Armour in battle - Writers Forum

Kelhanion · 09-23-2004, 09:02 AM

Hi all,

something just started to bother me after I had written a battle scene. Throughout the first chapters I've had my characters carry an armour. Then to the problem. I have pretty much no idea how much armour actually protects its wearer. While writing I practically didn't think it at all and now the scene is full of people dying by arrows and one protagonist even had a sword going all the way through him.

So, if I keep on using armours, in what ways can the wearers usually get hurt/killed? Could you recommend some alternative "warwear" that makes armies look coherent but isn't too "superior" (so that I can kill characters off pretty easily). It would be weird to have armies fight with leather vests. The story falls under the fantasy genre.

Thanks in advance!

NoWorries · 09-23-2004, 10:52 AM

Leather can be made to look like iron. In the British Civil war, commoners were known to wear leather armor that was worked over to look just like the iron that the nobles were wearing. I've seen the pieces side by side, and they are identical. The leather is considerably lighter too.

You can never protect yourself from every weapon at once. A chain mail(sp?) that works great against arrows doesn't stop a sword blow. It will stop the cutting of the sword, but there are cases in archaelogy of skulls being found with chain mail IN them, because the mail conforms around the sword and effectively becomes sharp enough to enter the body, even if the actually sword never touches the skin.

A thick leather plating seperates when your joints move. The breast plate and shoulder plate don't form a perfect seal, so when you bring your arm back, your side is exposed to arrows. Also, the neck is a great place to aim because it's a hard place to protect.

Certain battle dresses have included very basic protection, such as a leather cover around the midsection(pre-arrows), because you get your stomach cut open, and you're done. Someone wearing this would also probably have their sword arm protected with a thick leather pad from elbow to wrist, because a cut here would be devastating to your swordsmanship. The other arm would be protected by a metal, wood, or leather shield, with a point on it so it could also be a weapon.

A place that must get extra attention is the hand. You see on movies thick gauntlets that have individual fingers. This is the cheap glove, as it is still extremely easy to sever fingers of someone wearing this. A nice glove is a single solid piece that protects the backhand completely. You can't fight without fingers.

An army that is overprotected will be sluggish, and a fast army will be underpadded. It's a trade off, and no matter how well armed you are, you're still likely that an arrow or sword will find your weak point.

Apsu · 09-23-2004, 01:26 PM

The metal used to fabricate plate armour in the middle ages was not like high quality metal produced today. It was brittle and did not stand up well against heavy blunt weapon attacks or even heavy edged weapon for that matter. It would dent painfully and often shatter altogether.

So as noworries suggested I think the answer is not only in what armour to use, but what form of attack is causing all the carnage.

It will probably be a more exciting battle if Bob gets his own breast plate caved into his chest by a blow from some monstrous battle axe and Fred has to try to remove his chain cowl when its embedded in his cheek due to the love tap he received fom the business end of a mace. That sounds better than everybody just getting cut up and run through (though some of that is always cool too)

Verago · 09-23-2004, 07:40 PM

If the story has a lot of battle scenes, be sure to describe them nicely. When i read a battle scene, i want blood to squirt from the pages!

Dragonscales · 09-25-2004, 12:16 PM

Alot has already been covered here, but a few things should be pointed out. Depending on if a person was part of cavalry or infantry or even archers depended on which type of armour was worn also. Archers tended to be least protected due to them needing to move about and their distant attacking.

Infanty on the other hand would also need to be mobile while still afforded at least decent protection, mainly the torso and head to protect from other infantry as well as cavalry and a shield to aid against arrows as well as other weapons. The romans were especially good at protecting themselves against arrows as they would form groups and raise their shields over their heads while the outer ring of fighters would cover the gaps around the sides.

People assigned to cavalry would often sport full body armour due to being vulnerable from all angles of attack (as well as the fact that a horse carried the armour's weight so mobility wasn't as much of an issue), whether lower from infantry, mid section and higher around the head from other cavalry and arrows.

No matter how good a person's armour was though, crushing weapons such as hammers and maces could still make a mess of the flesh underneath the armour. Alot of injuries were broken and shattered bones, extensive bruising and internal bleeding, smashed up organs, etc. Basically armour was only good to get you into the battle before being taken down by archers and a chance of turning a deathblow into a minor or major injury.

Shaun1138 · 09-29-2004, 02:14 PM

Don't forget the longbow, many battles have been turned due to this powerful weapon....and of course...the ever trusty Bollock knife.

S.

Dragonscales · 10-02-2004, 11:32 AM

Yes, the longbow has been weilded formidably and turned the tides of alot of wars. Another weapon worth mentioning is the phalax, fashioned after the spear and was later turned into the more recognisable pike. The spartans used these extremely efficiently in battle, particularly in the Battle of the firey gates against the Persians. Three hundred spartans held off the entire Persian empire, an army of an estimated 11 and a half million for six days before succumbing to overwhelming odds.

faran · 12-20-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonscales

Yes, the longbow has been weilded formidably and turned the tides of alot of wars. Another weapon worth mentioning is the phalax, fashioned after the spear and was later turned into the more recognisable pike. The spartans used these extremely efficiently in battle, particularly in the Battle of the firey gates against the Persians. Three hundred spartans held off the entire Persian empire, an army of an estimated 11 and a half million for six days before succumbing to overwhelming odds.

The eleven and a half million is absurd, sir. Even Herodotus did not make such an exaggeration. The army is not believed by moderners to have been even 200,000. And the Spartans held off for a week, as the Persians were ordered to take them alive, BEFORE the Persians were shown a secret path by a greek traitor, at which point their leader leonidas sent all but his best three hundred Spartans away. The three hundred remained, however, along with thebans and thespians, who refused to leave, so that the final number remaining after Greek treachery would have been several thousand, which were then hopelessly outnumbered and swiftly done away with. Also, the Persians' numbers were extremely nullified by the mountain pass and fort the battle took place in.

Farror · 12-20-2004, 09:28 PM

Plated armour varried between most and least effective. An underhanded strike could quite easily go through it, but a downwards strike is very difficult to make effective. Also, they are easy to make, and can have many interesting reactions to being hit.

Dragonscales · 12-26-2004, 08:37 AM

I too doubt it would have been quite so many as 11 and a half million, but I am merely echoing a documentary I watched a while back on it. There were several historians who claimed their estimates were around that number based on several documents (greek and Persian) written during that period. Regardless, making estimates and speculation are all anybody can really do due to there not being enough grounding evidence as to exact numbers. As for Herodotus, I wouldn't rely on his numbers regardless. If memory serves, he supposedly witnessed the battle and documented it as it unfolded, yet survived unscaved. Typical Greek poetic musing I think.

Regardless of exact figures though, the point of my post though was to emphasis the effectiveness of the phalax, which the spartans used in spectacular fashion for both offence as well as defence.