Jumping back to: "What's the point of partial armor in a system where the attacker declares where his blow will land?"

Style, baby. Style. Part of being a hero is looking good.

Unless you're a card-carrying knight or a member of the watch, you're not going to be walking around in armor. In my campaign, most of the fights take place when the characters aren't tricked out in ironmongery. This may have to do with the fact that I slap penalties on characters who spend too much time in anything more than an arming doublet and a chain hauberk. It's one thing when you know you're going into battle; it's another when a character wears plate armor every day as some kind of paranoid fashion statement.

Even so, you can usually get by with a chain hauberk under your cloak. And the fact that you enemy is not required to target your chest doesn't mean that you wouldn't try to protect your vitals.

In my game experience, if you keep targeting only the unarmored parts of your enemy, you may get frustrated when, instead of standing their ground to trade blows with you like Tyson/Holyfield I, your enemy keeps pulling a full evade. Start throwing blows at his damn breatplate. Sure enough, he'll drop some dice from his defense roll to hang in and hit you... and that's when you pull a feint and cut his damn leg off.

(For what it's worth, when GMing (Seneschal, whatever) I DO use the optional CP penalties for striking at different zones. )

Split from this post, which is old and would like to stay in retirement. Please check the forum rules sticky if you're unsure of what I'm talking about :-)

Brian.

In some of my research and reading recently I have repetitively read that while someone carrying a weapon in public was even expected, someone in Armor was looking for a fight. Remember that perception is everything when it comes to much of the way the real world works, and that is a breaking point in any "realistic" RPG where there isn't an agreement within the group to treat perceptions and social issues with the importance they deserve in a "realistic" game (assuming that's the groups goal).

If there's one thing that the Forge has really, truly made a believer in me about, it's "social contract."

Jake

lets not forget my favorite reason for only having partial armor---


MONEY!

Full plate costs a crapload!

that should be 'nuff said.


but as a side question, I imagine that plate might be less cumbersome than chain assuming that plate done right is distributed across teh body while chain just rests on the shoulders. Any one with some insight on this out there?

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: but as a side question, I imagine that plate might be less cumbersome than chain assuming that plate done right is distributed across teh body while chain just rests on the shoulders. Any one with some insight on this out there?

I have a lot of experience in both mail and plate armours. Mail is quite a bit heavier, and unless you've trained in it that much more, it will tire you quicker thn plate. A hauberk will mostly rest on the shoulders, wearing out your deltoid muscles when using weapons and shields quickly if you're not used to it, though if you put a belt on over it it will distribute a portion onto your hips.
But it allows more freedom of movement than all but the best plate armours, not that they are particularly restrictive either. And the protective value of mail is often highly underrated. Or I should say "real" mail. No mail can be "cut" or "broken", even decorative butted mail, and real mail was just as hard to break by piercing. It even takes out a good portion of blunt damage. It effectively turns cutting weapons into bludgeoning ones though (hence my house rule, the only damage that exceeds armour rating, except on the occasional common sense call, it blunt)

Caz wrote: No mail can be "cut" or "broken", even decorative butted mail, and real mail was just as hard to break by piercing. It even takes out a good portion of blunt damage. It effectively turns cutting weapons into bludgeoning ones though (hence my house rule, the only damage that exceeds armour rating, except on the occasional common sense call, it blunt)

Hi,

I saw a documentary recently on British TV entitled ‘The Genius of the Vikings’ They were examining the factors that made the Vikings the superior military force of the day. They took some samples of Viking mail to a police forensics lab at tested them using a machine the police use. Basically it thrusts into the target with the equivalent force of a human blow.

If I remember correctly, they tested a dagger, an arrowhead, a spearhead and possibly an axe slash and a sword thrust. All of them pierced two types of Mail (different types of links/styles available in the period) and mail with leather under armour, on each occasion the weapons always pierced the mail.

I also saw a documentary on the UK History channel about Armours and armour by Professor Richard Holmes, he said that through out history (including modern warfare) no warrior has gone into battle carrying more than 75lbs in weight.
They also had some film of guys in full-pate mail (It looked like the later 13th C+ stuff) doing acrobatics (Ninja style flip-flaps) no problems.

Not pointing this a out to be argumentative of contrary to previous posters after all it’s just stuff on TV (when it comes to History and archaeology ‘Factual’ is a bit of a misnomer).

In our (meaning mine and the ARMA's) tests, mail of the quality seen in arms collections dating from the 1400s and forward has been impossible to cut or stab with significant effect. The materials under the mail are often destroyed, however. I can provide more details if needed.

