Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonathankoren | Hacker News Reader

The parallels with “European plate armor was too bulky to be used and knights couldn’t stand up when they fell”, shouldn’t be lost on anyone. It’s a common belief handed down over the years, but it’s complete bollocks. We know it is, because back in the 60s or 70s someone had the idea of actually putting the armor on, run around in it, and even get knocked down and stand up in it. There is like a BBC film showing this or something.

It’s kinda weird that people keep dismissing the armor of the past as completely impractical, even though the people in the past keep saying or implying that this is exact what they wore into battle.

View on HN

There are more recently made videos, I believe, demonstrating the same thing:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

imagine being a medieval peasant conscript and seeing that guy from the first few seconds of the first video charging at you, knowing full well he's from the warrior class and trained his entire life for the job of fighting.

terrifying...

I remember reading somewhere that peasants who killed an enemy night would effectively be treated as war criminals. So you'd be fucked no matter what you do.

The modern equivalent would be seeing an MRAP or an APC rolling down the street.

The sci-fi version would be seeing a space marine.

1st video about halfway through, that's where the turkish get up is useful!

I thought it was a clip from power rangers for a minute.

Some of this has to do with jousting armor being some of the best preserved sets and those were extremely impractical.

Codpieces with erect penises are a tactical.

https://youtu.be/C6XqBsosHwM

This is one of those 'myths' that I only ever see mentioned when it's someone informing everyone that it's a myth. I've seen it 'busted' so many times I wonder if the real myth is that anyone ever believed it in the first place.

You see it a lot in movies, and that belief from movies gets in the popular conscience. Plate armor in most movies gets penetrated by light slashes and masses of plate wearing soldiers are easily beaten by the lightly armored hero. My friend who often wore armor on subways always had drunk people come up to him and try to play pranks like pushing him etc thinking he would fall due to impractical armor etc, but armor makes it easier to stand your ground.

So it is like physics, there is widespread belief in Aristotelean physics but you wont see anyone talk about believing it online, even though we know from surveys that there is a significant fraction who do.

Well, because it was thoroughly debunked decades ago.

I remember reading this 'fact' in books as a kid in the 80s.

It's probably leakage from the well-known Battle of Agincourt, which showed it could be a concern, but the mud is an important detail.

It was difficult to mount a horse while wearing heavy armour though and I think that's how the rumour originated.

People in modernity have a habit of dismissing what people in the past said as a "heuristic that almost always works."

But it doesn't always work, and there's some pretty glaring holes in modern perspectives as a result of its overuse.

"The Court Jester" movie didn't help dispel that myth ... ;)

There are quite a few YouTube videos showing how full plate is worn and how much range of motion you’d have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com