee to make them curve back, to keep from tripping over them. It only stopped in England because the king himself got fricking sick of the trend and outlawed any tips longer than a normal length.
Are you actually brain damaged or something?
Anon, a modern marine's gear weights twice as much.
Source?
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/how-soldiers-carry-weight/#:~:text=Helmet%2C%20uniform%2C%20boots%2C%20armor,as%20much%20as%20120%20pounds
I never made a claim that this was an impossible or even tough weight to carry, yeah of course firefighters carry more, so do fricking scuba drivers I never said it was too heavy in the slightest I was just pointing out that the idea the armour is easier to carry because somehow the weight is evenly distributed isn't possible with most of the weight bearing on the neck and shoulders
>I was just pointing out that the idea the armour is easier to carry because somehow the weight is evenly distributed isn't possible with most of the weight bearing on the neck and shoulders
But that's still wrong. It isn't like chain mail where its one piece of armor that's all connected and quite literally use hanging on your shoulders. The armor on your legs for example is on your legs. That's like a third of the weight of the armor.
The breastplate will be hanging off your shoulders.
The helmet will variably being on your neck or your shoulders.
Any neckguards will be on the shoulders.
Pretty much just the legs and arms are the only part that is supported by something other than your shoulders.
Have you never seen tribal Black women carrying over 50 pounds of water on their head for hours on end with little effort? Carrying things on your head is the easy way to do things.
Anon you are quite literally describing the weight being distributed over the body.
And it absolutely destroys their bodies, and they drop lots of it before going on patrol. Still, with body armor and ammo they’re looking at 50-60. It’s one of the current biggest issues in logistics and they are spending billions on research trying to lighten the load.
Why try to lighten the load when you can research exoskeletons that let ageing workers continue to carry heavy weights like China is doing?
That’s part of it. Robots too, most funding for the dog looking ones comes from the military trying to make them pack mules basically, not hunter killers. Neither is working out great though.
The US has been researching that for decades.
Bodyfat doesn't count, anon
>he's never worn an actually good load bearing backpack
distributes weight to your hips, your waist, etc, not to mention half your armor is on your arms legs and head anyway
Most duels between heavily armored knights ended with them awkwardly wrestling on the ground with both of them exhausted until somebody got the upper hand and forced them by dagger point In a joint to surrender (so they can collect random)
moron. Even back when they only had large single piece chainmail armour, they realised that wearing a belt over it would distribute the weight more evenly and take it off your shoulders.
Except they did. Different parts of the armour were tied to different body parts, using specific types of clothing worn underneath the armour (like arming doublets). Also, cuirasses are narrowest at the waist, not the hips, so as to not limit movement too much and so the weight rests on the hips and not the shoulders. Certain types of helmets (like great bascinets and frogmouth helmets) also would have rested on the shoulders, rather than the head itself.
blessed post
>armor on your arms was hanging from your neck, not tied to your arms
How can you become this stupid? Did somebody cave your skull in with a hammer?
Ur dumb as frick. Harnesses aren’t magic moron
Chain/scale mail, yeah. And even then there is evidence that warriors would use belts/straps to help evenly distribute the weight.
Plate HARNESSES? That shit was like wearing a second skin if it's fitted right. The weight is evenly distributed because each piece attaches to a different part of the body and interlocks with the next piece.
I.E. tassets attach to your hips and your cuirass. The weight is distributed across your hips and shoulders. So on and so forth with each piece of plate harness.
And before you say something else stupid, a fitted full plate harness was less encumbering than a full suit of chain or scale mail. Chain and Plate weigh about the same but chain's weight is entirely on your shoulders and hips while, again, the plate is evenly distributed.
Honestly, it's not far from the modern gear, where your plate carrier is around 10-15 kg and you also have 10kg in ammo, nades and other shit. Helmet is the worst offender, because it destroys your neck overtime
>Helmet is the worst offender, because it destroys your neck overtime
Medieval European helmets didn't rest on the head lmfao, it's only the mystery meat American israelite golems that get those and then break their necks when they bump into a tree branch.
Medieval helmets had bad visibility. Destructive capability of modern weapons exceeds even the strongest armor, so your best defense is spotting the enemy before they see you. It's worth sacrificing helmet comfort/protection for better visibility.
