Westeros warfare and armor glitches

[Nukelavee]

When discussing "bullet-proofed" armour, you have to take into account the shapes of the armour. Those "pigeon" chests on breastplates make it harder to strike a direct blow, so the round tends to be shed,

Modern tanks use the same concept with sloping their armour.

Also - bullets penetrate better than balls.

There's a suit of plate in the museum in Ampsterdam, that lists how many men wore it, and how each of them died, with a guide showing where the armour failed for each man.

Yeah, it has bullet (well, ball) holes in it.

[Pallantides]

When discussing "bullet-proofed" armour, you have to take into account the shapes of the armour. Those "pigeon" chests on breastplates make it harder to strike a direct blow, so the round tends to be shed,

Modern tanks use the same concept with sloping their armour.

Also - bullets penetrate better than balls.

There's a suit of plate in the museum in Ampsterdam, that lists how many men wore it, and how each of them died, with a guide showing where the armour failed for each man.

Yeah, it has bullet (well, ball) holes in it.

That is true, but the material also plays a significant part in it as well. Softer material is actually more conductive to stopping bullet rounds than hardened armour is. Having done some experiments myself, I've found that hardened pieces of steel tended to fracture when hit with musket balls, than if the material was softer and unhardened, where the power of the shot is removed by the deforming of the metal. That's what makes the difference between the two different styles. The Japanese armour causes bullet's energy to be spent in deformation, while in European armour, the energy is spent in damaging the first layer, and is then incapable of penetrating the second. Both used the same principle, but in different ways, to ultimately achieve a similar result.

[Kozma]

3. Battleaxes - the short answer is tell that to Humphrey de Bohun. Important point to bear in mind here is that swords at this period were not meant for fencing and an axe is better than most swords for dealing with armour. When fighting on foot in battle knights normally used pole-axes rather than swords. Robert Baratheon's war hammer will actually have been a pole axe - a vicious armour piercing weapon with a relatively small hammer-head mounted on a pole.

4. There is an exact ancient equivalent for the Arakh in the Romphia - also from out east.

5. Longbows were very widespread in mediaeval times. The English were unique in that they worked out the best way to use it, but the Scots, French and everybnody else had them as well

King's Bob "enormous battle hummer" pictured in the series like Mjölnir, not less...Not just a standard penetrating weapon

Romphia looks like straightish sickle. Arakh had an edge on the outer side of the curve.

French did have longbows, but they did not have enough trained archers to use them.

[seeyouintee]

1200 one could perhaps consider it garbage (but it performed its job well, and was painstakingly made for that reason). But later period samurai armour was not garbage at all, and if you wish to prove it, I suggest you offer some substantive proof. And all melee weapons deliver blunt force trauma. An arrow hitting you, a sword hitting you, an axe, etc. They all deliver blunt force trauma when hit. The primary damage is cutting or piercing, but the fact that they're hitting you with force will cause blunt force trauma. Striking someone in the head with a sword who is wearing a helmet, is not likely to cleave their head in two. But it will leave them concussed.

I can actually prove this using your pictures. Look again. Japanese chainmaille patterns traditionally use a large gauge ring linked with other large gauge rings by several small gauge rings. The result is a gap in the center of the larger rings as opposed to even simple European mail that begins to look like scales because of the up and down cross of the rings. I've made chainmaille and bashed it to pieces. European 4 in 1 stands up better than nearly everything you just posted and 4 in 1 is a really simple pattern. When you're done looking at your pictures again, look at this.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.php

If you scroll down there are basic renderings of traditional Japanese patterns. They have a common lack of density found in, again, the most basic European patterns. Here is a picture of European 4 in 1, and one of European 6 in 1. The first is a very basic pattern, the second only slightly less basic. 6 in 1 is denser than anything in the pictures you posted and is, in fact, denser than any Japanese pattern I know of.

http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FZC/SAQ8/F2ZL53DX/FZCSAQ8F2ZL53DX.MEDIUM.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/6in1_mail.jpg

Secondly, if you had read even the websites you posted thoroughly, you would know that much of what we know of Japanese armor is conjecture because most of the surviving models are, well, exactly that... antique decorative display pieces.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Just because I saw it lacking in your pictures - in european chainmail every single link was closed and riveted. chainmail made today mostly lacks these because it takes extremely long to do so. But it makes a vast difference in toughness. You'd need to destroy several rings instead of simply forcing them open.

