Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Lukepop]

Instead of having leather and padded, chainmail and scale and both forms of plate.

How about, Light armour for militia and ranged, Medium armour for chainmail and scale and heavy armour for plate.

Just adds a degree of customisation and it is fairly plausible as in a footman wearing chainmail.

Also, this only to be in I think if they share a skill level maybe and that would be complicated.

Just change the classification of leather armour to light armour etc.

[Proximo]

What would this achieve?

[Jezbelle]

What would this achieve?

^

[Lukepop]

mainly cuztomization in a way. Allowing a footman to wear chainmail for no extra and to allow people to not need to spend as many skillpoints. e.g. a cavalry learning sword and shield, or an archer learning spear with a sword.

[Proximo]

So you would replace in the current system the names of the armour skills which would lead to no different outcome or your thinking of putting this different terminology into a different system nobody here knows about but you?

[Lukepop]

It doesn't matter. It's not that Important it just seemed like an idea but to be honest if people wanted to be hybrids they just won't get 100 in everything and have fairly high Int.

So in short, forget it.

[Ambaryerno]

I agree with Luke. The idea of having a separate skill for EACH armor type seems unnecessarily bloated.

Furthermore, mail takes no particular skill to wear at all (it's just heavy and tiring if you're not conditioned for it), and having a skill for padded armor is like saying someone doesn't know how to dress themselves (seriously, a gambeson is basically a glorified tunic). The only one that I can maybe justify requiring training is rigid plate, but only to a limited extent.

I'd rather see physical stats requirements on armor (IE, require X amount of CON for mail or plate) vs. having a skill for it.

Also, some of the prerequisites are making me go

IE, you can't learn to fight with a two-handed axe unless you learn how to fight in plate armor? That's two entirely different skill sets! I could see two-handed axe requiring learning two-handed sword first, especially since the longsword WAS used as the foundation for all Western Martial Arts (using a halberd builds on half-swording, which is the basis for all polearms IE staff, spear and hammer). Or how does learning to handle a warhorse qualify you to learn how to wear mail?

[Docere]

IE, you can't learn to fight with a two-handed axe unless you learn how to fight in plate armor? That's two entirely different skill sets! I could see two-handed axe requiring learning two-handed sword first, especially since the longsword WAS used as the foundation for all Western Martial Arts (using a halberd builds on half-swording, which is the basis for all polearms IE staff, spear and hammer). Or how does learning to handle a warhorse qualify you to learn how to wear mail?

I agree with you on that point.

I also think that the armor types should depend on str and cons rather then skill.

[Honzadr]

I agree with Luke. The idea of having a separate skill for EACH armor type seems unnecessarily bloated.

Furthermore, mail takes no particular skill to wear at all (it's just heavy and tiring if you're not conditioned for it), and having a skill for padded armor is like saying someone doesn't know how to dress themselves (seriously, a gambeson is basically a glorified tunic). The only one that I can maybe justify requiring training is rigid plate, but only to a limited extent.

I'd rather see physical stats requirements on armor (IE, require X amount of CON for mail or plate) vs. having a skill for it.

Also, some of the prerequisites are making me go

IE, you can't learn to fight with a two-handed axe unless you learn how to fight in plate armor? That's two entirely different skill sets! I could see two-handed axe requiring learning two-handed sword first, especially since the longsword WAS used as the foundation for all Western Martial Arts (using a halberd builds on half-swording, which is the basis for all polearms IE staff, spear and hammer). Or how does learning to handle a warhorse qualify you to learn how to wear mail?

bobik said you can use armor even if you don´t have the skill yet, the skills are just about mastering the armor
you can wear plate armor without a problem, but to learn how to move freely in it, that is something else (mainly how to stand up quickly)
i used chain mail when i used to practice western medieval martial arts and when i started to practice Slav/Moravian ancient martial arts i had to wear padded armor at the begginning and i can say that movements are quite different, there are different things you have to keep an eye out for.
So i don´t agree with you, wearing kimono(thick clothing),gambeson and mail are 3 different things

BTW,some people are convinced, that leather armor is weak,soft and easy to penetrate. but from my own experience and tests we have done with our mentor, it is not so easy
1.leather armor is made out of several layers of leather, not one as it is shown in many TV shows and retarded documentaries.
2.properly hardened pig/boar leather is as hard as raw iron(in R.documentaries they use cow leather, because it is cheap)
3.Moravians used studded leather armor, that means even axe can not penetrate it(penetrative axes sometimes can, but they are most likely to get stuck on one of the studs)
4.did you ever heard about military successes of Czech kings in Italy, only Czech warriors there were Czech nobles and the rest were Moravian mercenaries(here and there some pikemen, but...)and these guys used only leather armor
5."but arrows can still hit you in the weak spots"
WTfluff do you think shield is for?
6. soldier can repair it by themselves
(leather plate is too damaged- remove rivets,replace leather plate,put rivets back)
(soft leather got damaged too- remove 16 rivets that are holding leather shirt inside,fix the problem with needle and thread,put it back together)

[Ambaryerno]

2.properly hardened pig/boar leather is as hard as raw iron(in R.documentaries they use cow leather, because it is cheap)

Uh... You realize that raw iron is incredibly SOFT, right? That's why bronze swords lasted for as long into the Iron Age as they did; an iron sword is too soft to make an effective weapon, as it will twist and bend under impact. It's the carbon added during the process of heating it (IE, more or less turning it into steel -- Note I'm skipping the pattern welding predominant from the later Iron Age to around the 11th-12 centuries when homogenous steel swords began appearing for simplicity's sake) that gives it its rigidity and strength. A cuir bouilli leather cuirass is not going to be anywhere NEAR as strong as a late-Medieval steel cuirass.

Better than unhardened leather? Of course, but you're VASTLY overestimating its effectiveness.

3.Moravians used studded leather armor, that means even axe can not penetrate it(penetrative axes sometimes can, but they are most likely to get stuck on one of the studs)

Whatever your source was, check them again because there's no such thing.

"Studded Leather" armor is nothing more than a misinterpretation of depictions of brigandine (metal plates riveted to the inside of a fabric or leather outer shell) in Medieval artwork. The only way to make "studded leather" armor work for real was if it were more studs than leather, otherwise there's far too many gaps between the studs to provide any useful protection (and something like scale, brigandine or lamellar would be more effective, anyway, due to the overlapping scales/plates).

And such "studded" armor wouldn't provide any better protection than would mail armor, and for much the same reason, so toss out the "impenetrable to axes" nonsense. A heavy axe strike would still inflict blunt force trauma through such armor even if it was unable to cut through it (thus why you wore a gambeson underneath mail).

[Honzadr]

Uh... You realize that raw iron is incredibly SOFT, right? That's why bronze swords lasted for as long into the Iron Age as they did; an iron sword is too soft to make an effective weapon, as it will twist and bend under impact. It's the carbon added during the process of heating it (IE, more or less turning it into steel -- Note I'm skipping the pattern welding predominant from the later Iron Age to around the 11th-12 centuries when homogenous steel swords began appearing for simplicity's sake) that gives it its rigidity and strength. A cuir bouilli leather cuirass is not going to be anywhere NEAR as strong as a late-Medieval steel cuirass.

Better than unhardened leather? Of course, but you're VASTLY overestimating its effectiveness.

Uh... You realize that you just compared iron sword to iron plate? if you have iron sword, it will lose sharpness faster than steel+iron sword, but you don´t need sharp edges on armor, do you? and chain mail is entirely out of iron, scales on scale armor too,because there is no need to use steel, why? i will tell you in a moment
if we talk about steel plate vs iron plate they have different behavior. steel is hard, so it will try to deflect any force back, if we add shape it will deflect it in other direction. But iron works different, instead of returning energy, it will try to absorb it, if we add shape, your opponent has to strike directly, or else his strike will glance off. plus have in mind that leather is much lighter and can not be deformed

and if you do not believe me take axe and 0,5-0,8cm thick iron plate and try to penetrate it

Whatever your source was, check them again because there's no such thing.

