Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Greatest Armour??

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14861
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greatest Armour??
    Posted: 22-Feb-2011 at 04:51
Kevlar Armour is the best!?!Look at this man is dancing with it!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plPtJDTvriE
Back to Top
Praetorian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 190
  Quote Praetorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 15:37
Well I think Gothic armor was one of the best ever!! But all in all I think its the western world that always had the best armor for their troops!! Look the Greeks had the best armor for their time, the Romans too. No one can camper their armors at the time, well I have to say I think the mid-east and India came close and were reveals on armor technologies! Anyways  your average Roman and Greek soldier had very good armor. The same can go thru history in the west. Your average soldier in the west was and are still well equipped and armored.
 
  Roman helmets is uniquely designed. This helmet stretches down to the neck (built in neck guard) providing protection to the back and sides part of the neck, also two pieces that protected cheeks (Cheek guards), their is a type of steel visor built on. The steel visor protects you from heavy weapons, and also from weapons going across your face at least downward and also from the sun.
 
As you can see these helmets were very advance. As for the Imperial Italic this helmet was a improved Imperial Gallic type, as you can see the cross on the helmet. The cross made the skull of the helmet stronger, the cross was like a type of support

The Roman Lorica Segmentata Armor Smile

The Segmentata Armor was very flexible and gave good strong protection. The Segmentata waste is about 15 or 17lbs. depending witch type (theres 3 types of this Segmentata Armor). It will provide protection against missiles, speeders, swords and etc. This armor was perhaps the strongest armor in the world in ancient times, at least between the cuirass. The Segmentata can stop a ballista bolt in a closer distance then other armors and even the other armors can not stop the ballista bolt in a farther distance then the Lorica Segmentata. Oh and the Lorica Segmentata was more flexible then the Cuirass

LORICA SEGMENTATA "CORBRIDGE" TYPE - A

http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgaenlrg/corbridgeA.jpg

LORICA SEGMENTATA "CORBRIDGE" TYPE - B

http://www.legionxxiv.org/corbridgbenlrg/corbridgeB.jpg

LORICA SEGMENTATA "NEWSTEAD" TYPE

http://www.legionxxiv.org/newsteadenlrg/newstead.jpg

I believe this is the one that was faster and easier to produce

 
The Western world has the most sophisticated armors and helmets in the world. With such armor you were nearly invincible! Plate armor was the strongest armor made.  Plate armor was used widespread by European armies not just knights it was widely used in the 1470s-1500s or even up to very early 1700s
As you can see in my likes Camper the Infantry men with the knights. They look the same, but most knights had full armor wile the infantry men were still heavily armored or medium armoredTongue

 
Look at thisa Knight!
 
Steel plate armor played in a important roll, it was the strongest type of armor ever made manly Gothic types and gave more tactics to use as in armored warfare, and their are different types of armored warfare Also steel plate armor can stop some firearms shots until the musket.
 
 
hears ne on Armored warfare!  Video: Roman Testudo
 
Originally posted by Top Gun

Originally posted by xi_tujue

Originally posted by Athanasios

Oh, come on ... i wrote impressive not the most effective. Samurai were killing machines , much more skillful than the westerners of the time.


Samurais are only effective vs other samurais there blades couldn pierce any kind of armour besides leather armour.

so NO

realy I thought samurais where always superior above all other swordfighters

I think they were good but not the best. 

Samurais were more isleted wile Knights and others fought agenst different peoples

Look how this Knight use his armor as a part of his fighting stile!! Armor, weapons, and fighting stiles goes to gethor in the west. Armor was not just some think a man just ware in battle!  

Look at this Video!  Smile
I think the mid-east came close and were reveals on armor technologies!  Just look at the cool looking mid-east Muslim armor next to the cool looking Christen armor!   Look at this Video!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QLKssDg1DI 
   
Chain-mail was a very well armor too. Arabs historians describe European soldiers and knights walking around just fine in Jerusalem with a dozen arrows on them.

