Talk:Armour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling

What is the concensus for spelling on Wikipedia?

The article is Armour but its in the catagory Armor. Which is the best to use? (apparently brits took over and made a LOT of articles use armour instead of armor)

This site was created by americans so should the default spellings be american?

Inconsistency is one of my biggest pet peeves and will just confuse users in the future.

My opinion (as a Canadian) is that international English should be used. Thus armour, valour, flavour, centre, programme, organisation, etc. Let's all remember that the Americans are the odd ones out as far as spelling goes, because of Mr. Webster.

Urhixidur 13:40, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

An international English has never been agreed upon. Also, this is an American website. But really, the only thing that should be considered is consistency.

Looking at the spellings on the category page itself I'd say there seems to be a stronger case for changing that to Category:Armour. adamsan 10:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else else think it's strange that is says (US Armor) in parenthesis even though the majority of people reading this article live in the U.S.? Seems kind of silly to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.245.21 (talk • contribs)

How do you know where the majority of people live? Let's not forget that this is an international site, regardless of who started it. And that the rest of the world outnumbers the USA 8:1...

Although a greater NUMBER of countries use some form of "Commonwealth" English, a greater number of PEOPLE in the English speaking world use American English. The former possessions of the British Empire hardly outnumber the American English speaking people worldwide (thanks in large part to pervasive US culture and entertainment). I think it's ridiculous that we default to the British spellings on this encyclopedia, the only reason to prefer one over the other is whichever is used by more people in the world, with some consideration to the nation of origin of the project. American English wins on both counts. Ghost of starman (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ghost of starman. American English is much more common on this site. In order to be consistent and less confusing we should use it. OptimistBen (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on which policy to use for articles. It can be found here. This article should use a spelling that is not specific to any country, or if such a spelling does not exist, the article should remain as is and be consistent throughout. --Pdeq (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal armour

It would be great if someone would describe the different parts of armour. For instance, what are bracers? ··gracefool |☺ 03:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the correct historic term is vambraces and that word can be found in the wikipedia. Braces seems to be predominant in RPG's. The person to blame is probably Gary Gygax who introduced it in the ancestor of (almost) all RPG's, Dungeons & Dragons. There is another term that is missing and that is werebraces that, if I'm not mistaken, is the armour protecting the legs. The reason I mention this here instead of writing an article is because of the words "think", "seems" and "probably". I haven't researched the subject enough to state it as fact. --Soffkartoffeln 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bracers were used in england in some sources as full arm defences, the entire arm assembly in other words. But for the most part you are correct. Rebracer means upper arm defense. Sethwoodworth 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read the upper arm defense as 'rerebraces'. It must be mentioned that while 'bracers' seem to be an RPG thing, there is some evidence for something like them: Transitional armors include a series of metal splints covering the fore-arms. You can see it on an various crusaders effigies.

Non-Western Armor

It would be useful for this article to include images or descriptions of armor from non-Western societies, such as African warriors, East Asian and Southeast Asian.

Agreed completely. Sadly my knowledge of such information is lacking. Anyone else?

A suggestion for spelling

A simple solution is to use armour for any type of historical (let's say pre 1700) as these variants are predominantly of european origin. Modern body armors have been, as far as i know, mainly developed in the US due to the higher availability and use of handguns there (no insult intended). By this reason the spelling should be armor for these.

It's difficult to achive full consensus on spelling as there will always be advocates for any variant that will defend their opinion with religious fervor. But this way, both sides get a share in the action.

I myself would of course like the articles to be in swedish as I seldom manage to keep track of all those, in my eyes, tiny differences between written british, american, irish and australian english. :-)

The basic rule about British vs. American spelling is that we only change it if the article is inconsistent. Regarding Swedish, there is a Swedish Wikipedia as well even though the article there is not as nice as the one here. [1] Sjakkalle 07:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to maintain the spelling system used by the article creator unless the subject clearly demands a particular national spelling: e.g. U.S. spelling for Abraham Lincoln. Durova 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

... or, arguably, UK/International spelling here, since armour was not much worn in North America. Johnbod 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

swimming

well, I would be interested in documentation of swimming knights. It all depends on what you mean by "plate armour", of course. I suppose you could swim wearing just a sallet, and maybe gauntlets, or greaves. But wearing a full suit of armour, especially including a chainmail shirt worn under the plates, is certainly impossible. So we would need to specify how exactly those swimming knights were armed. dab (ᛏ) 19:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not be true that Frederick Barbarossa drowned becasue he attempeted to swim while wearing his armour.

