The percussive effect and plate armour

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello All,
I think the work "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Dr. Alan Williams has some interesting info on quality of various armors.

BUT

I believe the gambison (padding) in some time periods and areas (I'll need to check with an armor specialist friend) was stated as being "two finger widths thick of hard packed horse hair" in addition to the quilted cloth on both sides.
Let us not count out the usefulness of denting and displacing pieces of armor which were designed to allow movement. Picture the squires running up to a knight with late medieval "jaws of life" to remove and bend bits which have become damaged and immobile.

Also the halberd could transmit an immense amount of energy and focus it on a small point..no shock wave needed when a spike is sticking three inches into you...also good for removing one from the horse and slowing mobility...and hitting the ground in any armor would still mean that you hit the ground...from height and with speed.

I agree about arrows...I seem to recall that there is no documented case of a fully armored knight being killed by an arrow; some of arrows entering open visors and definitely the "Porcupine effect" of being stuck with a few, but, no deaths. (Pointless side note...In Japan the samurai had on occasion left the field to be stripped of arrows which had imbedded in the armor.)


Ric

Hi Ric,
Excellent comments and observations, and thank you for coming in on this interesting topic. It seems that like many, I guess I have always rather taken the images of the knights in thier armour for granted, and never really considered the dynamics of all that was really involved, as we have discussed on these threads.

It seems that the gambesons, as you have noted, and other developed forms of padding under chain mail and plate armour served for protecting from the heat of the metal in hot weather or sun, as well as certainly to absorb shock and add secondary protection under the armour itself.

As heavier plate armour developed, it was actually more complex in its intricate moving parts from what I understand, and despite the often held views of clumsiness and awkward movements, the knights were actually relatively agile. As you have well pointed out, a bludgeoning blow or a fall which would damage or render the armour components immovable would be in many cases disastrous, though not from injuring the knight by compressed or dented metal, but by preventing mobility.

Your notes on the plate armour being inpenetrable by arrows are well placed, and in checking resources at hand, all agree that despite some generally held thoughts, most accounts reveal that armour was indeed not penetrable by arrows. There are suggestions of course that varying factors might mitigate those claims, but none that I have seen supported. I noticed one instance where the spike like bodkin point was suggested to have been for armour piercing, but research in by the Royal Armouries revealed no hardened points to support those claims.
The only possible exception for plate armour being pierced may be with a suggestion from "The Great Warbow" (R.Hardy, M.Strickland, 2005) which noted that upper range bows with heavy war arrow might kill or severely wound men if armoured with presumably lesser quality wrought iron, rather than of steel. I am not sure of the dynamics of these differences in the metal but thought it worthy of note.

Returning to the knight with damaged armour, particularly from being unhorsed, your comments on the spike of a halberd are well placed, and one suggestion I found interesting was that although arrows could not penetrate this armour, they had become so powerful that in some cases, they were capable of knocking a knight off his horse.

Thank you again Ric for joining us on this topic, and its great in discussing to learn more on the aspects of armour in warfare not commonly regarded in its study.

All very best regards,
Jim