>worth sacrificing helmet comfort/protection for better visibility.
No you dumb frick, because you have four times as many chances of taking a shrapnel to the head as you have of taking a bullet anywhere in your body
>muh head wounds
...anon, you were obviously never in the military.
The helmet is meant to contain the shrapnel, blood and brain matter from spreading onto your other comrades in arms.
Also for tapping mags.
>mag tapper appreciator
...and prior to kevlars, you used them as tent stake hammers, pillows, mobile hand-to-hand concussive head bashers (make the enemy share your pain), wheel chocks, chairs/seats, and portable sinks or cooking pots.
>stares at kevlar
...I guess I can beat someone to death with it, or chock deuce and half wheels. I guess that's about it.
>military
>brain matter
>implying
Show me a single modern helmet that restricts vision as much as OP pic.
Actually hearing was what really drove helmets to be less restrictive. Seeing shit wasn’t as important as you think for the average infantryman. Hearing the orders of your commander, though, was critical. Cavalry was definitely different, and that was the main purpose of the visor.
Source
> none
Cuz ur a gayboy
I can't tell if I'm attracted to the girl on the left or not
Why bother? She's too busy mirin' Chýd to ever lay with a villein like thee.
>girl
She looks mid 40s moron
Any woman less than obese these days is now automatically attractive from a purely visceral level
>lmao1plate
they are not regular plates, a single plate is 75 kg in this synthetic dense shit
full plate + 1
So what happened if you were a buff dude and wore like, 110 lbs of armor? Would you be unstoppable, if more fatigued?
That was the basis of why The Mountain from GoT was unstoppable in the books. He was the only guy on the continent that was big and strong enough to wear plate armour that's twice or thrice as thick as everyone else's AND wield a frickhuge shield along with a two-handed sword, making him untouchable when fighting conventional one-on-one duels or terrorising peasants.
In reality you'd have a target painted on your back for being That Guy on the battlefield and probably get your brain turned into puree by sword and hammer blows after you're bumrushed by everyone, because concussions don't care about how muscly you are.
Meds. When the frick is the mountain's armour thickness discussed.
AGoT Tyrion VIII
Also ASoS Tyrion X
>"He is almost eight feet tall and must weigh thirty stone, all of it muscle. He fights with a two-handed greatsword, but needs only one hand to wield it. He has been known to cut men in half with a single blow. His armor is so heavy that no lesser man could bear the weight, let alone move in it."
It would obviously have to be thick as frick to be so heavy that a regular man can't even wear it. Or are we supposed to think that the weight and its thickness has no relation?
at that point it would be basically impossible for anyone to penetrate the plate outside of a ballista or longbow or something
Knights were wealthy and a full suit of plate would have been custom crafted for the individual. If he's a giant guy it isn't going to be twice as heavy more like 10-20% and you'd presumably be stronger and have more length for the weight of the armor to be distributed along. Unless he's twice as big as the average man it's not going to be twice as heavy. You could hypothetically make armor thicker than usual but at that point you really would be sacrificing mobility and stamina for a marginal advantage. Most knights weren't killed from a blow piercing their armor but from falling down or being ganged up on and having someone get access to the chinks in their armor like as has been mentioned the arm pits, groin, or the visor of his helmet. If he was even in that position to begin with chances are he would have been ransomed anyway.
Lmao lift some weights nerd
Damn bro you owned that guy
55lbs evenly distributed across the whole body isn't that much. It's FAR easier than what the modern soldier has to haul around for 16 hours a day.
Modern soldiers carry like 60kg on their backs
>implying modern soldiers march anywhere with that kind of weight outside of boot camp, instead of riding in troop carriers of various forms
Definitely only.
>Tfw a friend of mine was wearing 22kilos of fricking airsoft gear at every match
>wearing 25kg well balanced all around your body is hard
>wielding a two-handed sword of 2.5kg is hard
swallow less cum, homosexual
it's not hard for the average man
Wrong, that homosexual should definitely swallow more cum, not less. He needs all the protein he can get.
turns out
>duude it was so heavy you needed a crane to get onto a horse
was just a dumb meme
>55lbs distributed all over your body with straps really isn't much. American infantrymen in Afghanistan were carrying more than twice as much.
