The Forge Archives

While I suspect that something like this may be covered in TFOB, I keenly feel the need to ask anyway...

I notice that the core book mentions on page 203 that characters are permitted to purchase armour that affords protection of one or two AV above the usual rating for that armour type.

Could this be used to reflect different types/styles/levels of development of plate armour?

To draw an example from European history:

I would think that a north Italian harness from the latter half of the fifteenth century like this one

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/scarab%20070.jpg

would provide its wearer with substantially more protection than, say, an armour of the late fourteenth century

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/scarab%20058.jpg

and likely more than a contemporary German "Gothic" harness (though I think that the gothic harness might be said to reduce the wearer's CP less...)

http://www.whiterosearmoury.co.uk/High%20gothic%20harness%20web.JPG


Is this what the optional rule of allowing players to purchase more potent armour is intended to represent?  It would seem to make sense to me.  I don't think all those armours provide the same level of protection, even if by strict TROS standards they are all "a full suit of plate armour: AV 6".  If the 14th century early plate harness merits an AV rating of 6, then surely the later Italian armour deserves at least a 7...

The AV is the strength of the armour, not how much area it covers.  That's handled by hit location rules.  AV, area covered, and other CP and per mods pretty much cover all the differences.
   AV can cover the thickness and quality of protection.  I give an average AV of 7 to tilting armour, and an average of 5 to field armour.
   The AV also depends on hit location.  Say, AV3 for finger plates on gauntlets (generally the thinnest part of armour), AV 6 on the breastplate, AV 5 on the back.  A milanese harness like you pointed out could actually give a higher AV in spots due to overlapping.  It could have a massive AV on the shoulders where the pauldron overlaps the breastplate, for example.  But it's not any thicker or stronger than the german armour.  You could say it's stronger than the 14th c armour due to more advanced methods making the metal stronger, and it definitely covers more area with plate.

Personally, having seen modern methods of steel production as well as 'ancient' ones, the different methods used to heat-treat and quench metal make an ENORMOUS difference in the durability and strength of it.
Ask any blacksmith/swordsmith/bladesmith etc. There are vastly different processes that go into making armor, swords, steel in general and such. Thickness doesn't matter, quality does. And of course from a historical standpoint, later armors do in fact protect more than earlier periods.
The height of armor making was at the time when cannons and guns began to replace swords and archers and junk. Though at that point the armor was not effective against guns at all... it certainly was excellent against bladed weapons. Hell, you could be running an adventure where the armor was the best in it's historical day, and not even have guns around yet. Just use some common sense on this. Follow these simple rules too: higher quality armor protects better, but is ALOT more expensive. Thickness means nothing.
There, and for example.. the high strength that steel can have. Example, the legendary katana. How much steel goes into making a katana? How thick is it? It isn't about any of that, it's all about the heating, and the re-heating of the steel... along with the multi-thousands of times they fold it before it even assumes the SHAPE of a sword. Now compare eastern swordmaking with western. Eastern swords were made very high quality, and it took so much time to make them accordingly. Weapons of say, France or England were mass-produced... and they didn't really know how to get the impurities out of steel... hence, one of the swords from France or some damned place might shatter on impact with a rock, or it might bend and stay bent.
So just take this topic and think about it logically for a second; what time period are you in? The country you are running the game in models what historical medieval place? What's the quality of craftsmanship for the item? etc etc etc.

-Ingenious

Ingenious says:
"Eastern swords were made very high quality, and it took so much time to make them accordingly. Weapons of say, France or England were mass-produced... and they didn't really know how to get the impurities out of steel... hence, one of the swords from France or some damned place might shatter on impact with a rock, or it might bend and stay bent."

You believed the katana hype a little too much my friend... They are not better quality. But this is a common error people make - you need not feel embarassed, for it is one easily corrected.

The reason the Katana was folded so many times and hammered on was to reduce the impurities in the sand iron ore that the Japanese smiths had to work with. European smiths had better steel to work with from the beginning, and on the whole european swords tended to be more flexible than thier japanese counterparts.

 This can be seen in modern testcutting on straw mats... Katana's have been know to take a bend if the cut was not done correctly - European swords will tend to flex but return to true under the same conditions.

 And yes the europeans mass produced weapons that could have been of "lesser" quality... But if you don't think that the Japanese mass produced weapons of "lesser" quality as well  to arm thier armies you are living in a fantasy word.

 If you don't believe me, go to: www.swordforum.com -and ask questions on thier bladesmith forums.
  If you don't believe them, go to: www.thearma.org -and they'll basically tell you the same thing.

