# Rock, Paper, Scissors (Weapons and Armor)



## Mindfire (Apr 5, 2013)

Can someone who's knowledgeable about such things list a variety of weapon and armor categories and then explain which weapons counter which armor types and vice versa in a rock-paper-scissors sort of fashion? E.g. X armor is designed against Y weapon type, but is weak against Z weapon type, which was designed to pierce it. I (and others I'm sure) would find that kind of information greatly useful. Bonus points if you use a chart.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 6, 2013)

_Very _generalized, but it goes something like this:

Cutting beats unarmored.
Mail beats cutting.
Piercing beats mail.
Plate beats piercing, kinda-sorta.
Crushing or decent guns beat plate.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 6, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> _Very _generalized, but it goes something like this:
> 
> Cutting beats unarmored.
> Mail beats cutting.
> ...


And then, to complete the cycle, unarmoured beats plate.

Yeah, that's right, a villager can beat a knight with his bare fists. What of it?


----------



## gowph3ar (Apr 6, 2013)

Hah, plate does not beat piercing.


----------



## Meyer (Apr 6, 2013)

I thought plate beat slashing?

And where does crushing fit into it?  Warhammer > all?


----------



## Asura Levi (Apr 6, 2013)

Weapons that don't rely in cutting and piercing have an actual advantage over the other two kinds against armoured foes, but they are not as deadly though.


----------



## Kahle (Apr 6, 2013)

Swords can cut/pierce light armor(leather,unarmored), arrows/piercing swords break chain mail, while hammers and axes crush and shatter plate and heavy armor, but then a fast, lightly armored opponent will tire slowly compared to someone in full plate, and find an opportunity. So slashing doesn't necessarily beat plate, but light and fast will. Firearms pretty much break everything, but take so long to reload and are usually inaccurate at his point in history.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 7, 2013)

gowph3ar said:


> Hah, plate does not beat piercing.



It kinda does. You can't actually stick a sword _through _platemail. You have to jam it through the gaps between the plates. Hence "kinda sorta."



Meyer said:


> I thought plate beat slashing?



That too. Plate beats a lot of things, actually. Having a plate armor is really kinda unfair, but that was basically the whole point.



> And where does crushing fit into it?  Warhammer > all?



Eh, warhammers and maces were developed to deal with plate armor, but that's not to say they were the ultimate weapons. Bladed weapons are still deadlier otherwise, and either way, you're still better off inside a suit of armor regardless. It's not like taking a hammer to your armor was a guaranteed death sentence or something.



Kahle said:


> but then a fast, lightly armored opponent will tire slowly compared to someone in full plate, and find an opportunity.



I'm not so sure about that. Plate armor is a lot lighter than more agile than most people think. And if your plan is to avoid being hit by moving around a lot, that is going to drain your stamina as well. The differance is that the guy in plate armor can actualy take a lot of hits without being injured.

Or, you know, just run into you and stab you a lot.


----------



## Kevlar (Apr 7, 2013)

To add to what's been said there is no real rock-paper-scissors. The development of armour and weapons was a back and forth.

All sorts of weapons can kill an unarmoured body. Maille was effective against sword slashes and axe blows (effectively dampening the blow and turning it into blunt-force trauma), and to a degree against thrusting weapons too. Some rare maille was riveted or forge-welded, making it harder for something to spread the rings as it slipped through. This was _exceedingly_ rare, mind you.

Both maille and plate could actually be penetrated by arrows, particularly bodkins. Videos of this are rather easy to find. If a gambeson/aketon/doublet was worn under it the layered armour could easily prevent the arrow from piercing, though if shot from a 140 lb bow would have the stopping power of a .44 Magnum round.

Much better all around defense was of course plate armour. To combat this the longsword evolved: longer, pointier, two handed. It was used to stab into the gaps in the plate. If you were wearing sufficient armour on your hands you could grip it on the blade and treat it something like a spear, or you could even turn it around and use it like a warhammer. See this.

Also, as Anders said, plate armour wasn't a huge burden. While heavy jousting armour could and did reach 100 lbs, armour intended for combat would be something more along the lines of 45 lbs, the weight of which was well supported and distributed throughout the body. You can find videos of people cartwheeling in full knightly harness on Youtube.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 7, 2013)

That's the thing. Armor isn't a rock-paper-scissors circle at all, advanced armor is _better_. 

The rule of thumb I like is to compare armor to different warriors' range of skill. That is, armor and skill are the obvious two game-changers (besides extremes like being exhausted), and they both have a distinct distribution curve for how common they are in the world:


a LOT of thugs with little skill and a lot with minimal armor, 
plenty of veterans with decent training and plenty with some armor, 
a few nobles with chain and a handful of champions with serious skill,
and the very rare advanced-nation's lord with plate or the True Hero.