6 years in ancient Slav martial arts

"Studded Leather" armor is nothing more than a misinterpretation of depictions of brigandine (metal plates riveted to the inside of a fabric or leather outer shell) in Medieval artwork. The only way to make "studded leather" armor work for real was if it were more studs than leather, otherwise there's far too many gaps between the studs to provide any useful protection (and something like scale, brigandine or lamellar would be more effective, anyway, due to the overlapping scales/plates).[/b]

And such "studded" armor wouldn't provide any better protection than would mail armor, and for much the same reason, so toss out the "impenetrable to axes" nonsense.

and let me guess, your source is western medieval martial arts(by the way where did you saw axe penetrate chain mail)

rivets are there to protect places between leather plates and some got rivets that reinforced leather plates

and people that coudn´t afford this armor used studded leather shirt.
min concentration of rivets is 3/inch, but 4/inch were most common(our inch is 2,6cm)

nobles and professional warriors used studded leather armor with scales(leather plate was covered by iron, or steel scales, that were held by rivets, again)
we did only one test with it
we fired crossbow bolt from 30m with 116 kg(we measured it) draw and bolt coudn´t penetrate last layer(leather shirt>hardened leather armor>leather plates>scales and all this held together by rivets) and even if it did, there is still padded armor underneath it

A heavy axe strike would still inflict blunt force trauma through such armor even if it was unable to cut through it (thus why you wore a gambeson underneath mail).

"(thus why you wore a gambeson underneath mail)"-(thus why you wore any thick clothes underneath every armor)

[Ambaryerno]

Uh... You realize that raw iron is incredibly SOFT, right? That's why bronze swords lasted for as long into the Iron Age as they did; an iron sword is too soft to make an effective weapon, as it will twist and bend under impact. It's the carbon added during the process of heating it (IE, more or less turning it into steel -- Note I'm skipping the pattern welding predominant from the later Iron Age to around the 11th-12 centuries when homogenous steel swords began appearing for simplicity's sake) that gives it its rigidity and strength. A cuir bouilli leather cuirass is not going to be anywhere NEAR as strong as a late-Medieval steel cuirass.

Better than unhardened leather? Of course, but you're VASTLY overestimating its effectiveness.

Uh... You realize that you just compared iron sword to iron plate? if you have iron sword, it will lose sharpness faster than steel+iron sword, but you don´t need sharp edges on armor, do you? and chain mail is entirely out of iron, scales on scale armor too,because there is no need to use steel, why? i will tell you in a moment
if we talk about steel plate vs iron plate they have different behavior. steel is hard, so it will try to deflect any force back, if we add shape it will deflect it in other direction. But iron works different, instead of returning energy, it will try to absorb it, if we add shape, your opponent has to strike directly, or else his strike will glance off. plus have in mind that leather is much lighter and can not be deformed

and if you do not believe me take axe and 0,5-0,8cm thick iron plate and try to penetrate it

It has nothing to do with an iron sword not keeping a sharp enough edge, but as I said, the bending and twisting action. Iron swords bent. And a sword would have a much thicker cross section at its spine than an armor plate. The curvature of the armor would help, but even steel plate can be deformed by a proper hammer or mace strike.

Mail and scale could get away with using softer iron because of the way it spreads the energy of the impact out across multiple links or scales, with the damaged parts being replaced later.

Whatever your source was, check them again because there's no such thing.

6 years in ancient Slav martial arts

"Studded Leather" armor is nothing more than a misinterpretation of depictions of brigandine (metal plates riveted to the inside of a fabric or leather outer shell) in Medieval artwork. The only way to make "studded leather" armor work for real was if it were more studs than leather, otherwise there's far too many gaps between the studs to provide any useful protection (and something like scale, brigandine or lamellar would be more effective, anyway, due to the overlapping scales/plates).[/b]

And such "studded" armor wouldn't provide any better protection than would mail armor, and for much the same reason, so toss out the "impenetrable to axes" nonsense.

and let me guess, your source is western medieval martial arts(by the way where did you saw axe penetrate chain mail)[/quote]

rivets are there to protect places between leather plates and some got rivets that reinforced leather plates[/quote]

No, rivets are there to hold the damn thing together.

[Ambaryerno]

Also, .5 - .8mm thick for an piece of iron plate armor? Do you realize how thin that is? My steel gauntlets are almost THREE TIMES that thick (for reference that's a range between 25-21ga. My gauntlets are 16. Even the links for my mail hauberk are about 18ga). What you're talking about is too thin for STEEL, much less iron, armor

[Honzadr]

It has nothing to do with an iron sword not keeping a sharp enough edge, but as I said, the bending and twisting action. Iron swords bent. And a sword would have a much thicker cross section at its spine than an armor plate. The curvature of the armor would help, but even steel plate can be deformed by a proper hammer or mace strike.

hardness has nothing to do with flexibility, they just happen to balance each other in many but not all natural materials and pig skin soaked in boiled oak bark for months is not natural
if you hit hardened leather with hammer it will return to shape it dried out in, if we talk only about blunt damage-there is possibility that it will tear one of the layers, but we achieved that only with ancient german hammer(lump hammer, but with long shaft)
ancient germans had ritual that raised favor of Thor, it involved crushing head of enemy with hammer(that is how archeologists know which sacrificial sites belonged to ancient germans). and that is reason why germans preferred blunt weapons over axes

Mail and scale could get away with using softer iron because of the way it spreads the energy of the impact out across multiple links or scales, with the damaged parts being replaced later.

what makes you thing that leather doesn´t spread vibrations.
i said that hardened leather is as hard as iron, not that it acts as iron

No, rivets are there to hold the damn thing together.

no glue is there to hold things together,rivets just make sure it will stay that way and add more protection
in case of riveted leather shirt, it is purely for protection

reason why western Europe used mail armor is purely cultural
it is because Roman empire used mail and plate. and scale armor was used by their enemies Syrians.scale armor was intended for mercenaries, but not for proper Roman soldiers.
last time when we could see scale armor used as number one is when Franks started conquering Europe

feel free to put new arguments, i am sure community would like more entertainment

[Ambaryerno]

It has nothing to do with an iron sword not keeping a sharp enough edge, but as I said, the bending and twisting action. Iron swords bent. And a sword would have a much thicker cross section at its spine than an armor plate. The curvature of the armor would help, but even steel plate can be deformed by a proper hammer or mace strike.

hardness has nothing to do with flexibility, they just happen to balance each other in many but not all natural materials and pig skin soaked in boiled oak bark for months is not natural
if you hit hardened leather with hammer it will return to shape it dried out in, if we talk only about blunt damage-there is possibility that it will tear one of the layers, but we achieved that only with ancient german hammer(lump hammer, but with long shaft)
ancient germans had ritual that raised favor of Thor, it involved crushing head of enemy with hammer(that is how archeologists know which sacrificial sites belonged to ancient germans). and that is reason why germans preferred blunt weapons over axes

Bending =/= the sort of flexing you're talking about. Raw iron BENDS. It doesn't flex back to form.

And hammers became the preferred weapon because a hammer was much more effective at inflicting injury through rigid plate armor than a mace or blade, for much the same reason an axe was preferred to a sword for fighting against mail (the mass of the blow focused into a smaller point). It had nothing to do with ancient ritual sacrifice (and as further counterpoint, axes are by a significant margin the most common weapon found in Migration Era and earlier Germanic graves).

Mail and scale could get away with using softer iron because of the way it spreads the energy of the impact out across multiple links or scales, with the damaged parts being replaced later.

what makes you thing that leather doesn´t spread vibrations.
i said that hardened leather is as hard as iron, not that it acts as iron

And iron is soft. It's the impurities introduced when being worked (specifically varying levels of carbon) that give it the hardness necessary to be useful for much of anything.

