Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?












3












$begingroup$


Full steel plate armour is seen as the most effective type of armour from the Medieval period, viewed by some as the pinnacle of medieval/early-renaissance armour. It’s rounded surfaces and layers of padding and chain mail underneath the plates reduced the wearer’s chance of injury drastically. It also allows for a high level of mobility and articulation without restricting the wearer too much.



In our own history, we have developed armour such as brigandine, lamellar, a coat of plates, segmented plates (like the lorica segmentata), gambeson, chain mail, we’ve even made armour out of wood and bone. However, none of these are quite as protective and mobile as a suit of full steel plate armour. Indeed, of these armours mentioned, some are more effective than others, almost in a hierachy.



With this in mind, in a world where multiple types of armour co-exist in the same place at the same time, why would people actively choose not to wear the most effective armour, such as full steel plate, if it was available?



For this question, assume that monetary cost is not a factor. The reason for this is that it is fairly obvious that people would not buy better armour if they could not afford it, so cost of manufacture and sale should not be factored into answers.



Also assume that the availability of resources is not a factor. Again, it is fairly obvious that if you lacked the resources to produce more effective armour, you would have to produce something less effective.



The best answers should cover why less effective armour would be chosen on both an individual level (such as an adventurer, mercenary or other form of lone traveler) and a militaristic level (such as an army or other large group of organised fighters).



Magic and monsters may factor into your decisions but this is not required for a good answer.






warfare medieval combat armors







share|improve this question









New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
    $endgroup$
    – Giu Piete
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Effectiveness depends on context.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Full steel plate armour is seen as the most effective type of armour from the Medieval period, viewed by some as the pinnacle of medieval/early-renaissance armour. It’s rounded surfaces and layers of padding and chain mail underneath the plates reduced the wearer’s chance of injury drastically. It also allows for a high level of mobility and articulation without restricting the wearer too much.



In our own history, we have developed armour such as brigandine, lamellar, a coat of plates, segmented plates (like the lorica segmentata), gambeson, chain mail, we’ve even made armour out of wood and bone. However, none of these are quite as protective and mobile as a suit of full steel plate armour. Indeed, of these armours mentioned, some are more effective than others, almost in a hierachy.



With this in mind, in a world where multiple types of armour co-exist in the same place at the same time, why would people actively choose not to wear the most effective armour, such as full steel plate, if it was available?



For this question, assume that monetary cost is not a factor. The reason for this is that it is fairly obvious that people would not buy better armour if they could not afford it, so cost of manufacture and sale should not be factored into answers.



Also assume that the availability of resources is not a factor. Again, it is fairly obvious that if you lacked the resources to produce more effective armour, you would have to produce something less effective.



The best answers should cover why less effective armour would be chosen on both an individual level (such as an adventurer, mercenary or other form of lone traveler) and a militaristic level (such as an army or other large group of organised fighters).



Magic and monsters may factor into your decisions but this is not required for a good answer.






warfare medieval combat armors







share|improve this question









New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
    $endgroup$
    – Giu Piete
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Effectiveness depends on context.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Full steel plate armour is seen as the most effective type of armour from the Medieval period, viewed by some as the pinnacle of medieval/early-renaissance armour. It’s rounded surfaces and layers of padding and chain mail underneath the plates reduced the wearer’s chance of injury drastically. It also allows for a high level of mobility and articulation without restricting the wearer too much.



In our own history, we have developed armour such as brigandine, lamellar, a coat of plates, segmented plates (like the lorica segmentata), gambeson, chain mail, we’ve even made armour out of wood and bone. However, none of these are quite as protective and mobile as a suit of full steel plate armour. Indeed, of these armours mentioned, some are more effective than others, almost in a hierachy.



With this in mind, in a world where multiple types of armour co-exist in the same place at the same time, why would people actively choose not to wear the most effective armour, such as full steel plate, if it was available?



For this question, assume that monetary cost is not a factor. The reason for this is that it is fairly obvious that people would not buy better armour if they could not afford it, so cost of manufacture and sale should not be factored into answers.



Also assume that the availability of resources is not a factor. Again, it is fairly obvious that if you lacked the resources to produce more effective armour, you would have to produce something less effective.



The best answers should cover why less effective armour would be chosen on both an individual level (such as an adventurer, mercenary or other form of lone traveler) and a militaristic level (such as an army or other large group of organised fighters).



Magic and monsters may factor into your decisions but this is not required for a good answer.






warfare medieval combat armors







share|improve this question









New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Full steel plate armour is seen as the most effective type of armour from the Medieval period, viewed by some as the pinnacle of medieval/early-renaissance armour. It’s rounded surfaces and layers of padding and chain mail underneath the plates reduced the wearer’s chance of injury drastically. It also allows for a high level of mobility and articulation without restricting the wearer too much.



In our own history, we have developed armour such as brigandine, lamellar, a coat of plates, segmented plates (like the lorica segmentata), gambeson, chain mail, we’ve even made armour out of wood and bone. However, none of these are quite as protective and mobile as a suit of full steel plate armour. Indeed, of these armours mentioned, some are more effective than others, almost in a hierachy.



With this in mind, in a world where multiple types of armour co-exist in the same place at the same time, why would people actively choose not to wear the most effective armour, such as full steel plate, if it was available?



For this question, assume that monetary cost is not a factor. The reason for this is that it is fairly obvious that people would not buy better armour if they could not afford it, so cost of manufacture and sale should not be factored into answers.



Also assume that the availability of resources is not a factor. Again, it is fairly obvious that if you lacked the resources to produce more effective armour, you would have to produce something less effective.



The best answers should cover why less effective armour would be chosen on both an individual level (such as an adventurer, mercenary or other form of lone traveler) and a militaristic level (such as an army or other large group of organised fighters).



Magic and monsters may factor into your decisions but this is not required for a good answer.






warfare medieval combat armors




warfare medieval combat armors






share|improve this question









New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 18 mins ago









Bob Jarvis

44349




44349






New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









Liam MorrisLiam Morris

215210




215210




New contributor




Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Liam Morris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
    $endgroup$
    – Giu Piete
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Effectiveness depends on context.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
    $endgroup$
    – Giu Piete
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Effectiveness depends on context.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
$endgroup$
– Giu Piete
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
cost often comes in forms other than the initial outlay of funds. You want to go 'adventuring' in your plate armor? You going to ask those brigands to not begin their ambush until you have your armor on? Or do you live in it? If you live it in you're going to need to replace parts of it every week, even without any combat. No asphalt roads bro. Feel like you're walking through a swamp on the best of days, leave Scotland and you're gonna boil to death. Did you remember to bring that mobile forge along with you, btw?
$endgroup$
– Giu Piete
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Effectiveness depends on context.
$endgroup$
– Renan
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Effectiveness depends on context.
$endgroup$
– Renan
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Renan By effectiveness i mean how well it serves it’s intended function, that being protecting the wearer and allowing them mobility. Though what you say is true, full plate would not be as effective in a swamp for example as there would be reduced mobility.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
If I may suggest a meta-answer which will cover all answers: No rational individual would ever choose a less effective armor over a more effective armor. However, their definition of "effective" may be different than you, as the worldbuilder, first think.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@LiamMorris It sounds to me like the higher ranking Roman soldiers found part of the effectiveness of their head-dress was in its interpersonal effects, and they valued those effects more than the lost effects.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
3 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

Comfort, individually



Plate mail is heavy and hot, which is why you don't want to wear it all the time. Instead, you'd strip down your armor while you weren't seriously expecting combat, leaving only the gambeson (cloth padding) or gambeson and chain mail. Much more comfortable, but now you're vulnerable.