Which is not to say the two match and everyone has the armor they deserve, just I think of the better versions of one as as rare (and almost as important) as the other. As a rule of thumb.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Apr 7, 2013)

@worldwalker

Unless resources are scarce, I don't understand why noblemen would go to chainmail. Plate armor is superior in almost every regard. Unless your noblemen are impoverished, metal (or blacksmiths) are very rare or there's some strange kind of social requirement about wearing chainmail into battle, they'd probably all go for plate. You don't cut expenses when there's a high chance you'll die in chainmail and you'll live in plate.


----------



## Nobby (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't think anybody mentioned halberds, that was sort of a swiss-army knife of a weapon- axe head, hook (for cavalry), mace for plate bashing and a mail piercing spike all in one package and on the end of a longish pole...

I'm not sure how historically useful it was, and I have to admit they look awkward and clumsy to me.

Oh, and I'm new here and not sure about etiquette, so can I just add that historically nothing beat an archer's Bo**ock knife for finishing anyone brung low by their arrows, no matter what armour they were wearing. 

As for never choosing mail over plate, remember it would take a hell of a lot longer to get into plate, and I doubt you'd want to ride around all day wearing it on the off chance that trouble might kick off. Set piece battles, yep I grant you that, skirmishes, doubtful. I would personally keep the mail but back it up with a helm and a really good shield!

Just my ramblings LOL


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 7, 2013)

Nobby said:


> As for never choosing mail over plate, remember it would take a hell of a lot longer to get into plate, and I doubt you'd want to ride around all day wearing it on the off chance that trouble might kick off. Set piece battles, yep I grant you that, skirmishes, doubtful. I would personally keep the mail but back it up with a helm and a really good shield!


And if there was water about... 
You might stand a change of getting out of a mail coat while sinking to the bottom of the river, lake or sea. But with plate... I'm not so sure.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Apr 7, 2013)

CupofJoe said:


> And if there was water about...
> You might stand a change of getting out of a mail coat while sinking to the bottom of the river, lake or sea. But with plate... I'm not so sure.



Mail was about as heavy as plate was. When you're sinking to the bottom, getting out of your armor is impossible. Even mail was strapped to your person with belts (else it would shift around too much). Also, strapping on mail does take less time but how often do you get ambushed when you're out on a hunt? Because other than hunting, war or traveling, a knight doesn't leave his keep often. And when you're traveling or going to war, there's a reasonable expectation there will be trouble. So I'd put on my plate then.

Also, the most dangerous enemy for someone in plate is a misericorde. These knives were carried around to finish off fallen knights (both friendly and hostile - only the heavily wounded of course because you can ransom/heal the others). A misericorde looks like a letter-opener. It's a very slim knife made for one purpose only - stabbing through gaps in armor/eye-slits etc. Needless to say, knights weren't very fond of them.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2013)

But if plate > everything, how does _anybody_ get killed? It seems like it would reduce a battle to just knocking each other about until everyone gets tired and decides to go home. Why would knights even bother with swords?


----------



## Devor (Apr 7, 2013)

In its most basic form, plate's been around forever.  You could google brass plate armor.

Anders' post is good enough.  It's my understanding that it's more iron chainmail trumps iron plate, while advances in steel metallurgy gradually made steel plate the better option.  But all mail isn't the same.  There was cheap light mail that remained common even while steel developed, but there were also higher quality mails that were short lived because they were heavier, more cumbersome, and ultimately more expensive than the plate armors that developed.  The fancier mails were riveted, with something like 6 links looping through each rivet, making them harder to pierce.

For swords, piercing was usually the way to go for busting armor because it puts the pressure into a single spot.  On horseback, cutting swords could still be effective because they would have a crushing impact.  But weighted weapons were more effective at breaking armor than swords, and specialized polearms were far common than they're portrayed in most fantasy warfare.

My first thought when reading the OP, though, wasn't weapon/armor piercing.  Effective generals made good use of multi-arms strategies, or however it's called.  When do you send in your infantry, versus use your archers, versus your pikemen, and so on.  The mongols, for instance, used the same weapons variety from horseback.  I'd really like to see if someone could do a rock-beats-scissors analysis on that level.


----------



## Devor (Apr 7, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> But if plate > everything, how does _anybody_ get killed? It seems like it would reduce a battle to just knocking each other about until everyone gets tired and decides to go home. Why would knights even bother with swords?



Plate doesn't beat all weapons.  Just all armors, and most sword blows.

