is medieval armour really as ineffective as demonstrated in films?

by admin on November 27, 2009

Query by Edward: is medieval armour truly as ineffective as proven in films?
its just that these generally US films present battle armour (chain mail or plate) as genuinely ineffective to the stage its like why wear it only gonna weigh u down :(

Best response:

Solution by Ryan
Why do you believe we dont use it now? I imply, when you drop down, without having assist, its litterally not possible to get up. not to mention if you fall in h2o, your screwed

Give your solution to this query down below!

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Jayson November 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Chainmail is still used today, but with smaller chains, as Shark Suits.
Yes, They are effective against stabbing and slashing, but with enough force, it can and will be punctured.

Clownio November 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm

it just looks ineffective because we live in an age of body armor and bulletproof vests. But during its time, medieval armour was actually highly effective and advanced. Someday in the future they will look back on what soldiers wear now and think of it the way you think of medieval armour.

David C November 27, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Armor then is like armor now. As soon as we develope something, somebody comes up with something to defeat it.

Jack November 28, 2009 at 12:37 am

they were way more effective than in the films. in real life a well armoured nobleman could beat the crap out of peasants while the peaseants couldn’t make a dent in his chainmail.
But it became ineffective with the invention of the musket as it just ripped straight through the toughest armour.

Look at the film and if they use muskets it’s ineffective and ways them down. But if they use swords they r wrong

joseph b November 28, 2009 at 12:43 am

Armor was pretty effective. But could be defeated by a well aimed arrow (yes, they had arrows specifically made to be armor piercing). Most armored knights were killed, because an opponent managed to get a weapon in a weak spot of the armor such as a seam (under the arm or where two pieces meet) or the eye slot. You also have to remember that the code of chivalry basically said that in combat the goal was to capture knights then collect a ransom for their return rather than kill them on the field. Of course if you were a common foot soldier, you were not included and would have been killed as soon as possible.

Michael November 28, 2009 at 1:37 am

Not at all, armour was astonishingly effective (why else would they wear it?) and was light enough to wear pretty much everyday (Im talking chainmail here) – out of necessity, morons whom think medieval soldiers (who had trained their entire life for fighting) would unecessarily weigh themselves down with heavy swords, heavy armour, heavy everything really need to think it through.

Plate mail was a bit more cumbersome in terms of putting it on, getting it off (especially if you needed to go to the toilet lol!) and fighting in it, but again, the soldiers would have been used to it.

Now that the practicality is out of the way, armour is very effective in stopping cuts and similar thrashing blows, chain mail is not as effective in stopping thrusts, which is why plate mail was developed. (I have seen a man stand stock still, harden his abs and absorb a full blow from a semi-blunt arming sword without any effect other than a grunt of surprise)
Seriously, armour was a life saver and the problems associated with it were compensated for by extensive training in strength and technique (like, you know, moving slightly so a blow glances off you instead of hitting you, or dodging it?)

Usually the armoured people in films whom get cut down so easily are nameless, faceless (helmets) grunts who are there to serve the purpose of getting cut down by the main characters – never trust hollywood. (also, read Stormtrooper effect)

Previous post:

Next post: