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

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.

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.	

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

Eli

>Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:49:28 -0700
>From: Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com>
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>
>Derk Groeneveld wrote:
>
>> No they don't - not through plate, anyway. Mail, yes. Plate? If
you're
>> reallyy lucky.
>
>Plate? Hell yeah. Don't get me on this argument. As a memeber of the
SCA
>in an area were plate is proof from missile fire even though we TESTED
>regular arrows with high power bows throw plate armour and it is like a
>hot knife. At long range no, but once you get closer it's just nasty to
>look at.
>
>Jaime

------------------------------------------------------------
Get Your Free Star Wars Email at http://www.wattosjunkyard.com