Agreeable-Western-25 t1_irrj2mm wrote
Castles have some iron fittings e.g. portcullis spikes, sconces etc. In order to plate wall with metal that could withstand e.g. a trebuchet or ballista you're talking battleship thickness. Stone and timber were much cheaper and easier to transport for repairs. Considering as well a suit of armour would have cost $100,000 in today's money because metal wasn't mass produced it wouldn't have been economically viable to plate a building and good luck finding enough ore without modern mining methods.
Abba_Fiskbullar t1_irs7s0v wrote
Even though there's almost no way of determining equivalent cost between the middle ages and the modern day, I thought that equipping a knight was equivalent to $1m in terms of materials and skilled labor.
stuzz74 t1_irsppry wrote
Knights would be rich as to be a knight, a king/queen will have given the knight or much more likely their family in the past the title and land which they would lease out to farmers. Lots of armour was passed down and refitted the knight would generally do 40 days service to the king/queen per year (gaining favour would come with the possible chance of new titles and land etc) The knight would also need a horse, squire (knight in training) and various other staff to fulfil his duties. There was also sports events that would bring in cash, popularity and maybe a rich bride with a dowry too
Napotad t1_irspcyz wrote
I'm not sure the exact numbers, but yes, very expensive. There's a reason run-of-the-mill soldiers used at most chain-mail, because it was easier and cheaper to produce than plate armor. The Samurai were also similar in that regard; they would serve a lord and they were elite warriors, and being elite the lord would invest in equipping them with expensive gear. Even so, they still didn't wear full plate, because A. It's expensive and B. Wasn't practical, as it was cumbersome. They would wear some interleaved plating and some leather pieces, all bound together with cordage.
BrevityIsTheSoul t1_irt98pv wrote
>Even so, they still didn't wear full plate, because A. It's expensive and B. Wasn't practical, as it was cumbersome. They would wear some interleaved plating and some leather pieces, all bound together with cordage.
Iron was also scarcer and lower-quality in Japan. It required more skilled labor to turn their poor raw materials into serviceable armor plates. Chain links were right out.
ajaxfetish t1_irtazs7 wrote
The big issue with plate armor wasn't cost, so much as technology and infrastructure limitations. Once the necessary industry and skilled labor force was in place, it actually became more affordable than mail, and in later periods you'll find mass-produced munitions-grade plate armor (e.g., during the English civil war).
The limiting factor for mail is that it requires lots of manual labor to make, rivet, and weave together the rings, along with the tailoring to get it fit properly. It can be made even in a low-tech setting, but it'll always take a lot of time and effort.
Of course, for the medieval period, plate never fully replaced mail, either. There's plenty of places you just can't enclose in metal plates and still be able to move and fight, so mail voiders, skirts, standards, etc. remained a part of full plate harnesses.
War_Hymn t1_irya13x wrote
>The big issue with plate armor wasn't cost, so much as technology and infrastructure limitations.
Well yeah, better technology and infrastructure meant you can produce said things more cheaply - so the issue is COST.
ajaxfetish t1_iryg94v wrote
I was replying to this:
> There's a reason run-of-the-mill soldiers used at most chain-mail, because it was easier and cheaper to produce than plate armor
It's not like they weren't producing plate armor in the early middle ages because it cost too much. They weren't producing it because they couldn't. The necessary infrastructure just didn't exist yet. And then once it was developed, the resulting armor ended up becoming more affordable than chainmail. One type of armor requires a certain level of industrialization to build, the other requires lots of skill, patience, and time.
War_Hymn t1_iryjk7s wrote
>It's not like they weren't producing plate armor in the early middle ages because it cost too much. They weren't producing it because they couldn't.
Not really, they could had taken smaller plates and forge welded them together into a larger plate by hand. At the extreme, you have smiths in 5th century India hand forging smaller pieces of iron into a 6 tonne iron pillar (see Iron Pillar of Delhi). But of course, doing it this way cost a premium in labour and fuel.
HDH2506 OP t1_ispkm2e wrote
I’m sorry what’s “standard”? Like as an armor part
ajaxfetish t1_ispnpyk wrote
Neck protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_(mail_collar)
A gorget and/or bevor would be comparable pieces of plate armor.
HDH2506 OP t1_isppa7j wrote
So, I saw in movies depictions, they sometimes use plate for the part shown in those pictures (e.g. game of thrones, most might have been leather, but the kings guard were clearly wearing steel)
Would that be practical?
ajaxfetish t1_ispr4i7 wrote
Those would be the aforementioned gorgets, so not only practical, but also historical. The relative benefits to a standard are gonna be a less impeded range of motion and less chance of unprotected gaps.
morosis1982 t1_irt75ug wrote
Not unlike modern soldiers. The US military has ~1.4m enlisted and spends about half a million a year per capita of enlisted members.
[deleted] t1_irt9vj1 wrote
[removed]
funkmachine7 t1_isug3ep wrote
We can do price comparisons of how many hours/ days skilled labour an armour costs.
In 1540 a plain Greenwich armour cost 160 days' wages, but a princely garniture might cost twenty times that.
Treczoks t1_irt5at7 wrote
Don't forget metal-plated castle gates and portcullis.
And the comparison with armor is a bit unfair, as making armor is all about strength at low weight and mobility. A knights gauntlet was bleeding edge technology back then. Something a static thing like a wall would not require.
Submarine65 t1_irsqrjv wrote
>城堡有一些铁配件，例如闸门钉、壁灯等。为了在墙壁上镀上可以承受例如投石机或弩炮的金属，你说的是战舰的厚度。
>
>石头和木材更便宜，更容易运输进行维修。
>
>同样考虑到一套盔甲在今天的价格中会花费 100,000 美元，因为金属不是大
Not so exaggerated, we calculate a set of armor according to the price of the Tang Dynasty about 30K
2Mike2022 t1_irtemtu wrote
Besides most castle walls were brought down by undermining.
grambell789 t1_irt8i0a wrote
> good luck finding enough ore without modern mining methods.
I don't think the finding ore was the big problem back then. it was moving it. a whole transportation system had to be invented to get the industrial revolution running. first it was riverboats and canals, then railroads.
tminus7700 t1_irtvw67 wrote
Many stone works used bronze pins and clips to prevent the stone blocks moving.
MeSmeshFruit t1_isl35dy wrote
What are you talking about, ballistas were not meant to pierce stone walls, they can't even pierce wooden ships... Stone fortifications were used up to the late medieval times, even with canons its not that simple.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments