Arms in Armor Educational Thread

Yes, but what about the hammer bit? I'm given to understand there was also a hammer bit

Awright, got a question. When looking at full sets of armor, whether fantastical or historical, I'm never quite sure how protection and mobility around the waist, crotch and upper legs area match up. It seems that any armor that makes any attempt at realism (meaning that it's not a full rigid tin can) has to make concessions to mobility in detriment to protection, in order to be practical.

Basically what I'm asking is how armored can your dong be before you can't move.

Someone in a previous thread posted a diagram of the advancement of firearms from the 14th to 19th centuries; would anyone happen to have it?

youtube.com/watch?v=aUMfjHANRVw

You might find this interesting. The guy does really detailed vids that are actually well researched and cited. Best A&A youtuber by a country mile.

This is possibly the best set-up for combining mobility and groin protection but is for foot tournament use only and not warfare.

The hammer is only going to do very real damage if the person is on the ground (and thus they can't stumble backwards to absorb force) or you strike them firmly on the head. Otherwise it's just means of pounding the guy to the floor.

...

...

...

...

Bump

...

Sweater knights= ugly aesthetic imo

Perhaps, but it's certainly functional. It keeps some dings and dents off your expensive plate, and makes your allegiance easily identifiable on the battlefield.

nah user they great and most medieval nations did it

...

anyone has pics/info of the original one of this? Allegedly it's from the Toledo Army museum

Something I've wondered about for some time: how much neck mobility did armet/close helm allow? Could the wearer turn their head? Nod? Tilt it to the side?

Have you tried... writing the museum in question?

Looks like a composite piece to me.

not yet, as only a friend is interested in it but it might come to that

those are all possible although slightly restricted, especially because helmets are usually kind of heavy to protect.
But what mostly restricts you for those movements are the bevor and gorget or equivalents

What really makes helmets suck is the limited field of vision.

My eyes aren't great anyway, but I casically can't see shit in a closed helmet.

I can see everyting I have to in mine, although I use an open helmet with a falling buffe, so there is that

youtu.be/7qHpoeYyfl0?t=2317
Ask Mike Loades

How often did greatswords see use in battle? I know that with most guys running around in decent armour, it would be less than practical to try and cut a dude with a big honking claymore or zweihander, but I legitimately am curious as to what sort of situation's they'd see use in.

There is like ONE woodcut that shows germans (I think) using it against swedish(I think) pikes.
As far as I've been told by better read amrchair historians than me though have some salt they were used more by champions, protectors of standard bearers and bodyguards, both military and civilian.
And of course as judicial duel weapons.

Define "greatsword" and "battle". They were definitely used, although exactly what kind of sword in what kind of battle and how varies. There's a theory that two handed swords were used to break pike formations, for instance.

Then there's shits like Montante, who boasted that his "wave/spin around a fuckhuge sword and never, ever, fucking stop" style is the best for personal defense and can handle any number of attackers.

Unless they have bows I guess.

Greatswords were used by common infantry (elite, but still not knights) against other infantry. Their roles were to break pike lines and protect officers/banners.

In other words, you are not expected to go against a fully armored dude with a greatsword. Your intended opponent has at most a shitty munitions breastplate with pauldrons.

it's were in use in battles briefly (half a century maybe but depends on your definition of fuckhuge sword)
Mostly it's a crowd control weapon so protecting flanks and bodyguarding officiers, flag bearers and such where it was used on the battlefield

>Their roles were to break pike lines
and this is what we have no evidence of at all so I'm calling bullshit.

>There is like ONE woodcut that shows germans (I think) using it against swedish(I think) pikes.
that one was made several years after the battle and meant to show one heroic guy who went back for the flag and actually succeeded so I would take it with a grain of salt

I'm asking about close helm/armet, which had an integrated gorget

no, this one

Only slightly more mobile than michael keaton batman

...

sadly, that's the one I'm talking about

as I said small motions are possible but most of those things you do from the torso. for comforts sake

Concerning Zweihänder:
I read somewhere that they were a common sight in the Verlorener Haufen, a formation of condemned Landsknechte, Doppelsöldner and prisoners sentenced to death, who would be positioned in front of the regular troops to break enemy formations. Quite similar to the picture you posted.

Skirmishers

The first question there is "What's a greatsword?".

We basically have two variants here. The early "greats word of war", ie Oakeshott XIIa, XIII, XIIIa, things like that. These are usually "longsword sized" with a focus on powerful swinging cuts. As per the name, these were very much meant for war, and I'm under the impression that they wouldn't have been terribly rare to bring along. We also see something of a revival of the type later on, with the type XX, and even later we see things like the highland greatsword (what people call claymore), various naval swords, and so on following similar ideas. From what I've understood the highland greatsword most likely saw next to no action whatsoever, but the rest should have seen some use, even if they may not have been terribly common in their time. These swords could obviously cause enormous damage to any unarmoured part they found, and may also be able to hammer through armour to some degree as well, though that wouldn't be ideal. It's largely a weapon used in the period where "full armour" at most means a full wrap of mail though, unless I'm misremebering my dates. For the latter types we will get into full plate times, but most soldiers at the time would probably not have full plate, rather helmet, cuirass, and perhaps a few bits for the limbs.

Then we have greatswords as in the large, pure twohanders that pop up mostly in the 16th century. While we often hear about them being used to swat aside pike s(or even cut them, though that claim's rare nowadays) this sis most likely bullshit, as nobody seems to be able to find any primary sources backing this. Instead what we do have is people from back then telling us how these large swords are very good at crowd control. Large swings makes for a lot of space around you people don't want to be in. IIRC we have some material pointing to them being popular with banner guards and the like, which would fit the crowd control theme, but don't ask me to dig those up.

