I agree with everything.
Alright, a small correction on my side. I watched the video one more time and the armor worn by the soldier is not that terribly heavy looking, certianly not full plate armor, but still looks a bit too much for scouting and investigation. What I said in initial post would apply to the heaviest plate armors of “I do not want to be impaled on lance” or “I want to be resistant to english longbow” kind.
No. Plate isn’t heavy, does not require lifts. It can be danced in, and jumps, rolls, etc are quite easily demonstrated (and have been on film).
Leather over an arming doublet is possibly heavier than plate over an arming doublet.
The point about an axe or mace, or a hunting dagger being more appropriate seems sound though.
4 Likes
I don’t really agree with you.
You have to take in mind that this is happening in late medieval period. At this time (as I have found from cursory research) the swords weren’t really expensive. They can be almost compared to today’s cars. Yes brand new car is expensive and not everyone can afford it, but everyone (or almost everyone) can afford workable car. The expensive and really difficult to make pattern welded swords were already thing of distant past and blacksmith were able to create good steel for over a hundred years. There were a lot of usable old swords that had almost no value (or basically just the material value).
Yes there is the status posititon of sword, but this applies mostly just in towns and towards to the priviledge (and sometimes duty…) to carry the sword all the time. Issuing a sword to someone sent after bandits (that aren’t probably armored) seems rather plausible to me. It is the most universal weapon, a sidearm, something comparable to todays handguns. Having an axe or a dagger would aply more to situation when the lord doesn’t give out anything and you are left to your own devices and have to find your own weapon or go unarmed.
The mace does not make any sense in this situation as this is specific anti armour weapon and there are certainly better weapons to use against unarmored opponent. Also the axe has to be specificly “people fighting axe” as the logging axe is rather unvieldy when you are trying to hin nonstationary object.
Regardig the armour as people mentioned above. It isn’t as unwieldly as you may think. The weight is distributed rater evenly and even in ill fitting armour that is made for someone twice your size I as a small not really strong or fit woman could move rather freely. I imagine that in netter fitting armour it would be lot easier. Regarding the cost. Again simmilar to the swords. Such armours were made for several centuries already. There were lot of them laying around. You just looked for one that would fit.
6 Likes
I know that there are many contradicting sources about weights and actual ability to move in an armor. But let us think about time at which is this happening. 1403… situation with armors was different two decades later and it was different two decades earlier, but at this specific time period there were the heaviest, most restrictiong full plates around. While it is not the case with the armor of that soldier in the live stream, his armor still must be very heavy and not really practical for other situations than larger battle.The mobility disadvantage is just too great.
When it comes to “plate is not heavy, you can dance, jump, roll int it.” I would not agree with that statement when it comes to late medieval full plate armor. Some that were used for battle reached even 50 kilos. I found a nice scientific based article for that issue here.
But I agree that it still allowed for at least some mobility… unless it came to armor by heavy lancer cavalry that had task of charging enemy line head on. This was time of crossbows and very powerful bows… armorers tried to come up with sufficient protection, which resulted in thick and overly heavy armors. In another 30 years such armors would go to decline, because during several battles, many of them during Hussite wars, showed how vulnerable someone with restricted mobility is.
When it comes to swords… yes, they were commoners using it, but in this region it would become true only a hundred years later, when mercenaries became common and manufacturing of swords became more common. There was a big leap between gothic and renaissance warfare and weapon prices. Renaissance came to Bohemia a bit later than this.
Also when using historical sources, we have to check from what region they come, because price of things and customs about who was allowed to wear wat greatly differ between countries. While in England at that time position of peasant was far greater, in Holy Roman Empire remained one of the stricter serfdoms.
1 Like
Anno 1400 it wasn’t a knights weapon for some time. Even where it was strictly limited to be worn by nobles only in a city folks got around the rule by carrying single edged messer but in less densely populated areas or the rural country you would not be apprehended for carrying a sword.
in 800 AD certainly but by the time this game takes place this was not the case. An archer in the army of Henry the fifth (think battle of Agincourt 1415) could buy a second hand sword for 2 days worth of salary and a brand spanking new one for a weeks worth of pay.
I believe a craftsman such as a blacksmith generally fell outside the whole peasant/cottager/serf spectrum since that has to do with farming and land. A blacksmith I imagine would be more or less free in his daily life while it is possible he was required to serve under feudal obligation as soldier. But yeah in general I would not send out a blacksmith to do any kind of task involving combat, i’d send a soldier with a polearm.
