Weapons vs Armour?

First of all, I don't mean to offend anyone here. I know from personal experience the serious misconceptions people have about arms and armour from movies, fantasy books, computer games and pen and paper RPGs. I held many of this misconceptions myself until I started exploring more thoroughly the subject.

First I'll strongly advice against relying against anything shown in movies or described in books. The purpose of these is to entertain and to make money. They don't really care about realism or historical accuracy, despite their claims otherwise. People will go and read/see an Arthur movie with shining full plate harness, even when the myth began around the 6th century, when mail was the dominant form of defense and white harnesses nine centuries away. The History channel and other TV shows will often have false information, but are generally more accurate.

If you want to educate yourselves visit places and websites that specialize on Medieval period reenactment and arms and armour reproduction. The Arador and The Armor Archive are excellent sites to start.

As an early heads up on the effectiveness of armour against weapons: every form of protection used in history was effective against the threats it defended against. People back then were just as smart as today; they just didn't have all those fancy words and loads of knowledge we have now. Same thing goes for weapons: every weapon used was effective in the hands of a skilled user. No armour offered complete protection and no weapon always succeeded. It's important to keep this in mind.

Also one major point to consider is that both the attacker and the defender are always moving. Rarely does a person suffer a direct hit in full force, simply because of the fact he is trying to avoid it. Armour is the last line of defense – it's there to protect you against the blows you didn't dodge or deflect with your weapon and shield.

To answer some of the more specific questions:

Maces (and later flanged maces), warhammers and blunt pole arms aren't the heavy masses most people imagine. Following the rules for kinetic energy (kE=(m*v^2)/2) it is much more effective to increase the speed than the mass, so they didn't weigh much. The main advantage of blunt weapons is that you can bypass the armour entirely, transferring the energy directly to the body, breaking bones or causing bleeding. Still, rigid defense (iron/steel plates and hard boiled leather) and plenty of padding will reduce or even stop completely any potential damage from a blunt source. These weapons weren't widely used because of this lack of finesse.

A sturdy nail and a good hammer blow can easily penetrate a thick iron plate. It's just that it will be pretty tough to use against a guy who's trying to kill you. Whenever you have the chance you always attack a weak point. It's completely pointless to attack the armour, since this accomplishes nothing. Granted, a full plate harness from the early 16th century (before the advent of gunpowder and rifles) will have very few weak points, but it's still wiser to exploit the inevitable places were the armour isn't as secure. Completely undefended point in full plate: the occularium (eye slits in the helmet or visor). Major weak spots: inside of elbows and knees, armpits and groin. Minor weak points (thinner metal): outside of vambrace (forearm protection), breast and back plate (very easy to protect with weapon, shield and avoidance).

If you have no choice but to hit the armour (like an archer from 200 yards away or at the beginning of a charge) you will find plate armour hard to penetrate. Despite the thinness of the metal (0.8-1 mm on breastplate, 1.2-1.6mm on limb protection and 1.8-2.8mm on helms) the armour is built to deflect blows. An arrow (even a thin bodkin point) would have to hit near 90 degrees to penetrate, otherwise it just glances off. Most accounts of fully armoured knights being injured by an arrow is when they lifted they visor to better see the battle and were hit in the now exposed face. Spears (the common troop's weapon) again will most likely glance of the surface of the armour. The plates would bend under strong force and padding would reduce the force of a blow even more. If, however, the plate is hit without glancing it is farley easy to penetrate, but the penetrating object (sword point, arrow, spear head, etc) usually stops short of causing serious injury. A bodkin point was design for deeper penetration, and should it manage to hit the plate without deflection could penetrate deep enough for doing serious harm.

Earlier armour or armour for the less wealthy (full plate was very expensive and reserved to the higher classes) protected less, but the principal of exploiting the weakness still applies. Torso protection is most common, so arms and legs are a favorable target. Early leg armour didn't cover the shins so again you have an opening to use. The neck was relatively undefended until the advent of metal gorgets so it could be a target, although it should be expected and thus more readily defended. Rank and file troops of an army might be left with only a shield and a simple open faced helm as protection. The upper you go on the social line the fewer troops you get and the more armour you can afford to buy.

Mail combined with thick padding (4 fingers, 10cm) is quite effective against arrows, with thin bodkin points stopping short of actually harming the wearer. Thrusts against mail is confronted with the same issue, when the thin point on the beginning of the blade might penetrate the rings but not being able to do any real harm when being caught up by the rest of the weave. Slashing is quite ineffective against mail, unable to cut the rings. Blunt force is more effective due to the flexible nature of the mail weave, but it still reduces some of the force and the padding reduces it even more. Still, it would be easier to break a bone when wearing mail than being stabbed or slashed. Mail hauberks commonly had short sleeves and reached down to the knees, leaving the forearms and lower legs unarmored.

Leather armour is similar in nature to plate, using rigid plates to avoid injury. Leather, however, can offer neither the glancing surface of steel nor the same resistance to cutting and is thus less effective against slashing and piercing.

Small plates (hard boiled leather, horn or metal [copper, bronze, iron or steel]) attached together by heavy cloth or leather also offer protection. Scale armour consists of plates attached to a backing material and sometimes to themselves to form a rigid metal surface without the need for large sheets of the material in question. Lamellar armour uses small plates connected only to each other and was more popular in the eastern parts of the world (from Japan and China to the Arab Peninsula, Turkey and Eastern Europe). Coat of plates consist of a small number of relatively large plates sandwiched between two layers of heavy cloth or leather, attached to the supporting material by metal rivets. Brigandine armour is similar to a coat of plates, only that it uses a large number of smaller plates to achieve a better converge of the body. The outside appearance of a brigandine is only of multiple rivet heads, most likely bringing to life the idea of "studded leather" by the early RPGs.