Jake

The Viking mail dates considerably earlier, so is likely made with fewer overlaps. It was just an interesting aside. The documentary was trying to determine what made the Vikings so superior in that time period; they tested Viking armour and weapons (wondering if it was better than the Saxon equivalent).

In the end they decided that it was the Viking religious fanaticism and warrior culture that made the difference, not any difference in the weapons.

Like I said I wasn’t trying to be argumentative or contrary. Chainmail was around for a long time I guess like all other military technology it went through a number of upgrades and improvements.

Anyway back to the topic any PC who lives in his Fullplate is just asking to be struck by lighting, pushed into ditches, ponds, streams, or perhaps have is purse nicked by unencumbered youths who are fleet of foot.

BTW Mr Norwood, Love your game! (Just got it on Monday).

ZenDog, I don't know anything about the program you were watching, but I don't think and Viking-era mail survives in any kind of condition to be accurately tested for protective quality. Talk with Erik Schmid about the weapon-resisting qualities of historical mail. That man has forgotten more about mail armour than the rest of us will ever know.


As far as going about town in armour goes, what about a brigandine? I think TROS needs some rules for these. They were a very common armour in their day, and are perfect for wearing out in public. In fact, I recall reading some inventories of clothing owned by a member of the De Medici family. He had at least two or three garments that had been lined with 'lames of Milan steel" or were indicated as being 'of brigandine work'. I can provide the necessary references if desired...

Crusader wrote: ZenDog, I don't know anything about the program you were watching, but I don't think and Viking-era mail survives in any kind of condition to be accurately tested for protective quality. Talk with Erik Schmid about the weapon-resisting qualities of historical mail. That man has forgotten more about mail armour than the rest of us will ever know.

Crusader wrote:
As far as going about town in armour goes, what about a brigandine? I think TROS needs some rules for these. They were a very common armour in their day, and are perfect for wearing out in public. In fact, I recall reading some inventories of clothing owned by a member of the De Medici family. He had at least two or three garments that had been lined with 'lames of Milan steel" or were indicated as being 'of brigandine work'. I can provide the necessary references if desired...

Crusader wrote:
As far as going about town in armour goes, what about a brigandine? I think TROS needs some rules for these. They were a very common armour in their day, and are perfect for wearing out in public. In fact, I recall reading some inventories of clothing owned by a member of the De Medici family. He had at least two or three garments that had been lined with 'lames of Milan steel" or were indicated as being 'of brigandine work'. I can provide the necessary references if desired...

On the other hand, invisible armor -like a suede doublet lined with chain or a brigandine- could be *very* effective. A surprise attack would most likely aim for vital organs and then harmlessly hit the armor, while obvious protection would be worked around.

Crusader wrote: ZenDog, I don't know anything about the program you were watching, but I don't think and Viking-era mail survives in any kind of condition to be accurately tested for protective quality.

contracycle wrote:

Crusader wrote:
...but I believe armour must have been penetrable, for there seem to be too many accounts of severe injuries inflicted despite armour, IIRC.

Much depends on the tone of your campaign. Many of the posts here deal with historical accuracy. However, if you are trying to catch the spirit of THE SONG OF ROLAND, where Bishop Turpin is cleaving armored men from breastbone to pelvis, the armor rules work well as they are.

I know almost nothing about lamellar or brigandine (except for what it looks like), but from the descriptions, it seems to me it would have an Armor rating of 3 and not impose penalties on stealth rolls...

Richard_Strey wrote: On the other hand, invisible armor -like a suede doublet lined with chain or a brigandine- could be *very* effective. A surprise attack would most likely aim for vital organs and then harmlessly hit the armor, while obvious protection would be worked around.

True. But that "ineffective" attack might well give you the opportunity to fight back or evade in the first place, while a hit on an unarmored location would have you on the ground directly.

spunky wrote:
Much depends on the tone of your campaign. Many of the posts here deal with historical accuracy. However, if you are trying to catch the spirit of THE SONG OF ROLAND, where Bishop Turpin is cleaving armored men from breastbone to pelvis, the armor rules work well as they are.

contracycle wrote: Yes indeed, historical accuracy. As I said, there are too many accounts to simply dismiss; it seems inconceivable that so much fighting would have gone on if neither party could hurt one another, no? If armour is so good, one wonders what causes the many casualties found in medieval accounts of battle.

Richard_Strey wrote: True. But that "ineffective" attack might well give you the opportunity to fight back or evade in the first place, while a hit on an unarmored location would have you on the ground directly.

