Helms, Greaves and Gauntlets...

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

If memory serves me it was from an article from Pyramid about historical weight of armor, weight is for torso PLUS sleeves PLUS leggings. 7 lbs is what I have fro winter clothing, I'm considering this quilted armor, though I'm not sure what variety, I'm not an expert at this at all.

In Mail - Why Bother. Dan corrects the weight for gambeson from 6lbs to 4lbs (body hit location) and further states that a 6lb gambeson would reach the knees and have a hauberk-like hit location coverage. This example is at 5lbs (which includes arms) at +2lbs (difference between haubergeon style and hauberk) you'll have 7lbs covering up to the knees.

hope this can be helpfull.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

If memory serves me it was from an article from Pyramid about historical weight of armor, weight is for torso PLUS sleeves PLUS leggings. 7 lbs is what I have fro winter clothing, I'm considering this quilted armor, though I'm not sure what variety, I'm not an expert at this at all.
You may have a point though, it's hard to imagine something like cloth armor wich is built for military purposes to have twice the weight of winter clothing and as much DR...

For what it is worth, I recently did some "for fun" tests to see what kind of protection cloth armor could give
http://panoptes.livejournal.com/80287.html
I make no claims that any of this is historical, but note that both burlap and cotton armor at about 10 kg/m^2 could stop all underhand thrusts and all swings from swords, but didn't stop an overhand stab from a combat knife and let one swing from a geology hammer through.

Just for fun, I then took the armor down to the shootin' range
http://panoptes.livejournal.com/80571.html
http://panoptes.livejournal.com/80742.html
where I learned that bullets can get through plate, and bullets can get through cloth, but a combo of plate over cloth is surprisingly effective against pistol bullets.

Luke

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Most cowboy/gaucho boots do weigh around 4 lbs (~1¾ kg).

Boot weights on a sale site.

The weird thing about that site is that all those boots weigh exactly 4 lbs, the one that's just shoe-like weighs 3lbs. These nice round numbers don't convince me, and it's a commercial site to... boot.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just skeptical. Other sites I've found have thick-rubber soles and whatnot. There are design variations, argentinian gaucho boots for instance have much cruder leather and somewhat thinner, also almost no sole at all (I might not give it DR 2 though).

1,75kg does seem better, but if I convert gear using exact math instead of the 2/1 ratio it'll screw up with encumbrance. On heavier gear, differences will get even bigger. Meaning that in metric the character will be capable of using said gear in Light Encumbrance while the same character using lbs for measure will suddenly have Medium Encumbrance. It does help my appease my disbelif though :P

I'll check.

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Since it's not source material, but house-rules I decided to post what I managed to scare up, so as to help the discussion along. Please feel free to point out any innacuracies, criticism is more than welcome!

Torso, Legs and Arm:

Light Mail, DR 3/2, 18 lbs, $1.750
Medium Mail, DR 4/2, 30 lbs, $1.100
Heavy Mail, DR 4/2 45 lbs, $550
Medium Double-Mail, DR 5/3 45 lbs, $2.200
Heavy Double-Mail, DR 5/3 90 lbs, $1.100

Jack, DR 3, 17 lbs, $375

You may want to use "Mail - Why bother" as your reference for the varieties of mail armor. According to the article, double mail is not a double layer of mail, instead it refers to mail with a gauge of +40% (which is why its roughly double the weight). The kinds of armor are Light Mail (a variation of Light mail is Very Fine mail), Augmented Mail, Bar Mail, Double Mail, Triple Mail, and Combined Mail. A full suit (arms legs and body) weighs 23, 28, 43, 46, 69, 46 and +7 (padded).

[ArmoredSaint]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Wait, plate feet armor (padding, plates and all) would weigh 2 lbs!? That's a bit unbelievable.
Or do you mean that the sabatons alone (no padding, no greaves) weigh 2 lbs?

Why is that unbelievable? Sabatons alone might weigh around two pounds, but the shoes worn beneath aren't going to increase that total by much.

To be honest, I can't find any sources, written or pictorial, that indicate that any sort of padding was commonly worn with greaves and sabatons. There exist one or two surviving pairs of "arming hose," but these don't seem to have been common, and they are not heavily padded; more to the point, I don't think they offer much coverage at all to the feet. One or two sources ("How a Man shall be Armed, etc.") mention strips of blanket wrapped about the knees, but that's all--the hosen and shoes seem to have been judged adequate to wear alone under greaves and sabatons. And medieval shoes were substantially lighter than modern shoes, probably weighing only a few ounces.

I have been unable to track down any weights for sabatons, but my copy of Boccia's "L'Armatura Lombarda, etc" gives the following weights for quite a few greaves in the collection at Mantova, all dating from the latter half of the 15th century (these are for individual greaves, not per pair unless otherwise noted):
800grams--1.76lbs
950grams--2.09lbs
850grams--1.87lbs
900grams--1.98lbs
1250grams--2.75lbs
910grams--2.00lbs

For the sake of completeness, I will include the weights of some of the upper leg harness (cuisse & poleyn) that go with the above greaves (once again, individual pieces, not pairs):
1550grams--3.41lbs
1650grams--3.63lbs
1500grams--3.3lbs
1510grams--3.32lbs
1570grams--3.45lbs
1700grams--3.74lbs

Thus, the very heaviest pair of legharness here weighs in at 13lbs. I doubt that the hosen and blanket-wraps for the knees would even knock the total weight of one of these legharness up to 15 pounds, making even the lightest GURPS plate legs too heavy by at least 25%.

While I can't (yet) dig up any weights on extant sabatons, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they'd weigh any more than any other component of the legharness. Seven pounds--or even five pounds--is a much too large figure.

For what it's worth, my own reproduction sabatons (18-20ga spring steel), together with the ankle boots that I wear under them, weigh only ~1500grams(3.3pounds) for the pair, and they're probably heavier than the genuine article. I include a couple of photos for the sake of clarity:
ankle boot: http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/DCP_0908.jpg
sabaton (with greave):http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/sabbie1.bmp

The other weights given for plate armour in the GURPS books are also way, way off, as has been amply demonstrated before. Since this thread focuses on gauntlets, greaves, and sabatons, I won't go into how egregiously incorrect the weights for corselets and armharnesses are. Curiously, though, the gauntlet weights are just about right...

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

And medieval shoes were substantially lighter than modern shoes, probably weighing only a few ounces.
[...]
For what it's worth, my own reproduction sabatons (18-20ga spring steel), together with the ankle boots that I wear under them, weigh only ~1500grams(3.3pounds) for the pair, and they're probably heavier than the genuine article. I include a couple of photos for the sake of clarity:
ankle boot: http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/DCP_0908.jpg
sabaton (with greave):http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/sabbie1.bmp

I'm going to disagree with you a bit on this, not that I have a shoe fetish or anything, and I could be off somewhat, but the following is my current understanding of shoes.

The problem with shoes is they tend to deteriorate and ancient cobblers didn't exactly publish their designs. (I do have a book on the history of shoes around somewhere which I'll try to dig up.)

There's a big difference between a walking around town medieval shoe/slipper - like the moccasin picture you posted - and a good active shoe/boot which could be worn all the time by both walkers and riders.
[This is specifically in reference to active PCs, not to the majority of people of the time who'd count themselves lucky to get any shoe at all and would be thrilled to have moccasins like yours.]

Heeled shoes go back to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, but were separately developed by most civilizations and were an automatic invention for horse stirrup riders, like Mongols and such.

An ancient good walking shoe will usually have wedged soles and some heel, a simple shoe with the leather wrapped around the last and nailed to a flat sole is an example of a slipper/moccasin-type product which doesn't have a wedged sole or heel.
Moccasins were usually worn by less well off people who never rode - since shoes/boots for riders would have heels - or worn by someone who had to make his own shoes because he didn't have access to a real cobbler.