I have not read credible source about that so far, but that obviously proves nothing.

But that picture is about the Second War of Kappel, it's not a forlon hope formation as you can see the army on the left (Zürich) is routed and hard on retreating, regardless of that some dudes attacking to the right. If this were a forlon hope then it would be actually a suicide squad because nearly nobody worthwhile follows them and won't stop the attackers.
But that's not the case because as I said it's about how one dude got back the flag regardless of a defeat. The battle in 1531, the picture was made in 1548 and the guy was pretty much a hero after this deed. So as I said I would take it with a grain of salt

Why is shipping from India so outrageous?

because indians are proto-gypsies

I have practiced the "Greatsword" or more specifically Montante the for several Years after moving off of the Fiore Longsword. Most original Manuals and Scripts show us that the Montante was generally made for "crowd- control" and protecting Individuals, or even what Figueiredo describes as "hoards of Treasubre". The Manuals are typically laid out in individual Tempos of series of Swings for you to copy, so that you can learn the Fluidity You need to fight freely.

Other sources such as Alfieri and Gotter's Translations show that Spadones (in reality a longsword), Montantes and Zweihänders were used by bodyguards of important individuals, not only on the battlefield but in civilian life. Many Scripts and Plays dictate "for protection of the lady", or "protection of the surrounded nobles", so on so forth. The sweeping Cuts are present in all Manuals and show that you require and must create great spaces to fight efficiently.

What I have taken from the Manuals is that the Montante in specifically was used more in Civilian life but that the Zweihänder and Spadone and similar variations had a very serious Battlefield purpose.

This is very skilled and shows the Tempo excellently and fights with fluidity.

youtu.be/nYNy_drriXs
youtu.be/OtT3sjO0ocU
youtu.be/oZFEUM5fdgU

Don't buy armour from India.

sallets and matchlocks
y/n?

sallets no
matchlocks yes

Mine turned out pretty well

You should have a bit of overlap around 1500, but not for very long. The sallet wearing gunner is more likely to have tiller-stocked gonne with nought but a touch hole.

So, about plate armed knights, could they use bows? the question is could, not should or wanted.

In a setting of mine, a few dozen knights and men go hunt suposed monsters in a forest, something happens and most of them get killed, only leaving the knights who take bows and arrows to get a bit of an advantage. So, could a knight use a bow and arrow without much trouble?

probbably could but I would wager that some things wouldn't work that good depending on spexific bows and armours.

Crossbows on the other hand are fair game, that was used even with armour

perhaps the 1400 or 1500, not munitions armor and while crossbows are fair games, they were only using bows in the situation.

well if they REALLY want to use the bows and some parts of the armour hinders (gauntlets, elbow and shoulder pieces) they can probably take off some of those.
But as I said probably they would be fine, what movement you need for archery isn't restricted that much. It won't be ideal but workable

I could see some pauldron, elbow and gauntlet designs getting in the way (of the bowstring mostly), but I suspect making it possible isn't more complicated than simply not using those specific designs.

Jesus, for a second I thought this was the longest sword in existence

...

I see, thanks m8, now i can play xenomorphs in the middle ages, thanks.

>spoiler

Not with that fucking attitude, son.

Houndskull bascinets are shit. Whatever this style is called a best.

So in other words, it only works because people don't have shields or full armor.

put some damn padding under that chainmail

IWhat armor is this person in the pic wearing?

>What armor is this person in the pic wearing?
brigandine over a mail coat

Coat of plates.

You can tell a nigga's nothing to fuck with when he begins the fight by kicking his sword off the ground.

One that can't float in icy water.

But seriously, that green chestpiece is called a brigandine.

There's no name for the whole style "transitional plate" or "Schott-Sonnenberg style harness". A proper description would basically just be listing the part. Mail hauberk, coat of plates, bascinet, etc.

Swap the coat of plates for a breastplate and add plate legs for transitional plate armour, but he's not there yet.

Such an ugly helmet

bitch please

shit taste desu

That guy with the sword is fucked unless he aims right for the face.

>Rule 10: Guarding a lady

And the neckbeards are still buying katanas like they're crack.

You shut your whore mouth

That is literally a fake helmet. It wasn't based at all on history, but made by the owner to look cool. It's total fantasy.

>literally the 'dies to removal' of historical weapons threads

...

...

Eh, it's a modified version of helmets that actually existed. Here's an example of one.

And another example, those these are more similar to the first one you posted because of how the visors seem to work.

what is wrong with it?

And here's a cheaper/novice made example of the same basic concept.

That's nothing like the helmet that was posted. Firstly the visor is one single piece, not riveted together making it incredibly weak, the face is shaped and the eyes protrude in a protective beak shape so you can't just shove a sword point in there so easily.

The riveting I'll give you, but the hound skull shape isn't a necessity, like the guy on the far left or second from right of Plus, where do you think the visor on the ahistorical visor barbute is from? It wasn't a new made piece that got stuck on the helmet.

...

...

>tfw you love medieval armor and historical reenactment
>tfw you can into it because you're a woman
Why even live

First of all
>women on Veeky Forums

Second of all

There's nothing stopping you from getting armor made that fits you. Well, except for the cost and potentially the lack of historical stuff to go off of.

Buy churgburg armor, should fit your boobs fine.

Is more the historical accuracy problem I'm dealing with.
Woman in armies are few and far between.

Most re-enactment groups seem to happily ignore various undesirable aspects of the middle ages/renaissance, like famine, plague and all that, so I don't think you need to give up entirely quite yet. And there's always the HEMA side of things as well, were the issue will be to find a group doing armoured work, not your gender.

>54673222
>Burgonet

Yes lad.

...

...

...