The purpose of armor

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Yes, good discussion folks, and seemingly such a simple question!

In addition to what many of you have already said, just to turn it around a bit, armor when worn not only protects but allows you to become a weapon.

When I began training in mine, I suddenly realized that every armored portion of my body was not only protected but also was now a very viable weapon.

I am sure most of you have seen this but consider that this clip captures the very first time, I used my Gothic armor to spar with someone else:

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Armored_Free-Play.htm

While I was standing there waiting to go, I suddenly realized, not how protected I was, but how dangerous every part of me was to him..now, he's armored as well, and I did think about that as well, but mostly I was just attempting to not hurt him.

In this clip, I use my kness, and arms to offend and defend. We didn't have gauntlets on, or I would have been striking him as well, but again we both would have to have been very careful.

There were several times when I wanted to execute some more throws, especially when at the end his lft arm goes up over one of mine, there is a very nice leg throw, I was going to execute, however not knowing how much mobility in his shoulder he had, I didn't want to dislocate his shoulder so I just "sandbagged" on him.

Anyway it was interesting being in that position and realizing just how effective and dangerous you are when you armor the human body to that degree...everything you do is potentially a weapon and dangerous to those around you!- AP

[Jonathan Newhall]

Yeah I noticed that for the first time while watching that video as well - your ENTIRE BODY is basically covered in brass knuckles! Against an unarmored assailant you could quite literally fisticuff him to death if you were wearing gauntlets and remain completely unharmed!

[s_taillebois]

"Anyway it was interesting being in that position and realizing just how effective and dangerous you are when you armor the human body to that degree...everything you do is potentially a weapon and dangerous to those around you!"

Well that clearly was one of the original purposes. And it might also account for the yeomanry using such as lead mauls, a way to have the same effect for those who could not afford armor on those who did have armor. And no doubt the satisfaction of battering a downed member of the aristocracy into a mess inside of his armor.

Which might have caused some dilemmas, armor being worth what is was versus the need to remove its wearer from the troubles of the world.

That said, it would be interesting to know what medical procedures were used to remove crushed armor from arms, legs or heads when the usual attachment points were compromised or the armor itself was crushed into tissue or bone? And how much effect did that possibility have on the preference of wearing closed helms or war hats? (aside from those who may have preferred the latter for better vision, less heat and more ventilation) And how often in period fights did they have to remove compromised armor to regain mobility?

[Jonathan Newhall]

I think that if the armor became compromised to the extent you are suggesting that removing the armor would probably not result in a return of mobility to the user and that in fact they would be too hurt to continue, and would have the armor removed at a later point. However, the techniques used at that point in time I am not sure about.

[Stacy Clifford]

I think that if the armor became compromised to the extent you are suggesting that removing the armor would probably not result in a return of mobility to the user and that in fact they would be too hurt to continue, and would have the armor removed at a later point. However, the techniques used at that point in time I am not sure about.

Not necessarily. If for example a shoulder piece were partially crushed, it might have only bruised your shoulder, but the dent could interfere with the free movement of the armor in such a way that you can't raise your arm above your head without causing injury or great discomfort to yourself. Even regular clothing that pinches in certain areas from being too tight or improperly shaped can do that. Armor pieces were well designed to interact smoothly with each other at the joints, I can well imagine that a battered elbow cop or pauldron or gauntlet could become more hindrance than help at some point, but you'll still keep it on as long as you can stand it.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Not necessarily. If for example a shoulder piece were partially crushed, it might have only bruised your shoulder, but the dent could interfere with the free movement of the armor in such a way that you can't raise your arm above your head without causing injury or great discomfort to yourself. Even regular clothing that pinches in certain areas from being too tight or improperly shaped can do that. Armor pieces were well designed to interact smoothly with each other at the joints, I can well imagine that a battered elbow cop or pauldron or gauntlet could become more hindrance than help at some point, but you'll still keep it on as long as you can stand it.

