Swan knights

[athanaric]

imrahills vambraces almost assuredly have been plate since it shows vapour[? not sure if it is the right word english is not my first language ]when he holds it before eowyn's mouth to show that she is alive

Exactly, that's how we know it's metal. Also, I don't think that Tolkien would have bowed to convention or pressure from his publishers. His language over much of the book is notoriously archaic, and from what I gather from the foreword/preface/whatever of my edition of LotR, he actually convinced his American (?) publishers to abolish several spelling "corrections" they made when first publishing the book.
FWIW, I see nothing wrong with partial plate (let alone other types of non-maille armor, such as a coat of plates), as long as it's reserved to the upper echelons, and its design is realistic. I think the lowest common denominator here should be "no plate for non-elites". Which still makes it different from the movies.
[fan wank mode] You could even go so far as to say that the movies only showed elite contingents while leaving out the less-armoured regular grunts, though in that case they made those "elites" too weak and vulnerable. [/fan wank mode]

[Macilrille]

Ngugi and I was over this years ago, only time I have ever had to admit being wrong.

Edit about Tolkien.

[alreadyded]

imrahills vambraces almost assuredly have been plate since it shows vapour[? not sure if it is the right word english is not my first language ]when he holds it before eowyn's mouth to show that she is alive

All you stated is that you did not read what I wrote.


Yes Tolkien did whatever he wanted and it sold... which is why the Silmarillion was published while he was writing it? No it wasn't, everyone told him there was no hope so he wrote the LOTR which was far more appealing to audiences.

[alreadyded]

This does raise the issue of Imrahil shirking his duties though eh? Clean and polished leather and metal can show breath vapors sure, but this guy should be at least dirty and a little bloody on his forearm guards (regardless of what they are called or made of) no? Dirt and dirty blood are not shiny enough to show vapors I would think. He just passed through and is sitting in the largest battle of the Age and he is clean as a whistle and uses the excuse of saving a woman to quickly exit said battle, probably taking all the swan knights with him before they did anything... what an ass. But this is the tiny problem with stories when you question them... they are full of .

It is all just Western propaganda!!! Morgoth is the one true God and Savior! All else is lies.

[♔atthias♔]

This does raise the issue of Imrahil shirking his duties though eh? Clean and polished leather and metal can show breath vapors sure, but this guy should be at least dirty and a little bloody on his forearm guards (regardless of what they are called or made of) no? Dirt and dirty blood are not shiny enough to show vapors I would think. He just passed through and is sitting in the largest battle of the Age and he is clean as a whistle and uses the excuse of saving a woman to quickly exit said battle, probably taking all the swan knights with him before they did anything... what an ass. But this is the tiny problem with stories when you question them... they are full of .

It is all just Western propaganda!!! Morgoth is the one true God and Savior! All else is lies.

LOL I wish I could rep you for this

[alreadyded]

Imrahil spends the rest of the battle malingering with the wounded in the Houses of Healing too if I remember right, been a few years since I read the books but I do remember noticing that and questioning it in the past. No one tell DaC how pathetic the peoples of Dol Amroth are in the lore. Maybe DaC was right to make them their own faction after all, they clearly don't care about Gondor and only themselves. Good job DaC, your mod is more lore accurate than I thought, my apologies in earnest. I thought I was right but as with all things once I opened my mind to it I found out I was wrong. I'll have to think on it some more and see where it leads.

I doubt Tolkien intended to depict Imrahil in such a way, he is a reasonable person in the book just like Faramir in many ways, 'mini-Aragorns' basically. But ya he doesn't do any fighting... even less than Eyowen. He left the south to go to Minas Tirith leaving someone else to do the fighting there and didn't help in Minas Tirith or the Black Gate possibly (not mentioned do anything). Sounds like another "Master of Laketown" to me.

[Dude with the Food]

But isn't it the Swan Knights holding the gate for ages? Maybe Imrahil is doing the sensible thing and leading form the rear considering he's the ranking competent officer. No use him getting himself killed if that leaves suicidal madman and a geriatric.

[alreadyded]

Aragorn is far more important and he is leading the fight, but Aragorn gets a lot more plot armor than Imrahil does so Imrahil has more of a reason for being a coward. Sitting back and letting others do the fighting is cowardly, there isn't much commanding to do once the battle starts, commanders prepare/maneuver for the battles before they happen. You either help or sit back and watch. I have been in combat and everyone around along with myself had zero respect for the people that lead from the rear, the Marine Corps. does not encourage such things though there is no shortage of officers and NCOs that do it (probably more since I have been in). It dramatically affects morale and makes everyone not want to do more than everyone else maybe even less, which lowers combat effectiveness for everyone.

Would you put in 100% effort if one or more other people are not? Neither would any other human. They would feel taken advantage of and want to slack themselves (this even happens in ant colonies, it is a social thing not a human thing). Unit combat effectiveness mainly relies on working as a team to make the "whole (effectiveness) worth more than the sum of its parts (individuals)". The old five fingers vs. a fist, the fist wins by becoming more effective as a whole than it was even though it is still actually the same sum of parts. This doesn't happen unless everyone is willing to do 100% of their part. And this is only the beginning, trust me I could complain for days about my own personal experiences with such people that "pulled a Imrahil." So could anyone else that had a boss in any occupation that did such things, it lowers productivity/effectiveness in any workplace.

So ya he is a coward and a terrible leader in my opinion (which in this case is based on much personal experience), based on the info the books gave me. Aragorn and Faramir fight alongside their men and don't expect anything from them they are not willing to do themselves. This is how we did things in Recon, everyone does everything as a team, leaders included. Knowing what you and your men are capable of and using that is probably the most useful thing for any leader in any kind of competition, otherwise it is a 'Hail Mary' play in sports terms, you are just hoping you are capable of pulling it off.


Edit; As for holding the gates for ages, I don't remember anything about that. Gandalf was doing that I believe. In between marching to Minas Tirith before the battle and finding Eyowen during I don't think he is mentioned at all other than a small bloodless sortie (led by Gandalf) to save Faramir. His main role (other than finding Eyowen I guess, but a different character could have, even a slightly healed Faramir going out to help fight, yet again, in his weakness) in the books seems to be as mediator for Gondor to Aragorn, basically one character to represent the nobility/elders of Gondor's opinions and not just Denethor's/Boromir's about Aragorn becoming king I would say. He accepts Aragorn but also says that is will cause trouble with Gondor so Aragorn waits to declare himself king even though Imrahil (representing the opinion of Gondor) has already accepted him as king anyway. Then he doesn't matter anymore but does go to the Black Gate, there is no mention of him doing anything other than being surrounded by friendly troops defending a hilltop. I would imagine he did help there but I am talking about his actions at the Battle of Minas Tirith not the Black Gate.

Then Denethor conveniently dies for no good reason to make the story easy to tie up in a nice pretty bow. Denethor isn't crazy in the books though, he is the only rational one really. He thinks the ring quest will fail, and in reality it would since it is such a long shot, but in a happy fantasy novel it succeeds for no good reason. As the reader you know the quest will succeed so maybe you never thought of it from Denethor's perspective. Even Gandalf admits the quest is a fool's hope, but it is the only hope.

[athanaric]

Actually, it says in the book that Aragorn, Imrahil, and Éomer alone (among the good guys) were left unscathed by the battle, due to their skill. Obviously, that seems like an embellishment, but it's consistent with the epic theme. It doesn't say anything about leading from behind or such, that's awfully close to fanciful conjecture. Also, Imrahil was with Gandalf during most of the siege, before the sally.

[alreadyded]

Actually, it says in the book that Aragorn, Imrahil, and Éomer alone (among the good guys) were left unscathed by the battle, due to their skill. Obviously, that seems like an embellishment, but it's consistent with the epic theme. It doesn't say anything about leading from behind or such, that's awfully close to fanciful conjecture. Also, Imrahil was with Gandalf during most of the siege, before the sally.

I didn't even say he led from behind, someone else said that he did as a possible explanation for what I said, and I was replying to that. My reply being there is no leading from behind once the battle starts, just watching or helping (so we seem to be in agreement that he would be helping and not sitting back "leading from the rear"). Imrahil was too clean to be helping was the point I made ultimately (meaning the story has a plot hole unless it can be explained, not that Imrahil is a coward which is just one explanation I gave jokingly), which is supported by the events in the lore and therefore not fanciful conjecture, maybe you missed that but saying it is without giving an explanation how is not furthering the discussion. I could repeat what I already said in my previous posts, but why bother? Instead why don't you explain how he could see the breath vapors on clean and shiny forearm guards after helping fight a battle if this is so fanciful? You get filthy real quick just from being there (even in the rear) and how your forearm guards would not get bloody and dirty in hand-to-hand combat is beyond me, it just doesn't make sense to me. Tell me how then say it is fanciful conjecture at least.


Obviously I don't think Tolkien intended to portray him that way but based on what happens in the books what I said is at least supported, not purely fanciful. I am just reading into it too much is all but this is what happens when you do that. Where is this quote that says Imrahil fought, and then had his squire clean his armor, and then go find Eyowen to breathe on him? This is just Tolkien providing the best way he could think of to see Eyowen is breathing since she is wearing armor that would hide other visible signs, not thinking about how much sense it actually makes since the armor shouldn't be clean enough in my opinion. Off course having Imrahil check her pulse on her wrist to notice she is still alive would be even sillier so I get why he did it, out of necessity and a bit of poetic license. Please do show me what I am missing though, just telling me it is fanciful without any explanation of how doesn't help me learn anything or give me anything else to even consider.


Of course my main point, and thread related one as well, is not to read into certain specific things too much and then generalize them absolutely. There are many known factors and far more unknown factors to consider. This is why the Scientific Method goes from General to Specific, not Specific to General.

To me the whole reason the word vambrace was even used is highly subjective and way too specific (and silly due to it being used to see breath vapors on simply to further the plot, not to depict that Imhrahil was in partial/full plate) to be applied as evidence that partial or full plate armor were used. And such a specific and subjective thing should not be generalized on due to the principles of research alone. If you found many things that supported it and considered vambrace as just one more thing to support it fine, but to think the word vambrace = proof that partial/full plate armor is used in Middle-earth is not something researchers do. You are closing your mind to the answer you want, not opening it to whatever the answer happens to be whether you like it or not. And since we will never know (Spoiler Alert; Tolkien died did his views of what Middle-earth was like) the answer there is no proof.

Edit; And the same goes for the use of the term full harness though that does support partial/full plate more than the vambrace thing I would say, in the context it is used in it could just mean they were fully prepared/geared up, it does not explain in any detail that they are wearing partial/full plate. The term full harness is still used today in the military and other things like climbing and no one wears partial/full plate armor anymore. The word harness has to do with distributing weight/making use of something so it had more to do with the saddle needed for the partial/full plate armor than the armor itself even back then I would think. I am not even going to pretend I know how all peoples used the word or how Tolkien meant it. So my question would be what else supports the partial/full plate theory other than these things? I would like to consider it. I never said I was right, I am just posting things to consider is all.

There are actual descriptions in detail of them wearing chain mail multiple times but nowhere does it state that is all they use that I know of, but it is a common story telling trick not to go into too much detail about how things should be seen, it is best to let the reader see it how they want to. This way the story appeals to more people since they get their way. Tolkien knew how to write better than I do by far, so I am guessing he used this to full effect. Give just enough of a description to let the reader fill in the rest, he does the same with environments and locations too. Even Frodo and Aragorn get very brief physical descriptions of what they look like and very rarely though at least one is in every chapter. That Tolkien has never gave a definitive answer that any of us knows about (I assume he has been asked in letters about partial/full plate in ME) supports that he wanted people to see it their way, he never even bothered making a damn map even for this reason probably.