Greetings,

I was told that I should take a look at this forum since my name was brought up recently. After reading the manner in which it was referred to I have to admit that I am a bit flattered. Let me say thank you to Crusader and Salamander. However I will be the first to tell you about my shortcomings pertaining to mail. The only reason I have reached the level so many of you seem to feel I have is simply because I know of no other person who would devote their existence to this mind numbing endeavor. Of course being completely obsessed with the subject does tend to keep you focused though and allow one to see things others with only a passing interest may miss. Because of this passion I hope to be able to get more quality information about mail out to all of you who have a genuine interest in the subject. Now if I could just get my wife to understand that I am providing a much needed humanitarian service... ;)

I would like to address some of the things mentioned here about mail, the weapons used against it, and how well it may or may not have faired.

ZenDog, you mentioned a test using Viking mail. I am quite sure that what they were using was a modern version of it. There are very few surviving fragments that we know of. One of the best known pieces is the Gjermundbu shirt. This piece is in a fragmentary condition, but much can be gleaned from what is left. When new it would have been a very stout defense. That is, provided it had a decent foundation garment in which it was worn over. Now whether this was padded in the sense that we tend to think of padding we can not say. Much more research is needed in this area.

You are correct when you say that mail underwent upgrades and improvements. However, it apparently stayed much the same in terms of link design for well over a millennia before undergoing a large transformation. The mail used during the Roman Empire was for all intents and purposes much the same if not identical to that used by the Vikings centuries later. Milanese mail from the 14th century looks almost identical to the mail of the Gjermundbu shirt which is several centuries older. The riveted links are of round section and are closed with round rivets. The main change in mail link design, other than link size, happens around the 13th-14th centuries around Germany. Now we start to see links being manufactured with flattened sentions and having wedge shaped rivets. This type seems to dominate the mail world in Europe. Of course we also see round section mail changing from round rivets to wedge shaped ones as well. The thing to remember here is that there is still round section mail around and will remain in use into the 16-17th centuries.

Also, I do not think that the mail used in the test you spoke of was made in the same fashion as Viking mail. More than likely it was made with the cheapest materials available. I have recently had a good deal of experience with these production companies and I must say that it is a wonder anything ever makes it to the screen let alone anything with substance. Their research leaves much to be desired.

Salmander, you are quite correct about the wonderful thing that is "blunt trauma". This is why we start seeing heavily padded garments such as gambesons and jacks. Each of these was fantastic at distributing the force of the blow over a wider area thus minimizing the force of said blow. Mail is absolutely no defense against this type of attack, which is why it was usually worn in conjunction with some sort of textile defense.

The hidden brigandine would indeed have been employed as and anti-assassin type defense. There are accounts of mail being used in the same fashion. I believe it was one of the DeMedici's that was saved from a stiletto by the use of a mail shirt worn under his normal clothing.

Contracycle, I too have seen many of the accounts you mentioned. What you have to keep in mind is how they can be exagerated over time into stories that simply defy logic. Also, they do not go into great detail of what exactly happened either. The account of Anna Comnena may be just that the mans arm was severed and in doing so cut the strap holding the breastplate on which caused it to come undone. You see we are looking through a very small window and as such cannot see the whole picture of what was really taking place. Also, these tales are meant to boost the image of certain people, which you allude to.

It is true that not everyone had armour, but the ones who did were for the most part well protected to a certain degree. Sure there were many killed in battles, but we do not know the particulars surrounding their deaths and probably never will, so speculating about the quality of armour based solely on the sheer number of people killed may not be the best approach. Do you see what I mean?

I hope I have not rambled on and bored you all to death.

Cheers,
Erik

Hey, cool info, thanks for the post. I have to disagree out of personal experience about mail providing no protection from blunt force though. Of course it's not really designed to help against that, but it does, to a degree.
And what attack vs. mail isn't a blunt force attack? It converts whatever doesn't pierce it into a blunt force attack, be it a swords edge, axe, spear, whatever.

contracycle wrote:

spunky wrote:

Yes indeed, historical accuracy. As I said, there are too many accounts to simply dismiss; it seems inconceivable that so much fighting would have gone on if neither party could hurt one another, no? If armour is so good, one wonders what causes the many casualties found in medieval accounts of battle.

easy answer: NOT EVERY ONE WAS ARMORED!
The bulk of your medieval and ren soldiery was neither professional or well equiped and most died like suckers.

Moderate answer: Weapons, weapons, weapons. Swinging a longsword into an armored foe was not as effective as halfswording and neither were as effective as a pole axe. Weapons changed to meet the evolving problem of opening tin cans.

