| Author |
Message |
|
Matthew Amt
|
 Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 11:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Makes me wonder, if the Romans had greaves and Valgarde chieftains had greaves, why didn't then developed chausses? from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, The roman's made chainmail one the most pervasive forms of body armour in western europe. Wearing greaves over chausses give ton more protection than greaves over bare legs or clothing, the spaces into between the splints or synbalds act as gaps and the back of the leg in completely open to attacks than severe it. |
That's the original question! And it's still a good one. I assume you are putting chausses and greaves on a horseman, since that's just more weight than most infantry are going to want. But greaves over mail don't show up until the later 13th century. Until then, the need just does not seem to have outweighed the cost, weight, discomfort, restriction, etc.
Matthew
|
|
   |
 |
Matthew Bunker
Location: Somerset UK Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, |
From the dimensionally correct reconstruction that I've assembled as part of my V8 reconstruction, I''ve found that they cover the front and the side, which is probably all you want when on horseback.
There's also a mail element, probably sabatons but impossible to say for certain.
"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | There's a reference to Charlemagne having "iron greaves" or something like that as well. |
This could be a translation issue and he actually wore mail chausses, which would have been very rare at the time. I don't have the original text but suspect that a literal translation would be something like "iron leggings", which can't really be interpreted as anything more specific than "some kind of leg armour made from iron".
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Makes me wonder, if the Romans had greaves and Valgarde chieftains had greaves, why didn't then developed chausses? from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, The roman's made chainmail one the most pervasive forms of body armour in western europe. Wearing greaves over chausses give ton more protection than greaves over bare legs or clothing, the spaces into between the splints or synbalds act as gaps and the back of the leg in completely open to attacks than severe it. |
That's the original question! And it's still a good one. I assume you are putting chausses and greaves on a horseman, since that's just more weight than most infantry are going to want. But greaves over mail don't show up until the later 13th century. Until then, the need just does not seem to have outweighed the cost, weight, discomfort, restriction, etc.
Matthew |
I though the original question is why they didn't use greeves in liu of mail, not as a supplement to it. Sorta like the other thread in why didn't they just use a breastplate instead of mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kew
Location: London, UK Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | This could be a translation issue and he actually wore mail chausses, which would have been very rare at the time. I don't have the original text but suspect that a literal translation would be something like "iron leggings", which can't really be interpreted as anything more specific than "some kind of leg armour made from iron". |
I'd be very surprised, at the time.
My guess would be that he's a late example of the Roman cavalry model for Germanic chiefs, and so is wearing greaves in the Roman fashion, or splint greaves or something. If he's wearing mail chausses he'd be the earliest example by hundreds of years.
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | [Makes me wonder, if the Romans had greaves and Valgarde chieftains had greaves, why didn't then developed chausses? from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, The roman's made chainmail one the most pervasive forms of body armour in western europe. Wearing greaves over chausses give ton more protection than greaves over bare legs or clothing, the spaces into between the splints or synbalds act as gaps and the back of the leg in completely open to attacks than severe it. |
Chausses are potentially more expensive. They're definitely heavier, because you need to cover the upper leg as well as the lower leg. And for a cavalryman, that upper leg coverage might be superfluous - their shield can protect it, and infantry below them can hit the lower leg with ease (hence protecting it) but have a harder time reaching up to hit the upper leg.
By Valsgarde, the mail shirt is a hauberk that reaches down the legs a fair distance, I believe. That's another point against doubly-armouring the upper leg.
Gaps are an issue, but it's hard to accurately target one on a moving horseman, in the middle of a melee. And a greave is probably good enough for most uses, over a woolen set of trousers, and maybe leg bindings of some type (which would have acted as light padding).
Fundamentally, whether or not chausses were better (they're more protective, but that's not necessarily the same), they weren't used, and it's very hard to get all the cultural context that might have figured into decisions.
| Matthew Bunker wrote: | From the dimensionally correct reconstruction that I've assembled as part of my V8 reconstruction, I''ve found that they cover the front and the side, which is probably all you want when on horseback.