Logistics, on an organization level



Let's say you've got an army. One of the important bits about your typical medieval army is how far they can march in a day for a given level of exhaustion. So your army isn't going to be wearing plate mail 24/7. If they're not carrying their armor on their persons, it has to be brought on carts. This means more carts, more draft animals to pull the carts, and more resources for those. It adds up. You also need more blacksmiths to help maintain the armor.



Training



First off, many medieval armies were levies/drafts, were they basically grab one out of every N men in an area. These are not professional soldiers and they would not know how to fight in plate mail, both because of weight and because of the vision impairment. It would take longer to train them in fighting in plate mail.



Don and doff



Plate mail is not easy to get into and out of. It usually required someone to help, and if your entire army is wearing plate mail, along with the gloves (that need to be secured) then you'll have problems.



This is also important because you can't always predict when combat will happen long enough in advance to get into armor. If you're sleeping, outside your armor (see comfort) then it will take you a bit to get into armor. In which time someone will probably stab and/or shoot you.



Trust



In modern times, we have these things called security clearances, because we don't trust everyone. You can't fly a fighter jet without passing a background check, nor will you be hired as an information security officer.



The same principle applies here: as a government, I don't want to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry armor that makes them very hard to put down. I don't trust them. That's reserved for my most loyal troops and bodyguards. With an equipment advantage, my palace guards and bodyguards can compensate for numerical or informational (i.e. ambush) disadvantages.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    4 hours ago



















2












$begingroup$

Say we have a knight in full steel armor, fighting a guy in practically nothing. Certainly, the armor should be useful. However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow.



Perhaps armor stands out. A knight in full metal must be a clear target to raiders than what appears to be a poor "unarmed" beggar/peasant.



Armor also is very annoying in terms of heat (protective fencing gear is bad enough with sweat, I'd hate to imagine 60 pounds of armor).



Traveling also would probably be bad in armor. I highly doubt armor is comfortable for normal situations, nor would I believe knights would always wear armor at all times (sounds like paranoia to me).



Another thing I'd like to note: Spartans would go into battle mostly naked with a shield, breastplate, and helmet. I don't have any idea of the accuracy to this statement, but this getup will already weigh more than 50 pounds in metal, explaining why minimal armor would be favorable.



As a final side note, there is something called the "murder stroke", slamming the hilt of a sword into a helmeted person's skull. Regardless of armor, the impact should still kill. If I face a swordsman of considerable skill, I personally would take the no-armor route and sprint full speed away from them, if I could.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
    $endgroup$
    – TheDyingOfLight
    2 hours ago





















2












$begingroup$

Armor was chosen based on how good it was for its actual purpose. This is the same way modern armies use to choose their equipment.



As an example the rifles used in the world wars had more powerful cartridges and were expected to be accurate to greater distances than modern assault rifles. And you could get them in automatic versions even. But starting in the 30s (I think) more and more armies realized that most soldiers never or extremely rarely shoot beyond 150 to 200 meters. Or need the extra penetration that a full powered rifle cartridge gives.



This means that the rifles are not really better than an assault rifle in actual use. Equipping your common soldiers with those will give you no benefit over using cheaper and lighter assault rifles shooting weaker and cheaper ammunition.



Same logic applies with arming medieval armies with armor. A plate mail is heavy and expensive armor designed for repeatedly getting hit by heavy weapons without taking lethal damage. And it works very well.



But most medieval soldiers do not actually spend that much time getting repeatedly hit by heavy weapons just like most modern soldiers do not spend much time taking long range shots.



Ranged and light units are supposed to avoid taking heavy hits altogether. Equipping them with heavy armor would just make them slower and encourage them to do things they really should not be doing.



Even normal front line melee units where soldiers do get hit with heavy weapons do not really need soldiers to take repeated heavy hits. There are other soldiers behind him who can take the next hit. So such units are equipped with armor that keeps them from taking lethal or crippling injury and keeps them fit enough to fall back.



So who does plate mail make sense for?



Heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. These units are expected to smash thru enemy formations where falling back would leave you alone surrounded by enemies. Or to take a charge without needing to fall back. And it is much easier for the unit not to fall back when individual soldiers do not need to.



Officers in other units usually can use extra protection as having them injured makes other soldiers less effective. You can also have specific elite soldiers with better armor in a melee unit. Typically they would also act as NCOs. This is because they have better abilities or even weapons as other soldiers so having them injured actually makes the unit weaker.



Adventurers in modern RPGs or fantasy are an important group as well. They need all the protection they can carry. Since they are most familiar group of people to use medieval armor to modern people, this kind of skews how most people see armor.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    One answer is that the lesser armour type is lighter, and allows for more rapid troop movements and deployments. If said soldiers have to cross rivers or hike up mountains, lighter armour may be a necessity. Another answer is that full steel plate armor will become a lot hotter in warmer climates. This could be problematic an a desert environment. Another answer is that steel can rust. This might be an issue in a humid environment like a rain forrest.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Your limitation of unlimited resources takes out the most obvious answers. Is work going into the production of the armor not a factor either? Otherweise this would be the most simple reason. Platearmor simply requires a lot of work hourd from skilled craftsmen.



      Without special circumstances there is no reason to settle for inferior protection, neither on a individual nor on a military level. If you can equip youself in a superior way without any disadvantages, why wouldn't you? (caveat here for militaries, sometimes the good old mass assault with arrow catching cannon fodder will still be superior, yet your resource catch negates this unless manpower is also an unlimited resource or mass necromancy is a thing in your world)



      Plate armor will also not limit agility or endurance significantly, as some people will certainly attempt to tell you. Even plate armor still allows you to do acrobatic tricks or to scale a climbing wall. (there are some cool videos of this in Youtube made by the Kingdom Come game developers) The endurence side of things can and should be fixed with training and drill. There might be people who are simply to weak to cope with plate armor, but they would fare poorly in combat against a plate user anyway, so there's no need to debate dead meat.