Hard answer: they got smacked where they weren't wearing armor (knight with a visor up etc)

Eric, I definately do take these accounts as anecdotal rather than definitive, and I am not by any means claiming that armour is ineffective (ObRPG: in fact I consider TROS to be slightly biased toward unarmoured combatants). My objection is rather to the disparagement of any claim to armour being penetrable as being the sort of hyperbole that appears in the song of roland. I also consider people in historical epochs to have been as intelligent as we are, and they don't appear to have been under any illusions that people get killed despite their armour. Furthermore, speculating that such accounts must necessarily be hyperbolic and propagandist is just as much an asusmption as tat they are not.

It is inadequate to assume tha all accounts of injury are happening to unarmoured people. In my cursory survey of Crusades writings (all of the above) I specifically tried to weed out these events in which people were said to be surprised in camp or the like. I agree that not everything is mentioned, and that we only have a small window to peer through, but if mail armour was so effective, the developement of plate becomes inexplicable. And even then, during the War of the Roses period, I found an indication of the Duke of Essex being wounded twice. Now it does not seem likely that the Duke of Essex goes into main battle unarmoured, it is more likely that he was very well equipped indeed.

I am not, however, claiming at all that armour was like tissue paper. Another account I came across was of a man who was killed by a blow that did NOT penetrate his mail, but did break two ribs and drive them into his lungs. A blow inflicted by a grown man who's been developing his body and sword-arm since early childhood, can inflict an immense amount of force - even more so when adrenaline and hate are taken into account. I don't think swords cut through armour like butter, but I reckon they will not stop a determined opponent killing you either; what it will do is make that much much harder and you more survivable. Instead of a single blow being fatal, it may take a frenzy of hacking and a boot planted on your chest before the deed is done.

Reading your posts made me think that large blunt weapons such as a Mauler do inflict some shock damage on a hit, even if the wound level is 0.
Maybe this could be generalized to slashing/piercing weapons hitting armor zones as well.
Take a damage level 10 blow against the helmet of a knight (arnor 6) with a toughness of 5. 5 levels are washed by the toughness and the remaining 5 by the armor. Our knight is alive but it's likely he felt something landing on his head ! A simple shock/pain penalty could be applied based on the amount of damage that has been absorbed by the armor. Since the helmet protected 5 levels on a maximum of 6, you could imagine that it was almost pierced. Maybe the knight was stunned by the blow etc...
I yet have to figure how to derive precise shock/pain/BL/wounds in TROS terms.

Julien

Caz, I hate to be nitpicky, but your experiences with modern reproductions is a far cry from what was actually used in period. Although my pieces are probably the closest you can come, they are still not exact due to the metal used and other slight variants.

After reading what you said about blunt force got me to thinking that perhaps there were types of mail designed to protect to some degree against this. Especially during a time when padded undergarments had not fully delveloped in certain areas. I will look into this more thoroughly in the coming weeks and see what I can turn up.

Contracycle, I don't dismiss all accounts of armour being compromised as hyperbole either. However, I do take them with a grain of salt particularly the more fantastic ones. A great deal of these accounts were written by non-combatants decades after the incident being written about took place.

I also do not believe that armour was impenetrable either. It just made the job of killing the other person that much more difficult. Another thing to consider is why go through the armour when you can just go around it? The development of plate is much more complex than people want to believe. Most of those studying this area tend to want a quick and easy answer rather than the more appropriate "we don't know at this time", which is more accurate. Plate defense came into existence due in part to changing attitudes on how warfare was waged, weapons used, comfort etc...

There were many other reasons as well. Also, plate was not a universal armour. Many areas did not employ it, or employed it with equally as much mail protection. Regional styles in everyday clothing fashion also dictated what the armour looked like to some degree.

In your account of broken ribs you can easily see that without anything under the mail to cushion the blow it does not protect from blunt trama. I am not saying that he would not have been hurt, but had he been wearing an appropriate garment that was heavily padded he may have lived. Of course this is all speculation on my part. Could you post the full details of this encounter please?

Best,
Erik

Nitpicking is good. But, the way I see it, even though modern repro mail is pretty lousy, in regards to it's distribution of impact any differences between it and an antique are negligable. Simple physics, though it can very quite a lot, mail can make an impact that would've been like this (.) like this (O) which can, depending, be infinitely more bearable by a human body. It can make a cut that would've struck like this --------- strike like this OOOOO. Not taking into account the supporting rings of the struck ones, and any padding.
Now don't take my comments on this for saying someone couldn't be killed or pulped under his mail, strong blows will do that to flexible stuff, but it can in cases even turn what would've been a broken bone into a bruise. There's no way it can't spread the impact, even if only slightly. What were we talking about again?

Hey Caz,

It all depends on what type of mail the modern pieces are trying to take the place of. There were many different variants with regards to link thickness and diameter. So depending on what type it is, there can be a big difference in the way it will react as compared to its historical counterpart.

Cheers,
E

Cool, fair enuf