Well that would depend on whether the said sword is held at their throat or not. It’s not some magic wand or such just a piece of iron. Free cities usually banned civilians from wearing them in daily life since it could escalate violence so as a response they started wearing large single edged knives. Outside of a city it wouldn’t be that big of a deal unless a lord specifically banned it.
Are you serious?
None of that is correct.
You had expensive armor and less expensive armor just like you have cars. It’s not like every car is the price of a Ferrari. Also you probably wouldn’t wear a hauberk under plate armour. Mail gussets attached to a thin aketon/gambeson in critical areas nothing more.
No just no.
Don’t know where you are getting this from.
My good friend, you are the exact opposite of a history freak. You literally seem to believe all popular myths surrounding the medieval period.
I suggest you read a little from this thread I posted regarding armor.
and perhaps this; Common misconceptions about arms and armor.
8 Likes
Well the BBC is not very scientific. The talk about the battle of Agincourt (1415) yet the guy on the threadmill is wearing English made armor of a period of the war of the Roses (1450ish). This guy on myarmoury.com took the data on the weight of around 2000 pieces and the average weight of armour he came up with was between 27 and 33 kilograms so nowhere near the 50kg which is probably reserved only for jousting armor.
In 1433 armor didn’t even reach it zenith yet.
The full armor with a lance was still used in 1562 at the battle de dreux while pistol armed cuirassiers in 3/4 armor (which was partly bullet proof) continued to wear it until halfway the 30 years war (1618-1648)
And don’t forget the Polish Hussars who continued to wear armor until 1670 and later.
5 Likes
LOTS of bad research, in the OP’s comments here.
As has already been noted, the sword as a prohibitively expensive weapon that even some KINGS couldn’t afford is long, LONG past. By the early-1400s you’re already seeing the groundwork for the later fencing guilds (such as the Marxbruder, who would monopolize the public schools of fencing in the HRE). The sword may still have been a status symbol, but it certainly wasn’t restricted to knights or nobility. And even if you couldn’t afford to have one made, there was nothing to prevent one from scavenging one from a battlefield.
Finally, the weight of armor was no different than what a modern infantry soldier takes into battle with him. The difference is that the weight was MUCH better-distributed across the body. There’s plenty of videos out there of guys doing cartwheels, jumping fences, running, and even SWIMMING in plate armor.
Also keep in mind a lot of the really, REALLY heavy stuff would either have been for ceremonial or display purposes, or for use during tournaments. Battlefield armor was much lighter to provide mobility and comfort for the wearer.
6 Likes
Regarding the armour I speek from personal experience. I have few friends that do historical reentacments and they have plate armour. They let me try it. It doesn’t weight 50 kg but something around 20 - which from what I have seen and read is more acurate for this period. My friends are twice in size and three times my weight. The armour on me was ridiculously oversized and contained way more material than would be necessary for protecting someone of my size. The main dificullties with the movement weren’t from weight of the material (it felt almost suprisingly light, definitely lighter than bacpack of similar weight) but from the fact that it was oversized and parts that normally shouldn’t overlap were over each other.
I am speaking about medieval not Renessaince wepons (From the definitions I learn Renessaince is considered as the first Modern history period). There is not such jump, but gradual change. The jump is something more of perception related. Medieval period is fairly long and if you take average medieval weapon and renessaince weapon you have such jump, but you also have three or four hundred years between them. Early renesaince and late medieval wepons were almost identical, or there were just small changes.
The onset of renessaince in Bohemia was later not because Bohemia was behind times all the time, but because the events in this game and later (hussite wars) delayed onset of Renessaince. At the time of the game Bohemia was still one of the leading powers in Europe.
The topic of serfdom is closely related to land ownership and working on fields and is therefore less applicable in this case (blacksmith and someone sent to chase bandits). Nevertheless I stand behind what I said. I think the lord would issue a sword to anyone sent to chase bandits (he just probably wouldn’t sent a serf).
2 Likes
Apprehended, probably no. I can see citizen getting sword, merchant, noble… but it just feels somehow wrong on lowly serf who had problem getting past gate into what is refugee camp.
I do not know what was the situation in England, but from sources I saw it seems more like several months of work for soldier to be able to afford sword at that time, considering that he would not spend anything at all from his pay. For some worker in city it would be even over a year.
