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
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313
  Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greatest Armour??
    Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 03:57

T-95 Black Eagle

History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Top Gun View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 19-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
  Quote Top Gun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 15:41
Originally posted by Eondt

What I meant was that the Samurai weren't any more or less superior in swordfighting than any other group in history...just a little less open for change maybeSmile The sword wasn't even their primary weapon. And Xi_tujue is quite right, their swords were never designed to be used against any type of armour (very few swords were though).
 
It's the fault of hollywood (primarily) that they are seen as some sort of demi-god with sword.
 
like the last samurai movie and what was then the primary weapon of samurais
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: 06-Feb-2007 at 01:05
Exactly! Like the last samuraiSmile
They were mounted archers originally and, like their western counterparts would have chosen a pole-arm above the sword.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 09:42
Master Chief's Armor from Halo 2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 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 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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
 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 0.156 seconds.