differing types of plate armour

[Caz]

Hey that makes 2 of us.  I own and train in a milanese harness.  Mine has less covering spaulders w/besagews though.  Italian styles tend to use less articulation covering more area.  It turns out the same weight as most other harnesses though (mine's only 55 lbs w/out gussets), meaning they don't use any more metal, meaning about equal AV, in game terms, but better coverage.  
   My harness has an armet w/brow reinforce, and gauntlets usually double up the vambraces, even my cuirass is the breastplate/plackart combo.  Just about every piece overlaps another at some point, but I wouldn't call any of it redundant.  I'd say german harnesses just leave too many openings for my preference!

[contracycle]

"redundant" can mean "backup" as well as "useless", I note.

But the question is note whether or not armour a is thicker than armour b; the question is whether or not this quality justifies a whole point of AV in the given scale.

[Crusader]

Fair enough.

Bringing weight (and thus the amount of metal) into the issue...

I submit that Italian cuirasses significantly outweighed contemporary German ones.

Consider that Boccia's "L'armatura Lombarda...etc, etc." lists most of the (slightly stripped down, you notice...) cuirasses of the mid/late fifteenth century harnesses depicted therein as being in the 16-18 pound range, and would probably approach twenty or more if they still had their culets, and side and rear tassets, more still if  allowance is made for the loss of a few ounces to corrosion down the centuries.

Those ornate German "Gothic" cuirasses on the other hand, at least according to what literature I have on the subject never seem to get any heavier than 13 pounds or so, with most being substantially lighter, often not even ten pounds.

Now, I would guess that the built-in overlap of the Italian cuirass is likely what makes up much of the difference in weight, since the German ones, as can be demonstrated, do not continue the overlap of their articulated plates much further than they have to in order to obtain body coverage with one layer of metal.

At this point in history, it is unlikely that either the Germans or the Italians are practicing quenching and tempering methods that result in either's product being significantly harder (and thus making up for lack of metal thickness with metal quality), so I conclude that the average mid-to-late-fifteenth century Italian cuirass, by virtue of amount of metal interposed between wearer and weapon, affords more protection than the average contemporary German one.  

I see nothing in the TROS rules that would lead me to believe that a German "gothic" cuirass should have less than an AV 6, so I would, in my game, reflect the Italian cuirass' superiority by awarding it an AV 7.

[Durgil]

I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgable about plate armour styles.  By gothic, are you guys referring to the maximillion style or flutted plate?  If you are, then this type was supposed to be thinner and therefore lighter because they used the flutting to increase the strength of the metal plate.  I'll have to check my sources, but I have always been under the impression that this was height of full, plate harness creation.

[Caz]

I hate to drag this out but I've heard far different about the weights.  Compare a gothic cuirass to a milanese one.  Size and protection are about the same.  It's mostly the other parts that do the additional overlapping or whatnot.  The cuirass would be roughly the same weight.  Cuirasses alone, of german or italian style, averaged 10 to 18 pounds.  There is no possible way the entire harness could only weight that much!

[Crusader]

Don't worry about dragging it out.  Now that the discussion is back on topic, this has been interesting.  :)

I'm not sure, Caz, where you got your information, but all mine gives the weights as I described them earlier.  I can do nothing else but repeat what my sources say.  If you have better sources, by all means, share.

"L'armatura Lombarda" gives the weights in kilograms for each piece of each harness illustrated within.  Here follow the weights for each of the pre-sixteenth century cuirasses from these harnesses, broken down into their component pieces, in both kilos and pounds:

Armour B1:
Petto/Schiena(upper breast and backplates): 3.333kg/7.33 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene(lower breast and backplates): 2.270kg/4.99 lbs
Falda Anteriore(frontal fauld): 1.9kg/4.18 lbs
Total: 7.503kg/16.506 lbs

Armour B2:
Petto/Schiena: 3.3kg/7.26 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.52kg/5.544 lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.53kg/3.366 lbs
Total: 7.35kg/16.17 lbs

Armour B3:
Petto/Schiena: 3.2kg/7.04 lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.4kg/5.28lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.45kg/3.19lbs
Total: 7.05kg/15.51lbs

Armour B4:
Petto/Schiena: 3.335kg/7.337lbs
Panziera/Guardarene: 2.75kg/6.05lbs
Falda Anteriore: 1.26kg/2.772lbs
Total: 7.345kg/16.159lbs

Keep in mind, of course, that once the rear fauld, and the front, side, and rear tassets are in place, the weight would increase still more, possibly as much as four pounds, since the frontal tassets weigh in at around a pound or more apiece(most seem to be in the 400g to 700g range), and I'm guessing the rear faulds will weigh somewhat less than the frontal ones.  