Yes, that is probably true, most of them, especially skilled ones as Henry’s father were probably free people and quite respected, but from what I saw in the released video, he is treated as a trash even when he says he is blacksmith, so my opinion was based on that mainly.
I think that even just wearing a sword would increase the prestige of wearer by a huge amount. While I agree that there were some non nobles carrying a sword around, the probability of wearer being rich/powerful/noble/someone respectful is just too big to not consider.
No, as i said in my second post, after watching the video again I realized that the armor worn there was more like set of covering plates here and there. What I said would apply really to the heaviest plate armor. Because that worn by heaviest noble cavalry was very similar to tournament armor in it’s weight and sturdiness. But my point about wearing that armor on an investigative/scouting mission stands.
I have seen this, but it is just one of many sources around and some of the things they say there are not exclusively right for all time periods. Heaviest kind of cavalry was indeed helped to get into saddle, in similar way it was done in tournaments. But I agree that there are many sources and many myths around these topics, but many “myths” are actually based on truth. Just the truth was later inflated and assigned to other situations as well. But I do not think that anyone will persuade me, as someone stated here, that it was possible to do anything that even closely resembles dancing, in full plate armor of 30 kilo or even more.
Polish Hussars were light cavalry mostly and even for heavy hussars their armor was very different to what I am talking about.
All around you can find “the massive, heavy to move in full plates were just for tournament jousting”. That is true… just as always, not completely. During 15th century it became just for jousting, but it had it’s origin in heavy cavalry tactic of late middle-age and during certain period of time this extremely heavy thing was indeed worn into battles. That period being 14th century mostly, but cavalry of Holy Roman Empire were still using it during Hussite wars and there are historical sources talking about how hussite army managed to use disadvantages of that armor. Some of their battles would not go quite as well if those cavalry units could just dismount and dance and jump across the battlefield.
I agree to the original post, maybe get a boot knife, a club or something. Also heavy armour should be sparse, restricted to knights/lords. Leather and mail should be common soldier armour. We want no Dragon Age here do we?
Well like two people have said, he isn’t a serf but a blacksmith. He probably made a low quality sword or something similar in his life already.
People get treated like thrash by government officials all the time. I don’t expect it to be any different in that time. Maybe the guard was on edge and looking for spies or something.
In medieval Swabia we’re seeing master craftsman get paid 8 Groschen a week and journeyman craftsman around 3 a week.
Longswords are priced between 15 and 70 for average models with decent ones around 24. This would put a decent longsword in his hands for 8 weeks of work if he was completely broke. But seeing how he is a blacksmith he would probably have a little cash lying around somewhere.
The cheapest full set of plate armor in the records is 480 so that would amount to three years pay of a journeyman level craftsman or a years pay for a master craftsman. Not really the cost of a village.
Anyways A gambeson + metal helmet + metal gauntlets is probably what would be the gear for the average low class soldier.
Just like driving a Humvee? No offense to Humvee drivers but most people think of them as dicks. And if you were in a somewhat free city a noble was just a guy who exhorted money from your local government once in a while, not someone who they would kneel for if given the choice.
I agree, a gambeson and helmet+gauntlets would’'ve been enough.
Well they haven’t found field armor weighing over 40 kgs and training to get in the saddle without hands or stirrups was essential in western cavalry training. I very much doubt anything like a lift/crane has ever been used for the purpose.
The guy in this video can touche his toes and do those jump thingies.
I could see him do the Waltz to be honest 
Well my point about the cuirassiers from the thirty years war (1618-1648) still stands.
It was the 15th century that was the heyday of plate armor not the end of it. We see plate armor appear in the beginning of the fifteenth century and by Agincourt (1415) virtually the whole French cavalry arm had plate armor. From there on it only got better and better until 1500 when infantry stopped using it that much but cavalry continued to use it till around 1550-1580 (in the case of the French) when it was exchanged for 3/4 plate armor which fell into disuse only halfway the Thirty years war.
Plate armor only just arrived during the Hussite wars and wasn’t even perfected yet by then. The Hussite’s took advantage of the fact that the knightly cavalry was prone to charge their formation even when disadvantaged by terrain or war wagons. That hasn’t so much to do with the armor itself as much as with the cavalry tactics of that day. The Hussites themselves also wore armour they scavenged of the field.
3 Likes
Somehow you seem to forget that the game is taking place during a civil war. Saying that a common man could not get his hands on a weapon would be like saying that there are no guns in Ukraine today.