"Swimming" as it is translated through the ages can be misleading, often referring to a number of men crossing a substantial but shallow body of water, such as a moat or fording. These too were often largely full of refuse, which made them a greater ordeal for the common person, but no more difficultly traversed by one in armor.

Knights too were often not fully armored, particularly when the need for more knights surpassed the resources available. In desperate times, knights could be little more than distinguished militiamen, fully capable of course of swimming.

Decline of Full Plate

"Gradually starting in the 1660s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight" I always assumd that process started long before the 17th century... Should I say early 16th century would be more accurate?

Actually, many cavalry units, as late as the Battle of Vienna in 1683 wore 2/3 suits of armour, no arm protection, with hats and a "secret" skullcap under it. The lower legs were in leather boots,thats what made them 2/3 suits. Until the rifled musket, in the early 1700s, plate could save a heavy Cavalryman's life. Nativeborncal 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern Armour

Seems most focus of modern armour is on bulletproof vests, shouldn't there be a page for stabproof as well seeing they are important as well especially to police officers.

Definition of Armour

This may just be personal opinion, but the definition of armour here seems somewhat narrow. The Shorter OED defines armour primarily as 'Defensive covering for the body': Surely some mention should be made of the non-military uses of armour, ie in sports. --KharBevNor 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the protective gear worn in fencing belongs in this article. A goalie mask, shoulder pads, jock strap, knee pads, shin pads, etc., used in sports like American football or hockey are not the armour that this article is about. They belong in their own articles, or perhaps someone should write "sports padding". See also protective clothing. —Michael Z. 2006-03-06 04:59 Z

3D Images

Am I the only one who gets a headache from these 3D images? I suggest moving them to a separate page, creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons for the tiny percentage of people who have the glasses to view them properly. Durova 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No one objected so I created a new category at Wikimedia Commons and moved the images there. Durova 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoplites

Shouldn't the start go back to the Greeks - moving from bronze to iron and steel was an important step, but also at Marathon and Thermopylae, as I heard it, the bronze armed and armoured hoplite had a huge advantage over the less armoured Persian. Midgley 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article and wikipedia in general hardly feigns proper depth, particularly with regard to antiquity. It's a shame, but I hardly have the research to put up.

Yes, the Greeks had a significant advantage over the Persians in every sense but numbers, armor quality among these. They were hardly though in the fifth century BC the first to wear bronze, they simply employed that technology en masse.

UNpowered?

Is it just me, or is this paragraph on UNpowered armour, well, confusing? It's not well written, but I have no idea what this paragraph is talking about, so I couldn't begin to edit it. A citation, or some sort of example of this armour, would be very helpful. I've read it twice and I have no idea what this person is talking about. -anon

Imagine a unpowered suit of armor weighing a ton, HA! Is this a reference to some RPG or sci-fi movie? -drgk In trying to cite sources of the Macenea armour that predates the greco armour it should be noted that it (the armour was on display at the Archaeological Museum of Nafplion as well it found in May 1960 by Nikos Verdelis in the graves in the cemetery at Dendra in the Argolid, the the Central Archaeological Council - Bulgaria(KAS) has decided. the following cites are of its authenticity. http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002133.html, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=76144 http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412692 All these are related to the fact that it is in the restoration process and is in fact from the 15th century b.c.e.

Non-Metalic old armour

I know little of this subject so I can't add much myself, but wouldn't it be a good idea to start with the earliest armours? Like leather armour, or even just thick padded cloth armour. -OOPSIE- 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The trouble armor from pre-history is that organic armors decayed and left no remains, and the pictoral record of their existence is sketchy at best. It's hard to tell clothing from armor, for example. We could presume, from the various armors recorded by literate societies as they encountered more primitive culture. Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals, Filipinos, Celts, etc. Examples of which include a 'cord' armor based on corded textiles, the 'cotun' is a celtic garment made of layers of cloth, salt-soaked cloth of the Aztecs(?), a quilted jacket made of a layer of rock-salt between two layers of cloth... Or we can use the records from early Greek and Roman historians, from which we know about the Greek linothrax (made of layers of glued linen), and armor made from 'boiled leather'.

Theblindsage (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandale copy and pasted page to Armor

On the 20 July the unregistered user 166.127.1.201 copy and pasted the page over to Armor but hashed it up and did not move the talk page aswell. I initially used the WP:RM page but after looking at the page there seemed to be a large back log and as the move was to fix vandalism i moved the page back to Armour. I dunno if we can get an Admin to ban the user or even better to educate hime. TheEnlightened 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You did good :-)

Just blocked the anon to get his (school IP) attention. Vsmith 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exoskeleton

Would someone please comment on this article? The Hamilton Spectator - From Bears to Bullets It's about a guy that has invented a full body armor, like a non-powered exoskeleton, supposedly bulletproof. If someone know test results or has any other kind of knowledge of the suit, please write. MigB 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Arms Race?

The beginning of the History section describes the development of armour as an arms race. I find this assertion untenable when talking about personal armour. In all instances that I am aware of the type of armour worn is dictated by socio-economic factors and technological factors.

Plate armour is frequently described as a reaction to more powerful weapons such as the couched lance, crossbow, and/or longbow. But none of these weapons were developed just before plate armour. The crossbow and couched lance predate the first plate by centuries. The crossbow had been banned by the Pope nearly a hundred years before the first known piece of plate armour. The longbow existed this early as well but was not extensively used in warfare until Agincourt in the second half of the 14th century. By that time virtually all of the French knights were wearing full plate harness and the weapon still played a significant tactical role.

There is however a connection between the development of water-powered trip hammers and the infrastructure necessary for making and then affording to buy plate armour. This explains why in appeared in between the emergence of the above weapons and not in reaction to them.

Mercutio.Wilder 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. This editor had extremely dodgy style before being copyedited & I'm dubious about it all. Why don't you write it up? Johnbod 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea is just flat-out falsehood to be honest. Both plate and crossbows were known from antiquity to the early centuries A.D., and simply fell out of fashion due to social and economic constraints. An arms race implies that these things were being invented and improved upon constantly, such as occurred with breach-loading muskets and nuclear weapons. Improvements were made, but they were generations apart, and there was little pressure to hasten the process.

US-ification needed?

This article s written entirely in British English. Our goal is to be global. So, we should use the most common forms of the words. So, I agree with the words "civilisation" or "vandalise", for example, but in this form, the article sound too Britannica-ish. (Possibly we also need a copyvio check with Britannica? The entirely British spelling of the article might hide Britannica copyvios.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It has already been said that the official Wikipedia police is to "mantain the spelling system used by the article creator, unless the subject demands a particular national spelling". This is not the case, so I think we should keep it as is.

Leather Armor

The article on Prehistoric Warfare claims that leather armor was the counter to the mace in ancient times. I'd like to know more precisely when it was invented, if anyone knows.

AThousandYoung 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a guess to me. Leather armor is a very obvious development from leather clothing and must have been used from the earliest days of warfare. But, possibly the sword and certainly the spear and arrow were also used at the time so it can never have been designed solely against the mace. As it happens, in the oldest image I can think of depicting a man wielding a mace, no one is wearing any armor at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's foolery. Leather protection predates written history, and was worn in all circumstances. The mace and the sling stone both damage by concussion, and leather is little better at absorbing those forces than metal.

Category:Medieval armour

Shouldn;'t this be Category:Mediaeval armour ?

I'm from the US but just wondering; it seems like US and UK are being used in the same name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.88.229 (talk) 08:33:03, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Some good links.

I'm cruising the web looking into arms and armor, and I've come across a couple of good sites, by people who have done some good research. http://www.regia.org/warfare/spear.htm www.regia.org http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/ http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/ Theblindsage 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

mild inaccuracy

In the section Modern armour it states ' modern ballistic armour is much less impervious to stabbing weapons unless they are augmented with anti-knife/anti-stab armour (usually a form of Mail (armour))[citation needed].' As maille armour is anti-/slash/ not anti-stab (it is quite useless against stabs) this seems rather dubious.

