Armor

...

...

...

Armor was, again, expensive. The warrior would not be equipped by the state so a lot of people in the service would worry about equipment in this order:
Weapon
Shield
Helmet
Armor

Gotta be able to kill the guys across the field from you, gotta be able to cover yourself from incoming missiles from those guys, gotta be able to keep your noggin safe from those guys when it is not behind your shield, gotta be able to hopefully survive any strikes from those guys that got past your shield

...

Adding to what he said I want to emphasize the priority of protecting yourself from projectiles.

That shield > helmet > armor hierarchy reflects just that philosophy, a big thing not often portrayed in "hollywood" depictions of battle is the sheer amount of projectiles and how lethal they can be.

Similar to OP I'm looking at making a setting that's a fantasy pastiche of dark ages Britain, and I'm trying to work out an armour scheme to replace the standard fantasy scheme.
Would boiled leather be in use?

>any weapon with a decent point can penetrate armor however
only if you let it, chainmail was shit against piercing weapons because the rivets created points where a point can press into the armor and force a breakage whereas you have plate armors that wasn't stylistic wankery that helped to deflect thrusts at critical areas.

wasn't armor provided by the byzantine state to it's military? I remember reading something about the byzantines having the only actual professional army for a while after the sassanid dynasty got gobbled up by the muslims

>but muh plate
People still died from penetrating weapons in plate armor user. Heavy longbows and cavalry lances come to mind as chief AP weapons.
Hell, lances were so effective that jousting armor in the later middle ages and post-renaissance was made upsized so a second layer could be worn underneath, bolted down. There's a froghelm at the Field Museum in Chicago with lance gashes almost straight through the neck plate.

Professional army means trained/drilled in that context.

Boiled leather was used for shields and some elements of armor throughout history, but its not actually a very good alternative to metal.

It's just I really need something to fill out the armour class chart. This is what I was working out:
AC 1 heavy woolen clothes
AC 2 heavy woolen clothes and steel helmet
AC3 cloth armour and " "
AC 4 ?
AC 5 mail and helmet
AC 6 heavy mail and helmet

Boiled leather was used as a chestplate (its the route of the term cuirass), but I believe that's a later creation. Scale Armor is a nice predecessor to Chainmail, and Studded Gambesons I think existed quite a ways back and later became Coats of Plates and Brigandines so I'd look into that.

As a point of contention, in the early middle ages you'd more likely find iron and bronze-trimmed helmets than steel. Remember that the expense of metalwork increases drastically the more surface area you need to cover, ESPECIALLY if its shaped/fit together. This is why early armors were made of simple joined plates or easily made rings, and why even at the height of the Renaissance your average shmuck would have a halfarmor or cuirass rather than a full set.

Boiled leather, useful for things like archers' wrist guards, sword belts and armor harnesses, leather caps to go under your helmet, shield covers and rims, etc.

But using a large amount of leather for armor is pretty wasteful, considering how long it will last and the need for leather in other things. If your state isn't collecting lots of leather specifically for armor, a boiled leather cuirass is something you might see on a noble, or rich guy. It's good at stopping slashes and poorly delivered thrusts, but lighter than mail or a gambeson which is a big deal on the march or after the fatigue of battle starts to set in.

If by cloth armor you mean gambeson style armors, you could maybe put in a leather lamellar after it. Though desu the gambeson would probably be more protective, and the advantage of leather is that it isn't as heavy.

Cheers for the feedback. I'll make adjustments. I was going for a gambeson with "cloth armour", but it's one of those words that's obviously anacronistic without thinking too much about it, and I don't expect my players to know what a wambais or other equivalent is. What I'm thinking currently over other ideas like two grades of helmet and two grades of gambeson is to have an intermediate between the clothing and gambeson
AC 1 thick woolen clothing
AC 2 thick woolen clothing and helmet
AC 3 padded woolen clothing and helmet
AC 4 cloth armour and helmet

Which of these is considered better armored? The man in the scale or the man in the maille?

that looks like someone misinterpeting pictures

but blunt is pretty effective against plate!

splint armour

Mail, nasal helm, some thick garment. Most have been mentioned in the thread already.

As for price you could easily get a cheep set for 1000$. Look up lord of battles. If you want good quality tailored stuff however you need to look more in the range of 3000-5000$. WeldedChainmail is a good one i've heard

Scale disappeared in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages while Mail held on to the Early Modern Era. That should be saying enough.

OP was looking for relevant prices in the era, not nowadays.

>Longbows
Not even gonna dignify that with a response.
As for lances, they weren't very good at penetration. Armour was usually expected to stand up to lance-strikes, and in the late 16th / early 17th century, lack of armour penetration was seen as one of the downsides of lances.

> Haue you seene how our men of armes haue with their Launces galled the enemies horses in their breastes and sides? being sure that the enemies could neither hurt their persons nor their horses, because that they are very well armed themselues, and their horses are barbed and garnished with Chamfrings and Criniers, which the enemies do want: which is the cause that you do see so many of the enemies slaine, and so fewe of ours.

Not the guy you are replying to but that's François de la Noue isn't it?

It should be important to remember that armour in the 16th and 17th century did differ quite a bit from earlier armour in strength and shape, especially as bulletproof armour was brought into the mix.

Not so much in the early 16th century (the time period in which Fourquevaux is writing). When the usual firearm was the weaker arquebus, armour was made bulletproof by making it out of better (not thicker) metal.

For a 9th century game

Thick woolen clothes or robes______1DR, -1Def
Simple Leather or Fur armor________2DR, -2Def
Light Gambeson or Reinforced Leather__3DR, -3Def
Heavy Gambeson __________4DR, -4Def
Scale Mail________________5DR, -6Def
Maille Hauberk____________5DR, -5Def
Reinforced Maille__________6DR, -6Def

Helmets may be leather, bronze, or iron.

> a big thing not often portrayed in "hollywood" depictions of battle is the sheer amount of projectiles and how lethal they can be.
Are you out of your mind? In every Hollywood battle you got bows acting as HMG, and they got bonus points for "let's shoot our soldiers too!"

In the 16th and 17th centuries, sure. But user's asking about early medieval, and most of my post was about broader ranges of time between the Antique period and the Renaissance.

Doesn't scale armor also do well against slashes?

Boiled leather thick cuirasses with metal inserts were also bulletproof in the early eras of firearms, but were upwards of 30 lbs and were only really used by cavalrymen (cuirassiers)

So I assume this is simply for pictorial purposes, but nobody would haul around a shield, two javelins, and a spear in their left hand for very long, right?

Scale should do very well against slashes and straight on stabs, but since the metal is laid overlapping you can get a blade up underneath them.

>Mace
I've always wondered how they treated their wood. No matter how strong, I imagine it couldn't really hit so many armoured targets and shields untill it just broke.

I don't know of them ever treating their clubs/maces, some of the German tribes that fought the Romans would fire harden wooden clubs and spears. I imagine that they wouldn't do that though. At that point in time the club/mace was more of a symbol of authority derived from the batons of Roman officers.

Under Komenous, the Themes provided every professional infantryman (scoutatoi) at least a shield (every single infantryman had the same shield, called a scouton, hence the name of the infantry), spear, and helmet. Generally speaking however, professional infantry raised by the imperial government were given the mentioned items plus a arming sword and either a short chainmail hauburk or a quilted linen tunic. Maybe a gambinson, though not too sure on that. Shit was expensive though, so the Byzantines main schtick was their cavalry who boiuvht their own armor.

>derived from the batons of Roman officers.
>from Roman

Vice versa more likely

>reading comprehension
The use of clubs as an authority symbol was derived from romans, not the clubs themselves ya dunce

I should have phrased that better. I was meaning that the knights of Europe used the club as a symbol of rank/office similar to that of the Roman Officer's disciplinary baton. I'm unawares of Germanic peoples using clubs/maces/batons/smashything as a status symbol during or prior to the Roman period. Well outside of worship of Herakles.
As far as Germanic symbolism within the knightly class it's right there in the knighting ceremonies. An older man, often the maternal uncle, arms a youth with weapons to show that he is now a man.