      That all said, here are some circumstances where other armor might be chosen.



      -Plate armor is ineffective
      This is what happened irl. Guns simply got to powerfull and the performence of plate armor wasn't worth the money.



      -Naval warfare
      Steel plate doesn't like seawater and swimmimg in it gets awkward real quick. Naval landings turn out horrible if your equippment drowns you. (This refers to permanent sea troops (aka sailors). You might still use platy boys (this is a real word xD) for specific operations.



      -Magic
      Strongly depends on the magic system. Yet if there is something some form of metal-bending (no pun intended) like in Avatar: The last air bender plate armor becomes impractical and dangerous. On a similar note many role play systems have metal interfere with spell casting, so there is a good reason why mages would wear cloth armor.



      -Covert Operations
      If you want to take a city with the help of infiltration forces enemy guards will consider a bunch of people coming into the city in gambesons, which can be seen as normal winter cloaks, a lot less conspicuous than a bunch of platy boys. And if the mission will involve fighting, taking the most protection you can get away with is reasonable for individuals as well as for soldiers.



      -Local Customs
      This applies more to individuals. If plate armor is readyly available local rulers might decide to make private ownership illegal to have a military advantage over the people. So any adventurer will be forced to use the next best tier of armor, mail over gambeson.



      -Prestige and Sports
      In the Renaissance Rapier fencing was popular, as it was a test of style and skill. Platy boys bashing their heads in with hellbards and half-sword techniques might be seen as clumsy and brutish. Going to battle (or rather duels) with no armor sends a statement and makes winning more prestigious. Maybe there is a tradition that dictates armorless fighting under certain circumstances.



      -Logistics
      You infinite resource caveat limits this, but this is a serious limitation. Plate armor is maintenence heavy and heavy in it self. A Gambeson only needs sewing kit, but plate needs a forge and a skilled blacksmith to fix. Likewise plate might not be ideal for jungle warfare and especially an army needs significant infrastructure to supply plate to everyone.



      -Tradition and Culture
      A weak one as any culture that is technologically inferior will be conquered quickly, but "we've always done it this way" can be a strong argument.



      -Plot Armor
      I said noone would go for suboptimal armor. But in a medival setting platevarmir isn't the strongest armor, plot armor is. Why would you hero or any main character borther with any type of armor if they can't get hurt anyway.



      TLDR: Under your limitations there is no general good reason to settle for inferior armor. There are a number of exceptions, the only general none quirky one beeing anti-armor magic.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "579"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        Liam Morris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141593%2fwhy-choose-less-effective-armour-types%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        6












        $begingroup$

        Comfort, individually



        Plate mail is heavy and hot, which is why you don't want to wear it all the time. Instead, you'd strip down your armor while you weren't seriously expecting combat, leaving only the gambeson (cloth padding) or gambeson and chain mail. Much more comfortable, but now you're vulnerable.



        Logistics, on an organization level



        Let's say you've got an army. One of the important bits about your typical medieval army is how far they can march in a day for a given level of exhaustion. So your army isn't going to be wearing plate mail 24/7. If they're not carrying their armor on their persons, it has to be brought on carts. This means more carts, more draft animals to pull the carts, and more resources for those. It adds up. You also need more blacksmiths to help maintain the armor.



        Training



        First off, many medieval armies were levies/drafts, were they basically grab one out of every N men in an area. These are not professional soldiers and they would not know how to fight in plate mail, both because of weight and because of the vision impairment. It would take longer to train them in fighting in plate mail.



        Don and doff



        Plate mail is not easy to get into and out of. It usually required someone to help, and if your entire army is wearing plate mail, along with the gloves (that need to be secured) then you'll have problems.



        This is also important because you can't always predict when combat will happen long enough in advance to get into armor. If you're sleeping, outside your armor (see comfort) then it will take you a bit to get into armor. In which time someone will probably stab and/or shoot you.



        Trust



        In modern times, we have these things called security clearances, because we don't trust everyone. You can't fly a fighter jet without passing a background check, nor will you be hired as an information security officer.



        The same principle applies here: as a government, I don't want to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry armor that makes them very hard to put down. I don't trust them. That's reserved for my most loyal troops and bodyguards. With an equipment advantage, my palace guards and bodyguards can compensate for numerical or informational (i.e. ambush) disadvantages.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
          $endgroup$
          – Liam Morris
          4 hours ago
















        6












        $begingroup$

        Comfort, individually



        Plate mail is heavy and hot, which is why you don't want to wear it all the time. Instead, you'd strip down your armor while you weren't seriously expecting combat, leaving only the gambeson (cloth padding) or gambeson and chain mail. Much more comfortable, but now you're vulnerable.



        Logistics, on an organization level



        Let's say you've got an army. One of the important bits about your typical medieval army is how far they can march in a day for a given level of exhaustion. So your army isn't going to be wearing plate mail 24/7. If they're not carrying their armor on their persons, it has to be brought on carts. This means more carts, more draft animals to pull the carts, and more resources for those. It adds up. You also need more blacksmiths to help maintain the armor.



        Training



        First off, many medieval armies were levies/drafts, were they basically grab one out of every N men in an area. These are not professional soldiers and they would not know how to fight in plate mail, both because of weight and because of the vision impairment. It would take longer to train them in fighting in plate mail.



        Don and doff



        Plate mail is not easy to get into and out of. It usually required someone to help, and if your entire army is wearing plate mail, along with the gloves (that need to be secured) then you'll have problems.



        This is also important because you can't always predict when combat will happen long enough in advance to get into armor. If you're sleeping, outside your armor (see comfort) then it will take you a bit to get into armor. In which time someone will probably stab and/or shoot you.



        Trust



        In modern times, we have these things called security clearances, because we don't trust everyone. You can't fly a fighter jet without passing a background check, nor will you be hired as an information security officer.



        The same principle applies here: as a government, I don't want to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry armor that makes them very hard to put down. I don't trust them. That's reserved for my most loyal troops and bodyguards. With an equipment advantage, my palace guards and bodyguards can compensate for numerical or informational (i.e. ambush) disadvantages.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
          $endgroup$
          – Liam Morris
          4 hours ago














        6












        6








        6





        $begingroup$

        Comfort, individually



        Plate mail is heavy and hot, which is why you don't want to wear it all the time. Instead, you'd strip down your armor while you weren't seriously expecting combat, leaving only the gambeson (cloth padding) or gambeson and chain mail. Much more comfortable, but now you're vulnerable.



        Logistics, on an organization level



        Let's say you've got an army. One of the important bits about your typical medieval army is how far they can march in a day for a given level of exhaustion. So your army isn't going to be wearing plate mail 24/7. If they're not carrying their armor on their persons, it has to be brought on carts. This means more carts, more draft animals to pull the carts, and more resources for those. It adds up. You also need more blacksmiths to help maintain the armor.



