Comic Genesis Forums

Rokas wrote:JAM: "Warp?" As in... *Grabs a Daemon Hammer* The Immaterium? ;p

ANYway... Can y'all can the canning 'fore the can-man cans the Cannes can? Well, can ya? ;p

Also, [random noun] is [random adjective].

The above nonsense brought to you by a lack of sleep.

You should have left the cantina earlier.

Chaser617 wrote:and actually that type of armor isn't *THAT* heavy to wear, because most the weight is being supported by either the armor itself or the horse.

Actually most medieval armor weighed less than 50 pounds total... about as much as a modern soldier's backpack.

The real heavy, clunky stuff was latter-era, and generally used for tourneys... and even that stuff wasn't as heavy as portrayed.

'Swhat happens when moviemakers and renfaire armorers ask poorly informed researchers how to build medieval armor and weapons. The scholars, quoting one another, say "heavy and clumsy," so the renfaire lot build it heavy and clumsy, and the moviemakers make it look heavy and clumsy, and everyone goes away convinced.... and incorrect.

RHJunior wrote:

Chaser617 wrote:and actually that type of armor isn't *THAT* heavy to wear, because most the weight is being supported by either the armor itself or the horse.

Actually most medieval armor weighed less than 50 pounds total... about as much as a modern soldier's backpack.

I thought a modern pack was heavier than that. Anybody from the uniform set care to set things straight?

I believe it depends upon the soldier's role, where he's going, and if he's got a Humvee or IFV in attendance.

BrockthePaine wrote:I believe it depends upon the soldier's role, where he's going, and if he's got a Humvee or IFV in attendance.

Well certainly medieval armorers would not equip a footman as they would a horseman so there's variety on weight in both areas. Let's say like to like and call the footman's armor (which would be *much* less than plate) a modern equivalent to the infantryman's pack without vehicle and the horseman's/noble's armor equivalent to the vehicle available pack. How does the comparison work then?

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Rokas wrote:JAM: "Warp?" As in... *Grabs a Daemon Hammer* The Immaterium? ;p

ANYway... Can y'all can the canning 'fore the can-man cans the Cannes can? Well, can ya? ;p

Also, [random noun] is [random adjective].

The above nonsense brought to you by a lack of sleep.

You should have left the cantina earlier.

What? And miss the Canoli?

TMLutas wrote:

RHJunior wrote:

Chaser617 wrote:and actually that type of armor isn't *THAT* heavy to wear, because most the weight is being supported by either the armor itself or the horse.

Actually most medieval armor weighed less than 50 pounds total... about as much as a modern soldier's backpack.

I thought a modern pack was heavier than that. Anybody from the uniform set care to set things straight?

Most of the time I went out to the field, I hauled about 60 lbs of garbage. As most of the veterans complained, they keep making this stuff lighter in weight, so that way we can pile more of it on. Now combat weight is a different matter. If one is going into actual combat you don't haul around the bedroll and extra socks. But from talking with one vietnam vet (medic) when he was in the brush, he generally toted upwards of 1000 rounds of .223 and usually a belt of 200 rounds of .308 for the machinegunner. If he had to run out and grab someone he tossed the belt to the gunner with the instructions "None of this better be here when I get back!"

Supressive fire is our friend!

When I walked patrols at the airport and the nuclear plant, I barely had 20# of gear on me, but we were next to resupply.

In the sand box, they will wear flack vests and other armor as well, but I never pulled that duty, so I'm unsure of their weight. Modern ballistic armor works a lot better, but weighs differently from the stuff available even 20 years ago.

Still, the bottom line is, when lead is flying, you want to be as light on your feet as possible!

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Rokas wrote:JAM: "Warp?" As in... *Grabs a Daemon Hammer* The Immaterium? ;p

ANYway... Can y'all can the canning 'fore the can-man cans the Cannes can? Well, can ya? ;p

Also, [random noun] is [random adjective].

The above nonsense brought to you by a lack of sleep.

You should have left the cantina earlier.

Is that where they were doing the Can Can?

Oh can you do the Can Can?
If you can then I can
I can Can Can if you Can Can
Can you Can Can

Oh we can do the Can Can
Yes oui we we Can Can
We can Can Can
Yes oui we can Can

Narnian wrote:

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Rokas wrote:JAM: "Warp?" As in... *Grabs a Daemon Hammer* The Immaterium? ;p

ANYway... Can y'all can the canning 'fore the can-man cans the Cannes can? Well, can ya? ;p

Also, [random noun] is [random adjective].

The above nonsense brought to you by a lack of sleep.

You should have left the cantina earlier.

Is that where they were doing the Can Can?

Oh can you do the Can Can?
If you can then I can
I can Can Can if you Can Can
Can you Can Can

Oh we can do the Can Can
Yes oui we we Can Can
We can Can Can
Yes oui we can Can

For your listening pleasure.
The Can Can song.
http://hurl.content.loudeye.com/scripts ... cid=010026

I don't have the army's perspective but maybe something close enough.
In civilian backpacking, if I remember correctly, the general rule of thumb is that you only carry between a quarter to a third of your own weight in stuff. You *can* carry up to about half, but that's pushing it and you'll wear yourself out pretty fast. The military might go for that half your weight rule and generally make a pack of 60-90 pounds. (these are all broad assumptions mind you.) However, if you have a horse, then 50 pounds of armor is not unreasonable since you also have saddlebags for carrying the other stuff.

"What bright light did the drowning knight see?"

... incandescent...


That was a bit sick, yes, but a good pun despite that.

The Lurking Dragon wrote:The military might go for that half your weight rule and generally make a pack of 60-90 pounds.

Considering the emphasis the military places on physical conditioning, I'd say that doesn't sound unreasonable, but only as a maximum load. (Like say a paratrooper who has to carry everything he'll need until the ground forces catch up to where he's jumping - or he gets to them.)

Another advantage of the crossbow was that it could be carried drawn and ready to fire, whereas even the best longbowmen didn't draw until the had to. (Considering the massive pull those things employed, I wouldn't either.)

"I'm a Gemini. I hear you're a Cancer. That must be very painful."

Earl McClaw wrote:"I'm a Gemini. I hear you're a Cancer. That must be very painful."

You just earned an exile - to Canberra.

Frankly, I don't think plate armor is that attractive. Even if it doesn't weigh a ton, it's still encumbering, limiting your movement. Not only does it not provide protection against things like electric bolts, it would actually make you slower to dodge so you'd be more vulnerable to them. I guess I just like people who fight without armor better than the ol' 'knight in shining armor.'

I'm afraid I'm out of can puns at the moment. Mind if I just give you an IOU?

Doink wrote:Frankly, I don't think plate armor is that attractive. Even if it doesn't weigh a ton, it's still encumbering, limiting your movement. Not only does it not provide protection against things like electric bolts, it would actually make you slower to dodge so you'd be more vulnerable to them.

True, but the knights of Earth didn't have to worry about electricity very much. And based on anticdotal evidence, the humans "Outside" don't, either.

Quentyn wrote:-- I spotted a human in armor down on the ground--

So much for Mr. Can-Dell (a knight in a valley -- I'll bet he's a real light-weight ) being there just for the atmosphere.

Earl McClaw wrote:

Doink wrote:Frankly, I don't think plate armor is that attractive. Even if it doesn't weigh a ton, it's still encumbering, limiting your movement. Not only does it not provide protection against things like electric bolts, it would actually make you slower to dodge so you'd be more vulnerable to them.

True, but the knights of Earth didn't have to worry about electricity very much. And based on anticdotal evidence, the humans "Outside" don't, either.

Quentyn wrote:-- I spotted a human in armor down on the ground--

So much for Mr. Can-Dell (a knight in a valley -- I'll bet he's a real light-weight ) being there just for the atmosphere.

That depends, does rumor fly faster than a balloon? That knight might stir up a welcoming committee or at least suspicious natives as far away as that first landing point.

Doink wrote:Frankly, I don't think plate armor is that attractive. Even if it doesn't weigh a ton, it's still encumbering, limiting your movement. Not only does it not provide protection against things like electric bolts, it would actually make you slower to dodge so you'd be more vulnerable to them. I guess I just like people who fight without armor better than the ol' 'knight in shining armor.'

I'm afraid I'm out of can puns at the moment. Mind if I just give you an IOU?

Actually, plate mail would provide excellent protection against electrical bolts. The zap would flow through the metal shell to the ground, and wouldn't bother the occupant at all. Modern high-tension workers wear a metal mesh suit for just that reason.

Doink wrote:Frankly, I don't think plate armor is that attractive. Even if it doesn't weigh a ton, it's still encumbering, limiting your movement. Not only does it not provide protection against things like electric bolts, it would actually make you slower to dodge so you'd be more vulnerable to them. I guess I just like people who fight without armor better than the ol' 'knight in shining armor.'

Actually.... No.

Even chainmail armor is heavy per square foot, and it's very difficult to make that heavier or lighter then it looks. The chainmail hauberk and coif my brother forged weighed, together, about 45 pounds.

Under that, dark ages footmen wore about ten pounds of heavy leather 'quilted' armor to take the kinetic energy of impacts while the chainmail kept the blade from cutting. They also wore, under the quilted armor, a wool tunic and possibly cotton under the tunic, to prevent chafing.

That would be, I'd estimate, sixty pounds of equipment designed to protect your body from injury. That's not including the helmet that goes over the coif, your weapon, your boots, and anything you might carry on your back (A sack of food for supper?).

People marched like this.

The thing is, folks in the medieval era were physically stronger then modern humans. Their bodies were hardened by training and the hard times that people had to put up with in that era. People were also shorter back then.

I met someone at a rennissance faire who had forged his own suit of full plate armor. It weighed 80 pounds by itself. He wore this and flawlessly performed martial arts in a demonstration that lasted several minutes.

It is heavy, yes, but the design is specifically intended for protection and mobility. It's only clumsy if you haven't been properly trained in its use.

And yes, the guy was a little winded when he was done, but he probably could've continued for twice as long before he'd have to stop.

Edit: That'll teach me not to use Preview.

In another forum, I asked how much would a soldier would carry, and the answer varies from 50-90 kg. They also provided a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 85/IDC.htm

Sableneko wrote: People marched like this.

The thing is, folks in the medieval era were physically stronger then modern humans. Their bodies were hardened by training and the hard times that people had to put up with in that era. People were also shorter back then.

They also tended to DIE a lot younger, something you didn't mention.

I'm rather tempted to think that it's similar to shelf life - a human body, no matter how well you treat it, is only good for so many units of time/effort.

Or, as Dr. Tyrell put it in the movie, "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long."

Eh. Science marches - or would that be 'staggers'? - on, and we learn something new every day. With luck, we can do something about the relatively puny lifespan we currently have.