>needed a crane
That was different armor, meant to protect against bullets. Dumbass.
No, popular media used to depict medieval knights needing cranes. In old movies and books, like a Connecticut Yankee.
That’s a satirical comedy you moron
Twain was satirizing medieval culture as a way of promoting American values, but his portrayal of medieval culture and technology was earnest.
Anyway, it wasn't just Twain. The meme of using a crane to lift knights on horses can be found in many earnestly intended 20th century movies. This is a thing people really do mistakenly believe to be true. It comes from lack of experience and people thinking "that sure looks heavy, I bet I couldn't lift myself if I were wearing all that metal"
Weakling homosexual
Fpbp. It's cumbersome.
>t. has never been hiking
People regularly ruck 60-80lb backpacks up and down mountains for days at a time, it's not like you'd be holding a 50lb dumbbell in front of yourself.
>t. has never worked a 12h shift fully geared up
You literal tourists and city slickers know nothing about this kinda shit.
how much soi do you drink homosexual
Bro, I used to carry all my textbooks in my backpack because frick wasting my time going to my locker. It was about 50lbs. I started when I was a scrawny 12 yr old. Its not that much nor is it difficult to carry.
?si=D4qifMeLXCmzdbpT&t=102
Wait until you discover that it actually worked as armor, unlike in films
Was armor useful in battle?
Not at all, they just spent family fortunes on it and wore it to look cool like a fortnite skin
It was more useful in duels and jousting.
Knights aimed for the shield in jousts. You weren't supposed to actually get hurt.
Have you ever fell off a horse?
No but I imagine it'd be pretty easy to get hurt with or without armor. They were trying to break lances against shields. Riders being dismounted was avoided. These were important aristocrats with huge amounts of money invested into their training and equipment and tournaments very quickly did everything they could to minimize their actual risk of injury. Obviously armor was an important safety fallback but it was designed for real war more than tournaments and real duels were fairly uncommon.
Virtually all foot soldiers wore at least some armor.
yes it was. plus if you were a full kit wanker, sometimes they'd just take you for ransom instead of killing you.
Dumbest fricking question on Cinemaphile atm. Think before you post anon, you ARE better than this.
Extremely till they figured out a better crossbow then it became much less useful
Most Knights wearing armor died getting stabbed in their armpits. You figure it out.
yes there's a reason why heavy cavalry was the "meta". Breastplates were used even into the early firearm era
They just had too many horses.
uwot?
It can't stop bullets, so.. no...
Depends on the bullet. The type of full plate armor like in the OP was developed after firearms became common on the battlefield, specifically to stop bullets from arquebuses and the like.
The term bulletproof comes from a practice where an armourer would fire a gun at their armour to show it could withstand a bullet.
Cuirassiers wore full plate from the waist up until well into the 17th century, and breastplates remained in use for another century.
>The term bulletproof comes from a practice where an armourer would fire a gun at their armour to show it could withstand a bullet.
Wow no kidding I never would've guessed.
The first crusaders were described as looking like hedgehogs everytime the went into battle with the levant muslims, due to their arrows not being able to penetrate the gambesons beneath their mail armor.
yes and it still is but this sort of metal armour ceased being useful a long time ago
this was true ceremonial armour has always been a thing
Nope, people wore it for fun.
Most of the time yes. But there are times and places where armor is less viable than being unarmored.
The Greeks developed unarmored light infantry to skirmish down much heavier hoplite brigades with missiles, being able to escape if the Hoplites charged them.
Marines were commonplace near everywhere that had a strong naval presence and they were typically I armored or less well armored for the obvious reason armor and water do not go together. Maintaining your agility and being able to swim is much better than being armored when at sea.
Armor in the early modern era became less common as armies grew in size to 100,000+ men per corps and half a million man armies.
It was simply not viable to produce armor in the 1700s for mass usage. The average musketeer was unarmored and relied on offensive power and his reach to keep himself safe.