Mail armour is not useless against stabs. Many forms of mail armour have rings with an inner diameter of less than 6mm. Such rings would impede all but the skinniest of blades from puncturing. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is full of inaccuracies

Sorry guys, but as it stands, this article is very inaccurate and entirely Euro-centric. As it stands, it should not be taken as even slightly authoritative. I might try and tackle it in a few weeks. 89.124.164.6 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Most here would agree with you. The article suffers from a series of small contributions rather than an overall, consistent approach based on reputable sources. But it's a big job, and I, for one, have been waiting for someone else keen enough to attempt it. You mention the eurocentrism: note that Chinese armour, Korean armour and so forth have their own pages. Might make sense to create (or move this to) European armour or Armour of the European knight or something, cover it in detail there, and create a much more general overview here at Armour with linked summaries of the main armour traditions. Gwinva (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those are all ideas I was thinking of. Although definitely European armor, as it should cover a far wider range than just what was used by knights, although that probably deserves its own page as well. I'll be settled in for the summer starting in early June, might try to take it on then. From an IP that isn't close to being blocked for the "contributions" of the other residents of my university housing block here in Galway. -rolls eyes- 89.124.164.6 (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to drop me a line if you ever need me to look over something, get a second opinion or look something up (I've a mountain of sources: see my user page). I would recommend getting an account; see Wikipedia:Why create an account? It prevents a block of others affecting you, makes it easier for you to keep track of your contribs, keep a watchlist, and it makes it easy for others to get in touch; there's also all sorts of gadgets you can enable to make editing easier. You also need to be signed in to do things like move (rename) pages. Another bonus is you can create your own subpage (sandbox/workpage), where you can mock up an article, play around with it before it goes "live". Choose a random name if you want to keep your anonymity; in fact,you could make it a play on your IP, like "eight.nine.one.two". Gwinva (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fit of Plate Harness

In this thread on myAmoury[2] we see a discussion of the fit of armour. In it Randall Moffett provides a large number of specific refences which indicate that the majority of armour was not custom fit to it's wearer. These records include the personal accounts of lords who kept a number of harnesses on hand to give out to retainers as needed. Also import documents showing hundreds of harnesses at a time shipped to England to be sold on the open market. The open and unanswered question is how much was fitted after-market and to what degree. Having personally fought in poorly fitted armour I can attest to both the value of well-fitted armour and the fact that you can fight well in poorly fit armour. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume that almost all tournament armour was made or altered to fit. But hardly any other armour was made to fit. However a very high percentage of surviving armour is of this top quality made to fit category. So survival has hugely distorted the common perception i.e. everyone thinks of Henry VIII's successive suits of armour that show him getting fatter and fatter.Sheredot (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Steel

There is a superficial assumption that steel was always used. Steel was rare in the medieval period and not easy to produce in large ammounts. As the helm illustrates the surface of iron could be steeled for the edge of weapons etc. Iron was always cheaper and more plentiful. Where steel was used it was very variable in quality. I suspect, though Williams does not mention this, that as firearms became the main threat to armour, armour only had to be hard relative to the lead of lead shot whereas when the threat was from the martensite edge of a blade hardening the steel had more value. This might explain why so much late munition armour was iron and not steel. Sheredot (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following because the reference does NOT refer to plate. I put it here because there is a useful cost fact in it which may be put in somehow.Sheredot (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) A typical suit of full plate harness cost around 1 pound sterling in 14th century England[3].