[King Aerys the Just]

Speaking about armor, I have a question for you guys since you seem to know alot about it:

How effective was the more simpler types of armor (boiled leather and lamellar armor for example) when it came to protection?

Considering that historically both plate and good mail armor was very expensive, the majority of common troops should have used the cheaper alternatives. How big would the difference in protection level be between a soldier armored in this type of gear, and one armored in chainmail or plate?

[Nukelavee]

Pallantides - True. To be honest, I'm not even sure if the smiths were aware of how shape played a part in teh effectiveness of protection.

I mean, If you look at some sets of plates, they do have surfaces that tend to either be concave, or that meet at sharp angles - which act as traps, improving the odds of a blow penetrating.

regarding the layered breastplates - I wonder about spalling effects. In tanks, it's a huge issue (so is the "trapping") - A shot doesn't need to penetrate teh outer surface to kill, because the impact causes fragments of the inner surface to break off and fly around the interior.

Blaargh - Layered, or composite, armour, tends to be better than an equal thickness of one material (unless that one material is so much stronger than all teh layered ones). It really depends on the impact/weapon and the materials, tho. For example - shattering a piece of wood with a blow is far easier than an equal thickness of plywood.

Silk - Evidently, silk has a pretty cool benefit, particularly where things like arrows are concerned. Wearing one, or several, quality silk layers beneath armour won't stop an arrow or bolt, but..it will wrap the head, slowing it and limiting penetration..and, it makes the hit more survivable, because it prevents teh weapon and other debris from entering the wound (increasing the odds of not getting infection), limiting bleeding, and aiding the ease of extraction.

(dear god, I can spell the, my fingers just move too fast)

Slings appear to be overlooked by GRRM, which is a shame. I've read that slingers were like teh riflemen of their day - accurate, and a sling bullet could punch right thru many shields or types of armour.

[The GRRumbler]

Slings appear to be overlooked by GRRM, which is a shame. I've read that slingers were like teh riflemen of their day - accurate, and a sling bullet could punch right thru many shields or types of armour.

Have you read ADWD? There's some mean damage with slingers and led balls there.. its quite.. goresome.

[SeanF]

GRRM is very attentive and meticulous to details. However some things are very inconsistent. It makes me wonder is that intentionally or just to make things more glorious and fancy.

What I can name just from the top of my head:

1. Dromonds and galleys. Dromonds are primitive type of Byzantine galleys. KL fleet before it was destroyed was stuffed with galleys. Why when they rebuilt it they started building dromonds.

2. Armor. A typical westorosy knight is clad with something that by description looks like a very sophisticated maximilian armor. That is XVI century armor developed as a response to spreading of firearm.

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

4. Arakh - it is a ridiculous weapon why he did not stick to standard sabre or yataghan?

5. Longbows seem to be widespread. Historically it is weapon of choice of English freemen. It required very high skills to operate.

GRRM is very attentive and meticulous to details. However some things are very inconsistent. It makes me wonder is that intentionally or just to make things more glorious and fancy.

What I can name just from the top of my head:

1. Dromonds and galleys. Dromonds are primitive type of Byzantine galleys. KL fleet before it was destroyed was stuffed with galleys. Why when they rebuilt it they started building dromonds.

2. Armor. A typical westorosy knight is clad with something that by description looks like a very sophisticated maximilian armor. That is XVI century armor developed as a response to spreading of firearm.

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

4. Arakh - it is a ridiculous weapon why he did not stick to standard sabre or yataghan?

5. Longbows seem to be widespread. Historically it is weapon of choice of English freemen. It required very high skills to operate.

2. My impression from reading the books is that men at arms are mostly clad in mail, although some wealthy lords and knights do have full suits of plate. Land warfare strikes me as being pretty much akin to Europe 1300-1350.

3. Robert Bruce demonstrated otherwise.

5. Longbows have been used since ancient times. What was an innocation was massed volley fire from thousands of archers, which became a feature of the English army in the 14th century.

