Who said knights in plate armour could do a handstand?

Remove all ads!

Well you said here http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002276.html :
"Actually, medieval armour wasn't as heavy as we think today. The knights where quite easily able to mount their horses themselves, and there were examples of more agile knights making handstands while wearing full armour."

You didnt my believe my post before. So mark twain was the one who invented devices for mounting knights... OK, if you dont believe in what I say moybe you would beleive in what you see... Tell me how could this knight in full plate jousting armor make a handstand, OR mount the horse himself!
http://www.dabra.demon.co.uk/photofull.html

As you see he barely can stand. Not to mention that he CANNOT rise his hands, which is essential for handstand.
http://www.dabra.demon.co.uk/1newsuit.jpg


[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

well, I think it very much depends on the armor. I must say that the pictures you post, make the armor look rather exhibition like, instead of practical usefullness. But still, handstand in an armor sounds rather impossible

 

Nope, this armor is fully wearable and fightable.
There are several clubs that practice medieval martial arts and lots of masters who craft armour/weaponry.
Look:
http://www.thehaca.com/ http://www.arador.com/ http://homepage.zynet.co.uk/valhalla/excalibur/
and so on.

This is not fetish armor, though maybe someone could think so. Take a look here for more realistic look such armour. I think it is original 600 years old example. http://www.arador.com/gallery/friend5.jpg


And after you see all this... Say again laoud: "Armour claded knights can make a handstand."
Then laugh.
Thank you.


[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

Kasio, there was another post about armour weight that you might like to see:
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002357.html

I have posted a link there to some sites that are experts in armour and one of those has a quote about the mobility of knights in armour was much more than romantic fiction & Holywood etc suggests.

Personally I do think handstands would be tricky but I can't see the problem with getting onto a horse, even in the examples in your links. Warwick Castle is just up the road from me and I have seen some interesting displays there of knight in armour. They can be surprisingly agile. I'll post a link at the bottom that has photos of a demonstration. Go through to find the ones showing the guy rolling around (you might need to enter a password but it seems to accept anything).

Anyway I guess it depends on the type of armour, strength of the Knight etc.
However, I think the point of Grovflab's comments and the ones I posted are that the stories of Knights in armour being immobile are exagerated. At the end of the day, they would be useless if they hadn't the mobility to fight.

Oh well, until we try on a suite ourselves and spend some time training I guess we'll never know for certain just how tricky the stuff was.
http://www.nanscombe.org/photos/

 

You mean this picture series, Slappy?
Description: Fully Armoured Knight demonstrating ease of rolling over
Location: Warwick Castle
Keywords: The Fighting Knights
©N J Anscombe

Well YES, INDEED! These were swordsman, infantry armour! Infantry must, roll over, jump, be agile etc or they are useless in coombat and die. BUT we are talking here about Chivalery (Jousting, Riders, Mounted, you know the guy on the horse) Armor. Which was at least 3 times heavier.
Look at my pictures and at yours. Completely different armor sets.
It would be impossible to mount oneself (excpet if you are VERY STRONG, actually a bodybuilder) or make a roll over, not to mention a handstand.
Infantry armor is another issue. I would beleive that the one who can roll over can make a handstand... But we talk about Jousting armour here.

look carefully to the links i posted above... Each set of about 100 kg, 200 lbs... have you ever jumped (at least small jump is needed to mount oneself) with 100 kg on your neck? IMPOSSIBLE! Consider also that arm and leg movement is very narrow. Take a look carefully, shoulder armour limits you so you cant even RAISE YOUR HANDS!
What a handstand can you talk about?


[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

How long ago was it, since I made that reply? Anyway, I don't know your intension with this topic, but I hold no interest in starting a flame war with you.

My point is, just as Slappy points out, that our idea of the weight of medieval armour is way to high. Yes, medieval armour weights a lot, and yes I have tried wearing a chainmail, so I have a good idea about this.

But knights weren't just ordinary people. They were used to wearing their armour during times of warfare, but also while training their weapon expertice. Considering this, some knights actually should have the skill and dexterity to do a handstand. This dosn't mean that ALL knights were able to do handstands while wearing armour. Hell, I can't do a handstand myself, and I'm not wearing armour.

But to give you credit, yes I do believe someone invented a machine to help some knights getting on their horse. Just as well as there were agile knights, there were also some VERY fat ones.

Anyway, Kasio please stop digging the thrash. I don't want to spend my time justifying something I wrote a long time ago. (I can't remember when I wrote it, so don't give me any dates, as I absolutely don't care!)

Ps. I was quoting discovery channel. If you have a problem, take it to them!

[This message has been edited by Grovflab (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

must we continue to bicker?

 

No, we'll let them do the dirty job for us

 

OOC:
Kasio do you realize how much of a sitting duck you would be dressed like that on the battle field. That is dress armor, made for coutriers who wanted to look like warriors, but would never be seen on the battle field. I would be able to function for about thirty minuites in armor that heavy:running, jumping, swinging swords. But that is because I play rugby. My personal fitness is much higher than most. I would never be caught in armor that restricting however. I would only wear armor that allowed me my full range of movement and I am very flexible.