You removed my description of and reference for this. I will add them back in. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref says 23 shillings for a coat of mail etc. Note a knight required to pay & feed 2 riding + warhorse =3 horses and at least 1 groom/esquire from this 1s a day. not counting baggage You are calling gross revenue pay. the ref has the much better cost of 9months subsistance.91.111.99.98 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing gross revenue and pay. The price of armour compared to subsistence income tells us exceedingly little about how much it cost for people who actually wore the armour. That a full panoply of armour which would last for years(unless ransomed) costs less than a months regular pay is much more informative. That same man-at-arms would also receive pay or rent all year, loot and bonuses.(Medieval Warfare, Peter Reid) The full harness is only a small portion of his annual income, perhaps akin to $8000 today. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The general rule was that the feudal levy received rent and no pay, mercenaries received pay and no rent. The normal problem he had was actually getting his pay. bonuses!? Horses cost a lot to feed. He had to make his way to and from the muster point without pay. And anyway this was not plate armour.Sheredot (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What general rule are you referring to? Sweeping generalizations about all of Europe across hundreds of years are automatically misleading. For instance, in England, feudal levies were paid well. And if war was really too expensive why did so many volunteer in this era. Sheriffs at the commissions of array in England had up to ten times as many people show up as were going to be hired. If commanders didn't pay and pay well then people would refuse to sign up next time. And such did happen and armies did go into the field understrength as a result. The armies got paid enough because otherwise there wouldn't be one. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Medieval armour weight and SAS patrols

Early on, in Characteristics of Armor, the article makes a rather weird claim:

Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today's armies. (For example, SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles [...].

I don't think this argument is convincing. It is imho quite pointless to compare the average medieval knight to a modern SAS guy, considering medieval nutrition, health care and average body height. If you're 1,65 - 1,70m tall (and accordingly built), then carrying 27 kg is quite a challenge, and it might be doubted whether you were able to "comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount [a] horse". Furthermore, SAS guys may march with 91kg of equipment (most of it in or attached to a backpack or belt, so your movement isn't as hindered as when wearing a full body armour of equal weight- you can freely move your joints etc.), but they might want to get rid of that before entering a fight.

Just look at the picture of the Gothic plate armour right next to the cited passage. I mean, do you really believe that medieval knights were able to run in this kind of armour? Simple common sense will tell you this is to be doubted. I don't know much about the topic, and I don't know the weight of this particular suit, but as a runner, I know about running. The footpieces of the armour (look at the elongated "toes") will tell you that this suit was never ever constructed to enable its wearer to run, even if it's just a short dash. It is a suit made to protect a man on horseback. On foot, he might well be able to walk (slowly), but run? Never.

If, however, the armour weighed much less than the cited section claims, one might well walk with it without great difficulty and mount a horse. Further down in the article it sais "If during the 14–15th centuries armour seldom weighed more than 15kgs (!), than [sic] by the late 16th century it weighed 25kg", which seems to contradict what was said before. Probably two authors with different sources were at work here. In this section, there is however a clear distinction btw. armour in general and cavalry armour, which is not done in the "Characteristics of Armor" section.

I think this section ought to be reworked. The writer seems to attack a claim probably no one ever made (medieval battle armour greatly hindered its wearer - who would ever claim that for e.g. 6th-11th ct armour?), while himself/herself equating medieval battle armour to (late medieval) plate armour or at least not clearly defining what he is talking about. And please don't claim someone can comfortably run encased in 27kgs of steel with elongated toe-tips. I'd have to see that to believe it. And personally, I wouldn't entirely trust Osprey books ("The English Longbow was unsurpassed in firepower until the advent of the Lee-Enfield rifle", or so) which tell you great stories about super elite Über soldiers (no offence intended, Osprey readers, I had a look at these books too, after all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.37 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even more normal Soldier's loads are still arounf 90 pounds.[4]. Romans were at about 40 pounds which is considered a good target weight.Geni 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Average body height for the aristocracy and most knights would be more than the total population average, as well as their nutrition and training, especially considering their average age. They were the elite of their day..Halbared (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Unusual or rare applications of armour

- In World War One improvised armour was used in trench warfare (including reinforced helmets, and in the case of some German units, breastplates)
- In the Great Patriotic War a number of units of Soviet shock-troopers were equipped with steel breastplates
- The aircraft armour section could be expanded with a discussion between the three facets: Durability, redundancy and armour. Some examples such as the Ilyushin Il-2 and the Junkers J.1 might also be appropriate.--Hrimpurstala (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor Citations

It seems that parts (or at least one part for sure) is a direct quotation from Charles Ffoulkes's Armour and Weapons written in 1908. I just feel that it is wrong to not fully credit an author on his or her work. The quotation "Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average lighter than the equipment often carried by today's armies which averages at around 90 pounds." is credited to an online source and I am sure that one would be able to do the leg-work to find the true source but I figured I'd help out now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.172.27 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court).

