Jump to content

I think the majority of this forum puts too much stock in the effectiveness of Plate armor


ilikethesebooks

Recommended Posts

Thinking anyone in Plate by default bests anyone without it. Syrio drops what 3-5 armored guards with a wooden sword before finally losing to Trent? Acting like Jorah would decimate the Khal. Plate armor is useless as fuck once you're off your feet which any professional war maker can accomplish. It was great against sword slashes, could easily be pinched by blunt trama, easy to knock someone off balance, and historically there are countless times where it is useless. If it is so impenetrable how do two people wearing it kill one other? If person a with plate can kill person b with plate then someone without plate can do it as well. It is just a defensive tool, not a guaranteed viceroy.

Rant off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the armor, it's the weapon they are up against, a longsword can pierce the joints, as can a spear an arakk can't. Syrio lost to the only man in full plate as Arya noticed, the guardsman wore partial plate/mail.

:agree:

Jorah would almost assuredly beat Khal Drogo if they fought as they'd preferably do. We know arakhs are ineffective against the plate armor, as Barristan Selmy's fight with Khrazz proves.

Plus let's not forget that the Dothraki don't wear armor. Mormont wouldn't have to go for a kill or a small opening in that fight, he could basically hit any part of Drogo's body and have it do damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking anyone in Plate by default bests anyone without it. Syrio drops what 3-5 armored guards with a wooden sword before finally losing to Trent? Acting like Jorah would decimate the Khal. Plate armor is useless as fuck once you're off your feet which any professional war maker can accomplish. It was great against sword slashes, could easily be pinched by blunt trama, easy to knock someone off balance, and historically there are countless times where it is useless. If it is so impenetrable how do two people wearing it kill one other? If person a with plate can kill person b with plate then someone without plate can do it as well. It is just a defensive tool, not a guaranteed viceroy.

Rant off

The guards were dropped due to not having full armor though, it's not like Syrio stabbed through the plate with his wooden toy sword.

Also Plate Armor > Jorah > Drogo. Plate Armor #1!

No, actually the majority couldn't care less about this topic.

This is the most important ASOIAF topic of the decade!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even without armor was Khrazz even on the same level?

Yup.

Khrazz is an extremely skilled pit fighter in the prime of his years, while Barry is getting old.

Just like with Jorah's fight against the bloodrider, the Dothraki would have won without the armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to take into account that Barristan Selmy is the best swordsman in Westoros. Even without armor was Khrazz even on the same level?

If I remember right, Khrazz landed a couple of blows on Ser Barry, weather he would have dodged if he wasn't wearing armor I don't know but barry acknowledges Khrazz's speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Thinking anyone in Plate by default bests anyone without it. (2) Syrio drops what 3-5 armored guards with a wooden sword before finally losing to Trent? (3) Acting like Jorah would decimate the Khal. (4) Plate armor is useless as fuck once you're off your feet which any professional war maker can accomplish. (5) It was great against sword slashes, (6) could easily be pinched by blunt trama, (7) easy to knock someone off balance, and (8) historically there are countless times where it is useless. (9) If it is so impenetrable how do two people wearing it kill one other? (10) If person a with plate can kill person b with plate then someone without plate can do it as well. It is just a defensive tool, not a guaranteed viceroy.

Rant off

(1) Nobody says this. People say that the advantage gained from having plate armor is large, and perhaps generally larger than the skill discrepancy between any two characters

(2) Martin goes into great detail on how Syrio easily knocks off the partially armored guardmen and then (implicitly) is killed by the fully-armored Trant. Reread the scene, because you completely missed the point of it.

(3) This is not unreasonable. Both are experienced warriors, but Jorah is equipped to kill an unarmored man while Drogo is not equipped to kill a fully armored man. Equipment matters, not just badassery.

(4) Knocking somebody off their feet is indeed a good strategy. It is unclear to me why you think the unarmored man will have an easier time knocking the armored man off his feet than vice versa. If anything, the armored man should have an easier time, since he has much less cause to worry about being slashed, stabbed, or otherwise attacked while knocking his opponent down.

(5) you say this like its not a big deal?

(6) but not as easily as no-armor can be penetrated by blunt trauma

(7) depends on how the armor effects the center of gravity

(8) and many times when it was useful, which you seem to ignore

(9) with difficulty. This is why capturing armored opponents is a thing.

(10) NOT AS WELL. They need to worry about getting stabbed. An armored opponent has much less cause to worry, so he grapple, stick a dagger in visor, or use a slower-blunt force weapon against his armored opponent while being reasonably confident that he will still have all his fingers attached to his hand and his intestines will still be in his stomach afterwards

Edited for clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to take into account that Barristan Selmy is the best swordsman in Westoros. Even without armor was Khrazz even on the same level?

"Khrazz cursed and turned a high cut into a low one, slipping past the old knight’s blade for once, only to have his blow scrape uselessly off a white steel greave."

"Ser Barristan leapt over them. Khrazz slashed at his arm and caught him, but the arakh could only chip the hard enamel before it met the steel below."

Barristan does mention that Khrazz doesn't know how to fight a man in armor, but he still manages to land blows, albeit to no effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we use reality to fill in the gaps concerning speculation.

If GRRM wants Arya to kill 10 men in plate with a spoon in one situation he can make it happen.

But when we're speculating we have to ground it in what we know and it just so happens that plate armour was pretty good.

They kill each other with blunt trauma using poleaxes and halberds etc and the knight's primary weapon the lance, or penetration at the joints with rondel daggers and tuck swords etc. Most fights aren't one on one either, your armour can only be so good when 5 men wrestle you to the ground and shove daggers in your eye slits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Nobody says this. People say that the advantage gained from having plate armor is large, and perhaps generally larger than the skill discrepancy between any two characters

(2) Martin goes into great detail on how Syrio easily knocks off the partially armored guardmen and then (implicitly) is killed by the fully-armored Trant. Reread the scene, because you completely missed the point of it.

(3) This is not unreasonable. Both are experienced warriors, but Jorah is equipped to kill an unarmored man while Drogo is not equipped to kill a fully armored man. Equipment matters, not just badassery.

(4) Knocking somebody off their feet is indeed a good strategy. It is unclear to me why you think the unarmored man will have an easier time knocking the armored man off his feet than vice versa. If anything, the armored man should have an easier time, since he has much less cause to worry about being slashed, stabbed, or otherwise attacked while knocking his opponent down.

(5) you say this like its not a big deal?

(6) but not as easily as no-armor can be penetrated by blunt trauma

(7) depends on how the armor effects the center of gravity

(8) and many times when it was useful, which you seem to ignore

(9) with difficulty. This is why capturing armored opponents is a thing.

(10) NOT AS WELL. They need to worry about getting stabbed. An armored opponent has much less cause to worry, so he grapple, stick a dagger in visor, or use a slower-blunt force weapon against his armored opponent while being reasonably confident that he will still have all his fingers attached to his hand and his intestines will still be in his stomach afterwards

Edited for clarity

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

armour is useful and gives an edge yes but its no guarantee of victory by a long shot.

heres a guy in no armour vs guy in full plate going at it using actual sword techniques from the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi757-7XD94

True, but most of the verses threads on here seem to be Drogo vs X in armor so not sword vs sword. The video also shows both combatants clearly handling every inch of the blade so there's obviously no edge on those swords at all, if there were the movement from the unarmorded combatant would have been much slower if he wanted to avoid injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...