No, rivets are there to hold the damn thing together.

no glue is there to hold things together,rivets just make sure it will stay that way and add more protection
in case of riveted leather shirt, it is purely for protection

reason why western Europe used mail armor is purely cultural
it is because Roman empire used mail and plate. and scale armor was used by their enemies Syrians.scale armor was intended for mercenaries, but not for proper Roman soldiers.
last time when we could see scale armor used as number one is when Franks started conquering Europe

feel free to put new arguments, i am sure community would like more entertainment

The Romans were just fine about using scale (lorica squamata), mail offered a number of advantages over scale that made it more popular; it had very little to do with culture. Remember, the Romans were the KINGS of, "You're using something better than what I've got, so I'm gonna steal it." They would not have relegated scale to the auxiliaries or foederati just because an "enemy" used it, too.

[Honzadr]

Also, .5 - .8mm thick for an piece of iron plate armor? Do you realize how thin that is? My steel gauntlets are almost THREE TIMES that thick (for reference that's a range between 25-21ga. My gauntlets are 16. Even the links for my mail hauberk are about 18ga). What you're talking about is too thin for STEEL, much less iron, armor

i wrote 0,5-0,8cm
so if you want to tell me that you have gauntlets with 2,4cm thick plates, i can now call you medieval tank

[Ambaryerno]

Also, .5 - .8mm thick for an piece of iron plate armor? Do you realize how thin that is? My steel gauntlets are almost THREE TIMES that thick (for reference that's a range between 25-21ga. My gauntlets are 16. Even the links for my mail hauberk are about 18ga). What you're talking about is too thin for STEEL, much less iron, armor

i wrote 0,5-0,8cm
so if you want to tell me that you have gauntlets with 2,4cm thick plates, i can now call you medieval tank

My mistake, I misread that as mm.

[Honzadr]

Bending =/= the sort of flexing you're talking about. Raw iron BENDS. It doesn't flex back to form.

pig skin soaked in boiled oak bark for months=hardened leather
"if you hit hardened leather with hammer it will return to shape it dried out in"- where is word "iron"?

And hammers became the preferred weapon because a hammer was much more effective at inflicting injury through rigid plate armor than a mace or blade, for much the same reason an axe was preferred to a sword for fighting against mail (the mass of the blow focused into a smaller point). It had nothing to do with ancient ritual sacrifice (and as further counterpoint, axes are by a significant margin the most common weapon found in Migration Era and earlier Germanic graves).

romans used segmentata armor, it is made out of separate plates that are not tempered, but flexible instead, thus making deformation hard to achieve and irrelevant.(if it would be one piece armor, that would be another story)
closer to the fall of Roman empire=mail is more and more common,thus making your theory much more unlikely
and after fall of Roman empire plate armor was not used again until 13century, so why did they kept using blunt weapons?

1. axe is not able to penetrate mail, but spear can, that is why germans used spears when they attacked Rome+axe was used by Loki, so it is unfair and evil weapon. you may think that it is irrelevant, but just think about medieval sword- it is symbolizing cross, that is why they didn´t used tsuba, or guards like sabres have, that are much more protective. they used hammers, because it was their divine symbol of war, they used spear because Odin used it too, they didn´t like axes because Loki used it(and vikings used axes because Varyags used axes(they had advantage against shields) and Varyags used axes, because they were Slavs. And that adds one more reason why not use axes"hey did you saw those vikings with axes that pillaged 4 villages and killed every one"-"yes, we should fear such warriors and their weapons".
axes were simply frowned upon by ancient germans)

one of the first "germanic" tribes that invaded Europe were Goths-they used axes and wicker shields(simplest and most common Slav arsenal), when scientists did gen. tests of Goth corpses, they discovered that from 86 samples just one was in R1b haplogroup(german) others were in R1a haplogroup(Slavs)(*all R1 are Aryans, yes they really existed, nazis just used them for their propaganda) and that means, that Goths were first Slav tribe in Europe(they ended in Spain and that is reason why Spanish is very similar to Slav languages in inflections and word order)

And iron is soft. It's the impurities introduced when being worked (specifically varying levels of carbon) that give it the hardness necessary to be useful for much of anything.

if you have carbon in iron, it is called steel + during 13-14 century common plate armor was made out of iron
steel plate armors started to be common in 15 century

The Romans were just fine about using scale (lorica squamata), mail offered a number of advantages over scale that made it more popular; it had very little to do with culture. Remember, the Romans were the KINGS of, "You're using something better than what I've got, so I'm gonna steal it." They would not have relegated scale to the auxiliaries or foederati just because an "enemy" used it, too.

i expect you have this information from wikipedia, so lets see what it says
" It is typically seen on depictions of standard bearers, musicians, centurions, cavalry troops, and even auxiliary infantry, but could be worn by regular legionaries as well." so just about every one could use it+source of these informations are depictions(dragons were also depicted) and if these depictions are on stone, it can be just badly carved mail

"No examples of an entire lorica squamata have been found, but there have been several archaeological finds of fragments of such shirts and individual scales are quite common finds - even in non-military contexts." so as you can see just pieces, no uniforms
romans had strict uniform requirements that would not allow its usage to regular soldier, so we can expect that it was used only by mercenaries, that were not in the army. or by germans that were hired as front lines.

"even in non-military contexts"-this is making my theory about mercenaries hired by rich people as bodyguards, or street guards, or anything else just not army much more likely

[Ambaryerno]

"if you hit hardened leather with hammer it will return to shape it dried out in"- where is word "iron"?

Your insistence on describing hardened leather as "hard as iron" is where it comes from.

romans used segmentata armor, it is made out of separate plates that are not tempered, but flexible instead, thus making deformation hard to achieve and irrelevant.(if it would be one piece armor, that would be another story)
closer to the fall of Roman empire=mail is more and more common,thus making your theory much more unlikely
and after fall of Roman empire plate armor was not used again until 13century, so why did they kept using blunt weapons?

Flexible. Not soft.

As for why would one keep using blunt weapons?

1) Clubs, maces and hammers are simple weapons to manufacture. It's pretty damn easy to to either take a big heavy piece of wood, or fix a block of metal on the end of a stick, and beat someone over the head with it.

2) Bludgeoning is much more effective against mail armor than a blade is; mail was good at stopping one from being cut, not so much about absorbing blunt force trauma.

1. axe is not able to penetrate mail, but spear can, that is why germans used spears when they attacked Rome+axe was used by Loki, so it is unfair and evil weapon. you may think that it is irrelevant, but just think about medieval sword- it is symbolizing cross, that is why they didn´t used tsuba, or guards like sabres have, that are much more protective. they used hammers, because it was their divine symbol of war, they used spear because Odin used it too, they didn´t like axes because Loki used it(and vikings used axes because Varyags used axes(they had advantage against shields) and Varyags used axes, because they were Slavs. And that adds one more reason why not use axes"hey did you saw those vikings with axes that pillaged 4 villages and killed every one"-"yes, we should fear such warriors and their weapons".
axes were simply frowned upon by ancient germans)

EVERYBODY used spears. The Romans, Germans, Celts, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Arabs, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, EVERONE, in one form or another, used spears. Because regardless of the countless permutations thereof, a spear is in essence just a long stick with a pointy bit at one end. It's the first complex weapon humanity devised (being a step up from beating someone's head in with a rock). We're STILL using spears today (bayonet).

An axe didn't NEED to penetrate mail, because blunt force trauma. The axe concentrates most of its mass directly behind the point of impact.

Also, the Medieval cruciform sword evolved from the swords used by the Normans and Vikings, which in turn evolved from the Migration-era Germanic swords, which THEY got from the Roman spatha, who in THEIR turn got the idea from Celtic cavalry (both mercenaries and adversaries). The shape of the hilt is incidental and may have provided a minor secondary function, and is part of the steady process of the guard becoming enlarged to provide better protection of the hand.