Crossbows were as effective as bows in penetrating plate armour. It's just that bows were commonly used as mass weapons from long distance with the arrows falling at an angle, easily deflected by the glancing surface of the plate armour. Crossbow were more often used up close and in a flat trajectory, allowing for better aim and reducing the chance of the bolt from being deflected. Still, the vast majority of people on a battle field were poorly defended, making both weapons effective.

A most popular idea about armour that it is heavy and cumbersome. It's not. As I pointed out earlier, armour is your last line of defense, not your first (that would be your absence from the battle, agility, weapon and shield in descending order). Armour was designed with this in mind, so it always gave maximum mobility to execute the fighting style of the individual (gauntlets were normally quite restrictive, for example, allowing only a limited range of wrist movement. This was because most armoured fighters rode on horseback and didn't need to have good range of motion in the wrist and instead reduced the chance of injury to the wrist), sacrificing coverage in exchange for mobility. As a general rule, a strong individual wearing well fitting armour can do everything he can without armour while wearing his full gear, except swimming (and even that if the armour is light enough). Trained knights can do handstands, rolls and other maneuvers while wearing a full harness. A knight knocked of his horse can get up and fight as quickly as an unarmored individual or get back on his horse just as quickly. The weight of the armour varied, but it was generally around 12-20 lbs (5.4-9 kg) for a mail hauberk and 30-55 lbs (13.6-25 kg) for a plate harness, depending on coverage and thickness. Helmets were the only truly heavy single pieces of defense due to their thickness (from 1.8 to 2.8 mm of steel), commonly weighing 6-9 pounds (2.7-4kg). A thick layer of padding was always worn beneath the armour, or in the case of a mail shirt sometimes above, to lessen the effect of blows. Helmets were similarly padded.

Archers wore light armour not because of any problem with firing a bow while wearing full plate, but because no European army could outfit thousands of archers in this type of armour. The Romans, with their highly advanced means of mess production, equipped their Legions with Lorica Segmentata ("segmented armour") and Lorica Hamata ("mail armour"), with the Hamata used earlier, replaced later by the Segmentata for the common infantrymen, while the Hamata was used for the foreign Auxiliaries, officers and cavalry. As a side note, the Lorica Segmentata was the only armour resembling "splint-mail" or "banded-mail". For anyone interested in Roman army equipment, Legio XX is a great site to start.

On the note of exaggerated weights, weapons are also considered heavy. Which is again not true as well. A long sword weighs less than 3 lbs (1.3 kg), and more commonly 2-2.5 lbs (0.9-1.1 kg). Shorter swords weigh as little as 1 lb (0.45 kg), with 1.5 lbs (0.68 kg) a reasonable upper limit. Two handed swords rarely exceeded 5 lbs (2.3 kg). Blunt weapons also didn't weigh much, and spears and pole-arms had similarly light-weighted heads. As I said earlier, you get more energy from speed than from weight.

Everything here is referring to Medieval Europe, upon which the Sword Coast is basically modeled, and combat armour and fighting. Jousting armour was much heavier and offered less mobility, since you only had to hold a lance horizontally as you galloped on a horse in a straight line while having only your armour to save you from injury.

But as I said, don't take my word for it. Do you research, join local reenactment groups if you can (the Society for Creative Anachronism is a good place to start if you have a chapter near you), try and find people that know about this stuff first-hand. The better you do your homework, the better you'll be able to realistically describe arms and armour and their interaction.

A final note on proper terms: during the Victorian period someone decided that the word "mail" (from French and Latin, which means mesh or net) can be synonymies with armour, giving birth to "platemail", "chainmail", "scalemail" and others. No armour researcher or hobbyist used these terms for over a century, but they still persisted in Hollywood, RPGs and computer games. The correct terms are simply plate armour for defense made out of sheet metal, mail armour for defense made out of interlocking riveted rings, scale armour and so on.

Cheers, Eli

Wow. I take it this is an interest of yours, Eli? Anyway, thanks for all the information. This thread has given me a lot of information, and I'll have to remember it.

Thanks everyone!

Yes, I have an interest in Mediaeval armour reproduction. I’m currently working on a riveted mail hauberk that could probably fit in with 14th century Western Europe.

This thread on the Arador has some very good discussion about arms and armour. Hopefully it will help you improve your understanding of “real” arms and armour.

Cheers, Eli

Just wanted to mention two variants of "typical" plate armor: Tournament and Parade armor.


Tournament armor was a heavier suit or armor with extra protection for the left side (where the opponent's lance was most likely to strike). At 80-90 pounds, it was much to heavy and constrictive for battlefield use.


Parade armor was strictly ceremonial. There are some gorgeous pieces made, particularly later on as firearms began to make the armored knight obsolete. But it would never have seen combat. The gilding and etching in the already thin metal would not provide protection in a battle.

Yes, Clovis is right.

Battlefield harnesses were geared toward as little mobility sacrificed as possible while keeping the highest possible defense. Later (15th century) plate armour succeeded in this admirably.

One small point, it’s jousting armour that was heavy and restrictive. In the joust you have two riders lance each other. A tournament isn’t necessarily a joust, but could involve combat on foot or melee combat between groups of knights. Still, most of these were fought for pleasure, using rebated (dulled) steel blades or even padded clubs for weapons. The best examples of armour are battlefield harnesses.

Cheers, Eli