        Training



        First off, many medieval armies were levies/drafts, were they basically grab one out of every N men in an area. These are not professional soldiers and they would not know how to fight in plate mail, both because of weight and because of the vision impairment. It would take longer to train them in fighting in plate mail.



        Don and doff



        Plate mail is not easy to get into and out of. It usually required someone to help, and if your entire army is wearing plate mail, along with the gloves (that need to be secured) then you'll have problems.



        This is also important because you can't always predict when combat will happen long enough in advance to get into armor. If you're sleeping, outside your armor (see comfort) then it will take you a bit to get into armor. In which time someone will probably stab and/or shoot you.



        Trust



        In modern times, we have these things called security clearances, because we don't trust everyone. You can't fly a fighter jet without passing a background check, nor will you be hired as an information security officer.



        The same principle applies here: as a government, I don't want to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry armor that makes them very hard to put down. I don't trust them. That's reserved for my most loyal troops and bodyguards. With an equipment advantage, my palace guards and bodyguards can compensate for numerical or informational (i.e. ambush) disadvantages.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Comfort, individually



        Plate mail is heavy and hot, which is why you don't want to wear it all the time. Instead, you'd strip down your armor while you weren't seriously expecting combat, leaving only the gambeson (cloth padding) or gambeson and chain mail. Much more comfortable, but now you're vulnerable.



        Logistics, on an organization level



        Let's say you've got an army. One of the important bits about your typical medieval army is how far they can march in a day for a given level of exhaustion. So your army isn't going to be wearing plate mail 24/7. If they're not carrying their armor on their persons, it has to be brought on carts. This means more carts, more draft animals to pull the carts, and more resources for those. It adds up. You also need more blacksmiths to help maintain the armor.



        Training



        First off, many medieval armies were levies/drafts, were they basically grab one out of every N men in an area. These are not professional soldiers and they would not know how to fight in plate mail, both because of weight and because of the vision impairment. It would take longer to train them in fighting in plate mail.



        Don and doff



        Plate mail is not easy to get into and out of. It usually required someone to help, and if your entire army is wearing plate mail, along with the gloves (that need to be secured) then you'll have problems.



        This is also important because you can't always predict when combat will happen long enough in advance to get into armor. If you're sleeping, outside your armor (see comfort) then it will take you a bit to get into armor. In which time someone will probably stab and/or shoot you.



        Trust



        In modern times, we have these things called security clearances, because we don't trust everyone. You can't fly a fighter jet without passing a background check, nor will you be hired as an information security officer.



        The same principle applies here: as a government, I don't want to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry armor that makes them very hard to put down. I don't trust them. That's reserved for my most loyal troops and bodyguards. With an equipment advantage, my palace guards and bodyguards can compensate for numerical or informational (i.e. ambush) disadvantages.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        ltmauveltmauve

        2,385616




        2,385616












        • $begingroup$
          I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
          $endgroup$
          – Liam Morris
          4 hours ago


















        • $begingroup$
          I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
          $endgroup$
          – Liam Morris
          4 hours ago
















        $begingroup$
        I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
        $endgroup$
        – Liam Morris
        4 hours ago




        $begingroup$
        I like your idea on trust, it is not something i considered. Perhaps you’d need a license of some sort to own full steel plate, similar to how you need a license to own a gun in our modern world.
        $endgroup$
        – Liam Morris
        4 hours ago











        2












        $begingroup$

        Say we have a knight in full steel armor, fighting a guy in practically nothing. Certainly, the armor should be useful. However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow.



        Perhaps armor stands out. A knight in full metal must be a clear target to raiders than what appears to be a poor "unarmed" beggar/peasant.



        Armor also is very annoying in terms of heat (protective fencing gear is bad enough with sweat, I'd hate to imagine 60 pounds of armor).



        Traveling also would probably be bad in armor. I highly doubt armor is comfortable for normal situations, nor would I believe knights would always wear armor at all times (sounds like paranoia to me).



        Another thing I'd like to note: Spartans would go into battle mostly naked with a shield, breastplate, and helmet. I don't have any idea of the accuracy to this statement, but this getup will already weigh more than 50 pounds in metal, explaining why minimal armor would be favorable.



        As a final side note, there is something called the "murder stroke", slamming the hilt of a sword into a helmeted person's skull. Regardless of armor, the impact should still kill. If I face a swordsman of considerable skill, I personally would take the no-armor route and sprint full speed away from them, if I could.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
          $endgroup$
          – TheDyingOfLight
          2 hours ago


















        2












        $begingroup$

        Say we have a knight in full steel armor, fighting a guy in practically nothing. Certainly, the armor should be useful. However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow.



        Perhaps armor stands out. A knight in full metal must be a clear target to raiders than what appears to be a poor "unarmed" beggar/peasant.



        Armor also is very annoying in terms of heat (protective fencing gear is bad enough with sweat, I'd hate to imagine 60 pounds of armor).



        Traveling also would probably be bad in armor. I highly doubt armor is comfortable for normal situations, nor would I believe knights would always wear armor at all times (sounds like paranoia to me).



        Another thing I'd like to note: Spartans would go into battle mostly naked with a shield, breastplate, and helmet. I don't have any idea of the accuracy to this statement, but this getup will already weigh more than 50 pounds in metal, explaining why minimal armor would be favorable.



        As a final side note, there is something called the "murder stroke", slamming the hilt of a sword into a helmeted person's skull. Regardless of armor, the impact should still kill. If I face a swordsman of considerable skill, I personally would take the no-armor route and sprint full speed away from them, if I could.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
          $endgroup$
          – TheDyingOfLight
          2 hours ago
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Say we have a knight in full steel armor, fighting a guy in practically nothing. Certainly, the armor should be useful. However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow.



        Perhaps armor stands out. A knight in full metal must be a clear target to raiders than what appears to be a poor "unarmed" beggar/peasant.



        Armor also is very annoying in terms of heat (protective fencing gear is bad enough with sweat, I'd hate to imagine 60 pounds of armor).



        Traveling also would probably be bad in armor. I highly doubt armor is comfortable for normal situations, nor would I believe knights would always wear armor at all times (sounds like paranoia to me).



        Another thing I'd like to note: Spartans would go into battle mostly naked with a shield, breastplate, and helmet. I don't have any idea of the accuracy to this statement, but this getup will already weigh more than 50 pounds in metal, explaining why minimal armor would be favorable.



        As a final side note, there is something called the "murder stroke", slamming the hilt of a sword into a helmeted person's skull. Regardless of armor, the impact should still kill. If I face a swordsman of considerable skill, I personally would take the no-armor route and sprint full speed away from them, if I could.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$



        Say we have a knight in full steel armor, fighting a guy in practically nothing. Certainly, the armor should be useful. However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow.



