shootist70 wrote...
Yes, they used it...in formation. Apart from the jousting field that's pretty much the only place you'll find a warrior fighting in full plate. That's for several reasons - less mobility, reduced field of vision, and most important of all - heat exhuastion.
Yes, In formation. In set-piece battles.
This whole part doesn't make any sense. Plate armours were used by footmen when they could get one, and footmen weren't exactly systematically charging and then going back. They were actually fighting toe to toe for extended periods.
The ceremonial armours were, of course, much heavier and cumbersome than field armours, but I've never talked about formers, only the latters. And the field armours WERE used in prolonged mélée and, again, they were DESIGNED to deflect and absorb impacts from hand to hand weapons.
Like I said about heat exhaustion, imagine fighting in full plate and padded gambeson. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see that point.
I'm talking about facts, not leap of imagination. Armour were used in close combat for long period of time, and you've yet to actually provide serious informations proving the opposite.
The muddy terrain and fatigue caused...yep, you guessed it - lack of momentum! That's exactly why the French knights...stopped moving! And no, if you look at the accepted casualty figures it's widely accepted it was something of a slaughter.
You realize that the French knights fought Agincourt on foot, not mounted ? The defeat was caused because of the press of bodies, making fighting impossible for the French who were far too much densely packed and the fact that they had to run in the mud for a long distance in heavy armor (and on top of many bodies on the ground).
It doesn't prove anything about armour not being useful in mélée - actually, the fact that they went to fight with it tend to show that it was actually expected to be used as such.
You do understand that fighting with a polearm is still classed as hand-to-hand infantry combat?
Hu, no ?
Polearms' very point is to strike the enemy at a distance so he can't strike you back. That's not exactly hand to hand fighting, no. That's why it was actually effective at breaking cavalry charge, and why there was the "push of the pike".
Ok, interesting discussion for the sake of a discussion, but we're not going to get anything worthwhile out of this, and it's going way off topic.
And you just made a lot of false affirmations with nothing to back them up.
Considering how many weapons were specifically designed to pierce plate armours, considering plate armours were designed to deflect impacts from hand to hand weapons, considering how much clever design went into both finding weapons and methods to reach the man under the armour, and protecting the user against such tactics and weapons, considering how footmen used plate armours when they could afford it, considering the very concept of armour is to protect you during fighting, saying that they were not used nor efficient in long fighting is a very, very bold statement that just contradict most available data.
It can only be taken seriously if you provide actual reliable sources that support this point with examples, explanations and the like. For now you've provided nothing but your own personnal affirmations, so don't be surprised if nobody is convinced.
Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 octobre 2010 - 11:29 .
Retour en haut