Up until the advent of widespread use of firearms and the introduction of drill, yes.
nah, they used it because it was aesthetic
This surprised me too on my first Ren faire but you have to be at least above average in shape. I imagine a regular person today could last maybe about two minutes in it before caving in.
Doenst matter, can't beat the Gun
Akshually, early and mid guns were famously terrible against full armored knights, no pope ever banned guns, only crossbows. The reintroduction of massed pikes had a bigger impact against armored cavalry, which never fell out of use mind you. Ww1 had cavalry at the start but machinegun nests, trenches and barbed wire fixed that quickly.
the popes ban was against all archery based weapons and it wasn't because they were effective against plate (neither xbows nor bows were) but because they were the more common cause of death in general thus resulted in bloodier battles (or at least thats the de jure)
We kept plate up until the age of exploration. I wouldn't say early guns were "terrible" since there are plenty of armor pieces in museums with bullet holes in them. But that is the reason we have the term "bullet proof". Armor smith's would prove the strength of their armor by shooting the breastplate with a gun. Hence why high quality breatplates started to show up with a musketball dent in them.
doenst matter, can't have a gun
>katana is 6 pounds in game
>Rapier is 4 pounds in game
>irl rapier was heavier than katana and around 2.2 pounds
wtf???
Remember that Katanas are a weapon invented by Japanese people, who are tiny.
Cause in games, slashing attacks are significantly more overpowered than thrusting.
Medieval knights fear the Samurai
That's some reproduction, and some very shitty one.
>be peasant
>milord has forced me to fight in his army
>can't afford mail
>gambeson is pretty comfy though
>battle time
>our pike formation gets fricked
>we're fricked
>it's all over, hide out in the woods for a bit
>see picrel charging towards me
OH N-
explain this eurogays
Japanese metal was shit so they didn't bother with as much armor in certain places whereas Europeans valued a more heavily armored approach due to better steel, it's also why they used shields
They never needed to advance their armor tec because they were on an island and mostly fighting other japanese. A more fair comparison would be the Chinese.
The Chinese simply had to armor too many soldiers to ever do mass issue plate armor.
Chinese provincial armies were the size of the biggest European kingdom's forces. At that point you need to focus on quantity over quality.
That's not a historically accurate FITTED full harness.
>wearing wood/metal laminate armour that leaves you exposed all over to a plate armour fight
tch... nothin' personnel, weeb
Knight=Big White Man
Samurai=Small Asian Man
The weight class difference alone would cause the Samurai to lose 9 times out of 10.
Nice joke, the most famous europeans in history were all short.
israeli myths to weaken the white man's resolve.
short compared to whom?
Europeans were always taller than asians
Average European knight was 5’10-5’11, average samurai was 4’10”-5’1” based on surviving sets. Average Japanese solider in WWII was 5’3” and 113lbs.
and average rusBlack person knight was a fricking 5' manlet
And your average israelite was part of the khazar khanate.
Charlemagne was literally 6'
Napoleon was above average in height, him being short is Angloid propaganda.
Ah yes, the famous manlet Henry VIII
Would frick Bushi
Plate is pretty mobile.
There was one account of a chad knight who trained in his armor, and routinely did 10k runs in it (imagine the smell), could do "somersaults" in it from a standing position, and would climb up the underside of ladders with only his arms while wearing it.
I wonder what roids he was taking.
helmets had bad visibility.
misnomer, jousting helmets had shit visibility, most helmets were either open faced, or made to open. Hell, most tapestries (only artistic accounts we have left) have 90% of the mooks with their visors wide open or just wearing skullcaps and chain.
The last duel is a good movie. There are no samurai movie as good as The last duel.
My homie are you serious. Ever heard of Rashômon?
I don't watch anime
I don't know any digimon past generation 1.
not even renamon?
Last duel was fricking horseshit, even The King has better fights.
My grocery bags weigh less than 25k and I'm always out of breath carrying them home.
>only
confirmed moron who's never fought in his life
lmao you couldnt even withstand a march with that on
Knights could afford horses.
Don't forget the adornments.