There's also a mail element, probably sabatons but impossible to say for certain. |
That's incredibly good data. I'm reminded also of Boris' cavalry greaves from his Yushman project, which are designed to mostly protect the side of the leg:
http://media.snimka.bg/s1/0184/026612316.jpg?r=0
It makes sense, when you're armouring against attacks from below against the leg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: | | There's a reference to Charlemagne having "iron greaves" or something like that as well. |
This could be a translation issue and he actually wore mail chausses, which would have been very rare at the time. I don't have the original text but suspect that a literal translation would be something like "iron leggings", which can't really be interpreted as anything more specific than "some kind of leg armour made from iron". |
The Monk of St. Gall's (Notker the Stammerer?), De Carolo Magno, Book II:17 --
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/stgall-charlemagne.asp
(Latin from the Osprey MAA)
| Quote: | | Then could be seen the iron Charles, helmeted with an iron helmet (ferrea galea christatus), his hands clad in iron gauntlets (ferreis manicis armillatus), his iron breast and broad shoulders protected with an iron breastplate (ferrea torace tutaus): an iron spear was raised on high in his left hand; his right always rested on his unconquered iron falchion. The thighs, which with most men are uncovered that they may the more easily ride on horseback, were in his case clad with plates of iron: I need make no special mention of his greaves (ocreis), for the greaves of all the army were of iron. His shield was all of iron: his charger was iron coloured and iron-hearted. |
Interesting in that the iron greaves (ocreis = boots) are said to be worn by all in the army. It would be interesting to find the Latin text for the thigh armor.
Certainly this appears to depict mail chausses on the left-most figure from c. 825.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constantine_burning_Arian_books.jpg
Manuscript Miniatures isn't connecting at the moment, but it does have a fair amount of 9th century images for comparison.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T. Kew wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | This could be a translation issue and he actually wore mail chausses, which would have been very rare at the time. I don't have the original text but suspect that a literal translation would be something like "iron leggings", which can't really be interpreted as anything more specific than "some kind of leg armour made from iron". |
I'd be very surprised, at the time.
My guess would be that he's a late example of the Roman cavalry model for Germanic chiefs, and so is wearing greaves in the Roman fashion, or splint greaves or something. If he's wearing mail chausses he'd be the earliest example by hundreds of years.
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | [Makes me wonder, if the Romans had greaves and Valgarde chieftains had greaves, why didn't then developed chausses? from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, The roman's made chainmail one the most pervasive forms of body armour in western europe. Wearing greaves over chausses give ton more protection than greaves over bare legs or clothing, the spaces into between the splints or synbalds act as gaps and the back of the leg in completely open to attacks than severe it. |
Chausses are potentially more expensive. They're definitely heavier, because you need to cover the upper leg as well as the lower leg. And for a cavalryman, that upper leg coverage might be superfluous - their shield can protect it, and infantry below them can hit the lower leg with ease (hence protecting it) but have a harder time reaching up to hit the upper leg.
By Valsgarde, the mail shirt is a hauberk that reaches down the legs a fair distance, I believe. That's another point against doubly-armouring the upper leg.
Gaps are an issue, but it's hard to accurately target one on a moving horseman, in the middle of a melee. And a greave is probably good enough for most uses, over a woolen set of trousers, and maybe leg bindings of some type (which would have acted as light padding).
Fundamentally, whether or not chausses were better (they're more protective, but that's not necessarily the same), they weren't used, and it's very hard to get all the cultural context that might have figured into decisions.
| Matthew Bunker wrote: | From the dimensionally correct reconstruction that I've assembled as part of my V8 reconstruction, I''ve found that they cover the front and the side, which is probably all you want when on horseback.
There's also a mail element, probably sabatons but impossible to say for certain. |
That's incredibly good data. I'm reminded also of Boris' cavalry greaves from his Yushman project, which are designed to mostly protect the side of the leg:
http://media.snimka.bg/s1/0184/026612316.jpg?r=0
It makes sense, when you're armouring against attacks from below against the leg. |
If he acting as light calvary yes, but at least I've understand of heavy calvary, they are really designed to create gaps in enemy formations, hence if they are stopped in the middle of this process, they have high likihood of being surrounded and it not just the gaps in the lower legs armout that is a problem. The haugegon/ haubrek doesn't cling to your upper legs exactly and any calvary man above an infranty man simply by being on a horse, hence a infranty man could very easily go up and over and calvaryman's haubrek and stab into his inner thigns or crotch given the right distance, severing his arteries causing massive bleeding which could led to the calvary man bleeding to death on horseback. Hence a reason that overlap in segmented armour for calvaryman and infrantyman are different. Clavary men are much more likely to face attacks coming from below than above becuase infranty are closer to the ground than they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | The haugegon/ haubrek doesn't cling to your upper legs exactly and any calvary man above an infranty man simply by being on a horse, hence a infranty man could very easily go up and over and calvaryman's haubrek and stab into his inner thigns or crotch given the right distance, severing his arteries causing massive bleeding which could led to the calvary man bleeding to death on horseback.. |
Hardly. Anything that isn't covered by mail is covered by the war saddle. Their thighs are very well protected so long as they stay mounted.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Stockhaus
Location: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: 29 Jan 2014
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is also this example from Hungary, dating from 6th to 8th Century AD (i think). It also supports the idea that greaves were used by cavalry rather than infantry. I also think i remember that Valsgärde 8 contains horse Equipment.
