The purpose of armor

[Sal Bertucci]

So I've had this working theory for a while.

I've always believed that the purpose of any armor was not to protect you from your opponent. I mean, it would stop light cuts etc, but that's not what it was there for. I have always felt that your skill is what is supposed to protect you from your opponent, and that armor was there to protect you from his buddy throwing a zorn into your back.

Any thoughts?

[CalebChow]

I'll have to disagree...

While the "purpose" of armor may be to protect you from factors aside from the opponent in front of you, armor does indeed protect you from A LOT of what your opponent could throw at you as well. I'm sure that was considered in the invention of armor thousands of years ago.

Skill helps in survival, but so does armor, be it against one opponent or an army.

And uh...I'm pretty sure plate armor stops a lot more than "small cuts"...

[Doug Marnick]

Respectfully, I also disagree. In any fight, one has to assume that the opponent is equal to or better in skills; i.e. never underestimate. The armor is there to protect you until you can surpass your opponent.
As far as his buddy throwing a zorn into your back?
That's what your buddy is for.

[Sal Bertucci]

And uh...I'm pretty sure plate armor stops a lot more than "small cuts"...

Yes, but there was more armor that just plate.

A good hand press can be completely debilitating, but put on a gambeson and you still have your tendons. Heck, a good gambeson will keep the edge off you on even full arm swings, unless your opponent can dig the tip in.

[Sal Bertucci]

In any fight, one has to assume that the opponent is equal to or better in skills; i.e. never underestimate. The armor is there to protect you until you can surpass your opponent.

However; wearing armor in the hopes that you will survive long enough for you opponent to make a mistake that you can capitalize on (and succeed in doing so) isn't the right mindset either.

In order to beat a master, Liechtenauer teaches that one should strike boldly. (Obviously paraphrased [Thanks Matt B.]) So more training would be needed.

Mayhaps, this is why so many of the manuals are shown in blossfechten.

Secondarily, armor is going to protect you from missile weapons (which have existed as long as rocks) so that you can actually fight. [There's nothing more embarrassing then training your whole life only to be killed in the first volley.]

[Stacy Clifford]

I think armor's primary purpose was to protect you from the laws of probability. No matter how skillful you are, if you are surrounded by an environment of extreme violence for an extended period of time with fatigue weakening your limbs and mud, blood, screaming and chaos assaulting your senses, then your chances of getting hit by something from somewhere are probably almost 100%. The longer you fight, the longer you have to be perfect to avoid getting hit, and the lower your odds get as the exertion and environment wears you down. If you know you're going to make a few mistakes and that you can't possibly defend every single blow that comes at you over the course of several hours of fighting, then of course you're going to want a little insurance (unless you happen to be a blue-painted, spiky-haired, shield-biting nutjob who can scare the enemy into peeing his pants and running away).

[s_taillebois]

"Secondarily, armor is going to protect you from missile weapons (which have existed as long as rocks) so that you can actually fight. [There's nothing more embarrassing then training your whole life only to be killed in the first volley."

That's it, medieval warfare (like any other scene of violence and chaos) was a situation of often unsettled events. Armor is a means of somewhat mitigating that factor. Especially for those who could afford decent kit.

And at times even with various forms of armor it could be variable. Harold Godwinson died because of a possible hit where the armor couldn't protect him. Richard died because the armor failed under a crossbow bolt. Joan of Arc was saved on the field because her armor worked. And Henry didn't die at Agincourt because a blow to the head was stopped by his gear.

"I think armor's primary purpose was to protect you from the laws of probability. No matter how skillful you are, if you are surrounded by an environment of extreme violence for an extended period of time with fatigue weakening your limbs and mud, blood, screaming and chaos assaulting your senses, then your chances of getting hit by something from somewhere are probably almost 100%."

Well phrased...

Concerning the idea of a buddy accidentally sticking a pointed object into ones back, possible. But deliberately is a bit more questionable. In medieval culture henches and the like were reliant for their status on the their liege, so often the loyalty was fairly distinct especially on the pitch. Plus to be seen doing ones obligation was incredibly important from their perspective. Even when it was sometimes against ones own interests.
For example Dafydd Gam, was not a direct hench for Henry and arguably had good reasons to dislike English kings for past injustices to the Welsh...and could have simply looked the other way when Henry was pressed. But due to that often peculiar medieval sense of obligation its probable Gam died trying to save his king. And the Housekarls around Harold Godwinson, died at their posts apparently none leaving when the line broke and the King fell.

The worry one had for betrayal was more often at court..hence the various tricks like bezoars and the heavy layers of clothing.

[Sal Bertucci]

Nice little discussion we have going here.

[s_taillebois]

Another aspect is that good armor did provide some confidence. Often emergency levee's were criticized for breaking and running under pressure, but these were often men brought into the fray with bills and axes and told to do what they could, but who often had little more than heavy cloth for protection.