>The Boar Knight
Apart from helmet and some basic chain mail it was mostly to show off
The medieval equivalent of sport cars
Why are these threads always like this? I can understand a thread that delves into something like science or medicine devolving into a bunch of people who have no idea what they're really talking about given the in depth nature of the subjects and the possibility for contention on certain hypotheses. Medieval arms and armor are a relatively simple subjects that we know a lot about and for which information is vast and readily available. Why do armor threads specifically have so many people being so wrong about a topic which is, or at least should be, lacking in controversy? Seriously we have mountains of contemporary diagrams, illustrations, first hand accounts, and surviving intact examples of the real thing. Are armor guys just autists who are easy to frick with? Because it's working on me.
They're just fat and out of shape tbqh famalazoid
>why?
you do know this is /tv and it's a non-tv thread, per the usual, by people coming from dead boards to try and impress each other for (you)'s, right?
I look forward to the rolodex run thru to end up in the invariable "Zombie Armor" thread that will appear, which gets somehow worse each time.
Because tons of larping nerds love to talk up the medieval period as being 'totally badass dude' and knights as being so amazing and practically immortal it is a wonder they got entirely erased by semi-trained peasant levies and firearms within a short period of time.
Knights were so amazing that Swiss peasant pikemen spent a century killing them as a day job.
>knights weren't badasses who dominated their era because they were eventually replaced
What an incredibly stupid argument
They 'dominated' an era where basically every other military configuration had collapsed.
The second some peasants got together and actually trained up, they eliminated knights almost totally.
They were a total waste of resources and not actually good for much.
>They 'dominated' an era where basically every other military configuration had collapsed.
Knights were a status symbol in a time when most people could barely afford to do more than turn one of their farm implements into a spear, so a man decked out in plates of steel, chain, and a gambeson would have looked and felt like the most imposing thing you could see on a battlefield.
But eventually tactics shifted, conscripts became professional soldiers and their weapons went from wood axes and spears to hooks, picks, and polehammers which were meant to invalidate the armor advantage. Being an armored target on a horse is a liability when everyone you get near has a hook on a 10-foot-pole and can yank you down off your mount and smash you in the face from two meters away.
>They 'dominated' an era where basically every other military configuration had collapsed.
That's true of literally every dominant form of military organization
>and knights as being so amazing and practically immortal
Anon, no one thinks this. It was literally against the law to actually kill a knight in a battle, but people did it anyway because their lords would offer bounties for anyone who could deprive their enemy of a trained, wealthy, equipped commander. Peasant fighters would often pile on any downed knight and jam daggers into the spaces in their armor killing them in horrific ways.
No one thinks knights were "immortal badasses", they were literally the equivalent of a celebrity that travels with their own private security. They owned nice stuff, they spent a lot of time training in the theoretical ways of combat, but putting them in an actual fight was always a risk, and the general hope that was by having one or more knights fighting for you, either they would be charismatic, smart, and bold enough to push their conscripted armies to a tactical victory, or that the sight of a dude in expensive armor with an expensive weapon and emblems indicating he's been in tons of fights before, is enough to scare the opposing conscripted forces off.
They weren't magical combat gods wading into a melee where their armor shrugged off the weak blows of common peasants, because life isn't a video game.
Mass conscription literally didn't exist until Napoleon you STUPID homosexual
It's not that knights weren't bad motherfrickers, it's just that those Swiss peasants were hardasses, too. Being a peasant was a rough fricking gig. You survived by being tough
The swiss are another breed because they have to actually walk to warschool upmountain both ways.
>as being 'totally badass dude' and knights as being so amazing and practically immortal
but they were and shit like longbows and crossbows had to be invented specifically because they fricking were unstoppable
you'd have a guy, probably taller than you, wearing armor that makes him impervious to most of what you could ever do to him and he's running at you with a weapon
Steel armor, and swords, are surprisingly thin. Most people expect them to be thick and chunky because in video games and stuff you see swords with these big thick cross-sections because that's the only way it'll actually look like anything when 3D modeled.
But in reality, swords are thin, in the same way a kitchen knife is thin. You don't want a big thick wedge-shaped blade like an axe because that can't cut deeply. And armor is thin because all it needs to do is stop an arrow or deflect a blade. The metal armor isn't going to help you if you're getting smashed with a hammer or pick or axe, but that's why you have thick padding and mail under the armor, do try and mitigate that. It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than nothing.
Also, it's designed to not be 50+ pounds of armor just sitting on your shoulders and neck. You use belts and stuff to make it so the weight is resting on your waist, shoulders, and arms so that you don't get exhausted or destroy your back trying to carry it. It's literally the same reason why hiking backpacks have shoulder straps and also a belt strap, because it distributes the weight to your core and not directly down on your spine.
The most kino parts of the medieval era ended around the middle of the 13th century.
Change my view.
I would say late 13th century but yeah
I have to lift 10kg (22lbs) weights at my job all day, moving them from storage to a cradle and back again, and then hauling them. An individual weight is not something you want to carry for long, but the idea that plate armour is only 2 of them is eye-opening. You could absolutely move around in that if if was reasonably distributed.
However, having even that little amount of weight clustered somewhere on you as a dead weight and then being asked to move energetically would be noticeably uncomfortable immediately and then horrendous after a few minutes, and you'd be at constant risk of losing balance.
It's not about being able lift it and move around with it; workplace regulations stipulate that 25kg (55ibs) is safe to lift and transport by hand as long as you don't attempt to lift it above waist height. Any reasonably fit person can do that, I do it a lot.
But imagining fighting with it on you, as in attacking and defending against another person, it absolutely would need to spread over your body and secured to a good harness.
I think you're mistaking two different things though. Yeah, 50lbs would be really annoying to have to bend down, pick up, carry in your arms, and then put down somewhere as just dead weight (though depending on the form factor it won't be as bad. 50lbs of weight with comfortable handles that you can just grip at your sides is a lot easier than 50lbs in a big box or bag that you also have to fight to balance or grip), isn't the same as if someone tool 50lbs of stuff and made it into a shell that fit around you and moved with you, not impeding your ability to walk or balance.
Removing the strain of having to grip, having to bend down, and having to balance the weight, and instead having the weight just move with you is very, very different. For the same reason that it would be very annoying to carry a 50lbs backpack in your arms, but if you put it on your back it's way easier to manage.
>For the same reason that it would be very annoying to carry a 50lbs backpack in your arms, but if you put it on your back it's way easier to manage.
I love to have a belt with a decent belt buckle on it for this reason whenever I'm carrying a heavy bag of groceries, or any big box. Just rest that shit on the belt buckle and everything becomes 200% easier. I don't even need a belt to keep my pants up, so the carrying bit is the most use I really make of them.
Well, sure. No disagreement there. The other half of my post was about how I believe that weight is totally do-able if spread over you and secured.
I'm unfortunately real familiar with what 22ibs feels like to move around, so imagining double that spread over you and then being asked to exert yourself feels do-able to me if rigged on you securely. I still wouldn't want to do it for too long. That's going to get tiring, you'd be done in after a few hours.
I can see why it'd be a good idea to be overall physically fit as a soldier looking at these weights. I can lift a lot of weight for a long time, but I'm shifting these things around from one place to another in a standing position. Ask me to run with one of them shoved down a vest and another in a backpack and I'll be pretty fricking annoyed with you in a couple minutes.
>I still wouldn't want to do it for too long. That's going to get tiring, you'd be done in after a few hours.
This is true, but also I mean in general if you talk to anyone who has ever been in a fight whether it be with fists or swinging a weapon, the fact of the matter is that no one can really keep exerting themselves like that for long periods of time. You can sustain maximum exertion like in a boxing or MMA match for maybe two minutes, and that's at the peak of physical fitness. The average person will get winded in maybe 30 second to a minute.
So battle never really was this just constant ongoing swinging of swords into enemies and cleaving through people and just exerting yourself like that for any long period of time. Again, most people can maybe get a handful of really good swings in with a weapon (a sword, an axe, etc.) before they're either winded or too tired to keep going. If you're super fit, maybe a little more (though actually hitting anything is gonna take its' toll too).
Most soldiers today carry around 50lbs of kit between their pack, their plate carrier, and their weapons and ammo, and they're expected to run, dive, carry stuff, and still be in condition to put rounds on target after that. It's not easy, and there's a reason that whether in the past or now soldiers had to really put in lots of training to be able to swing their weapon with their kit on.