Knights used swords because they didn't always fight other knights, and because swords take more skill and training to use than other weapons.  They were also easy to use by infantry, standing side by side, thrusting forward.  But a knight fighting another knight would want a mace or a warhammer or a polearm, not a sword.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2013)

What happens if we throw magic into the mix? How would a simple flamethrower spell fare against armor? Seems to me like it'd turn a knight into a walking oven.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 7, 2013)

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> Unless resources are scarce, I don't understand why noblemen would go to chainmail. Plate armor is superior in almost every regard.



I know. I found myself trying to hint at this when I wrote the rule of thumb; seems to me the only worlds that would have both in active use would be ones where some countries had mastered plate but some hadn't-- and that imbalance might not last long. (Depending on wealth and how separated different lands were, no doubt, though a well-traveled MC could get to see all types.)


----------



## Alex Beecroft (Apr 7, 2013)

Chain is a lot easier to make than plate (plate of a quality good enough to be a help rather than a hindrance.) Chain is also _far _more flexible than plate, so it hampers your movement far less. Basically metal-working technology arrived at the ability to make chain a long time before it got to the plate stage.

Chain protects against slashing and most points (except very thin daggers and bodkin points on arrows) but you can still break the bones beneath it. That's why you always wear chain mail over a padded hauberk. The chain protects from sharp things and the padding protects from blunt ones.


----------



## skip.knox (Apr 7, 2013)

Dragons beat all.


----------



## ndmellen (Apr 7, 2013)

Full plate was also generally intended for mounted use


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 7, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> But if plate > everything, how does _anybody_ get killed? It seems like it would reduce a battle to just knocking each other about until everyone gets tired and decides to go home. Why would knights even bother with swords?



Easy: Plate was _mad _expensive. Not just in terms of materials and craftmanship; they were very complex things that basically had to be tailor made to fit the owner. You couldn't possibly outfit a whole army - especially not when everyone was expected to provide their own equipment. They were mostly for the knights and nobles, and those guys could still be overwhelmed by a lot of dudes in inferior armor. So, if the rest of your army lost, it didn't really matter what you were wearing.



Devor said:


> Anders' post is good enough.  It's my understanding that it's more iron chainmail trumps iron plate, while advances in steel metallurgy gradually made steel plate the better option.



Erm, I'm not sure I've ever even heard of "iron" plate armor - it wasn't really an iron age thing at all. Plate armor didn't really appear until the 14th century, _well _into the medieval era, and by then decent steel was totally a thing. Before then, armor mostly consisted of mail.



ndmellen said:


> Full plate was also generally intended for mounted use



I'm not sure "intended" is the right word. A man in plate armor can definitely move around and fight on foot just fine. More like, if you could afford a suit of plate armor you could probably afford a war horse as well. That was originally how the knights came to be as a social class.

And war horses were really just the same deal as the armor: If you _could _go into battle with one, you absolutely would.


----------



## Devor (Apr 8, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Erm, I'm not sure I've ever even heard of "iron" plate armor - it wasn't really an iron age thing at all. Plate armor didn't really appear until the 14th century, _well _into the medieval era, and by then decent steel was totally a thing. Before then, armor mostly consisted of mail.



Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I was thinking specifically of this, which is apparently soft iron, sometimes with a layer of steel on the outside.  But your point is mostly what I meant.  Mail thrived because that's all you can do effectively out of the toughest material available, not because the form itself had many advantages.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 8, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Easy: Plate was _mad _expensive. Not just in terms of materials and craftmanship; they were very complex things that basically had to be tailor made to fit the owner. You couldn't possibly outfit a whole army - especially not when everyone was expected to provide their own equipment. They were mostly for the knights and nobles, and those guys could still be overwhelmed by a lot of dudes in inferior armor. So, if the rest of your army lost, it didn't really matter what you were wearing.



This is the second thread in a row in which I'll namecheck _The Once and Future King_. There's quite a bit of discussion of medieval nobles as "fox-hunters", both surrounded and opposed by lightly armored soldiers, but themselves too heavily armored to be much at risk, playing at war without bearing the threat of it. (White makes the case that the nobles themselves rarely died in the wars, although I'm not sure if the historical record backs this up.)


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 8, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Easy: Plate was _mad _expensive. Not just in terms of materials and craftmanship; they were very complex things that basically had to be tailor made to fit the owner. You couldn't possibly outfit a whole army - especially not when everyone was expected to provide their own equipment.



I look at things like the _Two Towers_ movie with its thousands of orcs in plate armor and think "So Saruman's the latest Hollywood general to invent tinfoil armor-- everyone gets it, and swords do go right through it, but at least everyone knows the orcs look like soldiers."

But here's a question: once plate was available, was it more expensive than chain, so some lords could only afford the latter? (Or did chain just get squeezed out in a hurry by proud nobles straining themselves to afford plate?) That is, would both still be around in a given society?

--Although, "tailor made" does remind me of one advantage chain has: if you don't have all the _time_ it takes to make plate that fits (and heroes do tend to turn up out of the woods unannounced), you could still grab a spare hauberk of more or less the right size.