Also, if you want to use any sources, you need to use sources that deal exactly with Kingdom of Bohemia at the given time. Take a situation in current Silesia as an example: on the Czech side of the border, people can get a firearms license in a process similar to getting a driving license, and may then easily purchase any firearms and carry them in concealed manner (apart from full-auto). It is quite normal to carry a concealed firearm in the Czech Republic (200.000 people have the necessary license). On the Polish side of the border, getting a gun legally is very complicated, and getting a carry permit is next to impossible. On German side of the border you can’t legally get even a pepper spray, electric paralyzer or telescopic baton - weapons which Czech Ministry of Interior explicitly recommends to carry as prevention in case of attack (and crime rates in Prague are way lower than in Berlin).
There is nothing that would suggest lack of historical investigation on the part of the KCD team. So, unless you want to bring evidence from history books dealing with the given period and time, this discussion has no sense.
1 Like
I like to add to this that Warhorse Studio have stated they preferred JSTOR listed sources.
1 Like
About the BBC article: It says that they used exact replicas of armour, so that means it was not made for the bodies of the wearers, which may have been problematic. Another thing is that I’ve read somewhere on the internet that there is a skill in moving in armour without getting tired, about “spilling the centre of gravity”.
Mike Loades has said that a few decades later than when this is set, in England, swords were common enough for common men at arms to have one, but that was in a different place and at a different time.
I’ve read that there was late renaissance jousting armour that weighed as much as a modern bomb disposal suit, which may have been why the Victorians thought it was all like that, and also poorly made heavy fakes being sold as old. 50lb is a better weight, which is lighter than some metal Samurai armour.
I found the BBC study published online.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1729/640.full.pdf
There are a few things that strike me as being a little weird.
Four male subjects (mean+s.d., height 175+4 cm, mass
79+10 kg, age 36+4 years), experienced in wearing replica
armour, were informed about the research, and consented to
participate in the experiments. Each subject had a suit of
custom-made replica armour typical of the mid- to late-
fifteenth century
Pardon my saying so but these gentlemen while kind enough to assists in this study are not representative of professional soldiers of their day and age. Their age is already above what we today call our physical peak and to be honest they don’t seem like the most skinny persons either. I am 188 cm tall and currently weigh 75 kg which is a bit on the skinny side. When I still actively trained I was around 82 kg with the same amount of fat and more muscle. These guys being 10 cm’s shorter and almost as heavy or even heavier than me probably aren’t muscle bound guys with the same bodyfat % as I have. I can’t blame them for it but they seem like your average forty something relatively untrained guy. A better comparison would perhaps be a group of 30 something guys from the army who are used to wearing a rucksack of almost the same weight on a regular basis.
All subjects carried a longsword with both hands
Well they have a scabbard for that purpose which frees up their hands and allows them to swing them. This in turn lowers metabolic energy requirements. whereas holding a longsword in two arms increases it by around 26%.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/07/29/rspb.2009.0664.full
Swords are a item which to have permission to always have on you was normally high ranking or that of guards etc, swords wern’t that expensive depending on the type and the metal etc, now ornate swords yes.
But any militia which normally villages would have at least during a time of unrest, they may have cheaper swords in there house.
More common however people would just carry around axes, hammers etc because these where also tools, swords however only use if for killing things.
If I were a peasant in a war I would not opt for those smaller weapons, I would prefer to keep them at a distance with a pitchfork, flail or scythe. However that would leave you without a shield.
Kinda interesting when you think about it really.
Sorry, but no. Axes made for warfare and axes used as tools were two ENTIRELY different things. Axes made for warfare had a much thinner, almost more sword-like edge than the axes used as tools. Doesn’t mean a plain ol’ woodaxe couldn’t still mess you up, but the idea that the axe was both tool and weapon is a misguided one at best.
Medieval warhammers had a head that was similar to common tool hammers, but not exactly. You’re more likely to see small projections on the head of the former, and rather than a claw or other usable tool on the reverse you’d have a spike.
There’s a BIG difference between “both tool and weapon” and “tool used AS weapons,” and the implements you’re discussing are the latter, and MARKEDLY inferior to those made explicitly for war. IE, the wedge of a wood axe wouldn’t cut nearly as well as the thinner edge of a true battleaxe, particularly when you have to get through something like a gambeson to get to the body underneath. Likewise, the thin edge of the battleaxe wouldn’t be very good for chopping down a tree.
1 Like
only sword done at the time of presentation. i suspect in the full game, henry gets an axe or a club