I'm not even getting into the mythological justification because...wow. I could spend hours citing examples from myth of how wrong that is.

one of the first "germanic" tribes that invaded Europe were Goths-they used axes and wicker shields(simplest and most common Slav arsenal), when scientists did gen. tests of Goth corpses, they discovered that from 86 samples just one was in R1b haplogroup(german) others were in R1a haplogroup(Slavs)(*all R1 are Aryans, yes they really existed, nazis just used them for their propaganda) and that means, that Goths were first Slav tribe in Europe(they ended in Spain and that is reason why Spanish is very similar to Slav languages in inflections and word order)

Aaaaaand the geneology of the Goths is relevant to the large number of axe findings in Vendel, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, etc. etc. etc. graves how?

if you have carbon in iron, it is called steel + during 13-14 century common plate armor was made out of iron
steel plate armors started to be common in 15 century

Whether or not you have steel depends on the quantity of carbon. If you have iron with trace quantities of carbon, you just have iron with trace quantities of carbon. You need a fairly decent percentage (I believe around 2%) to get true steel.

i expect you have this information from wikipedia, so lets see what it says
" It is typically seen on depictions of standard bearers, musicians, centurions, cavalry troops, and even auxiliary infantry, but could be worn by regular legionaries as well." so just about every one could use it+source of these informations are depictions(dragons were also depicted) and if these depictions are on stone, it can be just badly carved mail

"No examples of an entire lorica squamata have been found, but there have been several archaeological finds of fragments of such shirts and individual scales are quite common finds - even in non-military contexts." so as you can see just pieces, no uniforms

Those pieces belonged to SOMETHING.

romans had strict uniform requirements that would not allow its usage to regular soldier, so we can expect that it was used only by mercenaries, that were not in the army. or by germans that were hired as front lines.

Or someone like an officer, who throughout history have been able to get away with non-regulation uniforms and equipment simply because "I'm in charge, so I can break the rules" (see Jack Churchill and his longbow and claymore). Or, for that matter, elite soldiers (IE, modern US special forces units have ditched the useless standard-issue 9mm in favor of the heavier-hitting Colt M1911. Not to mention carrying tomahawks -- the axe, not the missile).

"even in non-military contexts"-this is making my theory about mercenaries hired by rich people as bodyguards, or street guards, or anything else just not army much more likely

[/quote][/quote]

and what are they calling non-military contexts? Trash dumps? Civilian burials?

[Honzadr]

Your insistence on describing hardened leather as "hard as iron" is where it comes from.

but if it is as hard as iron, it doesn´t mean it has other properties of iron too

Flexible. Not soft.

there is no way how to make steel plate soft again(unless you add new metal)

As for why would one keep using blunt weapons?
1) Clubs, maces and hammers are simple weapons to manufacture. It's pretty damn easy to to either take a big heavy piece of wood, or fix a block of metal on the end of a stick, and beat someone over the head with it.

2) Bludgeoning is much more effective against mail armor than a blade is; mail was good at stopping one from being cut, not so much about absorbing blunt force trauma.

1.wouldn´t it make more sense to add metal spike with same weight instead of block
2.ok, so again. SPEAR can penetrate mail and it is much easier to hit your opponent in unarmored spot

hit with german hammer could make your opponent´s chest explode from inside,but with leather plate armor, it would just knock him to the ground(unless you hit him in the belly, or head) and then he has easy access to your belly and legs

but club with metal spike could go trough mail and leather, and still they didn´t used it ,even if it would be lighter

EVERYBODY used spears. The Romans, Germans, Celts, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Arabs, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, EVERONE, in one form or another, used spears. Because regardless of the countless permutations thereof, a spear is in essence just a long stick with a pointy bit at one end. It's the first complex weapon humanity devised (being a step up from beating someone's head in with a rock). We're STILL using spears today (bayonet).

