Graper Forms: Fill & Download for Free

In Europe plate armor was initially added to mail armor to supplement its defense. Early forms of plate armor or coat of plates don’t consist of a single piece but of multiple smaller plates riveted to a cloth backing.Such protection may have been the result of the type of combat that was fought by its wearers. European heavy cavalry relied chiefly on the lance and sidearms such as maces and swords. During the High Middle ages horses were bred bigger and stronger than before, the saddle was made with a high cantle and pommel, the lance was couched and the addition of a graper allowed for more power to be transferred. The couched lance of an early 14th century men-at-arms would make his 11th century Norman predecessor fill his britches.I feel it is this increased power that prompted Europeans to supplement their mail armor with these aforementioned coats of plate. In the course of nearly a century smiths succeeded in making these coats of plate consist of larger and fewer pieces until at last we arrive at plate armor formed from large pieces of steel. The fact that they didn’t start doing that at once suggests to me that some form of technological progress occurred before they could make it happen.In the rest of the world solid breast defenses remained much like the earlier European coat of plates. Made up out of smaller bits that were laced, sown or riveted together.The rest of the world (with some exceptions) also had the upper classes serve as heavy cavalry but it seems the final push to ‘true’ plate armor never occurred. Either for lack of demand on the costumers side or lack of technology on the side of the smith.Extant coat of plates from the Wisby mass grave.Early 15th century plate armor (Churburg)Edo period Japanese armor made from metal strips riveted together16th century Ottoman armor made from pieces of plate held together by mail.

While I have read quite a few papers on the metal quality of Japanese, Middle Eastern and European weaponry from the period I haven’t read anything about Chinese armour or weaponry from the period. In fact I don’t even know if that topic has been extensively researched and/or published in English.That said I don’t have any reason to believe ordinary weapons such as swords, spears and various polearms differed that much in quality. Smiths in both parts of the world had good quality material to work with and while designs varied the difference is rather small in the grand scheme of things. The difference between a crappy Chinese sword and a well made one was probably bigger than the difference between the ‘average’ sword of either China or Europe.I honestly have no idea how archers compared during the period concerned. The Manchu bow sure was a piece of (lethal) art but I can’t say anything about Ming Dynasty bows.At the lower end of the scale soldiers in both places could be wearing quilted/padded textile armour or brigandines and, aside from the unknown metal quality, the difference isn’t going to huge if it was at all present. European brigandines from the 15th century did tend to have a little more tapered/tailored appearance reflecting contemporary fashion. To aid in this we also see the use of differently sized plates in some (but not all) brigandines with larger plates being occasionally used to cover the sternum. This may have had the effect of making it a bit more comfortable to wear and the larger plates would offer a more comprehensive protection for critical areas. This would also make those tailored European brigandines more expensive and less easy to mass produce. The few extant Chinese brigandines which I could find on google all have uniform sized plates in them which would in turn allow for more efficient production.Ming dynasty heavy cavalry with bow, lance and brigandine armour; Cotton and brigandine armours of the Ming DynastyMing dynasty brigandine(Qing dynasty?) brigandineLate 15th century Italian brigandineExtant 16th century brigandine (not medieval but it gets the idea across)Solid breastplate with brigandineIt’s really at the upper end of the scale where we compare heavy cavalry in either place that we start to see a discrepancy.As shown in the picture of Ming cavalry above the heavier cavalry tended to use a bow besides their lance. While this does offer some versatility you can’t have the best of both worlds as the requirement of being able to use a bow detracts from the specialisation in usage of the lance. Western Europe was actually quite exceptional in this regard since European heavy cavalry never used bows. In most of Eurasia heavy cavalry used both lance and bow.Not having to rise out of the saddle to shoot an arrow meant that Europeans could get away with long stirrups and saddles that were suited for shock impact. Not requiring dexterity in the fingers meant that hands could be protected in mitten like gauntlets, furthermore arms and shoulders could be better protected as the action of drawing a bow was not necessary. Lastly the weapons used by European cavalry were always used in one hand; this meant that a very heavy shield could be wielded in the rein hand. Various horse archers have used shields in their rein hands but these tended to be the smaller buckler sized ones and not something like a “Norman” kite shield.In the time period concerned the shield had already shrank quite a bit because of advances in armour and in the course of the Late Middle Ages it would be abandoned completely. Said advances in armour making allowed for the production of high quality plate armour which wasn’t really found anywhere else on the planet. Furthermore the usage of solid breastplates allowed for the use of a lance arret which in combination with a graper on the lance allowed for impact energies never seen before.As far as it concerned charging at each other with lances late medieval Europeans were really the best equipped. In foot combat too a set of plate armour would offer protection beyond any other type available anywhere in the world. The reason Europe had this type of armour was a result of it having a rich warrior aristocracy whose style of combat was pure shock combat combined with a very advanced metal sector that could actually produce plates large enough to forge plate armour.Once smiths did succeed in making plate armour it also became available for the common foot soldier. In fact once it could be produced basic elements of plate armour could be manufactured faster and cheaper than the hitherto popular mail.I don’t believe the brigandine armour or textile armour differed that much nor the common weapons of the footslogger, but armour made out of solid plates would have offered the wearer a significant jump in protection over anything available basically anywhere else.In terms of gunpowder the situation changed a lot during the Late Middle Ages. Our first evidence for cannons in Europe arrives in 1326 by which point the Chinese had them for a while. It is during the 1370s and 1380s however that the rather small sized cannon transformed into massive wall breaching monsters that would soon replace the trebuchet. People also experimented with gunpowder recipes, grinding techniques and sourcing of saltpetre. All in all I would say that cannon technology surpassed that of China during the 1380s.Personal firearms however are a different matter. European makers stuck with the basic barrel on a stick design that was in some ways less advanced than Chinese handguns which existed in many forms. Furthermore the Chinese used handguns in far larger numbers than Europeans ever did during this period. It is really only after the first quarter of the 15th century that Europeans start to improve the design by moving toward a gun that was shouldered and incorporated various lock (trigger) designs that would slowly lead to the matchlock musket.With regards to things like gunpowder technology and plate armour I would really say that Europe was the leader from the late 14th century onward compared not just to China but to the world at large. When it concerns other types of armour or typical arme blanche the difference was nonexistent or negligible. Furthermore this technological edge did not necessarily translate to excellent logistical support and strategy; you’d have to look at the Ottomans for that.

President Trump is a “ Gunner, mover n’ shaker “ I like his “ Take the bull by horns “ style of governing, he’s a completely different hybrid than D.C. has ever seen, he’s unorthodox, NOT status quo, he doesn’t follow the political parade, he forms, organizes and leads his own. What amazes me is how much he’s achieved in spite of all the opposition he’s had to encounter by all the “ Sour Grapers “ on the left and the RINO’s on the right. You best stay true to Trump, don’t pay any attention to all the fake crap from the media and the FBI, especially Mueller, when he gave the nod to raid President Trump’s private attorney’s files, this just shows Mueller is desperate and will try anything, we have to dig in our heels and hold the House this fall !!! Shields high my fellow Trumpsters…..Shalom !!!