The active heeled shoe was generally made with a wedged sole unless the person only rode and didn't do much walking, with shanks being used to cope with mounting/dismounting repeatedly without breaking the sole of the boot/shoe - in those days shanks were often just made of hard scraps of leather or wood.
A heeled shoe without a wedged sole - or a shank - would be mighty uncomfortable on any prolonged hike.

[Bruno]

Ze, you keep using the term "wedged sole" - I'm burning with curiosity. What on earth is a wedged sole?

I'm familiar with the term "shank" from my husband talking about military boots - I understand it to be a hard piece in the sole of the boot, in military/construction boots it serves the purpose of protecting the wearer from spiky things on the ground (scrap or nails on a work site, punji-type traps for soldiers - obviously caltrops would be on an adventurers mind).

Of course my husband is of the opinion that a steel shanked boot vs a punji stake results in a broken ankle; which is worse depends on if you have antibiotics on hand vs if you can carry a soldier with a broken ankle. You can walk (slowly) on a foot that's been impaled, but you can't walk on a broken ankle. On the other hand, an infected puncture wound can kill the soldier (or require an amputation) while a broken ankle won't.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ze, you keep using the term "wedged sole" - I'm burning with curiosity. What on earth is a wedged sole?

It's the reinforced leather which comes from the heel to the arch to stabilize a shoe/boot. In the following picture you can see it as the dark leather bit sandwiched between the light leather bits below the stitching:
http://www.bootsusa.com/images/Redwings/1964w.gif

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm familiar with the term "shank" from my husband talking about military boots - I understand it to be a hard piece in the sole of the boot, in military/construction boots it serves the purpose of protecting the wearer from spiky things on the ground (scrap or nails on a work site, punji-type traps for soldiers - obviously caltrops would be on an adventurers mind).

If you'll look at the link I posted of a normal shank, it's simply the equivalent of a huge fat nail which stabilizes the shoe, it's not the flat plate sandwiched between layers of sole which you're referring to.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Of course my husband is of the opinion that a steel shanked boot vs a punji stake results in a broken ankle;

Depends on the person, breaking the ankle of a healthy fit person is not that easy, though the risk increases if they're carrying 100+ lbs of gear.
Not to mention that a good boot gives additional stabilization due to its side ankle support.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

Why is that unbelievable?

I have been unable to track down any weights for sabatons, but my copy of Boccia's "L'Armatura Lombarda, etc" gives the following weights for quite a few greaves

800grams--1.76lbs
950grams--2.09lbs
850grams--1.87lbs
900grams--1.98lbs
1250grams--2.75lbs
910grams--2.00lbs

Well, you just proved why... because greaves alone weigh around 2 lbs individually. That's 4 lbs on greaves for a pair. Then we have to add in sabatons... lets say another 2 lbs... and the shoe under it, let's say .5 lbs for a non-DR padding-only slipper... we're at 6.5 lbs already. Give or take.

[ArmoredSaint]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Well, you just proved why... because greaves alone weigh around 2 lbs individually. That's 4 lbs on greaves for a pair. Then we have to add in sabatons... lets say another 2 lbs... and the shoe under it, let's say .5 lbs for a non-DR padding-only slipper... we're at 6.5 lbs already. Give or take.

So you're saying that GURPS weights for sabatons include greaves as well? If that's the case, then the legharness weights are more than twice what they should be...

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'm going to disagree with you a bit on this...
There's a big difference between a walking around town medieval shoe/slipper - like the moccasin picture you posted - and a good active shoe/boot which could be worn all the time by both walkers and riders.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me on. Are you saying that shoes worn under sabatons would be heavier? If that's the case, what is it that makes you think so?

This website is my source for a good deal of what I know about medieval shoes.

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc...e/SHOEHOM1.HTM

I'm not seeing where medieval shoes would have soles that would make them as heavy as modern footwear. The medieval practice seems to have been to wear a "patten," an oversole, with other footwear if a heavier sole was called for. I see little evidence for heavy "workboots" in the period, and even less evidence that any such thing was worn beneath sabatons.