I'll be posting in the thread later tonight, though I'm busy right now (playing a game).

While it may not be entirely relevant to the roleplay itself, I like talking about history, so I'd like to continue this conversation with Senior Herp.

[quote]
If I'm not being uncouth by butting into this line, that's not entirely true in case of our period to my knowledge, or at least were it not for the unusual circumstance of complete subcontinental balkanization causing two decades of chaos. It is around this time of serpentine gunpowder that we'd start seeing munitions-class armor start getting churned out by guild workshop. And for that matter, neither is a sword especially heavy, with the heavier end of the zweihander class reaching seven pounds at most; the issue of fatigue comes from extended combat action in less heavy and more suffocating armor, not that it wasn't heavy, but the primary source was lacking ventilation compounding extended actions. Chain-draped heavy quilt gets VERY hot, and chain is often rather heavier than homogenized plate.[/quote]

I'd like to go ahead and note that I was lumping the sword and plate armor together when dealing with weight, mostly because a footsoldier in plate armor with a metal shield and longsword is such a prevalent fantasy trope. The reality of it is that plate armor is heavy, and while it doesn't limit your mobility as much as one would think, running around on foot with it wears you out quickly. You're more likely to see such armor used by cavalry than by footsoldiers; thus why the knight is so often associated with plate armor. 

Chainmail could be heavy, for sure. Note that a lot of plate armor was worn in conjunction with other protective gear though, from padded cloth to chainmail. That makes the total weight even heavier.

And yes, ventilation and breathing and heat are all huge problems when we're talking about armor like this. Other armors had this problem as well, but the point remains. Plate armor is just not something you often found worn by footsoldiers. It did happen, but... Still.

Also, firearms for the most part brought an end to plate armor. This isn't to say that the advent of firearms immediately spelled the end of all armor, as you can see such historical troops as the Polish Hussar wearing metal armor well into the development of firearms; but you really shouldn't be standing in front of a guy with a rifle and expect your armor to get you away from the scene unscathed.

[quote]It is to my understanding that this is not entirely true either. Besides gentle-blooded or knighted house guards, there were also mercenaries in the employ of lords as said guard. This in addition to further mercenaries bought for a campaign, and in addition to whatever the crown would commission. This in addition to institutions of martial familiarity like those for the English longbow meant that the core of an army was to consist of professional troops, and the core would be quite a large portion, of mercenaries and men-at-arms (knightly or otherwise.) If a belligerent was using peasant conscripts from the field, in the field, it was likely a sign they were losing already to draw so recklessly from the harvest. Large professional armies they were not, but neither were they small, with support in the form of some number semiprofessional troops drawn from the commoner.[/quote]

I'd need to go back and research this to confirm, but I'm pretty sure this was the case at least during the beginning of the Medieval Era. The fact of the matter is a LOT of soldiers in any given battle would run away after a solid clash, and most of those would be non-professional soldiers. I'll go and do some research on this to confirm.

[quote]
Wouldn't this be more that the militias were typically guerrilla fighters in the first place? My understanding is very basic, but they were not meant nor expected to hold a line against the British without a dugout, they were to harry the enemy long enough for responsive action, hold fortification, or else were bushwhackers killing in the woods and dying in the woods. Dying less than British line infantry, though.[/quote]

Sort of.

This is taken from a higher level U.S. Military History class I took a couple years ago, so bear with me if I forget a couple details. I'm trying to remember the name of the battle I'm going to bring up as an example soon, but I can't seem to. It was, however, a famous battle.

The prevalent method of warfare at the time was, well, line warfare. You'd have lines of guys with guns shooting at each other. This is the basis on which both the British and American military was based upon, more so the Continental Army than the militia, and understanding that is key. The Continental Army was trained for this sort of warfare. The militia was trained a little, but essentially they acted as a mixture between that and a mob or, as you said, as guerrilla infantry.

Do note, however, that the militia actually were not exemplary troops at all. They didn't whoop the British, and indeed ran away a [i]lot[/i]. We really didn't start performing all that well as an army until about the time we got some training from a certain German drill instructor you may know as Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. Many of the policies in his "blue book" are, last I recall, still core tenets in U.S. military policy. (Interestingly, "don't ask; don't tell" was one of them. He was forced out of his homeland for having possible homosexual affairs with a German prince.)

Anyway, one of the notable problems the U.S. militia had, a problem that a lot of non-professional armies in general had, is they would run as soon as the enemy charged. That's pretty much fact. If the British put on their bayonets and charged, the militia would scatter to the wind. This behavior was actually depended on in one battle by American generals that they planned the battle [i]with a considerable portion of the tactics based on the fact that their militia would run.[/i]

Here's how it went: the militia were standing in front, firing at the enemy. The British charged them, and predictably the militia ran away in the opposite direction of the British. The trouble is a river was blocking their escape... so the militia were [i]forced[/i] by the obstacle that was [i]a big honking river[/i] to turn around and fight. Then, the Continental Army came in and surrounded the British by the flanks, and that's how we Americans won that battle. Again, I forget the name of the battle, but it was important enough of one that we spent a good 10-15 minutes discussing this in class and talking about exactly why the battle was planned the way it was.

I need to go and research plate armor in this general time period still, since I have a bit of a gap in knowledge at the time when firearms haven't quite forced the swordsman and the archer and the crossbowman to disappear.