RE: Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Eli Arndt wrote:

> I was going to avoid this thread, but I must agree with Jamie here. 
> Where the idea that plate armor was proof against arrows came from is
> beyond me.  There was a constant progression of weapon developement
back
> then just as today.  For every weapon there was a defense and for
every
> defense a new weapon, etc. 

- From actual experiments?

> Also keep in mind you always have to think of what you're talking
about. 
> Some later plate armor was resistent but this same armour was designed
> for knights who no more than fixed lance mounts on horse back. 

I'm not sure what you want to say here, but 15th century german giothic
armour IS resistant to bodkins (except possibly at point blank range,
not
100% sure about that). It's also of very hard steel, and easily light
enough to fight on foot in.

Of course, there's still a good many place where arrows CAN penetrate,
armpits, back of legs, inner arms etc. The fact that of those armoured
people ecorded to have died by arrows, in the war of the roses, almost
all
died when lowering their bevor/raising their visor for air/drink, should
tell you something?

> Range, quality, tactics, all these are factors in an arguement that is
> so NOT cut and dry. 

Of course. Cheap, lesser quality armour would not be proof etc.

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE6zXAnJXH58oo6ncURAvESAJ41uevYeL6P3kTuIv8ZoQZT6ynykwCdFxqH
2UtJ7sr7FFdCo3ETBll++Po=
=YhaH