[athanaric]

I didn't even say he led from behind, someone else said that he did as a possible explanation for what I said, and I was replying to that. My reply being there is no leading from behind once the battle starts, just watching or helping (so we seem to be in agreement that he would be helping and not sitting back "leading from the rear"). Imrahil was too clean to be helping was the point I made ultimately (meaning the story has a plot hole unless it can be explained, not that Imrahil is a coward which is just one explanation I gave jokingly), which is supported by the events in the lore and therefore not fanciful conjecture, maybe you missed that but saying it is without giving an explanation how is not furthering the discussion. I could repeat what I already said in my previous posts, but why bother? Instead why don't you explain how he could see the breath vapors on clean and shiny forearm guards after helping fight a battle if this is so fanciful? You get filthy real quick just from being there (even in the rear) and how your forearm guards would not get bloody and dirty in hand-to-hand combat is beyond me, it just doesn't make sense to me. Tell me how then say it is fanciful conjecture at least.


Obviously I don't think Tolkien intended to portray him that way but based on what happens in the books what I said is at least supported, not purely fanciful. I am just reading into it too much is all but this is what happens when you do that. Where is this quote that says Imrahil fought, and then had his squire clean his armor, and then go find Eyowen to breathe on him? This is just Tolkien providing the best way he could think of to see Eyowen is breathing since she is wearing armor that would hide other visible signs, not thinking about how much sense it actually makes since the armor shouldn't be clean enough in my opinion. Off course having Imrahil check her pulse on her wrist to notice she is still alive would be even sillier so I get why he did it, out of necessity and a bit of poetic license. Please do show me what I am missing though, just telling me it is fanciful without any explanation of how doesn't help me learn anything or give me anything else to even consider.


Of course my main point, and thread related one as well, is not to read into certain specific things too much and then generalize them absolutely. There are many known factors and far more unknown factors to consider. This is why the Scientific Method goes from General to Specific, not Specific to General.

To me the whole reason the word vambrace was even used is highly subjective and way too specific (and silly due to it being used to see breath vapors on simply to further the plot, not to depict that Imhrahil was in partial/full plate) to be applied as evidence that partial or full plate armor were used. And such a specific and subjective thing should not be generalized on due to the principles of research alone. If you found many things that supported it and considered vambrace as just one more thing to support it fine, but to think the word vambrace = proof that partial/full plate armor is used in Middle-earth is not something researchers do. You are closing your mind to the answer you want, not opening it to whatever the answer happens to be whether you like it or not. And since we will never know (Spoiler Alert; Tolkien died did his views of what Middle-earth was like) the answer there is no proof.

Look, it's very simple, you're missing the point. The encounter with Éowyn and the vambrace happens mid-battle (as the Gondorians are sallying), not at the end; immediately after that, Imrahil rides to relieve Éomer who's Leeroy Jenkins'd himself into some corner.

There are actual descriptions in detail of them wearing chain mail multiple times but nowhere does it state that is all they use that I know of, but it is a common story telling trick not to go into too much detail about how things should be seen, it is best to let the reader see it how they want to. This way the story appeals to more people since they get their way. Tolkien knew how to write better than I do by far, so I am guessing he used this to full effect. Give just enough of a description to let the reader fill in the rest, he does the same with environments and locations too. Even Frodo and Aragorn get very brief physical descriptions of what they look like and very rarely though at least one is in every chapter. That Tolkien has never gave a definitive answer that any of us knows about (I assume he has been asked in letters about partial/full plate in ME) supports that he wanted people to see it their way, he never even bothered making a damn map even for this reason probably.