And since they knew they would not be ransomed if wounded or captured, hanging around when it went bad made even less sense.

However in certain conditions, such as the mud at Agincourt, lightly armored people had a certain advantage. But also the yeomanry at Agincourt although lighter armored than the chevaliers had other incentives. The Welsh and English dagger and bow men knew that they could not surrender or be captured as they would be butchered (and certainly on a chevelche in a foreign land they couldn't disappear into the countryside) And perhaps as important, bashing some member of a foreign aristocracy was probably quite rewarding to them, in both financial aspects and some medieval sense of social revenge. And it wasn't uncommon for such men to keep the lighter gear of social superiors they had killed (which must have been horrifying for the aristocrats. Armor and kit costing as much as a village made per year or several years, being taken as booty by some Welshman or English farmer with a maul). Although his programs are a bit weird at times, Mike Loades (Weapons that made Britain) makes that point when visiting the grave of the archer William Jodrell. Profit or the chance for social elevation made these dangerous men.

So in some weird sense, for certain groups the potential for profit, and the potential fate if losing, might have compensated for superior armor. At least to some degree.

One on one the armored man would have the advantage, But one on ten, with a mob of Yeomanry out for blood and profit could be a very different context.

Likely why other areas often did not arm commoners as the English did...

[Corey Roberts]

I think the simplest response to this is the following:

Armour is designed to protect the wearer.

From whatever threat to his person might be on a battlefield or any given location. Just as it wouldn't be really accurate to say modern tanks have armour to protect them from one specific type of threat, and only that type of threat, it really isn't accurate to say armour is designed to defend against any one thing. Armour is armour. If it does what it's supposed to, it keeps you safe.

[Benjamin Parker]

So I've had this working theory for a while.

I've always believed that the purpose of any armor was not to protect you from your opponent. I mean, it would stop light cuts etc, but that's not what it was there for. I have always felt that your skill is what is supposed to protect you from your opponent, and that armor was there to protect you from his buddy throwing a zorn into your back.

Any thoughts?

Well with that last statement your contradicting yourself. Besides armour would protect you from just about any cut period, you arent cutting through maille or plate and even a very strong man would be lucky to dent a cuirass with an impact weapon, and plate would stop the bullets of its time and maille would stop arrows and with enough padding impact weapons as well, so in conclusion, no armour was good for a lot more than just what your suggesting. Also if it was good for only what your saying why was it in use for long????

[s_taillebois]

"Also if it was good for only what your saying why was it in use for long????'

Obvious practical considerations did play a major role in the continuance of armor.

But armor as a marker of status continued for an incredible period of time, for example the gorget was still extant in the 18th century. Although in an age of developed muskets and cannons it was completely useless.

And several Renn. period surviving kits of armor were either status or jousting gear. Some such as helmet given to Henry 8th by Maximilian was obviously intended as a status item and diplomatic boon. (Tower Museum)

http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerofLondon/sto ... press.aspx

And the fact that viable medieval armor is still made today is indicative that status & armor is very much a ongoing condition.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

But armor as a marker of status continued for an incredible period of time, for example the gorget was still extant in the 18th century. Although in an age of developed muskets and cannons it was completely useless.

An even better example would be the fact that commanders continued to be painted in full (three-quarters, that is) cuirassier armor--with pauldrons, arms, and gauntlets--well into the 18th century, when such armor had been exchanged for a simple cuirass and helmet or even left off entirely.

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!

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I think armor's primary purpose was to protect you from the laws of probability. No matter how skillful you are, if you are surrounded by an environment of extreme violence for an extended period of time with fatigue weakening your limbs and mud, blood, screaming and chaos assaulting your senses, then your chances of getting hit by something from somewhere are probably almost 100%.

And this is 100% true, if what I remember from my civil defense riot-squad training is any use as a reference for what happened on medieval battlefields! If we weren't provided with helmets I probably would have suffered enough concussion to render me vegetative for life. Get into the front rank of a massed line of battle and you will get hit sooner or later regardless of skill (or the lack thereof).

[s_taillebois]

"An even better example would be the fact that commanders continued to be painted in full (three-quarters, that is) cuirassier armor--with pauldrons, arms, and gauntlets--well into the 18th century, when such armor had been exchanged for a simple cuirass and helmet or even left off entirely. "

Quite true, and its a tradition which went on into the 20th century. There are some propaganda images of Hitler showing him in the presumed gear of a Teutonic Knight. And the Russians did spend a fair amount of time in movies and images recycling the armor and image of Alexander Nevski.

Here in the US, some church groups have taken the sword as a symbol of obligation to their faith. And so its probably a matter of time before armor and other kit is brought in the enhance the concept.

Interesting how extant the symbol of medieval period armor still is, although it has little practical application in modern warfare or society. But as M. Curtis notes modern equivalents are still used for police gear and the like, which could be counteracted if the mob knew older techniques and chose to bear staffs and the like. Good thing mobs tend not to know these traditions...