There were called knights (literaly riders) for a reason, such as they were riding horses. Knights were never heavy infantry, walking was their last resort. In fact heavy infantry as a concept did not exist in middle ages, it was considered moronic.
LOL at this thread. What is it with knights and armor that brings the biggest autists out of the woodwork? This shit is worse than anime.
CIA and JIDF turning history threads into shitshows so white men don't begin romanticizing the past
It's also why Cinemaphile as a board is so unusable
Go leave gay
He’s right, as /misc/ usually are
Not to anyone who isn't a 14 year old social pariah, tbh
>autist
Ur posting…
There's an episode of mail call where ermey wears a full suit and mentions it's actually a lot easier to carry the weight than an army pack is
the issue is limited freedom of movement and heat
>tfw swords where held with two hands like staffs
wtf my kino has lied to me yet again reeeeeee!
LOL my vest +AK-74,ammo,medkit and tools was 25kg
When I say down on a chair it sank into the ground.
THank you for your service. Keep blasting ukrainians or israelites
>A complete suit of armour of a knight in the late 13th and early 14th century weighed about 30 to 35 kilogrammes. To us, this may seem heavy, but a knight was used to carry his equipment from very young childhood on.
wrong
richer knights tended to have thicker armor too, Henry VIII's was almost 50kg
Gotta love modern “scholars” thinking 12-14 was very young childhood back then. And even then nobody was wasting armor on squires, they would certainly learn a lot about armor, but they wouldn’t be wearing it.
>all the absolute morons mentioning how much a modern soldiers kit weighs
I'll let you figure it out for yourselves, what might be the reason that too much weight is a problem for the Knight? Hint: a major invention that totally changed warfare is the reason it isn't a problem for the modern soldier.
Try and resist the adolescent urge to continue lie about the fact that you're capable of carrying a certain amount of weight for extending periods of time when answering.
Fricking worthless scum moron homosexual filth.
How hard could a gay knight get in armor fighting other men? Is there a little spot for my lil soldier to stand at arms?
Is a claymore really that light? In games they always make it seem like it's really heavy. In Dark Souls games it's so heavy a swing takes like 3 seconds.
>a swing takes like 3 seconds.
that's a very long time to stick something into you
Yes. Most swords are in the 1-2 pound range if they're one-handed and 3-5 if they're two handed. Obviously there's exceptions but once you get to the heaviest swords you're looking at maybe 8 pounds at the very maximum and that'll be swords that are so huge that they're overlapping with polearms in how and when they're used.
Games do that stuff to certain weapons entirely for internal balancing reasons. You pick the big sword that does lots of damage? Well you have to attack slower and less often because otherwise you would never use anything else.
swinging around something heavier than that can be cumbersome.
t. swings around stuff
None of you fricking losers have any idea how powerful knights and other sword wielding warriors of the past were. You all act like 55 lbs. of armor is no big deal, but it was. If any of you pussies even dared to try to fight with that much weight on you, your knee would blow out and you would collapse like a dumb little b***h crying for your mama. Then an actual swordsman would finish you off. The greatest athletes are sword wielders and armor users and it takes a great deal of discipline and practice to be able to wield both effectively.
Mate you can quite literally ask anyone who has had actual armor made for them. Its not some insane feat of strength to wear or use it. Yeah you can't run a marathon in it but you're not supposed to.
Hit the gym, homosexual.
When your five feet and 130 lbs its a different story.
Malnourished grain-eating peasants weren't the ones wearing armor.
what part are you surprised about?
He probably thinks knights had to be lifted onto their horses with a rope slung over a tree branch.
Armor doesn't protect you from blunt force. A lot of it is basically useless against anything other than swings from a sword, which to the head could still kill you from concussive force
Source: your pozzed butthole
big white club
On a related note, how heavy do you think the Protect Gear from Jin-Roh is?
I meant to say "would be"
who kit is probably in the 60kg+
Damn, that's a heavy set of armor.
Seriously though why are all modern soldiers so weak (specifically American) like wahhhh my weapon is 11lbs and I wish it was 9lbs like lift more you pussy if you go on /k/ all the ex military do is just b***h about weight