What's more, the above weights may actually be on the lighter end of weights for Italian cuirasses of this era.  Oswald Graf Trapp's "The Armoury of the Castle Churburg", which is another large and fine collection of armour, much of it from the area and period we're concerned with, provides weights for many of the pieces contained therein as well.  While we are used to hearing that field armours weighed around 55 pounds or so, it is clear that some of them, still made for normal-sized people (we won't bring up the harness for the nearly seven-foot tall man, whose cuirass alone approaches 45 pounds!), weighed somewhat more.  The war harness of Galeazzo D'Arco, for instance, though it is missing its right arm defence, weighs more than 64 pounds.  

Some exact figures on the weights of German cuirasses:

Churburg:
Breastplate & fauld: 3.15kg/6.93lbs
Backplate & fauld: 1.02kg/2.244lbs
Total: 4.17kg/9.174lbs

The famous 'Sigismund' Gothic harness (no kilogram figures):
Breastplate & fauld:7lbs 8oz
Backplate & fauld:5lbs 3oz
Total: 12lbs 11oz

Though slightly later (c.1510 or so), the cuirass from the 'Wladislas' harness depicted in the appendix of Edge & Paddock's "Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight" weighs:
Breastplate & fauld: 2.7kg/5lbs 14oz
Backplate & fauld: 2.3kg/5lbs 1oz
Total: 5kg/10lbs 15oz

Recall also, the passage in Johan Hill's "Treatise of Worship in Arms" about how a man shall be armed which reads, in part: "...and then a pair of plates at 20 pounds weight...".  It seems that it was no unusual thing at all for the cuirass to comprise a third or more of an armour's total mass.  

Once again, I feel that this evidence earns the North Italian cuirass from the fifteenth century a somewhat higher AV rating than other styles.  I still don't see how you could rate that double-thick breastplate

http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/170b.htm
http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171a.htm
http://www.thadenarmory.com/authentic_pics/larmatura_lombarda/pages/171b.htm

as providing only the same defensive quality as a gothic cuirass.

I'm also interested in what Jake or Brian has to say on the matter...

[Caz]

I agree, the information you just posted is the same as mine.  I guess I read wrongly, earlier it sounded like you were saying some complete armours were the weight of the cuirasses you just listed.
   That particular double thick breastplate you posted the pic of I would say isn't the norm.  I'd give it a lot more AV.   It looks like sort of a breastplate version of a wrapper, a reinforcement for jousting that could be strapped on.  Whether it was worn normally or just for jousting who knows?  With it on though I'd double the AV.  Most antique breastplates I've seen though, whether it's the breastplate/plackart combo or a breastplate articulated, it's just for extra movement, overlapping only enough to give it, like articulated knees or elbows, not doubling the protection for more than it has to.  My replica italian cuirass for example, it's the breastplate/plackart combo.  It has a lot of overlap because it the strap and buckle suspension, but the actual breastplate still falls pretty shy of a normal one, being cut fairly short.  It could still be worn alone but would only cover the ribs.

[Crusader]

Do you have any photos of your harness online, Caz?  I'd dearly love to see it.

I'll see if I can dig up some of my own...

[Salamander]

I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgable about plate armour styles.  By gothic, are you guys referring to the maximillion style or flutted plate?  If you are, then this type was supposed to be thinner and therefore lighter because they used the flutting to increase the strength of the metal plate.  I'll have to check my sources, but I have always been under the impression that this was height of full, plate harness creation.

Maximillian Plate was developed between 1490 & 1502 as the relative pinacle of harness. In homour of Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian I. Gothic was developed between 1450 and 1480 in Italy and in Germany between 1470 and 1520.

[Salamander]

Crusader,
I do have to admit I agree with Caz in respect to the suit you linked for us. It looks like one of the many experiments we see in regards to tilt armour from the era.

I cannot see that suit of harness being very mobile or flexible. While it would provide an increased amount of AV, I would say the CP Penalty would be pretty high.

[Crusader]

How would it be any less flexible than a one-piece breastplate?

The armours in the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery are traditionally held to have been left there following the battle of Marignano in 1515.  I don't see any features on that harness that lead me to believe that it is anything other than a field harness.

[Salamander]

How would it be any less flexible than a one-piece breastplate?

The armours in the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery are traditionally held to have been left there following the battle of Marignano in 1515.  I don't see any features on that harness that lead me to believe that it is anything other than a field harness.

The Breast plate itself, no, not any more flexible, but the pauldrons seem to interfere with the movement of the arms and raising the arms anywhere seems to look like it would be challenging to say the least. They are rather extreme compared to examples I have seen elsewhere.

Also, in regards to those overlapping areas, has anybody gone to the trouble of checking the gauge on them in regards to the other areas of the armour versus any type of calculated mean as well as consider the VPH of the metal? Just curious.

[toli]

Previous arguements aside, I generally interpret the AV in TROS (and all armor blocks damage games) slightly differently.  IMHO, AV integrates both the ability to just plain stop damage and the difficulty of finding a weak point.  It is basically an statistical average of sorts.  No one with a dagger is going to stab through a breast plate.  The damage will come when the attacker stabs into the arm pit or the eye slit etc.  Thus for a dagger or cut and thrust sword, the AV really models the difficulty in getting at an armpit, eye slit or what have you.  

