Talk:Armour/Archive 1

message: It would be great if someone would describe the different parts of armour. For instance, what are bracers? ··gracefool |☺ 03:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the correct historic term is vambraces and that word can be found in the wikipedia. Braces seems to be predominant in RPG's. The person to blame is probably Gary Gygax who introduced it in the ancestor of (almost) all RPG's, Dungeons & Dragons. There is another term that is missing and that is werebraces that, if I'm not mistaken, is the armour protecting the legs. The reason I mention this here instead of writing an article is because of the words "think", "seems" and "probably". I haven't researched the subject enough to state it as fact. --Soffkartoffeln 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Bracers were used in england in some sources as full arm defences, the entire arm assembly in other words.  But for the most part you are correct.  Rebracer means upper arm defense. Sethwoodworth 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal armour

message: A simple solution is to use armour for any type of historical (let's say pre 1700) as these variants are predominantly  of european origin. Modern body armors have been, as far as i know, mainly developed in the US due to the higher availability and use of handguns there (no insult intended). By this reason the spelling should be armor for these.
It's difficult to achive full consensus on spelling as there will always be advocates for any variant that will defend their opinion with religious fervor. But this way, both sides get a share in the action.
I myself would of course like the articles to be in swedish as I seldom manage to keep track of all those, in my eyes, tiny differences between written british, american, irish and australian english. :-)
:The basic rule about British vs. American spelling is that we only change it if the article is inconsistent. Regarding Swedish, there is a Swedish Wikipedia as well even though the article there is not as nice as the one here.  Sjakkalle 07:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is to maintain the spelling system used by the article creator unless the subject clearly demands a particular national spelling: e.g. U.S. spelling for Abraham Lincoln. Durova 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ... or, arguably, UK/International spelling here, since armour was not much worn in North America.  Johnbod 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for spelling 

message: "Gradually starting in the 1660s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight"
I always assumd that process started long before the 17th century... Should I say early 16th century would be more accurate?
Actually, many cavalry units, as late as the Battle of Vienna in 1683 wore 2/3 suits of armour, no arm protection, with hats and a "secret" skullcap under it. The lower legs were in leather boots,thats what made them 2/3 suits. Until the rifled musket, in the early 1700s, plate could save a  heavy Cavalryman's life. Nativeborncal 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decline of Full Plate

message: Am I the only one who gets a headache from these 3D images?  I suggest moving them to a separate page, creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons for the tiny percentage of people who have the glasses to view them properly. Durova 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one objected so I created a new category at Wikimedia Commons and moved the images there. Durova 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Images 

message: I know little of this subject so I can't add much myself, but wouldn't it be a good idea to start with the earliest armours? Like leather armour, or even just thick padded cloth armour. -OOPSIE- 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble armor from pre-history is that organic armors decayed and left no remains, and the pictoral record of their existence is sketchy at best. It's hard to tell clothing from armor, for example. We could presume, from the various armors recorded by literate societies as they encountered more primitive culture. Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals, Filipinos, Celts, etc. Examples of which include a 'cord' armor based on corded textiles, the 'cotun' is a  celtic garment made of layers of cloth, salt-soaked cloth of the Aztecs(?), a quilted jacket made of a layer of rock-salt between two layers of cloth... Or we can use the records from early Greek and Roman historians, from which we know about the Greek linothrax (made of layers of glued linen), and armor made from 'boiled leather'.
Theblindsage (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Metalic old armour 

message: Would someone please comment on this article? The Hamilton Spectator - From Bears to Bullets
It's about a guy that has invented a full body armor, like a non-powered exoskeleton, supposedly bulletproof.
If someone know test results or has any other kind of knowledge of the suit, please write.
MigB 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exoskeleton 

message: This article s written entirely in British English. Our goal is to be global. So, we should use the most common forms of the words. So, I agree with the words "civilisation" or "vandalise", for example, but in this form, the article sound too Britannica-ish. (Possibly we also need a copyvio check with Britannica? The entirely British spelling of the article might hide Britannica copyvios.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-ification needed? 

message: I'm cruising the web looking into arms and armor, and I've come across a couple of good sites, by people who have done some good research.
http://www.regia.org/warfare/spear.htm
www.regia.org
http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/
Theblindsage 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some good links. 

message: In the section Modern armour it states ' modern ballistic armour is much less impervious to stabbing weapons unless they are augmented with anti-knife/anti-stab armour (usually a form of Mail (armour))[citation needed].'
As maille armour is anti-/slash/ not anti-stab (it is quite useless against stabs) this seems rather dubious.
: Mail armour is not useless against stabs.  Many forms of mail armour have rings with an inner diameter of less than 6mm.  Such rings would impede all but the skinniest of blades from puncturing. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mild inaccuracy 

message: Sorry guys, but as it stands, this article is very inaccurate and entirely Euro-centric.  As it stands, it should not be taken as even slightly authoritative.  I might try and tackle it in a few weeks. 89.124.164.6 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most here would agree with you.  The article suffers from a series of small contributions rather than an overall, consistent approach based on reputable sources.  But it's a big job, and I, for one, have been waiting for someone else keen enough to attempt it.  You mention the eurocentrism: note that Chinese armour, Korean armour and so forth have their own pages.  Might make sense to create (or move this to)  European armour or Armour of the European knight or something, cover it in detail there, and create a much more general overview here at Armour with linked summaries of the main armour traditions. Gwinva (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those are all ideas I was thinking of.  Although definitely European armor, as it should cover a far wider range than just what was used by knights, although that probably deserves its own page as well.  I'll be settled in for the summer starting in early June, might try to take it on then.  From an IP that isn't close to being blocked for the "contributions" of the other residents of my university housing block here in Galway.  -rolls eyes- 89.124.164.6 (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Feel free to drop me a line if you ever need me to look over something, get a second opinion or look something up (I've a mountain of sources: see my user page).  I would recommend getting an account; see Wikipedia:Why create an account? It prevents a block of others affecting you, makes it easier for you to keep track of your contribs, keep a watchlist, and it makes it easy for others to get in touch; there's also all sorts of gadgets you can enable to make editing easier. You also need to be signed in to do things like move (rename) pages. Another bonus is you can create your own subpage (sandbox/workpage), where you can mock up an article, play around with it before it goes "live".   Choose a random name if you want to keep your anonymity; in fact,you could make it a play on your IP, like "eight.nine.one.two".  Gwinva (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is full of inaccuracies 

message: In this thread on myAmoury we see a discussion of the fit of armour.  In it Randall Moffett provides a large number of specific refences which indicate that the majority of armour was not custom fit to it's wearer.  These records include the personal accounts of lords who kept a number of harnesses on hand to give out to retainers as needed.  Also import documents showing hundreds of harnesses at a time shipped to England to be sold on the open market.  The open and unanswered question is how much was fitted after-market and to what degree.  Having personally fought in poorly fitted armour I can attest to both the value of well-fitted armour and the fact that you can fight well in poorly fit armour.  Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fit of Plate Harness