Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ArmoredSaint" data-source="post: 4832561" data-attributes="member: 54539">Okay, let's.Bannockburn is one of only a handful of battles the Scots ever won against the English.  The fact is, the English(who were invariably more heavily-armoured than the Scots) trounced them in literally dozens of other battles in history.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_between_Scotland_and_England" target="_blank">List of battles between Scotland and England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>The English handily won most of the battles in which they faced the Scots.  Modern "Celtic Fever" and that awful Braveheart movie are what make the public remember the very few times in history the Scots actually won.  It is noteworthy that the lack of armour on the part of the Scots (especially the highlanders) is what caused them to take such heavy casualties in several such battles  (see Homildon hill in particular).  Scotland was a poor, backwards nation, and was always a generation or so behind England and the Continent in arms and armour development.Ironically, the early 16th century saw the Scots begin to outfit themselves in decent plate armour imported from Germany or the Low Countries, and English chroniclers note that, at the battle of Flodden in 1513, this armour rendered the English archery ineffective.  But the Scots still lost.I'd also like to point out that it wasn't heavy armour that lost Bannockburn for the English.  What's more, the Scottish upper class were just as heavily armoured as the English at that battle.  The battle is not a referendum on the effectiveness of heavy armour.  I don't think it was anything other than increasing use of massed gunfire that finally drove heavy armour from the battlefield.  Prior to its advent, everyone in Europe who could afford it tried to acquire the very best armour available.  You don't see anyone, no matter how highly trained, opting for lesser armour when they had access to better.  Heavy armour wa simply better at keeping you alive in the press of battle than lighter stuff was.  Armour worked.The game statistic is called Armour Class for a reason:  Heavy armour should rule this stat.  It's just right from the point of view of both theme and verisimilitude.  I'm not saying that the agile, lightly-armoured fighter archetype should suck compared to the man in plate, but I do think that good armour should represent the very pinnacle of personal defense in this game--not wearing animal hides and maxing out your dexterity.</blockquote>

Verification