[Pallantides]

I can actually prove this using your pictures. Look again. Japanese chainmaille patterns traditionally use a large gauge ring linked with other large gauge rings by several small gauge rings. The result is a gap in the center of the larger rings as opposed to even simple European mail that begins to look like scales because of the up and down cross of the rings. I've made chainmaille and bashed it to pieces. European 4 in 1 stands up better than nearly everything you just posted and 4 in 1 is a really simple pattern. When you're done looking at your pictures again, look at this.

http://www.myarmoury..._jpn_armour.php

Not really. The examples I gave are quite tough, and difficult to penetrate, or damage. I've made pieces like the extremely tight weaved example I gave. It can stand up to pretty much all sorts of weapons. The only types of weapons that could do any sort of damage to it, were ones with diamond or triangular cross sections (estocs and sankaku yari), or swords with very pointed tips. Amazingly (or perhaps not), these weapons also do well against 4 in 1 mail. Also, if you're going to quote myarmoury, at least take note of what the whole article states.

"Kusari almost never existed alone. Rather, it was used to fill all the gaps between the scales on the kote and suneate, or to connect them. Usually, it was sewn to the foundation fabrics or leather, or placed between two layers. Only in few cases was the kusari used as a basic protection—such as the secondary areas of the armour or as a shikoro in some mass-produced helmets., etc."

Your point was in bringing up Japanese mail, but as I've said, and the MyArmoury article you've given also says, mail was almost never used as base protection in Japan, but for filling in gaps on kote and suneate which couldn't be protected by plates (due to movement).

If you scroll down there are basic renderings of traditional Japanese patterns. They have a common lack of density found in, again, the most basic European patterns. Here is a picture of European 4 in 1, and one of European 6 in 1. The first is a very basic pattern, the second only slightly less basic. 6 in 1 is denser than anything in the pictures you posted and is, in fact, denser than any Japanese pattern I know of.

Those are basic renderings, but they're not all of the examples of the sorts of kusari patterns that the Japanese used. You're also ignoring the fact that the armour was stitched onto (in regards to kote), leather sleeves, many of which had multiple metal scales sewn into them as a form of brigandine. The kusari is there to prevent the leather from being cut. It is not the main protection, even on the kote.

I also know what 4 in 1 and 6 in 1 are, and look like. I suggest you stop the condescending tone. I Know what I'm talking about. I'm part of an experemental archeology group, and have completed my master's degree in history. Also, 6 in 1 is not denser than any of the images I gave. The first image was 12 in 2. This is not the sort of mail that one could easily get through if you were to attack a person who is defending, and moving away from any strikes which may hit them. It can resist all but the strongest attacks against stationary targets.

Secondly, if you had read even the websites you posted thoroughly, you would know that much of what we know of Japanese armor is conjecture because most of the surviving models are, well, exactly that... antique decorative display pieces.

Where did I post websites exactly? I posted images, and a quote from the Royal Armories in Leeds.

Much of what we know of Japanese armour is not conjecture. There are a large number of battlefield examples from the Sengoku, and earlier periods, which many people have examined, and made accurate replicas of. Edo period armour is decorative display pieces, and were never intended for battle. This is also where you begin to see full suits of armour made up entirely of kusari.

The most common style used by samurai during the Sengoku period (and even referenced in the MyArmoury article which you linked), was Okegawa-do. The very high quality examples of this sort of armour, were extremely well made, and were not "garbage" by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because I saw it lacking in your pictures - in european chainmail every single link was closed and riveted. chainmail made today mostly lacks these because it takes extremely long to do so. But it makes a vast difference in toughness. You'd need to destroy several rings instead of simply forcing them open.

Not quite. Not every single link was closed and riveted. Usually it was every other link that was closed and riveted, to a completely solid link. However, even getting through one link is usually enough to defeat the armour with a weapon, and get through. If you have a sword with a sharp narrow point, you won't even need to destroy any of the links. That does not necessarily mean the gambeson underneath will be defeated, but there is still a weakness. Mail was very resistant however, and a number of weapons could not defeat it. Likewise with lamellar made from metal plates.

Also, true historical kusari was not riveted, but was commonly butted, and even more commonly twisted (i.e. like a keyring). Rivet points are always going to be the weakness on mail though, as it acts as a shear point, regardless of the shape of the rivet. Hardened mail is especially prone to this weakness, and isn't so prevalent in what could be deemed historically correct riveted mail made from softer iron, as the iron has a tendency to bend and deform rather than break. Regardless, it is still a weakness, and one solid piece is always going to be the strongest; and is also why they alternated between riveted links, and solid links.

Speaking about armor, I have a question for you guys since you seem to know alot about it:

How effective was the more simpler types of armor (boiled leather and lamellar armor for example) when it came to protection?

Considering that historically both plate and good mail armor was very expensive, the majority of common troops should have used the cheaper alternatives. How big would the difference in protection level be between a soldier armored in this type of gear, and one armored in chainmail or plate?

Boiled leather and leather lamellar offered fairly substantial protection for their cost and weight, but they could definitely not compare to a well made suit of mail or plate. Essentially they are armours that are better than not wearing any. Against cutting, they offer fairly impressive protection, compared to what one might think it would. If I had a choice between leather or metal, I would definitely take metal armour. The weight is not overly substantial, and while wearing it, it's disperseed properly that you don't even really notice it. As an armour, its one of those situations where "if it doesn't work, don't use it." We know that armours were made from organic materials, from numerous different cultures independant of one another, and there are sources which attest to their protective qualities. Of course these should not be taken entirely on face value without experimenting ourselves, but they offer a good basis. Especially if in the same source (a good example which provides this are Chinese military sources), it mentions the nation using a different armour as well, and they express that it doesn't work.

[ChromeWeasel]

3. Battleaxes vs swords. Sword-fighter always won when he faces battleax (not hallebarde) no matter in the single combat or formation. Proven by numerous battles. Described in full details on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Back to the OP, the 'sword fighter always beat axes' comment sounds particularly backwards to me. My impression is that axes have been a much more successful infantry weapon overall. My understanding was actually that swords were a relatively weak weapon for infantry that just weren't worth the time and money to deploy. Swords were much more of a status symbol for those who could afford one than a useful weapon in the middle ages. More effective infantry formations would use spears, polearms, axes, or maces of various sorts.

I'd appreciate it if any of the experts could weigh in on that. I'm familiar with the battle of hastings where axes proved their worth. I'd be interested in any other real references that people know about one way or the other.

[Nukelavee]

It depends on the sword, fighting style, and formation.

The Romans did so well because they valued the point, and thrust, in massed formations.

"Slash and hack" looks cool, and can be horribly effective, but, it's just not suited to tight fighting, whereas a short thrusting sword is.

Battleaxes, in the hands of a skilled user, aren't as clumsy as you'd think, and allow for some fairly "subtle" moves, depending on teh axe shape - one with a spike on teh reverse, or in line with the haft, offers a huge range of strike options. Plus, jesus, that's a lot of shear power (as opposed to sheer power) if it lands.

Oh dear, roll 1d6on the limb loss table, plz.

[The GRRumbler]

Nukelavee im going to put this on a spoiler box 'cause i don't know if everybody here finished ADWD but its about slingers in the book:

In the camp outside Meereen, Tyrion witnessess a slave being executed by slingers, the first one hits his knee and completely destroys it leaving only a tendon to keep both parts of the leg together. He was shooteing led balls.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Speaking about armor, I have a question for you guys since you seem to know alot about it:

How effective was the more simpler types of armor (boiled leather and lamellar armor for example) when it came to protection?

Considering that historically both plate and good mail armor was very expensive, the majority of common troops should have used the cheaper alternatives. How big would the difference in protection level be between a soldier armored in this type of gear, and one armored in chainmail or plate?

Well, first thing: Boiled leather as GRRM describes it is a fantasy thing. Yes, there was leather armor, but it was used instead of plate, not as underwear. And it wasn't very good. Cloth. as in linnen, made a vastly superior base material. Either you had the old greeks mixing linnen, sap and some other ingredients to get some very decent breastplates and other stuff. Or the medieval gambeson or aketon, a linnen jacket sewn with pockets stuffed to bursting with grass, wool or more linnen. The gambeson was worn under metal armor or on its own, and it basically was the armor, the metal was just the icing on the cake. You could shoot someone in a decent gambeson without seriously wounding him. Well, at least if the guy was far enough, the bow lacked punch or the arrow hit in a bad angle*. Beating him up would be even harder.

* Difference to plate armor: There you would have to hit square, with a longbow and on fifty feet or less.

Not quite. Not every single link was closed and riveted. Usually it was every other link that was closed and riveted, to a completely solid link. However, even getting through one link is usually enough to defeat the armour with a weapon, and get through. If you have a sword with a sharp narrow point, you won't even need to destroy any of the links. That does not necessarily mean the gambeson underneath will be defeated, but there is still a weakness. Mail was very resistant however, and a number of weapons could not defeat it. Likewise with lamellar made from metal plates.

Yes, that's what I meant, I'd just didn't go into the details. The important part was the need to destroy a closed link instead of just forcing a non-closed link open.

[Nukelavee]

Oh, yeah, good catch, Doran. I totally forgot that scene.

Plus, I lent my copy to a friend who is seriously backlogged on books I've lent, to force myself to wait til I re-read.

I've read Roman slingers liked almond shaped bullets, and they had wicked penetration.

The whole "spinning objects tend to stay in the plane of the motion" (gyroscopic) effect makes them capable of fairly precise shooting, and some versions of slings could have very long ranges.

Also - damn - I think we are lucky to have some folks like Lepus and Pallantides here, seriously good info. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Ser Lepus]

On the subject of leather armor, many cultures used leather shields (the micenics, the highlanders, many african peoples...etc.) and to a lesser extent, leather helmets/hats (the micenics and some other Ancient Age cultures too), but leather cuirasses weren´t popular for the reasons Bright Blue Eyes mentioned (plus it was a lot more expensive than linen or cotton armor); a lot of modern people think that leather armor was common because archeologists and historians mistook pictures and/or sculptures of roman banded mail and medieval brigandines for leather armor.

I know that, during the modern age, many soldiers eschewed metal armor because it was too heavy and didn´t protected them from musket bullets, but wore boiled leather corselets just in case somebody attacked them with a dagger or rapier.

[Pallantides]

(delete)

[seeyouintee]

Stuff

In the end, my comment about it being garbage was hyperbole but correct in essence. The point is that European armor was better. Again, this is made abundantly obvious because even the Japanese thought so, which is why they eventually emulated European patterns.

Semi-relatedly, it's interesting that Martin didn't include a samurai parallel considering he uses several other eastern ones and samurai are probably the coolest.

[Pallantides]

In the end, my comment about it being garbage was hyperbole but correct in essence. The point is that European armor was better. Again, this is made abundantly obvious because even the Japanese thought so, which is why they eventually emulated European patterns.

Semi-relatedly, it's interesting that Martin didn't include a samurai parallel considering he uses several other eastern ones and samurai are probably the coolest.

I disagree with the term "better", as it marginalizes good quality Japanese armour. Like everything made, there are going to be very good examples, and very poor examples. The only thing that I can say is correct while still comparing the two is that the two styles of armour, are different, and for different purposes. They both did their job well for what they were designed to do. They would not have been used if they didn't.

Anyways, I'm glad we can discuss this decently. And I agree that it is interesting that Martin didn't include a samurai parallel. Perhaps we'll see one when we get to see Asshai?

[Ser Lepus]

I disagree with the term "better", as it marginalizes good quality Japanese armour. Like everything made, there are going to be very good examples, and very poor examples. The only thing that I can say is correct while still comparing the two is that the two styles of armour, are different, and for different purposes. They both did their job well for what they were designed to do. They would not have been used if they didn't.

Anyways, I'm glad we can discuss this decently. And I agree that it is interesting that Martin didn't include a samurai parallel. Perhaps we'll see gone when we get to see Asshai?

It´s nice we can debate politely, yes.

With regards to what I said earlier about european armor being better than the japanese one, I must concede that is only true if we speak of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance full plate armor; many kinds of japanese armor were better than the chainmail hauberk + gambeson armor.

The thing I find weird about the japanese, is that they didn´t seem to have entered a technological "arms race" of weapon vs armor:

-They eschewed shields despite making a lot of use of both arrows and spears, and that´s crazy.

-They kept the katana as their favored side sword, despite it being ineffective for cracking or piercing or finding the gaps in armor.

-They kept the naginata despite being less efective than halberd and poleaxe-like weapons against armor.

-They kept their traditional bows despite they didn´t have enough "punch" to easily pierce armor, and having neighbours with better alternatives (like mongolian and corean reflex bows, or even some chinese crossbows).

-They kept scale/lamellar armor for the torso for a long time, despite it being less effective than plate cuirasses against spears thrusts.

I find it quite puzzling, since they clearly had the technological ability to find better alternatives.

All in all, the japanese armor was not that bad, since they never developed "anti-armor" weaponry akin to the european one.

On the subject of the possibility of finding a Japan look alike in ASOIAF world, I think that, besides Westeros, the cultures of said world aren´t copycats of our own world ones, and I prefer it that way.