http://pneymatiko.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/110.jpg
In my experiance the lower leg is a very difficult place to attack if you are using a one handed weapon and shield and fighting in a tight formation. The combination of exposing yourself with a low attack and having a shield-mate close your right side reducing your elbow room makes it a very dangerous venture. For yourself. Even with long axes and spears this i hard without putting yourself in danger, unless the line is just one man thick, which in itself is undesirable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | If he acting as light calvary yes, but at least I've understand of heavy calvary, they are really designed to create gaps in enemy formations, hence if they are stopped in the middle of this process, they have high likihood of being surrounded and it not just the gaps in the lower legs armout that is a problem. The haugegon/ haubrek doesn't cling to your upper legs exactly and any calvary man above an infranty man simply by being on a horse, hence a infranty man could very easily go up and over and calvaryman's haubrek and stab into his inner thigns or crotch given the right distance, severing his arteries causing massive bleeding which could led to the calvary man bleeding to death on horseback. Hence a reason that overlap in segmented armour for calvaryman and infrantyman are different. Clavary men are much more likely to face attacks coming from below than above becuase infranty are closer to the ground than they are. |
I think you still have some inaccurate ideas about ancient and medieval combat! Whatever may have happened when cavalry hit infantry (and we're really not certain!), it is pretty clear that the cavalry was in rather close formation. *Assuming* that the horses are head-on to the infantry, anyone on foot would have to leave his place in line and waltz between two very excited stomping machines, each with a trained armored killer on its back. IF you dodge all the hooves, teeth, and weapons, you cannot "easily" hit anything except possibly the horse, since you're probably getting the full attention of at least 2 riders. Even if you are lucky enough to spear a horseman in the leg, the big veins and arteries tend to be on the INside of the leg, which is pressed against the horse. And like Dan said, the groin is protected by the front of the saddle.
And isn't this the same infantryman you said was so afraid to go into battle that he had to be driven forward by his own officers and cavalry? (Not that I agree with that, just sayin'...)
My advice, stay in line and try to prod a horse in the face. That will help get him and the trained armored killer on his back far enough away that you might survive the morning.
DID horsemen sometimes get surrounded by infantry? Sure! And they usually got captured or killed regardless of how heavily armored they were. Or they carved their way out of trouble again, regardless of how heavily armored they were.
Mr. Stockhaus, that's an excellent image! Very clear and convincing.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | If he acting as light calvary yes, but at least I've understand of heavy calvary, they are really designed to create gaps in enemy formations, hence if they are stopped in the middle of this process, they have high likihood of being surrounded and it not just the gaps in the lower legs armout that is a problem. The haugegon/ haubrek doesn't cling to your upper legs exactly and any calvary man above an infranty man simply by being on a horse, hence a infranty man could very easily go up and over and calvaryman's haubrek and stab into his inner thigns or crotch given the right distance, severing his arteries causing massive bleeding which could led to the calvary man bleeding to death on horseback. Hence a reason that overlap in segmented armour for calvaryman and infrantyman are different. Clavary men are much more likely to face attacks coming from below than above becuase infranty are closer to the ground than they are. |
I think you still have some inaccurate ideas about ancient and medieval combat! Whatever may have happened when cavalry hit infantry (and we're really not certain!), it is pretty clear that the cavalry was in rather close formation. *Assuming* that the horses are head-on to the infantry, anyone on foot would have to leave his place in line and waltz between two very excited stomping machines, each with a trained armored killer on its back. IF you dodge all the hooves, teeth, and weapons, you cannot "easily" hit anything except possibly the horse, since you're probably getting the full attention of at least 2 riders. Even if you are lucky enough to spear a horseman in the leg, the big veins and arteries tend to be on the INside of the leg, which is pressed against the horse. And like Dan said, the groin is protected by the front of the saddle.
And isn't this the same infantryman you said was so afraid to go into battle that he had to be driven forward by his own officers and cavalry? (Not that I agree with that, just sayin'...)
My advice, stay in line and try to prod a horse in the face. That will help get him and the trained armored killer on his back far enough away that you might survive the morning.
DID horsemen sometimes get surrounded by infantry? Sure! And they usually got captured or killed regardless of how heavily armored they were. Or they carved their way out of trouble again, regardless of how heavily armored they were.
Mr. Stockhaus, that's an excellent image! Very clear and convincing.
Matthew |
Calvary by necessity of being on a big wide horse, can never get formation as close packed as infranty, the horse just wouldn't allow it.Also, me look at late medieval and early modern accounts of calvary charging through (rather disorganized,pike squares) so heavy calvary ramming through formation isn't non existence impossibility. Also,that was hypiothetical suggestion on how to deal lackluster troops in a hurry, I wasn't trying to characterizes all troops that way. Also, it does matter how heavily armored you are great deal, especially if you are surrounded because if you are taking of multiple people in 360 degree arch, now matter how good you are, you are probably going to get hit and probably get hit multiple times. Also, depnding in the period, horse where shorter just look at the Bayues Tapestry. Also, it would be very difficult to hit the groin, being such a small target and in horse, but not impossible. Heck, under the right circumstances, you can stab calvary in the groin with a knife. http://guyfy.com/Game-of-Thrones/Game-of-Thro...FULL-RECAP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | If he acting as light calvary yes, but at least I've understand of heavy calvary, they are really designed to create gaps in enemy formations, hence if they are stopped in the middle of this process, they have high likihood of being surrounded and it not just the gaps in the lower legs armout that is a problem. The haugegon/ haubrek doesn't cling to your upper legs exactly and any calvary man above an infranty man simply by being on a horse, hence a infranty man could very easily go up and over and calvaryman's haubrek and stab into his inner thigns or crotch given the right distance, severing his arteries causing massive bleeding which could led to the calvary man bleeding to death on horseback. Hence a reason that overlap in segmented armour for calvaryman and infrantyman are different. Clavary men are much more likely to face attacks coming from below than above becuase infranty are closer to the ground than they are. |
I think you still have some inaccurate ideas about ancient and medieval combat! Whatever may have happened when cavalry hit infantry (and we're really not certain!), it is pretty clear that the cavalry was in rather close formation. *Assuming* that the horses are head-on to the infantry, anyone on foot would have to leave his place in line and waltz between two very excited stomping machines, each with a trained armored killer on its back. IF you dodge all the hooves, teeth, and weapons, you cannot "easily" hit anything except possibly the horse, since you're probably getting the full attention of at least 2 riders. Even if you are lucky enough to spear a horseman in the leg, the big veins and arteries tend to be on the INside of the leg, which is pressed against the horse. And like Dan said, the groin is protected by the front of the saddle.
And isn't this the same infantryman you said was so afraid to go into battle that he had to be driven forward by his own officers and cavalry? (Not that I agree with that, just sayin'...)
My advice, stay in line and try to prod a horse in the face. That will help get him and the trained armored killer on his back far enough away that you might survive the morning.
DID horsemen sometimes get surrounded by infantry? Sure! And they usually got captured or killed regardless of how heavily armored they were. Or they carved their way out of trouble again, regardless of how heavily armored they were.
Mr. Stockhaus, that's an excellent image! Very clear and convincing.