This is a very doubtful comment that is given without citing any references whatsoever. The statement on the next line along with its reference supplied at the end, doesnt imply the same meaning as this paragraph, yet it has been merged into these two excessively long baseless comments and passed out as some kind of a fact.

As far as comparing the respective weights of medieval armour pieces to modern day combat vests goes, lets put it this way: if you are to compare a square shaped tire with hard edges to a smooth circular tire of equal weights, do their efficiency ratios compare up to the same level? Total Weight is not the issue here on which the editor can base his story on, since the modern day ceramic and Kevlar armours do not put the strain of moving rigid metallic joint parts that a soldier would have to suffer while wearing a medieval “battle” suit of armour.

I am taking the liberty to delete this tale, which someone has tried to pass out as a fact, which seems to be contrary to almost every article written about the difference in mobility and/or efficiency of medieval age armour pieces when compared to modern day ones. Here is one of the articles that bring out the inequalities of medieval armour against modern day armour pieces [5]. If the editor can give out an exact reference that can give the italic comment in question any weight, then he/she or whoever can find any material to support this statement can copy past it from here and put it back there with a few clicks of the mouse, but for now it got no place in this article. Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic Vests

I might now be in the minority, but to me a ballistic vest is one that is meant to be shot out of guns. "Antiballistic vest" would be more precise.

Why is it that they do not mention japanese or mongolian or chinese armour as well as middle eastern or african or south american

I"m sorry to say though i do love wikipedia and what it represents articles that are incomplete in data or have personal opinions like that of which european armour was what dominated and evolved the armour solution. If this title should go to anyone i believe it would go to the japanese for their tough yet flexible armours and the high grade steel of the samurai. But hey every culture has some i'd just like to see more cultures cited and more carbon dating material used as information for the evolution of. Thank you and please disreguard any of my personal views as i do not have enough knowledge in the field to speak with confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.9.187 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the samurais wear steel (or other metal) armour? It was my understanding their warrior clothes were of silk (which is said to be stronger than steel, and is obviously lighter and more flexible). I could be completely wrong, though.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Spelling Difference

The page should refer to Armor instead of Armour, as most wiki pages heavily favor english spelling style to british spelling style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.242.116 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. See WP:ENGVAR: no one form of English takes primacy in Wikipedia. Also, I think you mean "American English spelling style to British spelling style": what you perceive as the 'normal' English spelling style is not considered so in large parts of the world. You Americans have to learn that the world does not revolve around you. 86.142.7.215 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa dude, stereotypes, calm down. I really don't know where (It's the government isn't it?) people get this idea that all Americans are jackasses who think the world revolves around them. I mean this guy just made a simple mistake based on his own perspective... give him a break

While the first statement is (possibly) almost entirely based on simple ignorance, the second is, ironically, the arrogant, bigoted one with the unstated implication that the poster and his worldview are both superior. Neither is correct, but the 'correction' is by far the worse of the two(The first probably just doesn't know any better, and ignorance isn't limited to any one country or group of people). This sort of rabid, knee-jerk response is just as bad as the ignorance and arrogance it is claimed to be a response to.

Neither Spelling is the 'Correct' one. One of the unique things about the English Language is that unlike many others, there is literally no one that makes the rules as to what constitutes 'Official' English. There ARE many groups that make rules...but that's the trick. Many. Going to a University or College in the US, for example, it is not unusual for different professor in the English department at the same school to consider different variations 'correct', and you BETTER follow what the one you have thinks in doing your papers!