Chain Mail is bettor for hand to hand combat then the Lamellar armor or Scale Armor . Chain Mail provides excellent protection against slashes, chops, good agents thrust, and pretty good agents missiles. Chain mail is vulnerable against spears I think. I believe it is also the most flexible armor made! It is over all lightweight, wing about 13 lbs. to 30 lbs. the heaviest depending what type of Chain Mail and how much you cover your self. But I think the Roman Lorica Hamata wing about 20 or 25lbs. I think Chain Mail came from the Gals or the Goths not so shore were though. But its from Europe some were.

Look at this Video!  
These men are going slow to show you how its done!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wJRJqWyFVY

This two videos are to give you all a peek in true western stile of fighting.

 
 
Book: KNIGHT

DK EYEWITNESS Books  

PEOPLE OFTEN THINK that plate armor is clumsy and stiff. But if it were, it would be little use on the battlefield. In fact, a man in armor could do just about anything a man can do when not wearing it. The secret lies in the way armourers made the plates so that they could move with each other and with the wearer. Some plates were attached to each other with a rivet, which allowed the two parts to pivot (turn) at that point. Others were joined by not in a round hole but in a slot,so the two plates could move in and out.internal leather connecting straps,called leathers, also allowed this type of movement. Tube-shaped plates could also have flaned edge or projecting rim, to fit inside the edege of another tubular plate sothat they could twist around.

A suit weighed about 44-55lbs (20-25kg), and the weight was sread over the body so that a strong man could run, lie down, or mout a horse unaided in his aromr. Stories of cranes being used to winch knights into the saddle are pure fantasy

 Sallets

Their are 5 different types of Sallets that I know of but 3 out of 5 had the same thing going on. The 5 different are I personally like to label them as.

The Open Sallet  http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/md-301.JPG

The Sallet or Basic Sallet 

 I happen to have this same exacted one hear! And yes with the same exacted Bevor.                                           

Closed Sallet http://members.tripod.com/Preachan/icons/german_knt.gif

Wide Visor Sallet  http://www.aviapress.com/engl/mrt/mrt16002.jpg

Sallets with bevors provides excellent protection for the sides, back, and front parts of neck as you can see. And yes Sallets and other helmets were frequently worn with a bevor, which provided protection for the front and lower part of the face. The Sallet needed no breathing holes because in the ready position, there was a natural gap where it overlapped the bevor near the wearer's mouth. With personal experience this helmet actually improved airflow! This helmet was popular with both the knight and regular infantry for a long, long time. Oh and most Sallets can be used in Jousting to my knowledge.
 
Roman Arm Manica flexible arm defense. This Roman armed defense will be just like any armor, protection against swords, arrows, and etc.
 
 
 
There are many types of Jousting helmets but this is one of them and the most use I assume. I think these rite hear are capable for using in foot combat as well. As you can see, jousting helmets like most others and the Bevor have a slope or a pointed jaw or nose (the visor on this one), but unlike most others the Jousting helmets were very sloped and pointed to bettor deflect blows as well as arrows, spears, bolts, a lance, and any other weapons...
 
Some Kettle-hats
General info: there are so many different types, even the Byzantines use them

Kettle-hats have a wide brim to deflect arrows and spearheads from above.

Kettle-hat http://www.plessisarmouries.co.uk/helmets/kettle/images/kettle_c1475-1500-300.jpg

Visor Kettle-hat http://www.plessisarmouries.co.uk/helmets/kettle/images/kettle_c1460-300.jpg

Steel Gauntlets and Medieval Leather gloves

http://gauntlets.org/gauntlets/zoom/gauntlets_02.gif

With Steel Gauntlets and Leather gloves troops and knights were capable of disarming their appoints. Also using other parts of the swords by grabbing their won blades as well It also gave bettor grip to the user.

It is know doubt that Leather gloves apishly Steel Gauntlets gave a level of defense to the user.

Horse's armor and Kinght's armor. (Europe)
 
 
 
 A= Byzantine Calvaryman and Turkish armor looks similar. B and C=West European armor (Europe)
 
 
 
 Mongol%20heavy%20cavalryman%20wearing%20lamellar%20armour.(Islam and India ) Agen I think the mid-east and India came close and were reveals on armor technologies!
 
Western armor are very, very advanced, modern designers look to them and make modern armor and padding based on them like the British helmets of WW1 and WW2 look like the Kettle-hat. Swiss and German helmet, its based off Roman and Sallet helmets from Roman and medieval times, American Football armor and biker armor is based off the medieval armors. Funny thing is the modern American helmet is based off German helmets. 
The best helmets, body armors, and armored vehicles are still to day in the western world!


Edited by Praetorian - 22-Feb-2007 at 16:53
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris
--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.

"game over!! man game over!!"
Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580
  Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 11:53
i personally think that the Samurai "sword" are more of knifes than sword
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 08:54
You're right about the process of making them Eondt and ataman-there is a greate paintig(i dont know who painted it) that shows the french cavalry at waterloo under the fire of english grenadiers and the curassiers are simply dieing like dogs(if the breastplate was bulletproof the wouldn't LOL),and i agree that it was the bayonets that stopped the cavalry,or more correctly the triple line formation of the british,but a big number of the cavalry died before they even reached the grenadiers(and i've read this one-not assuming it from the painting).
Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 01:29
Originally posted by Jagiello

If as Eondt says there were 100% musketproof armours in europe before the hussar plate armour,i wonder why they all dumped them and started using simple cloth uniform or breastplates-which were never musketproof,if they were as ataman says the cavalry at waterloo wouldn't have been stopped by the grenadiers,and the hussars kept using their armours till the end.
 
Remember that the armour in the 16th Century that were musket-proof were not munitions grade. The musket-proofing process consisted of tempering the steel to the correct level of hardness vs. flexibility. This is an obviously expensive and laborious project and was thus restricted to the armour worn by the aristocracy (Henry VIII as the example). This technique of tempering plate didn't actually dissapear but were used throughout until the late 18th century (although you could undoubtably argue that by that time the armourers had by no means the skill demonstrated by their predecessors). Munitions grade armour like that of the Hussars achieved there musket-proofing by simply increasing the thickness of the cuirass (the 9mm quoted above). Although this might have meant a heavier breast-plate it was cheaper and quicker to produce as there needn't have been the involvement of master-armourers. You were thus able to produce enough for entire units like the Hussars. 
 
So yes, the examples of the 16th century musket-proof armour is rarer than that of the Hussars. There is enough left though that any sizable arms&armour museum should house an example or two (they were highly prizedSmile)
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 13:24
Originally posted by Jagiello

The "karacena" which ataman probably is talking about and which indeed spread at the begginig of 18th century wasn't musketproof as you sad,
 
It's true that karacena wasn't musket proof armor. But I haven't write about karacena. I have written about plate armor (about plate breasplate).
 
Originally posted by Jagiello

but it wasn't also the thickest hussar armour.It was heavier,more expensive and weaker than the previous plate armour,but hussars wear it because of the decorations(it was the favorite of Sobieski),but still the early hussar armour (like the musket obviously :D) was better than the "karacena" and it COULD stop muskets ball.
 
Jagiello, look at this:
This is a fragment of Sikora's book "Fenomen husarii". It explains my point (or rather my point is based on this chapter of that book Smile)
 
 
Originally posted by Jagiello

If as Eondt says there were 100% musketproof armours in europe before the hussar plate armour,i wonder why they all dumped them and started using simple cloth uniform or breastplates-which were never musketproof,
 
I agre with Eondt that there were some musket proof armors in 16th c., but I have to add that they were rare phenomenon. More armours (especially in the second half of 16th c.) were only pistol proof. The most of armours (especially in the first half of 16th c.) weren't even pistol proof.
 
 
Originally posted by Jagiello

if they were as ataman says the cavalry at waterloo wouldn't have been stopped by the grenadiers,
 
Jagiello, charges of French cuirassiers at Waterloo weren't stopped neither by English muskets nor by their cannons. These charges were stopped by bayonets.
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 11:28
The "karacena" which ataman probably is talking about and which indeed spread at the begginig of 18th century wasn't musketproof as you sad,but it wasn't also the thickest hussar armour.It was heavier,more expensive and weaker than the previous plate armour,but hussars wear it because of the decorations(it was the favorite of Sobieski),but still the early hussar armour (like the musket obviously :D) was better than the "karacena" and it COULD stop muskets ball.If as Eondt says there were 100% musketproof armours in europe before the hussar plate armour,i wonder why they all dumped them and started using simple cloth uniform or breastplates-which were never musketproof,if they were as ataman says the cavalry at waterloo wouldn't have been stopped by the grenadiers,and the hussars kept using their armours till the end.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 10:33
An interesting detail - French cuirassiers in the battle of Waterloo had musket proof breasplates.
 
