Page 1 of 1

Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:23 pm
by Zehren
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/h ... m#weight_b

This is listed as the source for the following on wikipedia:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions/)

"The plate armor of European soldiers did not stop soldiers from moving around or necessitate a crane to get them into a saddle. They would as a matter of course fight on foot and could mount and dismount without help. In fact soldiers equipped with plate armor were more mobile than those with chainmail armor, as chainmail was heavier and required stiff padding beneath due to its pliable nature.[11]"

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:14 am
by Skragna
Chainmail was also heavier on the user because it had no buckles or straps to distribute the weight, and it was all on the user's shoulders. Plate armor was ludicrously expensive for the same reason a modern-day 'supergun' like the S&W .500 Super Magnum is more expensive than a plain .357 Webley. The misconceptions of plate armor, however, have really really wrecked the idea it was actually useful on foot.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:49 am
by Allurana
I thought I read somewhere that knights could do handstands and possibly cartwheels in platemail if they wanted.

Another section of note, which I think follows Zehren's line of thought:
An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:04 am
by Zehren
Skragna wrote:Chainmail was also heavier on the user because it had no buckles or straps to distribute the weight, and it was all on the user's shoulders. Plate armor was ludicrously expensive for the same reason a modern-day 'supergun' like the S&W .500 Super Magnum is more expensive than a plain .357 Webley. The misconceptions of plate armor, however, have really really wrecked the idea it was actually useful on foot.
High-quality fitted-to-the-user plate armour was very expensive :P

(as opposed to mostly premade, with minor adjustments to the wearer)


Also, number four on this list (the videos being very interesting):
http://www.cracked.com/article_20052_5- ... ovies.html

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:44 pm
by Aslak
Here is some nice video about the mobility offered in plate armour. It is from the 15th century, so one of the heavier types of plate.

First part of the vid is about moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

There are also a few other videos around showing people doing handstands and other gyms with plate armors.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:01 pm
by isengoo
I think it's important to recognize that this is a fantasy game where things are sometimes changed to fit the world better :P

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:33 pm
by Skragna
So, completely ruining the chance of having fun playing the near-invincible knight, as well as perpetuating a horrible Hollywood mythos is good? Explain.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:58 pm
by Allurana
Game balance.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:52 am
by Zehren
Please note this is in OOC chat, not in "ideas" :)

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:14 am
by Skragna
Then I posit that the lack of anything resembling utility in heavy armor brings less balance to the game. In OOC news, I would love to see different kinds of crossbow except 'medium'. I mean, we really have nothing else? How do we judge these crossbows, then? I would like to see tshaharks with 'arbalests' and small crossbows for halflings.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:25 am
by Zehren
Skragna wrote:Then I posit that the lack of anything resembling utility in heavy armor brings less balance to the game. In OOC news, I would love to see different kinds of crossbow except 'medium'. I mean, we really have nothing else? How do we judge these crossbows, then? I would like to see tshaharks with 'arbalests' and small crossbows for halflings.
There are other crossbows IG, they are just not readily available. But yes, ERRYTHING IS MEDIUM :D

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:30 am
by isengoo
There are definitely halfling-sized crossbows.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:11 pm
by arxthas
Arxthas used to have an arbalest...
a dark rose-wood arbalest

Slightly larger than a regular crossbow, the fine tiller of this arbalest is
made out of gently polished, dark rosewood. A very short, steel lath provides
excellent tensile properties giving this weapon great push when fired. It
can be wound up with the help of a windlass which is attached to the string.
This mechanism can only be used by both hands and requires much time to use
from the wielder. Four lines of tiny text have been inscribed into the wood:

"Glory be to Taniel on high. We praise thee. We bless thee. We worship thee.
O Lord Taniel, heavenly King, lord of Justice, have mercy upon us, receive
our prayer. We shalst be thy true hand of justice. O Lord Taniel, heavenly
King, in your holy name, the wicked shall burn in all eternity."
but he lost it.. :(

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 8:33 am
by Andreati
It's been a few years since anyone has posted in here, but I just found this and thought it interesting:

http://www.publicmedievalist.com/curiou ... dnt-exist/

It's going to be hard not to imagine a bunch of newbie warpriests running around and accidentally smashing themselves with the morning star.

Re: Intresting stuffsies

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 8:55 pm
by luminier
newbie crusaders too... thats hilarious