Thickness does make a difference.  In swords, the better the steel, the thinner it could be, the better it could cut.  European swords were sometime half as thick as japanese ones.  (though they cut using different methods so it didn't detract from asian blades effectiveness)
   As for armour thickness.....
   In the renaissance when they were using "proof" armour to stop bullets, do you think it was just better heat treated?  Nope.  It was the same treatment as normal armour, but it was thicker and heavier to stop the shot.

Quote from: CazThickness does make a difference.  In swords, the better the steel, the thinner it could be, the better it could cut.  European swords were sometime half as thick as japanese ones.  (though they cut using different methods so it didn't detract from asian blades effectiveness)
   As for armour thickness.....
   In the renaissance when they were using "proof" armour to stop bullets, do you think it was just better heat treated?  Nope.  It was the same treatment as normal armour, but it was thicker and heavier to stop the shot.

While thickness did make a difference, it was in a vain attempt to protect against the rapidly improving firearms technology of the mid to late 17th century. It has been found that the toughness of harness reached its apex in the begining of the 1500's with armour ranging in thickness from 16 gauge to 24 gauge, but being vastly more resistant than later models of harness to the shock and shot of battle. The current theory is that the harness was heat treated quite adroitly and was excellent protection, in fact it was sufficient protection at the time to withstand quarrel, arrow and shot from as little as ten paces out.

"One of the most interesting aspects of the development of hardened armor is that as it reached the point where armorers were able to consistently produce the items they begin to reduce and abandon the process. The North Italian makers stopped hardening armor regularly fairly suddenly around 1500-1510(14) and the Southern German production areas tapered off at the turn of the 17th C. The changing requirements of armor and the tactics it faced were probably the chief reasons for such a development.(1) Another factor was the increased use of decorated armor ­etching, gilding and bluing. These processes often involved heat and by the 1570's the German and Greenwich workshops were combining these processes with the tempering. It is likely that fashion won over hardness in Italy and makers left the armors soft to eliminate a step that might be nullified by over heating in these decorative processes.(6)"

-Craig Johnson- Some Aspects of the Metalurgy and Production of European Armour. ca. 1999

which can be read in its entirety right here.... http://www.oakeshott.org/

So we see that the armour's hardness was in fact a very major part of the process of making the armour proof against threat, several other areas included angling and rounding of armour and ribbing of armour, with thickness not really playing too much of a role, save to reduce weight.

A note to add to Mr Johnson's essay, I have read what several fellows at SFI have said may be a major factor in regards to the decline of armour. They theorize that with the rise of towns and their training of skilled militia led to Nobility not being captured by Nobility, but by militia, who did not have the right to ransome them back to their Noble households, and thus, were more inclined to kill their prisoner of means and save the food for their own men. Thus war was no longer fun for the Nobles and they soon reduced their purchases of quality battle armour on any great scale, leaving the armourers with little recourse but to make more decorative stuff they could wear a safe distance from the fight. Let's face it, to a Noble, commoners were little more than money generating vermin. Cheap to throw away a few dozen (thousand) in a fun little dispute as they were armed with a converted farm implement and a rudimentry idea of where they were supposed to stand. Those who survived the campaign would be the sergeants next season...

Well, my roll of pennies for ya...

Cool info, thanks.  I couldn't agree more, except for your personal opinion of nobles.  I don't think it's fair to lump them into a peasant hating, pompous, careless fop category like it seems so cool to do nowdays.
   They were one of the 3 tiers of society back then, and no less important than any other.  True, war was their job, and their sport, but I doubt, even though they had the possibility of ransom, that they pranced through battle with the expectation of it to save them from death in war.  After all, nobles were most effective when facing common soldiers in battle, and if your theory holds, they would be the ones least likely to capture him, as opposed to killing him.  A leader is a leader, regardless of the age, some respect men, some don't, but all have to lead them.    And to most nobles, peasants were not cheap.  Especially the lower you go on the nobility scale.  Even if they didn't like their townsfolk, their townsfolk were who their coffers relied on.  And populations were, for the most part, bumpkin level as compared to nowdays, with few children surviving long enough to produce, making them more valuable and more intimate.  Not to mention a nobles popularity among his men being as good as money back when words meant so much more.  Sorry for the OT, I'm sure it'll make no sense to me when I read it again..

While thats true, that nobles were not a universally peasant-hating lot, there were many reasons for a highly conflicted relationship.  In the first instance, the noble in Feudal europe is likely to be of a very different ethnicity than the peasantry.  The Normans - themselves specifically the descendants of Vikings - conquored England, Ireland, Pomerania, Prussia, Muslim spain, Sicily, Cyprus and set up kingdoms in the holy land.  And these are tax-taking statelets with a coercive relationship with a populace whose culture and values and social referants they probably don't share, and who were subjugated by main force and may well be considered hostile.  There is no presumption here that any of these statelets are one people, with shared goals and problems.  This kind of scenario encourages a "familiarity breeds contempt" view on the part of the nobility, for whom reinforcing their high status and and immunity to revenge is an important concern.  When Richard the Lionheart was mortally wounded by a lowly crossbowman, he summoned the man to his tent and publicly forgave him; but this didn't stop his entourage flaying  the man alive just to make sure that the word didn't get about that commoners could kill kings and expect to get away with it.