        Perhaps armor stands out. A knight in full metal must be a clear target to raiders than what appears to be a poor "unarmed" beggar/peasant.



        Armor also is very annoying in terms of heat (protective fencing gear is bad enough with sweat, I'd hate to imagine 60 pounds of armor).



        Traveling also would probably be bad in armor. I highly doubt armor is comfortable for normal situations, nor would I believe knights would always wear armor at all times (sounds like paranoia to me).



        Another thing I'd like to note: Spartans would go into battle mostly naked with a shield, breastplate, and helmet. I don't have any idea of the accuracy to this statement, but this getup will already weigh more than 50 pounds in metal, explaining why minimal armor would be favorable.



        As a final side note, there is something called the "murder stroke", slamming the hilt of a sword into a helmeted person's skull. Regardless of armor, the impact should still kill. If I face a swordsman of considerable skill, I personally would take the no-armor route and sprint full speed away from them, if I could.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 4 hours ago









        FiremorfoxFiremorfox

        434




        434




        New contributor




        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Firemorfox is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.












        • $begingroup$
          "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
          $endgroup$
          – TheDyingOfLight
          2 hours ago




















        • $begingroup$
          "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
          $endgroup$
          – TheDyingOfLight
          2 hours ago


















        $begingroup$
        "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
        $endgroup$
        – TheDyingOfLight
        2 hours ago






        $begingroup$
        "However, fire and blunt weapons will both be worse for the knight, because dodging is presumably far harder. A skilled fighter also may opt for lighter armor to outmaneuver the knight, such as using a sword (armor blocks slash attacks), and stabbing joints with the faster and more accurate movement the light/no armor can allow." Have you ever actually fought in armor? While I don't have experience in plate, even plate users stay very mobile and can still do acrobatic tricks. When I fight people dressed in sports cloth wearing mail or gambeson there is no harder dodging or faster attacking.
        $endgroup$
        – TheDyingOfLight
        2 hours ago













        2












        $begingroup$

        Armor was chosen based on how good it was for its actual purpose. This is the same way modern armies use to choose their equipment.



        As an example the rifles used in the world wars had more powerful cartridges and were expected to be accurate to greater distances than modern assault rifles. And you could get them in automatic versions even. But starting in the 30s (I think) more and more armies realized that most soldiers never or extremely rarely shoot beyond 150 to 200 meters. Or need the extra penetration that a full powered rifle cartridge gives.



        This means that the rifles are not really better than an assault rifle in actual use. Equipping your common soldiers with those will give you no benefit over using cheaper and lighter assault rifles shooting weaker and cheaper ammunition.



        Same logic applies with arming medieval armies with armor. A plate mail is heavy and expensive armor designed for repeatedly getting hit by heavy weapons without taking lethal damage. And it works very well.



        But most medieval soldiers do not actually spend that much time getting repeatedly hit by heavy weapons just like most modern soldiers do not spend much time taking long range shots.



        Ranged and light units are supposed to avoid taking heavy hits altogether. Equipping them with heavy armor would just make them slower and encourage them to do things they really should not be doing.



        Even normal front line melee units where soldiers do get hit with heavy weapons do not really need soldiers to take repeated heavy hits. There are other soldiers behind him who can take the next hit. So such units are equipped with armor that keeps them from taking lethal or crippling injury and keeps them fit enough to fall back.



        So who does plate mail make sense for?



        Heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. These units are expected to smash thru enemy formations where falling back would leave you alone surrounded by enemies. Or to take a charge without needing to fall back. And it is much easier for the unit not to fall back when individual soldiers do not need to.



        Officers in other units usually can use extra protection as having them injured makes other soldiers less effective. You can also have specific elite soldiers with better armor in a melee unit. Typically they would also act as NCOs. This is because they have better abilities or even weapons as other soldiers so having them injured actually makes the unit weaker.



        Adventurers in modern RPGs or fantasy are an important group as well. They need all the protection they can carry. Since they are most familiar group of people to use medieval armor to modern people, this kind of skews how most people see armor.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Armor was chosen based on how good it was for its actual purpose. This is the same way modern armies use to choose their equipment.



          As an example the rifles used in the world wars had more powerful cartridges and were expected to be accurate to greater distances than modern assault rifles. And you could get them in automatic versions even. But starting in the 30s (I think) more and more armies realized that most soldiers never or extremely rarely shoot beyond 150 to 200 meters. Or need the extra penetration that a full powered rifle cartridge gives.



          This means that the rifles are not really better than an assault rifle in actual use. Equipping your common soldiers with those will give you no benefit over using cheaper and lighter assault rifles shooting weaker and cheaper ammunition.



          Same logic applies with arming medieval armies with armor. A plate mail is heavy and expensive armor designed for repeatedly getting hit by heavy weapons without taking lethal damage. And it works very well.



          But most medieval soldiers do not actually spend that much time getting repeatedly hit by heavy weapons just like most modern soldiers do not spend much time taking long range shots.



          Ranged and light units are supposed to avoid taking heavy hits altogether. Equipping them with heavy armor would just make them slower and encourage them to do things they really should not be doing.



          Even normal front line melee units where soldiers do get hit with heavy weapons do not really need soldiers to take repeated heavy hits. There are other soldiers behind him who can take the next hit. So such units are equipped with armor that keeps them from taking lethal or crippling injury and keeps them fit enough to fall back.



          So who does plate mail make sense for?



          Heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. These units are expected to smash thru enemy formations where falling back would leave you alone surrounded by enemies. Or to take a charge without needing to fall back. And it is much easier for the unit not to fall back when individual soldiers do not need to.



          Officers in other units usually can use extra protection as having them injured makes other soldiers less effective. You can also have specific elite soldiers with better armor in a melee unit. Typically they would also act as NCOs. This is because they have better abilities or even weapons as other soldiers so having them injured actually makes the unit weaker.



          Adventurers in modern RPGs or fantasy are an important group as well. They need all the protection they can carry. Since they are most familiar group of people to use medieval armor to modern people, this kind of skews how most people see armor.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$
















            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            Armor was chosen based on how good it was for its actual purpose. This is the same way modern armies use to choose their equipment.



            As an example the rifles used in the world wars had more powerful cartridges and were expected to be accurate to greater distances than modern assault rifles. And you could get them in automatic versions even. But starting in the 30s (I think) more and more armies realized that most soldiers never or extremely rarely shoot beyond 150 to 200 meters. Or need the extra penetration that a full powered rifle cartridge gives.



            This means that the rifles are not really better than an assault rifle in actual use. Equipping your common soldiers with those will give you no benefit over using cheaper and lighter assault rifles shooting weaker and cheaper ammunition.



            Same logic applies with arming medieval armies with armor. A plate mail is heavy and expensive armor designed for repeatedly getting hit by heavy weapons without taking lethal damage. And it works very well.