That's true - I was thinking more along the lines of the knee joint. If a knee joint is so damaged it has to be removed it's likely a result of a serious weapon blow (knees were common targets after all) that in all probability crushed the knee itself as well as the joint.

As for the elbow or shoulder, I couldn't say. I guess there is a fine line between "damaged equipment" and "damaged user", even if the two do go hand in hand a lot of the time.

[Stacy Clifford]

I think that will depend a lot on how loose the fit is to allow for padding and such between skin and metal. More space gives you a decent crumple zone as a buffer against injury, but with a multi-part knee joint with pieces as tightly fitted as these appear to be, one dent in the wrong place could prevent you from straightening your knee even if you're not damaged because the plates won't slide under each other anymore:

http://www.medieval-fightclub.com/prod591.htm

Of course we all know you can be bludgeoned to death inside your armor, but because armor is not skin tight I think it does leave some margin of error with respect to absorbing some blunt force trauma and remaining functional.

[Corey Roberts]

I remember in my brief few weeks with the SCA I got to use the loner leg armour that was kind of old and didn't fit together properly anymore. One of the lames or something in the knee was sort of wonky and every once in a while would get out of place. The result would be instant immobility of the knee joint mid motion in whatever you were doing at the time. Often times if you couldn't get the lame back in the right position with a hammer or something, it was much easier for me to simply toss that piece of armour and fix it later. So I think when a piece of armour in a critical joint gets bashed out of its usefulness that could theoretically be a considerable hindrance to the wearer.

[Donald Pike]

Of course, armor remained a practical presence for a bit longer than that. Cuirassiers' breastplates and helmes still gave them plenty of protection against swords, bayonets, and lances until at least the middle of the 19th century!

Actually, swords and bayonets were in use through WWII and a bit beyond. Specifically, Japanese officers and Soviet Cossacks, among others. There was even fakes accounts of Polish Hussars attacking German Panzers with lances in a Cavalry charge. That was actually German propaganda, but still.

Bayonets are still common issue in militaries world-wide.

I was reading up on modern armor, for a writing project I have, and found something interesting. Can't find the link now, mostly because it's after 2am here. But, it was found that mail is still highly effective armor even today. No, it won't stop a bullet from a gun, but it will stop knives and improvised weapons just as well as it did swords and such back when it was in use.

The armor Dragonskin uses a design of overlapping scales; and was tested to be able to stop armor piercing rounds from an AK, among other rounds. It is also effective against bladed weapons, such as the bayonet. It also costs an arm and a leg, or alternately, your first born child.[/quote]

[Jonathan Newhall]

There's also that madman Jack Churchill who went into battle with a bow, sword, and a motorbike during the battle of France in 1939, among other times and places!

I was reading up on modern armor, for a writing project I have, and found something interesting. Can't find the link now, mostly because it's after 2am here. But, it was found that mail is still highly effective armor even today. No, it won't stop a bullet from a gun, but it will stop knives and improvised weapons just as well as it did swords and such back when it was in use.

Indeed, mail is still used for things like shark suits and stopping things like knife attacks.

The armor Dragonskin uses a design of overlapping scales; and was tested to be able to stop armor piercing rounds from an AK, among other rounds. It is also effective against bladed weapons, such as the bayonet. It also costs an arm and a leg, or alternately, your first born child.

It also unfortunately loses integrity at over 110 degrees fairenheit or so, making it all but completely useless in the current US military environment... or a hot squad car in LA. Other than the temperature problems, though, it really is an amazing piece of work.

[Carlo Anderson]

The purpose of armor is to protect you from your enemies.

[william_cain_iii]

I think if we're discussing the purpose of armor, we have to remember the contexts in which it was used.

The first major accounts of armor kind of lean toward what the OP was saying. Greek hoplites and other classical spear formations were not one on one combats, very rarely was one person facing another. Instead they were great clashes of bodies, shield walls pushing against one another. The breastplates (be they linen or bronze) were intended to protect from the odd spear that pushed through the shield wall to nudge around in your sticky bits.