Quote from: CazCool info, thanks.

Glad I could help! :)

Quote
I don't think it's fair to lump them into a peasant hating, pompous, careless fop category like it seems so cool to do nowdays.

I admit I was harsh. However, the Nobility did tend to have a general idea that they were better by God's will (I am trying to put this in context, not get religious or political) than the local commonality. They were more than happy to send the peasants into battle, using thier regular soldiery as a core unit around which the levy operated.

Quote
They were one of the 3 tiers of society back then, and no less important than any other.  True, war was their job, and their sport, but I doubt, even though they had the possibility of ransom, that they pranced through battle with the expectation of it to save them from death in war.  After all, nobles were most effective when facing common soldiers in battle, and if your theory holds, they would be the ones least likely to capture him, as opposed to killing him.  A leader is a leader, regardless of the age, some respect men, some don't, but all have to lead them.

I do have to reiterate that townsfolk who were part of the militia (every able bodied male aged 15 - 35 give or take) were training on a regular basis every Saturday or Sunday in combat during the rise of the towns. These guys, while not as skilled as the Noble, could be able to engage and deal with him in a rapid manner should they out number him even two or three to one. The townsfolk had armouries and their training and equipment was usually many times better than that of the levy, and armour being a force mulitplier meant that a few hundred townsmen wearing a halfharness or some maille and equipped with pike and axes/maces/swords & buckler (and of course supported by arlbelestiers and musketry) would be able to engage a levied force several times thier number and expect to win. A pack of commoners in the service of a Noble would most often try to keep the opposing Noble coralled while their lord swung around to engage the peer. Not too much a problem for the better equipped (usually) and trained (often) townsmen.

Quote
And to most nobles, peasants were not cheap.  Especially the lower you go on the nobility scale.  Even if they didn't like their townsfolk, their townsfolk were who their coffers relied on.  And populations were, for the most part, bumpkin level as compared to nowdays, with few children surviving long enough to produce, making them more valuable and more intimate.  Not to mention a nobles popularity among his men being as good as money back when words meant so much more.  Sorry for the OT, I'm sure it'll make no sense to me when I read it again..

You are right, peasants were not easy to replace, but given that the population was steadily growing due to prolific reproductive rates to recover from the plague (a season onto itself) and the fact that most valuable positions within the support structure were left behind when a battle was joined as well as the fact that you can have 10 year olds working the fields the death of a peasant would be of little real consequence to a noble. If a person of value were to die in battle (or even of the plague or "the French Disease"), well, he had apprentices, apprentices who would pay handsomely for the priveledge of being a partisan in a holding... I also feel it has a lot to do with the topic at hand as it does tie in to the way armour evolved, waxed and waned in the past especially in regards to the treatment that said proofness recieved. I feel that it was more than just the evolution of technology that led to the way harness changed, it was also the evolution of society.

Quote from: contracycleWhile thats true, that nobles were not a universally peasant-hating lot, there were many reasons for a highly conflicted relationship.

Again, admitting I was harsh...

Quote
In the first instance, the noble in Feudal europe is likely to be of a very different ethnicity than the peasantry.  The Normans - themselves specifically the descendants of Vikings - conquored England, Ireland, Pomerania, Prussia, Muslim spain, Sicily, Cyprus and set up kingdoms in the holy land.  And these are tax-taking statelets with a coercive relationship with a populace whose culture and values and social referants they probably don't share, and who were subjugated by main force and may well be considered hostile.

Too true, few people know of the migration era or of the exploitive eras of conquest that immediately followed. I myself had failed to remember them for the purposes of my responce.

Quote
There is no presumption here that any of these statelets are one people, with shared goals and problems.  This kind of scenario encourages a "familiarity breeds contempt" view on the part of the nobility, for whom reinforcing their high status and and immunity to revenge is an important concern.

You just gotta love the conditions of the time, huh?  

Quote
When Richard the Lionheart was mortally wounded by a lowly crossbowman, he summoned the man to his tent and publicly forgave him; but this didn't stop his entourage flaying  the man alive just to make sure that the word didn't get about that commoners could kill kings and expect to get away with it.