The AV of 6 for full plate incorporates a number of things.  One is the the thickness of the armor.  Another is some sort of mail underlayer probably mail gussests on an arming doublet.  Another would be the ability of the armor to deflect blows.  Regarding the mail, I would not give a breast plate alone an AV of 6 because the person could still be stabbed in the armpits.  With full harness, the armpits would be covered by mail.

Higher quality armor gives either reduced CP and Move penalties or higher AV.  The reduced CP etc would be from lighter construction from better steel or better articulation etc.  Higher AV could come from two sources.  One would be thicker metal. Another might be "fine points".  For example better protection for the amrpits and elbow joints would give higher AV.  The various additional plates and the like that were mean to deflect lance blows away from the head would be another.

I envision the AV6 plate armor in TROS as your basic run of the mill plate from about 1450.  It is what the basic knight or man-at-arms might have.  Higher nobles would certainly have better armor whether higher AV or lower CP penalty.

NT

[Poleaxe]

I just bought TROS, and it's a great realistic system, with one major exception in IMO (easily fixed, though).  Does anyone have a problem with the way that plate armor versus chain mail is represented?  The penalties for a full plate suit are just too steep according to my research (and I've been doing a lot of research on this lately, will take time to compile all the resources though).  TROS isn't alone though, many other systems represent Plate poorly as well, even more poorly (d20 and gurps come to mind).

A typical full suit of chain mail (including mail coif) weighed approximately 50 to 60 pounds, about the same weight as a suit of full plate.  For chain this includes the hauberk (which weighed anywhere from 20 to 35 pounds, possibly because some were actually two pieces, front and back), the coif – up to ten pounds, the leggings – up to ten pounds, plus all other areas (hands, etc.) and most importantly it included the significant padding/cloth armor worn underneath.  This was mostly necessary to reduce impact and piercing blows, AND to prevent infection from the chain mail being embedded in your flesh when you were hit with a strong sword blow.

Full Plate also had this padding/cloth/leather underneath the metal, but needed less of it.  Considering these facts and that plate was form fitted to its wearer, I can't think of any reason a designer would choose to represent a suit of full plate as being more difficult to fight in than chain mail.  If anything, since they are about the same weight and plate was evenly distributed (chain hung on the shoulders, but also fastened to the belt –leggings and hauberk – to put some weight on the waist), I would think plate would incur LESS of a penalty.  Was the higher CP penalty for full plate implemented in TROS for game balance?  It really does not seem realistic, the penalty should be the same as for chain.  Plate just cost ridiculously more!

And please don't say that the shoulder pauldrons were so large they were restrictive.  These kinds of shoulder guards did not come into use for plate until the later stages of plate: Gothic and Maximillian.  Then, yes, the –3 cp modifier would make sense, but so would an AV of 7 for the shoulder (something like that).

The only time plate was really cumbersome was during the mid-fourteenth century, a transitional period between full chain and full plate suits, when Plate (especially breast plates) were combined with full suits of chain.  Then, it makes sense for a total –3 cp to apply.

Also,  I think helmets incur to high a penalty.  Why a –1 cp for a chain coif?  Other than decreased perception (which probably should be a higher penalty for that attribute), did it really restrict combat ability that much?  Perhaps the increased perception penalty, plus an increased chance that a mobile opponent could take advantage (a chance to surprise his opponent as per surprise rules in TROS by performing certain maneuvers).  All in all, I would only give a –1 CP penalty to those full helmets that had those narrow eyeslits.  I will admit, perhaps I am wrong on the helmet.

But in general, it seems that most of the TROS research really focused on weapons research, particularly swordplay.  I looked at the list of sources in the back of TROS, which confirms my suspicion further.  No significant sources on the details of armor.  It really seems like this system is skewed towards unarmored (or lightly armored) combatants.  The fact of the matter was that the armor knight was a greatly feared Sherman tank of the MA's unless you were similarly armored, or you had superior numbers with weapons designed to penetrate plate or exploit its weaknesses (like polearms that hooked plated riders and pulled them off their horses).

Overall, I was significantly disappointed in the treatment of armor in the TROS book, even more so because so FEW kinds of armor are listed!  What about the important "coat of plates?"  I'm sure other people can list other kinds of armor as well.  I would think with all the weapons listed in the book (and the existing rules for them in this book are good enough to cover all the bases, IMO), and the $35 price tag, that more armor types would have been listed.  Are more listed in TFOB?  Even if so, should have been in the original TROS.

Otherwise, I think the system is great, and a much needed step towards better fantasy combat systems.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Alan

[Brian Leybourne]

For the record, we agree that the armor penalties are a little harsh, and there will be a large section on armor in TFOB that addresses your concerns as well as showing exactly what parts of the body each type of armor covers, new armor types and materials, etc.

Brian.