As far as hussar armor is concerned, Polish hussars used thicker breastplates in the second half of 17th c. The thickest hussar armor (which I know) is from the begining of 18th c. and is 9mm thick.
Hussar breatplates in the early 17th c. were much thinner - usually about 2-3 mm. They certainly weren't musket proof. They were only pistol-proof.
 
And I agree with Eon that muskets (true muskets) were more powerful in 16th than in 17th c.


Edited by ataman - 15-Feb-2007 at 10:41
Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 01:52
Ok. Just to make sure we are not miscommunicating, let me summarise our arguments as I understand it. I noted that although Hussar armour might very well have been musket proof, it was not the first type of armour to achieve this, with numerous examples of 16th century armour still existing that shows it was musket proof. You counter argued that: "There were lots of armours that could stop early and some of the later gunpowder and musket weapons,but the later musket used by both swedish and turkish soldiers that attacked poland could be stopped(80-90%) only by the hussar armour"
 
That implies that if you took the 17th century muskets and used it on 16th century armour, the armour would fail. This is why I posted the Wiki link above where I argued that if anything, the 17th century muskets would even be less effective against the 16th century armour.
 
I thus repeat my original argument that Hussar armour was not the first armour to be musket proof. If you need proof that these earlier armour were indeed 100% musket proof, read a copy of Ffaulk's "An armourer and his craft". If you need physical proof of this I can point you towards the armour of Henry the VIII in the tower of London which has a round dent on the breast-plate (cuirass) where a 16th century (and thus bigger than a 17th century) musket was fired onto the cuirass to prove it was musket proof. The dent was afterwards decorated with etching to look like a flower. If you are unable to get to London, I see you are from Poland and thus I'm sure excellent examples of 16th century Maximillian armour must be located closer to where you stay.
 
Thanks
Eon
Back to Top
bagelofdoom View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 81
  Quote bagelofdoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 13:02
Originally posted by Kodras

Master Chief's Armor from Halo 2


I would agree with that.
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 10:36

I'm not talking abou muskets but about arour,even if the muskets became less poerful-when compearing armours this is the best.You wrote a lot to prove that the muskets became less powerfull in the 17th century,but nothing prooving my MAIN theory about the armour is wrong.I am know a lot about the armour and i can argue about it,not about muskets,so if you don't think it's the most bulletproof-proove it with facts like those about the muskets you wrote.

Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:57
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the muskets of the 17th century are more powerful than those of the 16th century. Interesting, do you have any basis for this except the fact that the 16th century predates the 17th. The development of the muskets could have been in areas ranging from accuracy, weight, reliability to production cost, not necessarily power.
In fact the following is a quote surrounding the development of the musket during the 17th century (wikipedia):"In the 16th century, the most common musket was the arquebus. In this period, the musket proper (the word derives from the French mousquette) referred to a heavier weapon, firing a heavier shot, which had to balance on a rest." and "In the 17th century, the arquebus and caliver were phased out as the musket became lighter and more portable. Thereafter, "musket" became the generic name for long barrelled hand held firearms. The musket went through further evolution in the 1600s. The most important of these changes was the introduction of the flintlock firing mechanism, where the gunpowder in a musket's pan was ignited by a flint suspended on hammer, which struck the pan on pulling the trigger." Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskets
 
Note that the musket was never invented in the 17th century, only became more popular as it got lighter and the flintlock replaced the matchlock. Based on the above I would actually state that the average musket became less powerful in the 17th century as the guns were made lighter in order to be more practicle.
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Eondt

Hi Jagiello,
 
Not disputing the musket-proof armour of the Hussar's. Just letting you know that it was by no means the first musket-proof armoury. Musket-proofing superceded crossbow proofing in the 16th century as marks of quality armour. The most famous examples being Maximilian armour. A good example of one of these suits is the armour for fighting in the lists of Henry VIII housed in the Tower of London (A gift from Maximilian).
 