I actually agree with that, broadly speaking. I'm just saying the vambrace could be an indicator that there was some kind of plate around, and it's unlikely to be made of leather since a) Imrahil is not an archer and b) the book was written before the leather biker gear fad in "historical" and fantasy movies became a thing.

[alreadyded]

I never said it happened at the end, I said in the middle of the battle. WTF man... stop misquoting me. You are mixing yourself up with stuff I didn't say.

This does raise the issue of Imrahil shirking his duties though eh? Clean and polished leather and metal can show breath vapors sure, but this guy should be at least dirty and a little bloody on his forearm guards (regardless of what they are called or made of) no? Dirt and dirty blood are not shiny enough to show vapors I would think. He just passed through and is sitting in the largest battle of the Age and he is clean as a whistle and uses the excuse of saving a woman to quickly exit said battle, probably taking all the swan knights with him before they did anything... what an ass. But this is the tiny problem with stories when you question them... they are full of .

It is all just Western propaganda!!! Morgoth is the one true God and Savior! All else is lies.

[Dude with the Food]

Maybe the blood and mud spatters left a gap on the metal that was clean enough to see a trace of vapour? It's not like he'd have been instantly blanketed in gore.

[alreadyded]

That is certainly a possible explanation, but that Tolkien didn't explain that in the book by mentioning a clean spot still makes it a plot hole to me. Blood does get at least all over your weapon and forearms though, just watch a butcher at work. The filth is more the problem though (especially since he may have used a long spear on horse back so that could attribute to less blood on him, and Orc blood is black no? That is shiny enough possibly on its own to show vapor maybe), just being in a siege and then a battle following that, you would be filthy all over like you just dug a big hole kinda filth, just from being there even if you didn't fight. There certainly are explanations, but that it needs be explained because it wasn't explained in the book is the thing. The statement is already faulty on its own, and 'factual' generalizations made from it will be faulty to me. I still do consider them though, I just don't consider them facts, just theories to stay open minded about.

Focusing on my joke wasn't my intent for the thread, I just used that to show how silly it is to take little plot devices that are there to move the story on in as best a way as possible and make absolute generalizations off of them (like I did jokingly). The swan knights get a brief description and no more when approaching Minas Tirirth to help, that would have been the time Tolkien stated what they were wearing in detail if he had wanted to. I can only assume he did not want to. The whole vambrace thing is not meant to describe their looks in my opinion. It can be sure, but for anyone to think it is for a fact and not even consider any other possibilities of why it is there (only some of which I listed) is just ignorant and arrogant to me. Focusing on any tiny thing in a fictional story is pretty silly in itself, Tolkien probably didn't put as much thought into every little thing for the story to be picked apart like that. I doubt he would appreciate me jokingly being so critical of these little things, and certainly wouldn't appreciate it if he didn't know I was joking.


Edit; There is also the larger issue, to me, of why Imrahil wasn't off fighting and why he stopped if he was to dismount and check out the scene, then leave the battle while everyone else is helping. The blood and filth thing is just one thing that struck me as odd, I didn't mean to sound critical about that specifically, just one more thing to consider why I think the word vambrace may have been used was why I mentioned it. The whole scene is just there, even though it doesn't make sense in many ways, so Eyowen can be found and as a way to show she is visibly still alive was my overall point. Why Tolkien didn't specifically mention Imrahil's deeds, or make the Eyowen thing happen after the battle, or... whatever, was probably just overlooked because it didn't matter much to the main story. This is how I feel about it anyway. As I said I don't know how Tolkien meant it, but if I used the word vambrace (or something like full harness) in some silly scenario in my writing to simply further a plot I would not think that people will automatically link it to proof of partial/full plate armor.

Historically, no one knows when partial or full plate was first used, or where, or how much. People could make larger plates of metal even before they used iron, it was just about figuring out to heat the iron up more to get impurities out, and compress/fold it more to make it strong enough (steel) to merit it. We only have a good idea of when it came into common usage, and even that isn't fact just supported by multiple sources. Someone could find partial or full plate armor that dates back to the early middle ages tens minutes from now for all I know. Tolkien may have considered this and intended for some to have it, that is one thing I consider anyway (due to the Dwarves and Elves being so technologically advanced how would they no at least accidentally figure it out like humans later did? It is one of those 'only a matter of time' things and they had more than enough time for it to happen). The books never state that it was not used from what I recall so it will always be a possibility. It all goes back to letting the reader fill in the gaps with their opinions, I like using mine instead of any of yours. And I have no intention of changing anyone else's opinion, I am just sharing mine while I mod.

[b2ector]

Wow, this thread escalated after my response haha

Alreadyded, regarding full harness, in the specific context of medieval armor, "full harness" referred to plate armor rather than chain mail, as chain mail came in the form of shirt or tunic (hauberk, haubergeon, etc.) which slipped over the head and shoulders, whereas plate armor was attached and held together with harness-like leather straps and buckles. The term "vambrace" originates in the early 14th century, in the Late Middle Ages, and were constructed of leather (used by archers) or steel. While vambraces were sometimes created of splint mail (as well as splint mail greaves) these were commonly found on crusading soldiers, probably due to the heat of the holy lands. Excluding the splint mail vambraces and greaves used in the crusades, splint mail was not commonly found in western Europe, being a product found in ancient Scythia and Gaul, and in China. Based on Tolkien's extensive knowledge of western history, I find these references in his literature to be quite sufficient to "prove" that plate armor existed in his works, though - just like medieval history - restricted to those who could afford it, such as Imrahil and his company of knights, who would have been wealthy landowners. One last point; I don't think that these examples are the result of editors, as Tolkien was a big enough stickler that he would not allow the editors to change "dwarvish and dwarves" to "dwarfish and dwarfs," which was actually the correct spelling. He, for one reason or another, wanted the root word to change from being spelled with an "f" to being spelled with a "v."

Hitting on dwarves, I actually don't believe that they would have been the race to develop plate armor, as the books reference the dwarves at mastering the craft of making chain mail, specifically. They learned it from the Noldor but perfected it. While it is certainly possible that they could have developed it, as they are master smiths, it sounds as though they focused on chain mail. They Noldor were also equally renowned in forging metals, and I find it equally plausible that they were the race to develop plate.

Regarding Imrahil in battle, I don't think that he was either a coward or was attempting to lead from the rear. He spent most of the battle for Minas Tirith with Gandalf moving along the wall to rally troops. He is likened to Faramir in that men loved him and would follow him anywhere. The greatest threat in the battle wasn't the men and orcs, it was the fear induced by the Witchking. Like Faramir holding his men's morale together as they retreated from Osgiliath, Imrahil was able to uplift his men's spirits and inspire them to continue fighting. The men of Dol Amroth were decended from elves and, if I recall correctly, the book states that they were less susceptible to fear than the other men of Gondor. My point is simply that the value of one man fighting, even if he had the skill of Aragorn, isn't significant compared to his ability to encourage and inspire the other men to fight harder. A real world example is Richard the Lionheart, who would have had questionable value in combat but was able to leverage the respect and love of his men and transform it into courage and valor on the battlefield. I was, frankly, disappointed that Imrahil didn't really have a role in the movies as he is one of my favorite characters in the book. I would have loved if Tolkien had written him a slightly larger role.

It's no surprise that he was involved with Eowyn, really. Being a vet, you know how leaders are in the military; if anything happens they absolutely HAVE to get involved and stick their noses into everything. I'm sure Tolkien would have experienced (or even done this, as he was a officer) this in WWI when he was writing. It makes sense that when the knights found a woman on the battlefield, their captain - arguably the current leader of all Gondorian forces, with Denethor dead and Faramir sick and wounded - would have investigated once it was brought to his attention. Especially since she was known to be quite beautiful, had just taken down the Witchking and had fallen near Theoden. Perhaps he used his shield arm to check for her breath, which would have likely been much cleaner and better protected from blood and gore, or maybe he cleaned it on his surcoat before checking. I can't pretend to have ever been in hand-to-hand medieval combat, but my reading has led me to believe that it wasn't much like Hollywood portrays it. Hacking and slashing isn't nearly as useful as they make it seem, what with armor and bone, so properly trained warriors focused on attacking joints and weak points in armor with stabs and thrusts. Axes and hammers would certainly be swung, but they were neither as common on the battlefield as swords and spears, and they have the advantage of being able to break bones and crush armor, wounding and potentially killing opponents without even having to truly break skin. Arguably the two most lethal medieval weapons was the English longbow and the lance of a heavy horse, both of which pierce rather than cut. Roman legions ran drills that trained the legionnaires to thrust rather than stab. A human torso can take dozens of slashes yet be fairly well off because the rib cage is doing its job and protecting the inner vitals, but a single two inch stab wound can pierce a vital organ and result in fairly quick death. It makes sense to me that battle wouldn't truly be THAT bloody, as blood would have to make its way through a narrow hole in one or two thick layers of cloth, leather and metal. Consider a couple of years ago when that terrorist murdered the Russian ambassador to Turkey; he shot him straight through the heart and his blood didn't even pool on the ground because his heart stopped to quickly. Also, unlike modern warfare that is full of explosions and over-pressurization, and where the name of the game is to get low quick, crawl from cover to cover as much as possible and dig in fighting positions, they fought on their feet or on horseback and would be much less prone to getting covered in literal dirt.

Anywho, just my two cents but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I'm just a strong-willed LOTR nerd who loves this stuff and is very opinionated.

Well...that got long winded haha

[alreadyded]

Lore aside; Do you have any references that make a full harness of plate armor and the term full harness synonymous? I haven't seen any yet. Yes the term can be applied because the term harness refers to many things, why you guys keep linking a general term like harness to only plate armor is odd to me. When plate armor was in common usage the term would have been used to apply to it because it was the common equipment/gear for the time. Does that mean Tolkien used it to refer to that time when plate armor was used? Only if you wanted him to.

Tolkien was an etymologist, I would hope he studied the word's origin. Most of what I have read uses harness to refer to harnessing something. The word harness is used for many things, even today it is still used in many contexts.


In terms of lore; Why the Dwarves and Elves wouldn't come up with additional ways to protect weak areas on their chain armor by covering them with small plates (like people did in reality, which eventually lead to full plate) is beyond me. Personally I would at least want a plate armor cod piece. It is a fictional story that is set permanently in the Early Middle-Ages is the ultimate answer, so it doesn't have to make sense. To say there is no plate armor whatsoever is Middle-earth raises more questions that can't be answered than it answers is my opinion, so there is no point to saying it.

Ngugi already provided a quote of Tolkien using the word mail to describe what Imrahil was wearing as well. Not plate mail even, just mail. Is this also synonymous with plate armor?


Edit; The Imrahil thing was just a joke I used to make a point, you guys should be discussing the point not the joke. Again, it was a joke, I don't think he is a coward or any of the stuff I said jokingly, go back and read the point of the joke if you want to discuss that. I am not going to have a serious discussion about a silly joke I used to provide an example of over-analyzing a plot.

[Vifarc]

Lore aside; Do you have any references that make a full harness of plate armor and the term full harness synonymous?

Ngugi already provided a quote of Tolkien using the word mail to describe what Imrahil was wearing as well. Not plate mail even, just mail. Is this also synonymous with plate armor?

It is not synonymous,
but it do is for ThirdAge TotalWar as ThirdAge use for MiddleEarth the SteveJackson un-lore advanced plate technology.

[b2ector]

Here are a handful of examples that I quickly found in a Google search.
http://www.red-wyverns.org.uk/full-harness.html
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/armour.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=ub...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=yP...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=bf...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=nN...0armor&f=false

[Ngugi]

A look at JRR and the term harness.

Tolkien uses harness in his translation of [his great inspiration] Beowulf as well, many times , and that is certainly not to describe any kind of plate armour, being set in the 6th century and written in the 10th or 11th century, but the chain mail of the Norsemen.
Example from "Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary : Together with Sellic Spell", paperback edition 2016, page 22:

There shone corslet of war, hard, hand-linked, bright ring of iron rang in their harness, as in their dread gear they went striding straight unto the hall.
Weary of the sea they set their tall shields, bucklers wondrous hard, against the wall of the house, and sat then on the bench.
Corslets rang, war-harness of men. Their spears stood piled together, seamen's gear, ash-shafted, grey-tipped with steel. Well furnished with weapons was the iron-mailed company.
Then a knight in proud array asked those men of battle concerning their linage: 'Whence bear ye plated shields, your grey shirts of mail, your masked helms and throng of warlike shafts? ...'

Knowing this, are there examples of harness in JRR's Middle-earth writings that we may use to evaluate what Tolkien mean when he uses the word?
Yes, there are (also aside horse-gear, hehe).
First we have an example from the First Age, where we know mail was the top armour used:

By the command of Morgoth the Orcs with great labour gathered all the bodies of those who had fallen in the great battle, and all their harness and weapons, and piled them in a great mound in the midst of Anfauglith;
- Silmarillion; Of the Fifth Battle: Nirnaeth Arnoediad

Secondly, in LotR the Haradrim we have described has lamellar armour, and at the Black Gate they are described to have have harness:

[Frodo and Sam] crouched, listening. The voices and the clink of weapons and harness were very close.
- The Two Towers: The Black Gate is Closed

Thirdly, when Aragorn et al entered the Path of the Dead they encounter the body of Badlor, grand-son of Eorl of Rohan. His harness is a mail hauberk.

Before him were the bones of a mighty man. He had been clad in mail, and still his harness lay there whole; for the cavern’s air was as dry as dust, and his hauberk was gilded.
- RotK; The Passing of the Grey Company

In conclusion, the term harness when used by Tolkien is not an argument for plate armour. In fact, whenever harness can be defined in his texts, direct or indirect, they are not plate armour.
Do of that what you want.


A side note;
Related is that Tolkien in our quote from Beowulf, as in other cases, chose to translate óretmecgas as knight, which other scholars translate as elite soldier.
Original "þá ðaér wlonc hæleð óretmecgas æfter hæleþum frægn:" is given as "Then a knight in proud array asked those men of battle concerning their linage:", informing us that to Tolkien the term knight did not require plated mail to be applied [though that is of course known as the term is used for both the Grey Company and the Rohirrim, in RotK].

[alreadyded]

Here are a handful of examples that I quickly found in a Google search.
http://www.red-wyverns.org.uk/full-harness.html
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/armour.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=ub...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=yP...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=bf...0armor&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=nN...0armor&f=false

Only one of those refers to it as Full Harness (and it is referring to the time during the War of the Roses in the late period). The others specify "Full Harness of Plate Armor" so they don't agree with you or they are being redundant by calling it "Plate Armor Plate Armor" since Full Harness means plate armor. I don't think they were being redundant, just specific. So you found one reference that supports and five that refute that one. I found many of these myself when I posed the question, but I noticed they were specifying full harness of plate armor, and not just saying full harness by itself as if it that alone refers to plate armor so it is not supporting the claim. I appreciate you searching though.

Edit; Also, from what I have read, the quality of the metal used in plate armor declined (most likely the craftsmanship too due to high demand) as it increased in common usage. So it was not as good as time went on and by the time it would be the common equipment used by many. I have never researched this myself, I would imagine they tested the metals from different dates to notice this.