"I forgive you, but it won't help much as those five knights over there are pretty mad you have messed up their power base and guaranteed income...ggggggkkkkk" *thud*

I read about that crossbow incident.... Wasn't that "friendly" fire?  Accidental?

Quote from: CazI read about that crossbow incident.... Wasn't that "friendly" fire?  Accidental?

You know that's a good question. Regardless, you mess with a knight's income and you aren't a Noble yourself, well, it's a bad scene... ;)

Why did you guys drag the conversation off in that direction?  I'm floored.

To bring the discussion back to its original topic...

I did not post the photos of different types of plate armour in order to point out that certain styles covered more of the wearer than others.  Mostly, I wanted to indicate that, at least in the case of the Milanese harness, some armours featured a good deal of redundant protection.  

Perhaps using the full suit of plate was a bad choice on my part.  How about this, then:

Let's say my character wants to buy a breastplate, but not just any breastplate.  He wants one with AV 7.  What does the Seneschal do?  Merely say "Okay.  You commission a cuirass made of thicker, better steel than the sort commonly sold.", or could I insist that it be represented by one of those 15th century style Milanese cuirasses, with the reinforcing plackart and lower backplate forming a double layer of defense?  Coverage isn't an issue, since as far as that is concerned, all cuirasses cover the same areas.  Thus, the only way one breastplate can offer more protection than another is to either be made of something better, or to be thicker...

Sorry you got floored.  Yeah the only way to change the AV if it covers the same area is quality, construction methods and/or thickness.
   Milanese style cuirasses with the plackart and breastplate are no more protective, it's not redundant.  The breast plate under the plackart only really covers what the plackart doesn't, it's a feature for extra mobility, not double protection.  It also lets the user mix and match more if it's attached by strap and buckle.
   Sounds like you're really just looking for game mechanics to differentiate.  If you have a character with a notably heavier armour because for some reason it was made extra thick, you could have him get fatigued faster, or have a larger CP penalty.  Often, the less articulated armour is, the better it protects, but the less flexibility you have, costing more CP.  Just some ideas.  Really most differences in armour styles or types aren't significant enough to warrant mechanics in the game.

Please forgive me in advance if I sound condescending...


Milanese armour from this period *is* redundant.  Remarkably so, for its weight.  I own and regularly fight in a very expensive and exacting reproduction of just such a harness.  I also account myself more than adequately well-read on this subject, and spend entirely too much of my free time researching obscure topics related to it...

Probably the best resources on Italian armour from this period are certain books in Italian by Lionello Boccia.  They are immensely costly, if you can even find them at all.  However, one can find certain excerpts from them online, and this one I've found includes a fair number of photos from the collection of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery in Mantova, the world's largest and best-preserved concentration of late 15th and early 16th century homogenous plate harnesses of Italian manufacture.  I paid my armourer handsomely to make doubly certain that nearly every feature on my own harness can be documented in these pages, and referred to them often...

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/153b.htm

Here is a fairly typical example of the type of cuirass I have in mind.  Notice just how much of the upper breastplate is covered by the lower one.  Note also  that much of the remainder of the upper breast is covered by the extremely large pauldrons:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/150a.htm

Look at the back, too.  The overlap of the pauldrons concentrates several layers of metal here as well:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/151b.htm

If that isn't redundancy, then what is?

What about this breastplate?  Only a small area around the lance-rest remains defended by one layer of steel:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171a.htm

The pauldrons that are usually worn with armour like this almost invariably feature reinforcing plates, and those on the left side in particular must surely qualify as interposing several thicknesses of metal between a weapon and the wearer should a blow light there.  Here is such a pauldron displayed, both with and without its reinforce, demonstrating the double layer of metal:

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/164b.htm

Browse the rest of the photos.  What about those arm harness?  Between the enormous elbow defences, the long cuffs of the gauntlets, and the overlap of the pauldrons and rerebraces, nary a spot on the arm, especially the left, is covered by less than two layers.  What about the armets?  Wrappers and brow reinforces ensure that the head is afforded the protection of plenty of layers, too.

Superfluity of protection was precisely what the designers of this sort of armour had in mind.  It seems to have been effective, too.  Doesn't Philippe de Commynes say in his memoirs, recalling the battle of Fornovo in 1495 that it often took three or four Frenchmen armed with daggers, woodsmen's axes, and blocks of wood (incidentally, no long-swords/estocs, halberds, becs-de-corbin, or any other supposedly 'armour-piercing' weapons are chosen for the task...) to kill just one Italian clad in such near-perfect personal bodily protection?

Issues of coverage aside (and not yet going into the high quality of the metal used for these armours), why shouldn't harnesses like these merit an Armour Value rating of at least a 7, if one like this

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/197.htm

grants the wearer an AV of 6?