Shield is fastened to the shoulder by a leather strap, the Argive style canonized by the Greek hoplites. Spear weighs about 8 lbs, both javelins 4 each. If you can't carry 16 pounds resting against your body on a march, you aren't fit for military service.

>but since the metal is laid overlapping you can get a blade up underneath them.
That's basically a meme though, one of those armchair theories that people have parroted for years without actually looking into it. There's no actual historical sources that mention it. The angle you need to get a knife or a sword through where the armor overlaps would mean you'd have to essentially be hugging the guy, and who knows if you'd even be able to hit anything important.

The more practical reason scale went out of fashion was more because scale was heavier and didn't offer much more protection than the mail.

Its not actually hard to test scale armor through modern reproduction, and no your average infantryman wasn't writing journals about his experiences (or at least none that survived)

As for the angle necessary, a melee press on the battlefield would put you at exactly that distance, and damn if swords of the era didn't have a thrusting point for a fucking reason. Roman Gladia especially were used for thrusting against armor/padding when in the press, and the straight or tapered sword designs that became prevalent in northern europe throughout the early middle ages speak to a need for thrusting weaponry over the heavy Iberian, Greek and even Egyption cut-n-thrusts of Antiquity (with leaf blades spanning both styles, but even the Romans adopted the Spatha eventually)

Adding to this, its believed that Roman infantry used the Gladius specifically in an underhanded, upward thrust starting below the shield, which would give them the perfect angle to get under scale armor.
Also consider that scale armor came to prominence in late antiquity when most of the threats one would face on the battlefield were spears and arrows which physically couldn't thrust upwards.

Your probably right concerning it's general disuse. Especially with the protection given by mail to the armpits, and other flexible areas.

I should however think a person capable though to stab under the scales. Perhaps not that example attached to chain, but another set of scales found a Newstead were copper scales attached to leather with copper wire(I do not know whether this was meant to be combat armor or simply decorative). I'll also agree that you'd be hugging(I call it wrastlin) 90% of the time to be able to pull off a stab. I of course am a armchair historian and haven't tested scaled armor, have only stabbed myself in my hauberk and tested arrows.

ps: horses wear scales best I should buy a horse...

>straight wooden hilt with no pommel or guard
>single-edged, tapered point blade with a forward pitch and a fuller
What in all fuck am I looking at. Can someone show me an actual picture of what that is? Was that artist just blazed when he drew that?

That's a seax. Or a Langseax. It's the weapon the Saxons derived their name from.

Its probably based on the Seax of Begnoth, a Saxon decorative sword. Dunno where the hilt comes from.
Regular Seaxes were a medium between leaf blades and straightswords, but with a single cutting edge (that and the fuller suggests the saxons had difficulty making iron swords that could withstand thrusting well)

The absolute state of Veeky Forums...

>wwwooowwww user doesn't have every sword from the great big picture book of Veeky Forums memorized
Get over yourself user

The quality of mail makes a huge difference. Modern day shit is usually really haphazardly made, meaning that the rivets are much weaker than they should be. Basically, the shit in the image, from a functional perspective, is nothing but better looking butted mail.
A ridiculously expensive shirt of mail that was made properly won't just have its rivets burst apart from a simple spear thrust. This would be in line with what history tells us, as there are plenty of reports of people getting hit by lances in the first crusade (so centuries before plate) and surviving with their mail intact, or even people getting killed by lances through nothing but blunt trauma.

at least he asked and learned something

>talks about pommels, fullers and tapers
>assumes the artist made it up becausr of his ignorance

No.q

>assumes the artist made it up
umm, reread the post, okay, sweety?
>>Can someone show me an actual picture of what that is?