This trend continued for a lot of history, so far as I'm aware. Massed formations gave their troops certain degrees of armor in order to decrease the rate of random attrition, rather than to give any one soldier a specific edge.

The use of armor as a secondary offensive weapon ties into the entire mythos of the knight, as we move further into history. The weight of the horse combined with the weight of the knight's armor, the lance, possibly any barding on the horse - this all creates a powerful mass that can bear through infantry formations.

The use of plate armor as a weapon itself definitely would fit into many of the images of judicial duels we've seen, but I freely confess I've no idea how it would fit into the world of battlefield combat, or how common the grand suits of plate were on the field, as opposed to in judicial duels.

[Dylan Asbury]

"The use of plate armor as a weapon itself definitely would fit into many of the images of judicial duels we've seen, but I freely confess I've no idea how it would fit into the world of battlefield combat, or how common the grand suits of plate were on the field, as opposed to in judicial duels."

How would it fit into the world of battlefield combat? Well, I don't see it making sense to not carry a dedicated weapon into battle when you could have access to one. I'm pretty sure it wasn't done since fully armored with sword> fully armored without sword by definition. However, if I lost my weapon in the chaos or was grappled, trapped, or otherwise unable to swing a sword, you'd best believe I'd be getting punchy with my gauntlets. I feel like going into a fight intending to use your armor as a weapon is not something any trained fighter would do. However, going in, losing use of your weapon and attacking with your armor in a pinch to maintain momentum would be martially laudable, imo.

and by grand suits of plate do you mean full-body coverage or do you mean the ones that are really huge and ornate? Because if it's the former, then I'm pretty sure that they saw use (though more likely on horseback than on foot. Better to have the Destrier carry that weight than try to run in it!) and as for the latter, I don't think they would be too popular. The attitude among a lot of combat soldiers I've run into (and my own) is that it's better to wear only essential armor (torso, helmet, maybe neck) and maintain mobility rather than go in too armored to chase or charge.

[Jonathan Hill]

This was a bit of thread necromancy. But I’ll give you a contrarian view: Your armor is always a weapon. The shield is a weapon, if you don’t realize this you haven’t fought a decent sword and buckler guy. A large shield can easily be used to bash your opponent or bash his shield to create an opening. If their leg gets nice and close strike it with the bottom of the shield, their head, break their nose with the rim of your shield. You shouldn’t look at a sword and shield as one offence and one defense, the guy has two weapons, one generally guards the other generally strikes but you can just as easily parry an incoming blow with the sword and punch your shield into his face.

When full plate was common, it was the battlefield armor. Read through Crecy or Antioch virtually everyone on the battlefield that they thought worthy of discussion was wearing full plate, and pretty much those who were not would have just been fodder. Yes it was initially for the cavalry but once the horses started to get shot out from underneath them they did dismount and walk into the fight. Full plate is like wearing your shield thus freeing up both arms to wield your weapon, poleaxes, two handed swords ect. Once you get use to working in plate you can run, do cartwheels and just about anything else. You won’t be chasing down your enemies, but who cares; you don’t send a tank in to do a helicopters job.

[Dylan Asbury]

I was only pointing out that armor to the exclusion of another weapon doesn't make sense. to use your sword and buckler reference, why bother taking a buckler but no sword? That said, you're absolutely right in that there should be no separation between offense and defense in a fight and that anything that can be used to hurt the enemy can and should be used to do so if opportunity arises.

All I was saying was that I'm not going to leave a sword at home to try to engage in steel-fist boxing as william was saying might have been for judical duels. (though that concept is awesome.)

And as far as full plate and not doing the helicopter's job with the tank, fair point. I think I'd just rather be the helicopter.

Though this discussion does remind me of some footage I saw of some guys showing off Thai martial arts and some of the men were wearing wooden blocks on their forearms (like a gauntlet but with a handle) and utilizing punch and clinch attacks with them to pretty decent effect against the opponents with swords. Granted, they were plays and not free sparring, but it is an interesting idea.