LE True knight armor

[canecane]

Hi all, I love Medieval and Renaissance specially weapons and armors.

So I'd like have my favourite armor if anyone should do it!

I saw the armor of game of thrones and warchief and nine king and witcher 2 armor also, but this will feel me complete.

 

 

Maximilian Armor

Time Period: 16th century

Location: Germany

Common Construction: Steel

 

Maximilian armor is named after the German emperor Maximilian I, and all subsequent armors made in the same style were also considered Maximilian.

 

http://i40.tinypic.com/1zbz435.jpg

 

http://i39.tinypic.com/r871a1.jpg

 

http://i40.tinypic.com/2uhxuon.jpg

 

http://i43.tinypic.com/fyh8pd.gif

 

http://i39.tinypic.com/2hok1ts.gif

 

 

 

if those images are not enough google have the answer ;)

the helm and horse armor are not much important!

Sorry for my english I hope you will understand, thanks for attention

 

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zh19xf.jpg

 

http://i39.tinypic.com/2qwn29x.jpg

 

Edited April 24, 2012 by canecane

[AjaxSt]

You can tell that that is actually designed as parade armor, and not really designed for fighting. It would be a little rigid for combat (You can tell because there is no joints in the chest piece, making it almost impossible to bend over, among other things).

 

That said, it is a nice-looking piece of armor, and it would lend to a sense of history to the world, I endorse this mod idea!

[canecane]

You can tell that that is actually designed as parade armor, and not really designed for fighting. It would be a little rigid for combat (You can tell because there is no joints in the chest piece, making it almost impossible to bend over, among other things).

 

That said, it is a nice-looking piece of armor, and it would lend to a sense of history to the world, I endorse this mod idea!

There is not joints because it is an armor for fighting horse, thanks for endorsing

[TheRealAedh]

You can tell that that is actually designed as parade armor, and not really designed for fighting. It would be a little rigid for combat (You can tell because there is no joints in the chest piece, making it almost impossible to bend over, among other things).

 

That said, it is a nice-looking piece of armor, and it would lend to a sense of history to the world, I endorse this mod idea!

There is not joints because it is an armor for fighting horse, thanks for endorsing

 

I'd say that apart from the cut out in the right pauldron that is primarily an harness for fighting on foot, with the possibility that the owner of the original harness would swap out the pauldrons if engaged in primarily foot combat. I think it would safe to say that despite the lack of jointing in the breastplate that either you could bend over (unlikely) or that bending over was not as important as having a solid piece of metal guarding your vitals, also the armor in the op is similar to visual depictions of armor used by combatants in judicial duels on foot, solid breast plates included.

 

I have to ask if either of you are late medieval reenactors or western martial artists studying one of the armored arts of that period? I have, but more importantly I spent 4 years in the armed forces and OUR body armor isn't flexible over the torso either.

[AjaxSt]

I spent 8 years of my life in a re-enactment group, some one whom did handle plate armors. I haven't personally worn any, but I have seen it demonstrated. One thing that was of importance while making armor was the idea that a knight had to be as flexible in his armor as he was without it. There are contemporary documentation and stories of knights who were able to tuck and roll, run and rump, and do other acrobatics while in a full, 60-pound suit of steel plate armor.

 

In the latter centuries, armor became more decorative and less functional, increasingly so after the invention of firearms, and then accurate firearms. Those balls of lead were sometimes able to tear through plate armor like it was butter, and non-ranged weapons became obsolete. By the 18th century, armor was all but abandoned, thanks to it being useless in most scenarios. Even by the 16th century, the time period this design is from, armor was becoming increasingly impractical.

 

Also, medieval plate armor is superior in almost every way to modern Kevlar body armor. Main advantage of modern armor: it can stop bullets. Medieval armor was far more flexibly, slightly lighter weight, and covered almost every part of your body. Modern armor, you're lucky to get shoulder or crotch protection, most only get chest and head.

[Moraelin]

I'm not a real historian, but I have studied history a fair bit as a hobby. My take is that, from all I've read and seen, yes, that's actual late Gothic combat armour.

 

Actually Gothic armour didn't use all that many pieces on the breastplate. There was the upper part of the breastplate sliding under the plackart, i.e., the piece of armour for the belly. And that was really it for the torso. That went for both Gothic and Italian armour, btw.

 

Originally they were more like half and half, with the the upper plate covering basically the same area as your ribs and sternum, and with the same outline for the lower part, and the plackart being just a little taller to overlap it, and again, following the same outline as the line between ribs and belly. But over time the plackart got taller and taller, and by the end it got to cover most of the torso with a single solid plate. And in Gothic armour, fluted for maximum strength too.(Italians preferred smooth armour that an arrow or bolt would deflect on.) Basically the "joint" -- though not really a joint, just overlapping plates that could slide under each other -- got gradually higher and higher over time.

 

Which is really what you're seeing in Maximilian armour, and what you'd expect once you factor in that IS a late model. It's still two pieces, but the plackart goes all the up way to around the level of the underarms. It's still two pieces, just less obviously so, especially since most of the line between the two pieces is covered by the oversized pauldrons. Basically you have to look for it at the level of that narrow gap between the inner "corners" of the pauldrons. Which I suspect is intentional and probably the reason why it's so high, so as not to leave a big visible gap that someone could shove a sword through.

 

At any rate, yes, armour like that was used in the field, not just on parades.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Moraelin

[canecane]

I am really really surprised and happy too, sorry my friends I am italian and I am not good for talk english.

This became a hystorian-meeting and it is funny for me.

Anyway I am young and no hystorian... So you don't think I am expert.

I saw one version of this armor completly original and despite I never worn it before I think will be a pajamas!

I worn complete plaques armor really much more evil and medieval, with eesential joint and it was more difficult walked than carry weight.

We should remember that armor was for Heavy Cavalry with more training, who probably slept with armor or nearly, I think.

This armor was create thinking the nobleman was been elegant in a battle too and at the same time with complete protection, so from that were born the parade armors and for jousts

This is only the first "Maximilian armor" because after this, were created many armors like it, for example in this post the third image is not equal first and second I posted for help modders! I hope anyone will do it for skyrim so we can talk better ;)

[TheRealAedh]

I spent 8 years of my life in a re-enactment group, some one whom did handle plate armors. I haven't personally worn any, but I have seen it demonstrated. One thing that was of importance while making armor was the idea that a knight had to be as flexible in his armor as he was without it. There are contemporary documentation and stories of knights who were able to tuck and roll, run and rump, and do other acrobatics while in a full, 60-pound suit of steel plate armor.

 

In the latter centuries, armor became more decorative and less functional, increasingly so after the invention of firearms, and then accurate firearms. Those balls of lead were sometimes able to tear through plate armor like it was butter, and non-ranged weapons became obsolete. By the 18th century, armor was all but abandoned, thanks to it being useless in most scenarios. Even by the 16th century, the time period this design is from, armor was becoming increasingly impractical.

 

Also, medieval plate armor is superior in almost every way to modern Kevlar body armor. Main advantage of modern armor: it can stop bullets. Medieval armor was far more flexibly, slightly lighter weight, and covered almost every part of your body. Modern armor, you're lucky to get shoulder or crotch protection, most only get chest and head.

 

So, despite you never having worn armor of any kind you feel you can comment with authority on the flexibility and weight of modern body armor when compared to medieval armor? An IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) weighs between 16 lbs(the base vest and plates) and 33lbs (vest plus everything else), whereas a plate harness weighs between 40 and 60 pounds.

[Moraelin]

Also, on the topic of that cut out in the right pauldron, actually it's not for fighting on foot, it's for the lance when doing a cavalry charge. You'd hold the lance under your armpit, with an enlarged part in front pressed against the pauldron and breastplate. (And generally also hooked to a lance rest on the breast plate, so you don't dislocate your shoulder when impacting another knight at full gallop with that lance.)

 

If you look at the left pauldron, if you made the right one symmetrical, it clearly wouldn't allow you to hold the lance in your armpit, with the upper arm pressed against the body to hold it. That wide overlapping plate on the left one is exactly that wide to cover the armpit against attacks from the front, but that also makes it impossible to hold a lance there. So the pauldron on the right side needed to be smaller and generally have a cut-out too.

[AjaxSt]

So, despite you never having worn armor of any kind you feel you can comment with authority on the flexibility and weight of modern body armor when compared to medieval armor? An IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) weighs between 16 lbs(the base vest and plates) and 33lbs (vest plus everything else), whereas a plate harness weighs between 40 and 60 pounds.

 

I never said I hadn't worn armor of any kind, I was directly referring the plate armor I had mentioned in the previous sentence when I said that I hadn't worn any. I have worn chain armor, and I have worn a plate curiass, just not a whole set. While true, I haven't worn an IBA either, I was commenting the weight recorded by multiple sources based on their own research for full gear, prepped for battle with extra ammo, rations, IFAK, and other essential combat equipment, which would weigh in to pretty close to 60 pounds, if my research is correct. And that is all hung off of the MOLLE straps on the chest piece, whereas on plate armor, the weight is distributed evenly across the entire body, with a tiny bit extra hanging off the belt. So, comparitively, a combat-ready chest piece of modern armor weighs in at about 40-60 lbs, while a medieval chest piece, with all the trimmings, weighs in at under 20. Plus, most plate armors, especially early plate armors, contained joints that allowed a knight to bend over and touch his toes.

 

But of course, since I have never worn any of these, my points are all moot. I apologize for not bowing down to your obviously superior mind. Now let's get over this petty pissing match and get on with this topic.