Hacker News Reader

Comment by digging | Hacker News Reader

> But a knight in full plate with a longsword is certainly much less agile than someone with a rapier and no armour.

No, that's not really true either.

IIRC a full set of plate armour weighs about 60lbs. How is that not going to make you less agile (no matter how well made)? And yes, I understand the old trope about knights lumbering around, not being able to get up if they fell over and not being about to mount a horse is all garbage. And that 60lbs is roughly what a modern combat soldier carries. But it is still 60lbs!

A huge number of people are 60lbs or more overweight and they still get around fairly well.

'get around fairly well' != 'agile'

;0)

A huge number of people are 60lbs or more overweight and are still very agile, too. It's silly to keep picking this fight this way.

Perhaps we don't agree on what 'agile' means.

Then you should define what it means to you. I've given enough in my other reply.

> How is that not going to make you less agile (no matter how well made)?

Because the weight is distributed and carefully balanced and the parts are fitted to the wearer's body. It does in fact matter how it's made, it's not a backpack.

I admit I could have put more effort into my response, but at this point you're not going to spend 30 seconds to even look it up?

Here is a video of people doing cartwheels in full plate armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

The difference in agility seems marginal if it exists at all. I would certainly advise anyone, if they ever had to bet their life on it, to assume a fully armored foe is not inhibited in their agility. Maybe crawl into a very tight space if you must.

A decent well made plate armour is a lot less than than. 15-ish kilo, so 30-ish lbs?

60 pounds would be low for a modern soldier - it's gotten up to 120 pounds or more in recent wars:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com