Evolution Of Knight Armour

[Mav01]

After reading several books on armour, I have come to the conclusion that

1050-1179
1180-1329

Is a better fit than the games

1050-1154
1155-1319

What do others Think I am I right or Wrong?

[Paul59]

After reading several books on armour, I have come to the conclusion that

1050-1179
1180-1329

Is a better fit than the games

1050-1154
1155-1319

What do others Think I am I right or Wrong?

Are you thinking in terms of the look of the models, or the armour ratings of the units?

[Dux Limitis]

After reading several books on armour, I have come to the conclusion that

1050-1179
1180-1329

Is a better fit than the games

1050-1154
1155-1319

What do others Think I am I right or Wrong?

Are you thinking in terms of the look of the models, or the armour ratings of the units?

I think he means both.

[Athos1660]

1180 or 1155, that’s a difference of 25 years which seems to me marginal and difficult to settle on, especially talking about something as imprecise as an average date of adoption of a new tool on a large geographical area during a time period for which data are missing.

What is the date of adoption of the electric car (by drivers of all countries) ?
1880’s (the first experiments of electric cars) ?
1960-1980 (date of a few prototypes) ?
2008 ?
2020 ?
2025 ?
2040 ?
(never ?)

[Mav01]

I was thinking in terms of the look of the models, and the armour ratings of the units

Just one example look at the relief of the battle of Legnano 1176. The Knights look closer to the earlier knights.
They have kite shields, older helmets and seem to be not wearing full chainmail.
But in the game they would look like the Knights in the 1155-1319 period.
If you look at at a lot of reliefs, the 1155 date is too early for helm wearing, fully chain mailed Knights.
The closed helmet began to evolve in around about 1180.
Its not a big deal as the game is moddable to fit every ones preference.

[Paul59]

I was thinking in terms of the look of the models, and the armour ratings of the units

Just one example look at the relief of the battle of Legnano 1176. The Knights look closer to the earlier knights.
They have kite shields, older helmets and seem to be not wearing full chainmail.
But in the game they would look like the Knights in the 1155-1319 period.
If you look at at a lot of reliefs, the 1155 date is too early for helm wearing, fully chain mailed Knights.
The closed helmet began to evolve in around about 1180.
Its not a big deal as the game is moddable to fit every ones preference.

From WRG's Armies of Feudal Europe it appears that knights comparable to FOG2's later Knights only appear around 1205, but there is evidence for at least some knights wearing more complete mail (and riding barded or protected horses) from around the middle of the 12th century.

In an ideal world I am sure that the developer would have liked an intermediary model between early and later knights, but budgetary constraints prevented it.

[MVP7]

Realistically the best and latest armor would likely be adopted first by the wealthiest nearer to the centers of armour-making innovation while the less wealthy warriors could use the same armor for generations and maybe upgrade piece by piece. The equipment of an army would not be uniform.

For perspective, when I was in the army, I was issued a 26 year old combat harness even though the modern vest had been out for 6 years. My rifle was 50 year old model even though the newer version had been out for 16 years. A 25 year difference in medieval equipment really is completely arbitrary and impossible to get "right" with a single date break point. Even if you accounted for both regional and temporal differences by having a sliding scale of amor values, it would still be a very abstract and arbitrary approximation.

Another point worth noting: reliefs and paintings are not photographs and should be taken with a big pinch of salt, especially when you are looking at very specific timings. They have likely been painted/carved by someone who wasn't a first hand witness to the events and there's also no reason to assume that the painter/carver would be well versed in the minutae of military technology, or even interested in portraying it with great precision.

The painter/carver could very well have portrayed everyone in the equipment he had witnessed decades ago or in other works, or they may just as well have portrayed the latest and best equipment they had seen, even if it wouldn't have been used widely in the army. You only need to look at how inaccurate the portrayal of relatively modern weapons and equipment in contemporary art is, even though it's easier than ever to get accurate reference.

There's no meaningful difference between 1050-1179 and 1180-1329 or 1050-1154 and 1155-1319 as break points and gradual transition from one armor tech to the next would be pointless from the top down design perspective since (almost) every list gets upgraded at the same time and there's little basis for having relative advantages or disadvantages.