The article already accounts for that, so while it's slightly off putting (Frankly, 'Armour' seems slightly French-ish, to be honest), it's not really a big deal. Some of the differences are (Corn/Maize is particularly tricky since many British English speakers think of 'Corn' as something else, while many Americans, probably the Majority if I had to guess, have never heard the term 'Maize' before, or if they have, have no clue what it is), Armor/Armour, however, isn't difficult at all. It just looks odd. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In the UK 'corn' is the overall name for many types of corn, maize, wheat, barley, oats, etc. UK farmers would call maize 'maize' although most people here who buy it as 'corn-on-the-cob' would call it 'sweetcorn'. Similarly a farmer wouldn't say he's got a couple of fields of 'corn' over there - he'd more likely say 'I've got barley in that field, and wheat in the other field'. Thus, the terminology-used depends on how accurate and precise one wants to be.

Early armour section, odd quotation marks

In the section on early armour, in the discussion about east asian laminated armour (the second paragraph) the author mentions partial plate used to cover "important" body parts with other types used for "other" body parts. Why are these two words in quotation marks? It seems to suggest irony on the part of the author, as if there was perhaps something odd about the choice of which body parts received which protection. Additionally, among the materials used for the "other" body parts, the author lists "Mountain pattern" as used in addition to or instead of other materals such as cloth and leather. I haven't come across the term before and I have no idea what "Mountain pattern" might be. It would be nice with an explanation in the article. --Mickel (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reference I find is in Chinese medieval armour and a diagram [6] in the same article. I find a number of references via Google that appear to discuss this form of armour. Yes, the term needs an explanation or a definition. I also see the phraase/term, Shan wen kia, used in the search results. SBaker43 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree it's somewhat odd usage, but I think it's likely derives from whatever ancient/medieval source this information came from; the original source probably literally says '[this] to cover important parts' and 'that to cover other parts'. Same with 'mountain pattern'. Those all sound like classic examples of the kinds of obscure things that are found written in old texts - and especially if the ultimate origin is in another language (but even in English as well). So, I very much doubt that those choice of words were due to any editor whims or personal judgements, rather than a presentment of what the papers say. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Laminated armour

Why has the perfectly acceptable and commonly used term "segmented armour" been replaced with "laminated armour"? Cons: 1- Laminated armour is unfortunately often used for "plated mail": possible source of confusion. 2- Laminated armour is too close to "lamellar armour": possible source of confusion. 3- Laminated armour is in fact used to describe sandwich armour constructions made from layers of different materials (metals, textiles, carbon, ceramics, liquids, etc.), and not just in an armoured vehicle context: possible source of confusion. 4- Why then talk about a "lorica segmentata" when this name is not derived from Roman sources, but a modern invention?87.212.52.128 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoplites only had shield and helmet?

Removed an incorrect reference to Greek hoplites being an example of a troop equipped with only a shield and helmet - the reference is poor and incorrect. The standard hoplite panopoly included A large bronze breastplate as well as greaves, shield and helmet. They were one of the most heavily equipped troop type, not one of the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.47.32 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

citation style

The established citation style was mainly per the first example at WP:CITESHORT, I have standardised the citations to this style. If you wish to change this, please discuss it here. (Hohum ^@) 12:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• • "(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)" When did you ask for consensus on this change? "I have standardised the citations to this style." Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The style of short citations was established earlier in the article history, and Hohum has been bringing more recently added references into line. Though use of templates can be contentious it could be said that their use has brought the (general) references into a consistent format that makes it easier to move from the short citation after a statement to the work it matches. You could consider a lack of objection by me (or other editors) an endorsement of that action and hence a concensus. Though that might smack of Keine Antwort ist auch eine Antwort. But do you feel that the quality of the article has been diminished by their i work? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed the main *style of citation* (CITESHORT), I have just standardised and wikified the existing style. (Hohum ^@) 15:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   While i'm not sure native speakers of German notice the (at least formal) ambiguity of the German-language expression, this is the English WP and the fun of bilingualism doesn't justify a phrase that forced (at least) me to "reset" partway into parsing this one, upon getting as far as "no answer [can be simultaneously] both ...". English is both acceptable, and in the absence of special circumstances -- e.g. "Good-bye, but not "Auf Wiederseh'n" -- preferred here, and nearly all of us get more out of "Lack of an answer doesn't always indicate a negative answer."
--Jerzy•t 21:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sub headings / Article structure

2008

This is a very poor article. It is also a very large scope article because it armour touches on many different areas of knowledge, in and outside of the military history. Because of the length of the article, it is by no means complete now, the use of subheadings that are not sections are warranted to avoid over-fragmentation of the article.