" axe is not able to penetrate mail, but spear can, that is why germans used spears when they attacked Rome"-what i meant with that is that they didn´t rushed into Rome with just axes but with "spears,cleavers and hammers", that is what you find in many records(it is possible that Romans called massive swords cleavers)

An axe didn't NEED to penetrate mail, because blunt force trauma. The axe concentrates most of its mass directly behind the point of impact.

when we tried it, my reaction was "OH,that hurts as F@ck",we used iron mail for that experiment and some rings detached and i had two broken ribs, but i was still conscious and i could still stand. i think you are highly overestimating blunt force

Also, the Medieval cruciform sword evolved from the swords used by the Normans and Vikings, which in turn evolved from the Migration-era Germanic swords, which THEY got from the Roman spatha, who in THEIR turn got the idea from Celtic cavalry (both mercenaries and adversaries). The shape of the hilt is incidental and may have provided a minor secondary function, and is part of the steady process of the guard becoming enlarged to provide better protection of the hand.

1.straight sword with oval guard design is as old as copper smelting, so that is not true
2.Celts didn´t have cavalry,because they didn´t have horses they could ride on and Romans started to recruit Celts for cavalry during second Punic war+spatha is just long gladius and Romans could figure it out themselves.
tell me how it happened that wide oval guard became thin long rod+there is no need for such guard until 13.century when plate armor returned to its former glory

think about it
on one side you have catholic Franks and their elite warriors are using swords
on the other side you have paganic germans and their elite warriors are using symbol of their god of war-hammer
so what will Franks do? they transform sword into cross, so every nonbeliever will die by hand of God, killed by cross+all the time God is with them because they have its symbol always near
remember that religion was much more important to people in the past

Aaaaaand the geneology of the Goths is relevant to the large number of axe findings in Vendel, Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, etc. etc. etc. graves how?

"vikings used axes because Varyags used axes(they had advantage against shields) and Varyags used axes, because they were Slavs."[/quote]

Spoiler

you know word berzerker right?
there are two theories how that word was created
1.berzerk meant Bear Shirt
2.berzerker was originally common designation for Slav wood cutters "Ber sekeru"=take axe , because it was their common sentence
second theory also explains why berzerkers used axes and not sword
and it was common that Slav looked for work on Varyags territories and they would protect their new home

Franks were Christians

Whether or not you have steel depends on the quantity of carbon. If you have iron with trace quantities of carbon, you just have iron with trace quantities of carbon. You need a fairly decent percentage (I believe around 2%) to get true steel.

0,002-2,1%, so practically every iron that was in fire and then fell into water

Those pieces belonged to SOMETHING.

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

"romans had strict uniform requirements that would not allow its usage to regular soldier, so we can expect that it was used only by mercenaries, that were not in the army. or by germans that were hired as front lines."

Or someone like an officer, who throughout history have been able to get away with non-regulation uniforms and equipment simply because "I'm in charge, so I can break the rules". Or, for that matter, elite soldiers (IE, modern US special forces units have ditched the useless standard-issue 9mm in favor of the heavier-hitting Colt M1911. Not to mention carrying tomahawks -- the axe, not the missile).

unless he was caesar, there was always someone who could report him+officers didn´t participated in battles(that is why they wore chest plate, or just leather armor), they were more likely to stand on a hill and give orders, so there is no reason why they would wore such armor
today there are no orders about what weapon soldier should use, he chooses weapon depending on situation,mission, his preferences and access to the weapon

and what are they calling non-military contexts? Trash dumps? Civilian burials?

"mercenaries hired by rich people as bodyguards, or street guards, or anything else just not army"

[Proximo]

Your talking in circles if you guys haven't noticed.

[Ambaryerno]

Your talking in circles if you guys haven't noticed.

This and what is coming across as a subtle whiff of troll is why I haven't responded again.

[DeathEmber]

bobik said you can use armor even if you don´t have the skill yet, the skills are just about mastering the armor
you can wear plate armor without a problem, but to learn how to move freely in it, that is something else (mainly how to stand up quickly)

To put this on a more constructive note. This does not seem to be the case. Our village has made multiple chainmail armours and only the one person who started with 30 warhorse riding can use it.