"We got two game plans. Plan A is that we out play them and take the ball. If that fales then we go to plan B. Plan B is that we hit em. and we keep hiten em till they give us the ball"

 

This makes me wonder..
Why does dex have any influence when wearing a fullplate? Its not like You can nimble away from blows in any fullplate
I think the advantage of warriors/knights would be their battleexperience and their ability to foresee the attacker move, not their immidiate reflexes used to avoid blows. Which is the argument for high-dexed character to have lower AC.
I would be willing to accept that a penalty for low dex would apply. As beeing clumsy without a platemail will surely result in problems with a platemail.

I came too think of this as Mendanbar wrote.. Allow me to quote .
"I would only wear armor that allowed me my full range of movement and I am very flexible."......


[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited May 21, 2001).]

 

Nobleman, this is the point. With the right training, you would have a good manuverability.

 

You agree
could this mean that one has to spend proficiencies in armor as well as in weapons?? That wouldn't be difficult to implement in the game and would have a great sense or realism...
hmmmm I think I'll torture my P&P players with this.

 

Let me give you the facts. Plate armor as the majority used it was not as constricting as some might think, though not as easily maneuverable as movies might dictate. During its height of use plate armor was nothing more that protective 'shields' place over more crude armors, usually a chain. In this for an entire suite of plate armor weighed about 45 lbs, enough to protect the vitals and most static body parts, but not so overloading that an infantryman couldn't maneuver for several hours a day in it. Yes infantry primarily used it.

Now during the revival period, just before the renaissance, the French began creating suits of plate armor that where unlike any to have ever fielded in battle before. These massive suits of armor where the epitome of what we now call plate. Lumbering suits of steel, this armor required the help of several squires to don. After that the knight had to be hoisted into his horse by a wench. While these elaborate suits of armor never actually saw a battlefield, they were used very extensively in jousts. The knights, though to be more accurate I should call the Dragoons, would be literally strapped into a the saddle, of a specially bred horse, then had a shield tied to one arm and a lance given to the other.

This is where the notion of being knocked off your horse while jousting made you out, for these Dragoons were so laden with metal armor that they could do little more than jiggle their arms once they were knocked prone.

While it was supposed that the Dragoons would be an unstoppable force on the battlefield, I mentioned earlier they never saw it, it was a well known fact that once these Dark Aged Tanks were knocked down, any schoolgirl with a sharpen pencil could easily dispatch one.

 

umm...so can knights in plate armour do handstands?

 

I know it has nothing to do with plate mail, but has anyone actually felt a proper long sword and chainmail? Believe me, they weigh quite a load, I can tell you.

 

Spudsquisher:
Of course they could. It's just a matter of how they were fastened into the ropes when they were lifted into the saddles. I suppose that quite some unlucky knight was seen doing a handstand of sorts, before the technique was perfected.

 

Well, I know some people who fight in full plate (SCA) and I would say that most of them wouldn't be stupid enough to try a handstand (all that weight suspended above your head! Asking for a neck injury.) but many could probably do a cartwheel.

Jousting armor and show armor are designed differently from battle armor. Just like hockey pads are different from football pads. Much of what is on display is show armor, since it is almost never worn, and thus doesn't get beat up.

In terms of the way AD&D terminology, you could possibly do a handstand in field plate (what you wear to war), but you are not going to be able to in full dress plate(what you wear in parades and at jousts), unless it is magic.

Make sense?

 

I think the dex advantage remains completely resonable for a man in full plate. Period armors where heavier on the left side than the right, a man can move very slightly an control whether a blow strikes his fairly exposed groin or his well protected thigh, and good dexterity makes you alot more effective in defending your self with both your sword and sheild.

I've been in the SCA for almost twenty years. I've never worn tilting or siege armors, but the only purpose of the armors where to allow valuable older sons to play games or be in the vicinity of fighting with some reasonable hope of survival.
I have however fought in everything from padded armor to mongol armor, to the D&D equivlant of feild plate. In full steel I can do a sumersault, if not a hand stand. as far as the hand stand, if would be MUCH easier in plate than chain or Brig...plate armors are well distributed and firmly strapped to the body, they don't over-balance you.
As far as weight, the load of the heavy infantry has been the same since the days of the romans. 65-85 lbs. Thats what soldiers still carry today.
There is a book titled "the medieval soldier" which has a colour frame of a man doing a hand stand in plate...which if I owned I would be scannin in right now.

yes, some ceremonial, tilting, and VERY late period "plate of proof" was very heavy, but so where the 12 lb ceremonial bearing swords. That doesn't mean anyone in his right mind ever took the field carrying a 12 lb sword, even claymores weigh about 7lbs.

 

I (as an active member of the SCA) have been in armor MULTIPLE times, and the point is that you possibly could do a handstand, but it would be hard, you need to be damn strong and have an armor specially made for that, normal armor which is not for infantry (which actually never was a full plate, expensive) your arms won't rise above your head, and the weight of the thing actually varies, in the 1600 the cavalry armor was about 35 kg but you couldn't mount a horse with it because your leg's don't rise that much, if they did it would be no problem, this 35 kg armor could take a bullet in those days and stay intact so this is probably the general weight of the thing.

Didn't notice Jester's post, He is a better dictionary on this than me.

[This message has been edited by Spyrer the Drow (edited May 23, 2001).]

 

would love 2 watch keldorn demonstrate a paladin doing a handstand..he looks the sort of chap who could manage it u know...