The intention with very general articles should be to always offer only an equally general introduction to the more dedicated and focused articles.

In general, the subject of armour is divided into the following perspectives:

Purpose

Materials (non-metal)

Metallurgy (metals)

Production

Use

Personal

Animal

Ground vehicles

Warships

Aircraft

Impact on warfare

The current article is structured to conform with the generally accepted periodisation within the discipline of general History, and can be found here. The structure is likely to change in future, but until the various parts get fleshed out, it would be nice to have this structure to guide editing --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please justify, explicitly, the use of subheadings which have no information. If you do not I will consider those modifications vandalism. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the current structure is poorly laid out and overly fragmented. Following on from that, I'm having trouble understanding _both_ of the comments above?

My preferred article layout would be more like the below, starting from the barest bones...

Lead

Personal armour

History

Other types of armour

History

brenneman 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

29 July

Since there are no objections, I'm goin' to start moving the existing items around. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• What took you so long?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I was washing my hair? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's the before and after. Some material was removed, but mostly isolated paragraph fragments, and all unsourced. There is still plenty of copy-edit to come. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A few questions:

• What is the rational behind the bisection of Personal and "Other" sections?
• Why is Personal armor the primary topic and everything else delimited to "other"?

Some comments:

• There should be a history section for all types of armor
• There should be a design section with subsections for materials and other characteristics
• Should be an applications section for personal and vehicle armor subsections
• The labeling of the time periods with ships, trains, tanks etc. doesn't improve reader comprehension and limits what can be put in the section. Marcus Qwertyus 12:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's been about 1 and half millenia of personal armour, a couple of centuries of ships armour. The sections roughly meet up with the major initiatives in armour. Personal armour fell out of fashion before modern ship amour came in, ship armour was more or less developed before the tank rolled over the fields of France. And as stated plenty more to come apparently. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Article material holding area

The material below I've just moved here for now until I can incorporate it into the structure so it flows better. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== Characteristics ==

[[:File:Savoyard armour IMG 3805.jpg|thumb|upright|Savoyard cuirassier's armour, ca. 1600–1610. On display at Morges military museum.]]

Since the 15th century, most parts of the human body have been fitted with specialised steel pieces, typically worn over linen or woollen underclothes and attached to the body via leather straps and buckles and points. Mail protected those areas that could not be fitted with plate; for example, the back of the knee. Well-known constituent parts of plate armour include the helm, gauntlets, gorget or 'neckguard', breastplate, and greaves worn on the lower legs.

For the elite, full-body plate armour was custom-made for the individual. Most armour was bought off the shelf and some was modified to fit the wearer. The cost of armour varied considerably with time and place as well as the type of armour, coverage it provided and the cost of decoration. In the 8th century a suit of Frankish mail had cost 12 oxen; by 1600 a horseman's armour cost 2 oxen. A typical suit of full plate harness cost around 1 pound sterling in 14th century England and a man-at-arms in the same period made 1 shilling per day and so his armour cost about 20 days pay. Plate armour was limited to those who could afford it: the nobility, landed classes and mercenary professional soldiers, who did most of the fighting in the Medieval period. Soldiers of lower standing generally wore less armour. Full plate armour made the wearer virtually impervious to sword blows as well as providing significant protection against arrows, bludgeons and even early firearms. Sword edges could not penetrate even relatively thin plate (as little as 1 mm). Also, although arrows shot from bows and crossbows and bullets fired from early firearms could occasionally pierce plate especially at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, hardened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by polearms such as the halberd and blunt weapons such as maces or war hammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organ haemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike through the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers, spears and spear points to attack the man-at-arms' eyes or joints.

It is likely that a full suit of medieval plate must have weighed a little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average; lighter than the equipment often carried by today's armies, which averages at around 90 pounds (41 kg).

References

non-metal armor

even though both "Leather armor" and "Cloth armor" redirects to this page, there isn't a single word, not even a single word, about either one. that's just wrong, it should either be added, or those terms should not redirect here.· Lygophile has spoken 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)