The difference is the muskets developed very quickly.There were lots of armours that could stop early and some of the later gunpowder and musket weapons,but the later musket used by both swedish and turkish soldiers that attacked poland could be stopped(80-90%) only by the hussar armour,but ofcourse there were armours that could prevent death but not heavy wound and were maybe 40-70% bulletproof.So i'm not saying there was no other armour that was bulletproof but that the hussar was the most efficient one.
 


Edited by Jagiello - 14-Feb-2007 at 09:17
Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 01:13
Hi Jagiello,
 
Not disputing the musket-proof armour of the Hussar's. Just letting you know that it was by no means the first musket-proof armoury. Musket-proofing superceded crossbow proofing in the 16th century as marks of quality armour. The most famous examples being Maximilian armour. A good example of one of these suits is the armour for fighting in the lists of Henry VIII housed in the Tower of London (A gift from Maximilian).
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 10:59
Originally posted by Majkes

Originally posted by Jagiello

Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Gothic Plate Armor was pretty darn 'impressive,' both in terms of aesthetics and the defense it afforded it's wearer. Some even claim it was musketball-proof.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/05/200px-Maximilienne-p1000557.jpg
 
The gothic plate armour was pretty,but the real 100% musketball-proof armour was the 17th century Polish Hussar armour,thank's to which Sobieski destroyed 300 000 turkish army in one of the most important battles-the siege of Wien.
 
We have never fought against 300.000 Turkish army Confused. I don't think their armour was 100% musketball-proof.
 
The number of the turkish at the battle of Vienna varyes from 140 000 to 300 000 in different countryes mostly.Even if we say it was about 200 000 the allied forces were only 70 000,from which 30 000 polish,and in all the historical artikles about the battle you will read that the polish hussars broke the main flank of the turkish Janissary Musketman,who were some of the most skilled musketiers and yet they could't stop the hussars,because the plate of the armour made the bullets bounce off of it,so you can say that if not 100% it was 80-90% bulletproof and surely the most bulletproof armour before the 20th century.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 13:26
Originally posted by Jagiello

Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Gothic Plate Armor was pretty darn 'impressive,' both in terms of aesthetics and the defense it afforded it's wearer. Some even claim it was musketball-proof.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/05/200px-Maximilienne-p1000557.jpg
 
The gothic plate armour was pretty,but the real 100% musketball-proof armour was the 17th century Polish Hussar armour,thank's to which Sobieski destroyed 300 000 turkish army in one of the most important battles-the siege of Wien.
 
We have never fought against 300.000 Turkish army Confused. I don't think their armour was 100% musketball-proof.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 03:38
It defines what you define as "Plate Armour". The Romans may have had it I'm not entirely sure. Their 3 main types of armour of time was the Lorica (armour) Squamata (scale), Hamata (mail) and Segmentata (modern term attributed to the roman iron cuirass of bands/hoops). Segmentata is the closest fit to plate armour but I probably wouldn't call it full plate, like the plate armour of the middle ages. It is more made up of plates, and designed differently anyway.

Lorica Segmentata:


Lorica Squamata:


Lorica Hamata:


Gothic Plate Armour:


As you can see...pretty different to true plate armour, but still sharing the similarity of 'plate' use.

- Knights -


Edited by Knights - 12-Feb-2007 at 04:33
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 03:17
Romans didnt have plate armour did they , the medieval times it was invented.
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 17:49
Originally posted by Brian J Checco

Gothic Plate Armor was pretty darn 'impressive,' both in terms of aesthetics and the defense it afforded it's wearer. Some even claim it was musketball-proof.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/05/200px-Maximilienne-p1000557.jpg
 
The gothic plate armour was pretty,but the real 100% musketball-proof armour was the 17th century Polish Hussar armour,thank's to which Sobieski destroyed 300 000 turkish army in one of the most important battles-the siege of Wien.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 16:55
Gothic Plate Armor was pretty darn 'impressive,' both in terms of aesthetics and the defense it afforded it's wearer. Some even claim it was musketball-proof.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/0/05/200px-Maximilienne-p1000557.jpg
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.