Speaking of fine tailoring:



Alex Beecroft said:


> Chain is a lot easier to make than plate (plate of a quality good enough to be a help rather than a hindrance.) Chain is also _far _more flexible than plate, so it hampers your movement far less.



I'm not sure that's true. Chain is flexible, in that all its weight hangs and shifts on you; is it really easier to move in than plates that fit tight around the different parts of your body?


----------



## Devor (Apr 8, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> I'm not sure that's true. Chain is flexible, in that all its weight hangs and shifts on you; is it really easier to move in than plates that fit tight around the different parts of your body?



It depends.  Mail could have thick tight rings, each one sealed with a rivet, with six rings looping through each circle.  It could even be two layers thick.  Or it could have thin wide loops, each one butted, with only four loops passing through each.  The weight, labor costs, and flexibility of each could be dramatically different, and so would its ability to block a piercing shot.

Here's mail sealed by a rivet.









Here's butted mail.








You can see the difference in how the ring is sealed and how much force it will take to pierce.  But the labor costs go up radically as well.

Also, does the mail cover your legs and arms, or are we only talking about a hauberk?  You could wear mail sleeves and leggings separately.  A lot of times people compare a hauberk to what we call "full plate," and we forget that a hauberk doesn't cover anywhere near as much of the body.  People are also forgetting that you could put on a cuirass pretty quickly as well.


----------



## SeverinR (Apr 8, 2013)

Wouldn't the best weapon for fighting against plate armor, be the hammer pike combo?
The narrow pike could penetrate the plate, while the hammer could do harm by smashing the plate?
weapon pike - Bing Images


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 8, 2013)

There are many weapons designed to counter plate. The spikes and flanges of a mace for example. Footmen also used picks in addition to hammers.

These weapons were also cheaper to produce than swords.

I always thought the most common weapons of this era were spears. Cheap to manufacture...provided a significant reach advantage...able to be employ on foot or mounted...able to puncture armor...useful in both single and coordinated combat, etc.


----------



## Nobby (Apr 8, 2013)

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> Mail was about as heavy as plate was. When you're sinking to the bottom, getting out of your armor is impossible. Even mail was strapped to your person with belts (else it would shift around too much). Also, strapping on mail does take less time but how often do you get ambushed when you're out on a hunt? Because other than hunting, war or traveling, a knight doesn't leave his keep often. And when you're traveling or going to war, there's a reasonable expectation there will be trouble. So I'd put on my plate then.
> 
> Also, the most dangerous enemy for someone in plate is a misericorde. These knives were carried around to finish off fallen knights (both friendly and hostile - only the heavily wounded of course because you can ransom/heal the others). A misericorde looks like a letter-opener. It's a very slim knife made for one purpose only - stabbing through gaps in armor/eye-slits etc. Needless to say, knights weren't very fond of them.



I still prefer the term bo**ock knife. Mind you, I still prefer saxon shield walls to knights et al. This may just be me.


----------



## Nobby (Apr 8, 2013)

Damn insomnia!

There is also banded armour, which goes as far back as Roman times. According to some re-enactors though, it is incredibly clumsy feeling, even compared to plate. (I love being British sometimes!)

Then there's brigadine which is basically the padded jack you wear under chainmail, but with small steel plates sewn in and was pretty much de-rigeur for the well dressed archer of the middle ages.

To me, both seem to be useful against slashing weapons, but pretty much useless against anything else.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 8, 2013)

I imagine that a direct hit with one of these:







Would pierce any kind of armor and kill your enemy, especially if you hit in the head!!

Also, I was thinking that if you throw Magic into the battle scene then the metal (plate armor, chainmail or whatever) would attract the lightning bolts straight towards you, with terrible consequences...


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 9, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> I imagine that a direct hit with one of these:  ((military flail)) Would pierce any kind of armor and kill your enemy, especially if you hit in the head!!
> 
> Also, I was thinking that if you throw Magic into the battle scene then the metal (plate armor, chainmail or whatever) would attract the lightning bolts straight towards you, with terrible consequences...



I've been wondering about blunt weapons too. Anders, you said crushing beats plate, so people wouldn't need precision thrusting swords against plate if they had a mace, warhammer, or flail?

(And yeah, battle magic on that level does terrible things to soldiers. If nothing else, just knowing an enemy wizard might have one or two lightning bolts in him might might soldiers act like modern troops, spreading out and moving in behind cover. Or maybe make every lord who could afford chain or plate keep a wizard to put an anti-lightning rune on it.)


----------



## Nobby (Apr 19, 2013)

What you also have to remember, though, is that if he's outnumbered by foot troops and in plate armour, he _is _dead


----------