Matthew |
Calvary by necessity of being on a big wide horse, can never get formation as close packed as infranty, the horse just wouldn't allow it.Also, me look at late medieval and early modern accounts of calvary charging through (rather disorganized,pike squares) so heavy calvary ramming through formation isn't non existence impossibility. Also,that was hypiothetical suggestion on how to deal lackluster troops in a hurry, I wasn't trying to characterizes all troops that way. Also, it does matter how heavily armored you are great deal, especially if you are surrounded because if you are taking of multiple people in 360 degree arch, now matter how good you are, you are probably going to get hit and probably get hit multiple times. Also, depnding in the period, horse where shorter just look at the Bayues Tapestry. Also, it would be very difficult to hit the groin, being such a small target and in horse, but not impossible. Heck, under the right circumstances, you can stab calvary in the groin with a knife. http://guyfy.com/Game-of-Thrones/Game-of-Thro...FULL-RECAP Also, if it is that impossible to land low stab into the upper legs of a calvaryman, why would heavy Western Europeon even use mail chausses in the first place? like one the posters said, it is heavier because it has to cover the upper and lower leg, and as Dan pointed out, mail making is highly specilized skill. I don't all those crusaders and armoursmithes all decided to make garment that is heavier, more expensive, and as ya'll seem to think completely useless and unecessary just becuase it is chainmail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
One has to wonder how much protection was afforded by the various leg wrappings? If multiple layers of cloth were suitable for body armor in later doublets of fence, why not for the shin?
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4994/15556/
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | One has to wonder how much protection was afforded by the various leg wrappings? If multiple layers of cloth were suitable for body armor in later doublets of fence, why not for the shin?
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4994/15556/ |
A strip or two of cloth or leather wound around the shin in two (maybe three in a few spots) layers is entirely different from twenty-seven layers of tightly packed and quilted cloth. AFAIK, what you see in that picture and others like it are functionally far more like shoelaces and leg warmers than armour. Of course, it might spare you from chance scratches and light bruises, but that's more a quality of life consideration than combat protection.
You'd think quilted greaves should have been a thing, right, since you don't need much movement there and could make them quite thick and stiff indeed, far more so than body armour even... but I've never heard of such things in this context (only much later, as safety gear in the salle, and even that was somewhat speculative). I'm sure there are good pragmatic reasons for this absence.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Calvary by necessity of being on a big wide horse, can never get formation as close packed as infranty, the horse just wouldn't allow it. |
Stirrup to stirrup isn't close? Okay...
| Quote: | | Also, me look at late medieval and early modern accounts of calvary charging through (rather disorganized,pike squares) so heavy calvary ramming through formation isn't non existence impossibility. |
If the cavalry is going through an infantry formation, that part of the battle is over. The infantry has LOST, the cavalry wins, and all that is left is pursuit and slaughter. Sure, a few bold footmen will fight back, but with all their friends on the run, they probably won't last long. Infanty cannot withstand cavalry unless they stay in formation.
| Quote: | | Also,that was hypiothetical suggestion on how to deal lackluster troops in a hurry, I wasn't trying to characterizes all troops that way. |
Okay, fair enough.
| Quote: | | Also, it does matter how heavily armored you are great deal, especially if you are surrounded because if you are taking of multiple people in 360 degree arch, now matter how good you are, you are probably going to get hit and probably get hit multiple times. |
Sure, that's what I said. Of course, most hits to the armor won't go through. But it's stil a situation most folks tried to avoid!
| Quote: | | Also, depnding in the period, horse where shorter just look at the Bayues Tapestry. |
Sure, so? They're still bigger than you, with really hard hooves.
Um, is that a link to a *TV show*? It's fantasy! And it doesn't seem to be showing a battle. I don't know if I've seen ANY ancient or medieval combat on TV or in a movie that even obeyed all the laws of physics, let alone cared about how armor and weapons really work. Yes, if you're a bad fighter, a good fighter with less armor can beat you. But no, if you're sitting on a *medieval* saddle, no one can walk up and push a knife into your groin, even if you are unarmored. And if he tries, why not just kick him?
There is a lot that can happen in any battle. But there is also a lot that no one tries, because it's more dangerous than it's worth.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Stirrup to stirrup isn't close? Okay... |
We have other accounts describing riders as "knee to knee". It is pretty obvious that they rode as closely together as possible and the practice was widespread.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: | | Stirrup to stirrup isn't close? Okay... |
We have other accounts describing riders as "knee to knee". It is pretty obvious that they rode as closely together as possible and the practice was widespread. |
I wasn't saying that riders can't ride in close formation, I was just saying that that calvary can't be formation as densely as an infranty formation, if you tried to get density of with calvalry formation as dense as a infranty formation, the horss wouldn't be able to move. they would kicking each other in the legs or worse simply by the fact that horses are wider than human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | Calvary by necessity of being on a big wide horse, can never get formation as close packed as infranty, the horse just wouldn't allow it. |
Stirrup to stirrup isn't close? Okay...