            But most medieval soldiers do not actually spend that much time getting repeatedly hit by heavy weapons just like most modern soldiers do not spend much time taking long range shots.



            Ranged and light units are supposed to avoid taking heavy hits altogether. Equipping them with heavy armor would just make them slower and encourage them to do things they really should not be doing.



            Even normal front line melee units where soldiers do get hit with heavy weapons do not really need soldiers to take repeated heavy hits. There are other soldiers behind him who can take the next hit. So such units are equipped with armor that keeps them from taking lethal or crippling injury and keeps them fit enough to fall back.



            So who does plate mail make sense for?



            Heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. These units are expected to smash thru enemy formations where falling back would leave you alone surrounded by enemies. Or to take a charge without needing to fall back. And it is much easier for the unit not to fall back when individual soldiers do not need to.



            Officers in other units usually can use extra protection as having them injured makes other soldiers less effective. You can also have specific elite soldiers with better armor in a melee unit. Typically they would also act as NCOs. This is because they have better abilities or even weapons as other soldiers so having them injured actually makes the unit weaker.



            Adventurers in modern RPGs or fantasy are an important group as well. They need all the protection they can carry. Since they are most familiar group of people to use medieval armor to modern people, this kind of skews how most people see armor.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Armor was chosen based on how good it was for its actual purpose. This is the same way modern armies use to choose their equipment.



            As an example the rifles used in the world wars had more powerful cartridges and were expected to be accurate to greater distances than modern assault rifles. And you could get them in automatic versions even. But starting in the 30s (I think) more and more armies realized that most soldiers never or extremely rarely shoot beyond 150 to 200 meters. Or need the extra penetration that a full powered rifle cartridge gives.



            This means that the rifles are not really better than an assault rifle in actual use. Equipping your common soldiers with those will give you no benefit over using cheaper and lighter assault rifles shooting weaker and cheaper ammunition.



            Same logic applies with arming medieval armies with armor. A plate mail is heavy and expensive armor designed for repeatedly getting hit by heavy weapons without taking lethal damage. And it works very well.



            But most medieval soldiers do not actually spend that much time getting repeatedly hit by heavy weapons just like most modern soldiers do not spend much time taking long range shots.



            Ranged and light units are supposed to avoid taking heavy hits altogether. Equipping them with heavy armor would just make them slower and encourage them to do things they really should not be doing.



            Even normal front line melee units where soldiers do get hit with heavy weapons do not really need soldiers to take repeated heavy hits. There are other soldiers behind him who can take the next hit. So such units are equipped with armor that keeps them from taking lethal or crippling injury and keeps them fit enough to fall back.



            So who does plate mail make sense for?



            Heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. These units are expected to smash thru enemy formations where falling back would leave you alone surrounded by enemies. Or to take a charge without needing to fall back. And it is much easier for the unit not to fall back when individual soldiers do not need to.



            Officers in other units usually can use extra protection as having them injured makes other soldiers less effective. You can also have specific elite soldiers with better armor in a melee unit. Typically they would also act as NCOs. This is because they have better abilities or even weapons as other soldiers so having them injured actually makes the unit weaker.



            Adventurers in modern RPGs or fantasy are an important group as well. They need all the protection they can carry. Since they are most familiar group of people to use medieval armor to modern people, this kind of skews how most people see armor.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 4 hours ago

























            answered 4 hours ago









            Ville NiemiVille Niemi

            34k260118




            34k260118























                1












                $begingroup$

                One answer is that the lesser armour type is lighter, and allows for more rapid troop movements and deployments. If said soldiers have to cross rivers or hike up mountains, lighter armour may be a necessity. Another answer is that full steel plate armor will become a lot hotter in warmer climates. This could be problematic an a desert environment. Another answer is that steel can rust. This might be an issue in a humid environment like a rain forrest.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  One answer is that the lesser armour type is lighter, and allows for more rapid troop movements and deployments. If said soldiers have to cross rivers or hike up mountains, lighter armour may be a necessity. Another answer is that full steel plate armor will become a lot hotter in warmer climates. This could be problematic an a desert environment. Another answer is that steel can rust. This might be an issue in a humid environment like a rain forrest.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    One answer is that the lesser armour type is lighter, and allows for more rapid troop movements and deployments. If said soldiers have to cross rivers or hike up mountains, lighter armour may be a necessity. Another answer is that full steel plate armor will become a lot hotter in warmer climates. This could be problematic an a desert environment. Another answer is that steel can rust. This might be an issue in a humid environment like a rain forrest.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    One answer is that the lesser armour type is lighter, and allows for more rapid troop movements and deployments. If said soldiers have to cross rivers or hike up mountains, lighter armour may be a necessity. Another answer is that full steel plate armor will become a lot hotter in warmer climates. This could be problematic an a desert environment. Another answer is that steel can rust. This might be an issue in a humid environment like a rain forrest.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 4 hours ago









                    SciFiGuySciFiGuy

                    8208




                    8208























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Your limitation of unlimited resources takes out the most obvious answers. Is work going into the production of the armor not a factor either? Otherweise this would be the most simple reason. Platearmor simply requires a lot of work hourd from skilled craftsmen.



                        Without special circumstances there is no reason to settle for inferior protection, neither on a individual nor on a military level. If you can equip youself in a superior way without any disadvantages, why wouldn't you? (caveat here for militaries, sometimes the good old mass assault with arrow catching cannon fodder will still be superior, yet your resource catch negates this unless manpower is also an unlimited resource or mass necromancy is a thing in your world)



                        Plate armor will also not limit agility or endurance significantly, as some people will certainly attempt to tell you. Even plate armor still allows you to do acrobatic tricks or to scale a climbing wall. (there are some cool videos of this in Youtube made by the Kingdom Come game developers) The endurence side of things can and should be fixed with training and drill. There might be people who are simply to weak to cope with plate armor, but they would fare poorly in combat against a plate user anyway, so there's no need to debate dead meat.



                        That all said, here are some circumstances where other armor might be chosen.



                        -Plate armor is ineffective
                        This is what happened irl. Guns simply got to powerfull and the performence of plate armor wasn't worth the money.



                        -Naval warfare
                        Steel plate doesn't like seawater and swimmimg in it gets awkward real quick. Naval landings turn out horrible if your equippment drowns you. (This refers to permanent sea troops (aka sailors). You might still use platy boys (this is a real word xD) for specific operations.



                        -Magic
                        Strongly depends on the magic system. Yet if there is something some form of metal-bending (no pun intended) like in Avatar: The last air bender plate armor becomes impractical and dangerous. On a similar note many role play systems have metal interfere with spell casting, so there is a good reason why mages would wear cloth armor.



                        -Covert Operations
                        If you want to take a city with the help of infiltration forces enemy guards will consider a bunch of people coming into the city in gambesons, which can be seen as normal winter cloaks, a lot less conspicuous than a bunch of platy boys. And if the mission will involve fighting, taking the most protection you can get away with is reasonable for individuals as well as for soldiers.



                        -Local Customs
                        This applies more to individuals. If plate armor is readyly available local rulers might decide to make private ownership illegal to have a military advantage over the people. So any adventurer will be forced to use the next best tier of armor, mail over gambeson.



                        -Prestige and Sports
                        In the Renaissance Rapier fencing was popular, as it was a test of style and skill. Platy boys bashing their heads in with hellbards and half-sword techniques might be seen as clumsy and brutish. Going to battle (or rather duels) with no armor sends a statement and makes winning more prestigious. Maybe there is a tradition that dictates armorless fighting under certain circumstances.



                        -Logistics
                        You infinite resource caveat limits this, but this is a serious limitation. Plate armor is maintenence heavy and heavy in it self. A Gambeson only needs sewing kit, but plate needs a forge and a skilled blacksmith to fix. Likewise plate might not be ideal for jungle warfare and especially an army needs significant infrastructure to supply plate to everyone.



                        -Tradition and Culture
                        A weak one as any culture that is technologically inferior will be conquered quickly, but "we've always done it this way" can be a strong argument.



                        -Plot Armor
                        I said noone would go for suboptimal armor. But in a medival setting platevarmir isn't the strongest armor, plot armor is. Why would you hero or any main character borther with any type of armor if they can't get hurt anyway.



                        TLDR: Under your limitations there is no general good reason to settle for inferior armor. There are a number of exceptions, the only general none quirky one beeing anti-armor magic.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Your limitation of unlimited resources takes out the most obvious answers. Is work going into the production of the armor not a factor either? Otherweise this would be the most simple reason. Platearmor simply requires a lot of work hourd from skilled craftsmen.



                          Without special circumstances there is no reason to settle for inferior protection, neither on a individual nor on a military level. If you can equip youself in a superior way without any disadvantages, why wouldn't you? (caveat here for militaries, sometimes the good old mass assault with arrow catching cannon fodder will still be superior, yet your resource catch negates this unless manpower is also an unlimited resource or mass necromancy is a thing in your world)



                          Plate armor will also not limit agility or endurance significantly, as some people will certainly attempt to tell you. Even plate armor still allows you to do acrobatic tricks or to scale a climbing wall. (there are some cool videos of this in Youtube made by the Kingdom Come game developers) The endurence side of things can and should be fixed with training and drill. There might be people who are simply to weak to cope with plate armor, but they would fare poorly in combat against a plate user anyway, so there's no need to debate dead meat.



                          That all said, here are some circumstances where other armor might be chosen.



                          -Plate armor is ineffective
                          This is what happened irl. Guns simply got to powerfull and the performence of plate armor wasn't worth the money.



                          -Naval warfare
                          Steel plate doesn't like seawater and swimmimg in it gets awkward real quick. Naval landings turn out horrible if your equippment drowns you. (This refers to permanent sea troops (aka sailors). You might still use platy boys (this is a real word xD) for specific operations.



                          -Magic
                          Strongly depends on the magic system. Yet if there is something some form of metal-bending (no pun intended) like in Avatar: The last air bender plate armor becomes impractical and dangerous. On a similar note many role play systems have metal interfere with spell casting, so there is a good reason why mages would wear cloth armor.



                          -Covert Operations
                          If you want to take a city with the help of infiltration forces enemy guards will consider a bunch of people coming into the city in gambesons, which can be seen as normal winter cloaks, a lot less conspicuous than a bunch of platy boys. And if the mission will involve fighting, taking the most protection you can get away with is reasonable for individuals as well as for soldiers.



                          -Local Customs
                          This applies more to individuals. If plate armor is readyly available local rulers might decide to make private ownership illegal to have a military advantage over the people. So any adventurer will be forced to use the next best tier of armor, mail over gambeson.



                          -Prestige and Sports
                          In the Renaissance Rapier fencing was popular, as it was a test of style and skill. Platy boys bashing their heads in with hellbards and half-sword techniques might be seen as clumsy and brutish. Going to battle (or rather duels) with no armor sends a statement and makes winning more prestigious. Maybe there is a tradition that dictates armorless fighting under certain circumstances.



                          -Logistics
                          You infinite resource caveat limits this, but this is a serious limitation. Plate armor is maintenence heavy and heavy in it self. A Gambeson only needs sewing kit, but plate needs a forge and a skilled blacksmith to fix. Likewise plate might not be ideal for jungle warfare and especially an army needs significant infrastructure to supply plate to everyone.



                          -Tradition and Culture
                          A weak one as any culture that is technologically inferior will be conquered quickly, but "we've always done it this way" can be a strong argument.



                          -Plot Armor
                          I said noone would go for suboptimal armor. But in a medival setting platevarmir isn't the strongest armor, plot armor is. Why would you hero or any main character borther with any type of armor if they can't get hurt anyway.



                          TLDR: Under your limitations there is no general good reason to settle for inferior armor. There are a number of exceptions, the only general none quirky one beeing anti-armor magic.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            Your limitation of unlimited resources takes out the most obvious answers. Is work going into the production of the armor not a factor either? Otherweise this would be the most simple reason. Platearmor simply requires a lot of work hourd from skilled craftsmen.



                            Without special circumstances there is no reason to settle for inferior protection, neither on a individual nor on a military level. If you can equip youself in a superior way without any disadvantages, why wouldn't you? (caveat here for militaries, sometimes the good old mass assault with arrow catching cannon fodder will still be superior, yet your resource catch negates this unless manpower is also an unlimited resource or mass necromancy is a thing in your world)



                            Plate armor will also not limit agility or endurance significantly, as some people will certainly attempt to tell you. Even plate armor still allows you to do acrobatic tricks or to scale a climbing wall. (there are some cool videos of this in Youtube made by the Kingdom Come game developers) The endurence side of things can and should be fixed with training and drill. There might be people who are simply to weak to cope with plate armor, but they would fare poorly in combat against a plate user anyway, so there's no need to debate dead meat.



                            That all said, here are some circumstances where other armor might be chosen.



                            -Plate armor is ineffective
                            This is what happened irl. Guns simply got to powerfull and the performence of plate armor wasn't worth the money.



                            -Naval warfare
                            Steel plate doesn't like seawater and swimmimg in it gets awkward real quick. Naval landings turn out horrible if your equippment drowns you. (This refers to permanent sea troops (aka sailors). You might still use platy boys (this is a real word xD) for specific operations.



                            -Magic
                            Strongly depends on the magic system. Yet if there is something some form of metal-bending (no pun intended) like in Avatar: The last air bender plate armor becomes impractical and dangerous. On a similar note many role play systems have metal interfere with spell casting, so there is a good reason why mages would wear cloth armor.



                            -Covert Operations
                            If you want to take a city with the help of infiltration forces enemy guards will consider a bunch of people coming into the city in gambesons, which can be seen as normal winter cloaks, a lot less conspicuous than a bunch of platy boys. And if the mission will involve fighting, taking the most protection you can get away with is reasonable for individuals as well as for soldiers.



                            -Local Customs
                            This applies more to individuals. If plate armor is readyly available local rulers might decide to make private ownership illegal to have a military advantage over the people. So any adventurer will be forced to use the next best tier of armor, mail over gambeson.



                            -Prestige and Sports
                            In the Renaissance Rapier fencing was popular, as it was a test of style and skill. Platy boys bashing their heads in with hellbards and half-sword techniques might be seen as clumsy and brutish. Going to battle (or rather duels) with no armor sends a statement and makes winning more prestigious. Maybe there is a tradition that dictates armorless fighting under certain circumstances.



                            -Logistics
                            You infinite resource caveat limits this, but this is a serious limitation. Plate armor is maintenence heavy and heavy in it self. A Gambeson only needs sewing kit, but plate needs a forge and a skilled blacksmith to fix. Likewise plate might not be ideal for jungle warfare and especially an army needs significant infrastructure to supply plate to everyone.



                            -Tradition and Culture
                            A weak one as any culture that is technologically inferior will be conquered quickly, but "we've always done it this way" can be a strong argument.



                            -Plot Armor
                            I said noone would go for suboptimal armor. But in a medival setting platevarmir isn't the strongest armor, plot armor is. Why would you hero or any main character borther with any type of armor if they can't get hurt anyway.



                            TLDR: Under your limitations there is no general good reason to settle for inferior armor. There are a number of exceptions, the only general none quirky one beeing anti-armor magic.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Your limitation of unlimited resources takes out the most obvious answers. Is work going into the production of the armor not a factor either? Otherweise this would be the most simple reason. Platearmor simply requires a lot of work hourd from skilled craftsmen.



                            Without special circumstances there is no reason to settle for inferior protection, neither on a individual nor on a military level. If you can equip youself in a superior way without any disadvantages, why wouldn't you? (caveat here for militaries, sometimes the good old mass assault with arrow catching cannon fodder will still be superior, yet your resource catch negates this unless manpower is also an unlimited resource or mass necromancy is a thing in your world)



                            Plate armor will also not limit agility or endurance significantly, as some people will certainly attempt to tell you. Even plate armor still allows you to do acrobatic tricks or to scale a climbing wall. (there are some cool videos of this in Youtube made by the Kingdom Come game developers) The endurence side of things can and should be fixed with training and drill. There might be people who are simply to weak to cope with plate armor, but they would fare poorly in combat against a plate user anyway, so there's no need to debate dead meat.



                            That all said, here are some circumstances where other armor might be chosen.



                            -Plate armor is ineffective
                            This is what happened irl. Guns simply got to powerfull and the performence of plate armor wasn't worth the money.



                            -Naval warfare
                            Steel plate doesn't like seawater and swimmimg in it gets awkward real quick. Naval landings turn out horrible if your equippment drowns you. (This refers to permanent sea troops (aka sailors). You might still use platy boys (this is a real word xD) for specific operations.



                            -Magic
                            Strongly depends on the magic system. Yet if there is something some form of metal-bending (no pun intended) like in Avatar: The last air bender plate armor becomes impractical and dangerous. On a similar note many role play systems have metal interfere with spell casting, so there is a good reason why mages would wear cloth armor.



                            -Covert Operations
                            If you want to take a city with the help of infiltration forces enemy guards will consider a bunch of people coming into the city in gambesons, which can be seen as normal winter cloaks, a lot less conspicuous than a bunch of platy boys. And if the mission will involve fighting, taking the most protection you can get away with is reasonable for individuals as well as for soldiers.



                            -Local Customs
                            This applies more to individuals. If plate armor is readyly available local rulers might decide to make private ownership illegal to have a military advantage over the people. So any adventurer will be forced to use the next best tier of armor, mail over gambeson.



                            -Prestige and Sports
                            In the Renaissance Rapier fencing was popular, as it was a test of style and skill. Platy boys bashing their heads in with hellbards and half-sword techniques might be seen as clumsy and brutish. Going to battle (or rather duels) with no armor sends a statement and makes winning more prestigious. Maybe there is a tradition that dictates armorless fighting under certain circumstances.



                            -Logistics
                            You infinite resource caveat limits this, but this is a serious limitation. Plate armor is maintenence heavy and heavy in it self. A Gambeson only needs sewing kit, but plate needs a forge and a skilled blacksmith to fix. Likewise plate might not be ideal for jungle warfare and especially an army needs significant infrastructure to supply plate to everyone.



                            -Tradition and Culture
                            A weak one as any culture that is technologically inferior will be conquered quickly, but "we've always done it this way" can be a strong argument.



                            -Plot Armor
                            I said noone would go for suboptimal armor. But in a medival setting platevarmir isn't the strongest armor, plot armor is. Why would you hero or any main character borther with any type of armor if they can't get hurt anyway.



                            TLDR: Under your limitations there is no general good reason to settle for inferior armor. There are a number of exceptions, the only general none quirky one beeing anti-armor magic.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 2 hours ago









                            TheDyingOfLightTheDyingOfLight

                            915




                            915






















                                Liam Morris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Liam Morris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                Liam Morris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Liam Morris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid …



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141593%2fwhy-choose-less-effective-armour-types%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                -

                                Popular posts from this blog

                                GameSpot

                                Image
                                body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分
                                Read more

                                connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

                                Image
                                .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 1 1 I created a Ubuntu Vagrant box and ssh'd into it. Now, created a ssh key and trying to ssh to my localhost but I get the following error. vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ ssh -vvvv localhost OpenSSH_6.6.1, OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 19: Applying options for * debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to localhost [127.0.0.1] port 22. debug1: connect to address 127.0.0.1 port 22: Connection refused ssh: connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused When I check the list of ports opened as follows: vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ s
                                Read more

                                Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection

                                Image
                                .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I've been trying to get a simple wifi connection ! bu I have to admit I just can't get it done ! here is what I've tried: root@MYONE:/etc# clear root@MYONE:/etc# vi wpa_supplicant.conf ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant ctrl_interface_group=0 update_config=1 network={ ssid="Mi Engine" psk="7407352688e4" } root@MYONE:/etc# iw wlan0 link Not connected. root@MYONE:/etc# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 74:FE:48:3A:55:AB inet addr:192.168.178.88 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::76fe:48ff:fe3a:55ab%4804152/64 Scope:Link UP BRO
                                Read more