| Quote: | | Also, me look at late medieval and early modern accounts of calvary charging through (rather disorganized,pike squares) so heavy calvary ramming through formation isn't non existence impossibility. |
If the cavalry is going through an infantry formation, that part of the battle is over. The infantry has LOST, the cavalry wins, and all that is left is pursuit and slaughter. Sure, a few bold footmen will fight back, but with all their friends on the run, they probably won't last long. Infanty cannot withstand cavalry unless they stay in formation.
| Quote: | | Also,that was hypiothetical suggestion on how to deal lackluster troops in a hurry, I wasn't trying to characterizes all troops that way. |
Okay, fair enough.
| Quote: | | Also, it does matter how heavily armored you are great deal, especially if you are surrounded because if you are taking of multiple people in 360 degree arch, now matter how good you are, you are probably going to get hit and probably get hit multiple times. |
Sure, that's what I said. Of course, most hits to the armor won't go through. But it's stil a situation most folks tried to avoid!
| Quote: | | Also, depnding in the period, horse where shorter just look at the Bayues Tapestry. |
Sure, so? They're still bigger than you, with really hard hooves.
Um, is that a link to a *TV show*? It's fantasy! And it doesn't seem to be showing a battle. I don't know if I've seen ANY ancient or medieval combat on TV or in a movie that even obeyed all the laws of physics, let alone cared about how armor and weapons really work. Yes, if you're a bad fighter, a good fighter with less armor can beat you. But no, if you're sitting on a *medieval* saddle, no one can walk up and push a knife into your groin, even if you are unarmored. And if he tries, why not just kick him?
There is a lot that can happen in any battle. But there is also a lot that no one tries, because it's more dangerous than it's worth.
Matthew |
No you didn't. Here is what you said. Matthew: DID horsemen sometimes get surrounded by infantry? Sure! And they usually got captured or killed regardless of how heavily armored they were. Or they carved their way out of trouble again, regardless of how heavily armored they were. You said the opposite. You basically said that armour didn't matter in situation were it probably matters the most to an individual, being attacked in all directions, because it extremely impossible to blocked parry respond to threat in one place without being wide open in another place. Also that Game of thrones clip reference wasn't to try to show that it's easy walk up to guy stab in in the groin with a knife , it was just showing that just because a person is sitting do on the saddle, doesn't mean than there grion and inner thighs are impossible thing to hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, you seemed to be saying that a cavalryman surrounded by infantry could be killed, even if he had armor. I agreed. Yes, armor protects very well, and allows you to ignore or at least survive many blows. But if there are enough determined opponents and you cannot escape them, you will be captured or killed, no matter what you are wearing. (Holding out long enough to be rescued by friends counts as "escaping"!) None of that will be in any way "easy" for the attackers, is all I'm saying! But I thought we were agreed on the general concept. Apologies for the misunderstanding!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | Sorry, you seemed to be saying that a cavalryman surrounded by infantry could be killed, even if he had armor. I agreed. Yes, armor protects very well, and allows you to ignore or at least survive many blows. But if there are enough determined opponents and you cannot escape them, you will be captured or killed, no matter what you are wearing. (Holding out long enough to be rescued by friends counts as "escaping"!) None of that will be in any way "easy" for the attackers, is all I'm saying! But I thought we were agreed on the general concept. Apologies for the misunderstanding!
Matthew |
Thanks for clarification. Not easy, but easier, fighting someone or killing someone you have enveloped is cake walk but as far as combat is concerned, capturing or killing person or group of people have completely surrounded give you the highest chance of success, just look at how few causalities Hannibals forces suffered after Achieving the double envelope at the battle of Cannae. Yes, if you fail to see off your attackers by the fact that you failed in that endevour you will be captured or dead regardless of armour. My point is that armour , specifically in this situation matters allot because the calvaryman is stopped and surrounded by enemies and it extremely hard to aviod getting hit and excaping from adversaries without being struck at least once. Why do think units classes of people throughout military history who trained in close quarter formation breaking are also the ones that wear the most armour? It's being one of the few, going into one of the many is inhereny extremely dangerous, extremely taxing on ones skills and one equipment. If was just nonfactor to people that serve those roles, you would see heavy calvary armoured the same as light calvary, why drop all the money and bear all the wieght for something than is useless?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic