Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXII

[Kiero]

Fairly simple question here, which im sure has a not so simple answer. What was the primary use of the Chariot? Now i know that the Celts used them as a sort of mobile firing platform for archers, and im pretty sure the Greeks ran people over with theres. Where Chariots just "horse cavalry but bulkier" or did they serve a somewhat different purpose?

I ask cuz im designing a setting and i want to include Chariots, but there will also be conventional cavalry and i want to see if thats plausible.

Archery/javelin platform and battle taxi. The latter is the more useful one - a means to get the noble to the fight quickly, so he can dismount and lead. Also the means to get him out again, either to flee, or if he's required to stem the tide somewhere else.

The Celts didn't do much with archery, and as far as I'm aware didn't use chariot-based archery. Their missile weapon of choice was the javelin. They also pretty much abandoned the chariot by the middle of the third century BC, except as a funeral artefact. Cavalry was simply much better and more flexible on the battlefield.

[Vinyadan]

To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

[GraaEminense]

Chariot uses:

1) Battle taxi for important people who fight on foot, because walking to the battlefield in armour for is plebs and retreating on foot is dangerous. The Mycaeans and Celts may have used them like this. Homer describes these chariots in the Trojan war, but he probably worked from limited information -he knew they had chariots, but can't fathom how else they could be used. It was more likely to be...

2) Archery/javelin platform. Chariots allow elite warriors a stable archery platform that can carry lots of arrows as well as men in armour. With a driver, archers can focus on their job rather than manouvering a horse around. It also allows an easy escape from infantry -remember, chariots fall out of favour fast with most cultures that master horseriding. This is the main Middle Eastern bronze age use of the chariot, and which the Egyptians in particular are renowned for.

Chariots were used over simply riding the horse not only because horses were too weak to carry a fully equipped warrior, but also because riding the beasts is something that takes quite a while for a culture to master. And riding them in combat is harder still. From what I remember, when chariot cultures switched to horse archers they kept the system of one archer and one "driver" to control both horses for a while -I know there are depictions of Assyrians fighting like this, at least.

Don't underestimate how hard it is to get from horses as food to cavalry, is my point.

3) Mobile command post, as already mentioned. That makes sense if you haven't mastered horseriding yet or you just need something more impressive and comfortable (Darius III, looking at you).

However, we shouldn't forget...

4) Spiky terror-machine of death. A chariot is obviously vulnerable to missiles or to disciplined infantry, but huge spiky things coming right at you is going to open up an undisciplined infantry formation -much like heavy cavalry much later. The Persian scythed chariots at Gaugamela were intended for this use, and some of the heavier bronze age chariots (probably not Egyptian, but Assyrian and Hittite) could probably do the job. The Sumerian ones look like they should, but with the charge speed of donkeys or mules it seems unlikely. The earlier Celtic ones I've seen assumed used like this, but as far as I know we know little of what Celts actually were up to when they weren't fighting Romans. Caesar describes Celtic elites using chariots as a mix of battle taxi and javelin platform, the Celts seem to have been transitioning from chariots to cavalry when encountering the Romans.



TLDR: Chariots are used to do what horses do, before you have bred proper horses and have developed a horse-riding culture.

Spoiler: In short, you need...

Show

[Max_Killjoy]

Archery/javelin platform and battle taxi. The latter is the more useful one - a means to get the noble to the fight quickly, so he can dismount and lead. Also the means to get him out again, either to flee, or if he's required to stem the tide somewhere else.

The Celts didn't do much with archery, and as far as I'm aware didn't use chariot-based archery. Their missile weapon of choice was the javelin. They also pretty much abandoned the chariot by the middle of the third century BC, except as a funeral artefact. Cavalry was simply much better and more flexible on the battlefield.

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?

[GraaEminense]

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?

Yes. At least it seems so.

Caesar, The Gallic Wars (copied from Wikipedia): "Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdraw a little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry."

I found another one, from just after the Roman invasion:
"They make war not only on horseback but also from 2 horse chariots and cars armed in the Gallic fashion – they call them covinni – on which they use axles equipped with scythes."
It's suspected that this one is propaganda though, as there is little evidence of Celtic scythed chariots (unlike Persians).

[Galloglaich]

To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

Wow, what a fantastic fight scene! Half-swording, pommel strike, half-decent fencing over all, and the armor worked, at least until the very end. Seemed like a real fight too. And I liked the decapitation.

Thanks for posting that I'd never seen it before, must have been one of the last properly fight-coordinated fight scenes in Hollywood. Kudos to Polanski, (even though he's a perv)

EDIT: I guess we've also got Robocop for effective armor! maybe a little too effective but still, it bucks the trend.

G

[Blackhawk748]

Firstly, thanks for all the info guys. Nice to know i wasnt horribly off the mark.

How many people does a Chariot usually fit, 3 plus a driver? Cuz if you're just using it for drivebys you need less horses per warrior that way.

To be fair, there is a movie in which armour is super effective!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6VrmOQY1M

Is it just me or does the fact that they have sword blows bouncing off their armor make this fight more badass?

[Max_Killjoy]

Firstly, thanks for all the info guys. Nice to know i wasnt horribly off the mark.
How many people does a Chariot usually fit, 3 plus a driver? Cuz if you're just using it for drivebys you need less horses per warrior that way.

Egyptian chariots had just a driver and a warrior, who was primarily an archer or javelin-man in most cases IIRC.

Hittite chariots had a driver and two warriors.

Celtic chariots (at least in their heroic tales) were a driver/"spear-carrier", and an "elite warrior/hero".

[Lemmy]

Hmmm... I wonder what a modern smith, with modern tools and resource accessibility would do if he wanted to create a battle helmet to be used in medieval times (by some time traveler or whatever)... Helmet technology actually advanced quite a bit, but there isn't much focus in protecting the face from heavy impacts and/or high-speed projectiles (people prefer to simply keep their face out of the way, most of the time).

From what I could see, the bascinet was damn effective... But, man... Is it ugly as hell. It looks like a smiley fox... ><'

EDIT: Merry Christmas to you all, BTW! ^^

[Knaight]

Actual medieval and earlier literature also had people going through armor like butter. The Song of Roland is full of swords bisecting people from head to groin, going through shields and byrnies.

Armor sucking is as much a trope of the genre as anything.

It's a genre trope when it happens in heroic sagas, usually right alongside a whole bunch of other ludicrous feats (e.g. swimming for days on end, then getting right out of the ocean and winning a wrestling match with a gigantic monster). When it happens in fiction that's supposed to be more grounded it's usually indicative of author ignorance.

[Kiero]

Weren't the Celts of Britain (as in the island, not the not-yet-country) still using chariots when the Romans conquered parts of the island?

Britons were still using chariots, but they weren't Celts. While they had contact with the Celts of continental Europe and lots of shared material culture, they were a distinct and different people.

And as I said, by Ceasar's time, the Celts had dropped the chariot a couple of centuries earlier. They were master horsemen, and the wearing of trousers or bracchae was a sign of a man of high enough status to ride.

[Gnoman]

On this subject, I'm currently going through the third edition of Montross's War Through The Ages, and she cites a quote from Procopius that is related, regarding the horse-archers of the Byzantine Empire of AD 530.

But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and, at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip, such as to cover the region of the face and neck. They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight. They draw the bowstring along by the forehead about opposite the right ear, thereby charging the arrow with such an impetus as to kill whoever stands in the way, shield and corselet alike having no power to check its force.

Does anybody have sources to dispute this, or more details on the "corselet" of the era?

[Lilapop]

Wow, what a fantastic fight scene! Half-swording, pommel strike, half-decent fencing over all, and the armor worked, at least until the very end. Seemed like a real fight too. And I liked the decapitation.

That thrust at least went through the (shoddy-looking) mail. And it was a thrust. I guess keeping with the "find a weak spot and thrust at it" is about as much as we can ask for, and definitely better than we usually get today.

[Galloglaich]

On this subject, I'm currently going through the third edition of Montross's War Through The Ages, and she cites a quote from Procopius that is related, regarding the horse-archers of the Byzantine Empire of AD 530.



Does anybody have sources to dispute this, or more details on the "corselet" of the era?

A corselet could really mean anything, though it usually refers to metal armor. It could be mail, it could be a breast plate, but given that particular context I would guess lamellar over mail, specifically some version of a type of Byzantine armor they sometimes called 'klibanion'

G

[Galloglaich]

That thrust at least went through the (shoddy-looking) mail. And it was a thrust. I guess keeping with the "find a weak spot and thrust at it" is about as much as we can ask for, and definitely better than we usually get today.

Yeah reasonable points. No doubt about it, it was a great scene. And I agree 100% with Blackhawk748, the fact that the armor works does make the fight more exciting.

G

[Tobtor]

This seems to put paid to the idea that the Greenwich armor had quickly reached the levels of the South-German armor.

On page 148 he seems to be implying that the Graz tests on the old armor and the modern mild steel were done both with musket and pistol, and attributes the superior performance of the 16th Century armor to “working the breastplate and hardening the surface”. I would translate that personally as more accurately tempering, though the way he describes the armor being made in England with German steel doesn’t quite wash with that.

Well there are both hardening and tempering going on in the way the armour seem to be treated. Perhaps already the earlier steps had reduced the amount of impurities in the 'German' steel, thus making the steel harder AND easier to temper (you need both to make it springy, but if you cannot achieve that you might want it soft rather than glass-like which is what you can get with a wrong tempering)? One issue with tempering is that those colour schemes (blue for good swords etc) is relying on 1) relatively pure steel (other materials might colour at the wrong time). 2. A somewhat evenly and -fast- heating, as the colour is also reached at lower temperatures, if its heated for longer.

But definitely an interesting source. I will see if I can find it when I have some time.

This is why almost everyone assumes that DnD generic fantasy land where they have plate armor (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings) shouldn't have any guns, but the opposite is true.

That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

[Tobtor]

The Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors fall outside those dates (they were most prominent around roughly 1000-1200), but they were a military unit with a distinct reputation for skill, brutality and loyalty and were definitely considered elite. They were also an institution rather than a short-term warband. Edit: And, since this will become a recurring theme, they did support a usurper emperor at least once.

The knightly orders of the various Crusades, like the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, were not only elite military units but independent or at least autonomous mini-states. Time-wise they are perfect for your European fantasy world.

The mamluks of Egypt and other muslim rulers were slave soldiers, but also important members of the administration. In Egypt they eventually seized power, ruling the country from 1250 to 1517. They were not a single unit, but a soldier caste.

A similar system was set up in Turkey, with the janissaries. These were the Sultan's guards (so more of a single unit, but also important parts of the palace administration), and eventually they too became kingmakers and power-players.

If you want Romans, the Praetorian Guard of the emperors were probably considered elite (they were well paid and expected to be loyal). However, they did end up murdering emperors and choosing new ones...

The moral of history is that you really shouldn't have royal guards.

Well... other troops might have rebelled MORE or abandoned you in face of other threats.

Beside that royal guards, hirds, huscarls etc, seem to be pretty common. There is two ways of doing it: foreigners (Varangains, Swiss Guards etc), or local elites given special privileges to stay loyal (hirds, knights etc).

Apart from the ones mentioned above you could also add the Jomsvikings. Though accounts of the exact deeds are legendary I think it is proven that they existed (various slightly later sources as well as references on contemporary rune stones).

[GraaEminense]

I forgot the Jomsvikings! Well caught. It does seem likely that they existed (mentioned in several sagas, after all) and that they were a group of elite warriors with a well-known brand. They fit the "elite pre-gunpowder unit" category very well.

[Storm Bringer]

Well there are both hardening and tempering going on in the way the armour seem to be treated. Perhaps already the earlier steps had reduced the amount of impurities in the 'German' steel, thus making the steel harder AND easier to temper (you need both to make it springy, but if you cannot achieve that you might want it soft rather than glass-like which is what you can get with a wrong tempering)? One issue with tempering is that those colour schemes (blue for good swords etc) is relying on 1) relatively pure steel (other materials might colour at the wrong time). 2. A somewhat evenly and -fast- heating, as the colour is also reached at lower temperatures, if its heated for longer.

But definitely an interesting source. I will see if I can find it when I have some time.



That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

nah, that was a thing well before the LOTR were made. watch pretty much any 50s King Arthur or Robin Hood flim and you'll see the same things.

[Tobtor]

nah, that was a thing well before the LOTR were made. watch pretty much any 50s King Arthur or Robin Hood flim and you'll see the same things.

I didnt say the problem was not there before LotR, just that it was the film version which introduced it to the LotR universe (not the books).

Though if you see the 1952 version of Ivanhoe you see mail (sort of a Robin Hood film), the same goes for the 1938 Robin Hood (and the 1922 one at that, I believe it also goes for Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) but its been very long since I have seen it), and its always hard to get the "right" costumes for King Arthur anyway, as it is "set" in a mythological past, but written and imagined in the medieval period, thus giving them 'dark age' clothing clash with the 'medieval' story. Guns in King Arthur would be kind of strange, but (some versions) where written in the plate era. The armour in the 1953 version of King Arthur looks as very early plate, maybe 1380'ies or so (so portable guns should still be rare, especially in backwater England). They definately wear less plate than in the 1981 Excalibur movie (both have much better costumes than lets say "First Knight" from 1995, or the n2004 version of King Arthur).

So barring King Arthur movies, I think the 'problem' of plate armour and no guns, is restricted to fantasy and newer films (I can't remember outright plates in the 2010 Robin Hood film, but they are wearing various coat of plates, scale mail etc, which seem off for the period and place). In fact like "weird" leather things, plates before the plate era is sort of a growing thing, and not a very old one.

[Vitruviansquid]

I didnt say the problem was not there before LotR, just that it was the film version which introduced it to the LotR universe (not the books).

Though if you see the 1952 version of Ivanhoe you see mail (sort of a Robin Hood film), the same goes for the 1938 Robin Hood (and the 1922 one at that, I believe it also goes for Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) but its been very long since I have seen it), and its always hard to get the "right" costumes for King Arthur anyway, as it is "set" in a mythological past, but written and imagined in the medieval period, thus giving them 'dark age' clothing clash with the 'medieval' story. Guns in King Arthur would be kind of strange, but (some versions) where written in the plate era. The armour in the 1953 version of King Arthur looks as very early plate, maybe 1380'ies or so (so portable guns should still be rare, especially in backwater England). They definately wear less plate than in the 1981 Excalibur movie (both have much better costumes than lets say "First Knight" from 1995, or the n2004 version of King Arthur).

So barring King Arthur movies, I think the 'problem' of plate armour and no guns, is restricted to fantasy and newer films (I can't remember outright plates in the 2010 Robin Hood film, but they are wearing various coat of plates, scale mail etc, which seem off for the period and place). In fact like "weird" leather things, plates before the plate era is sort of a growing thing, and not a very old one.

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

[Storm Bringer]

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

in defence of art, you see the exact same sort of thing these days as well.

its the reason why people think Jesus had pale skin, long flowing hair and a goatee, because renaissance painters painted him in contemporary style.

[Galloglaich]

It was also common to see really bad history in actual medieval pictures. Medieval artists would put the ancient Greek characters of, say, the siege of Troy, in medieval mail armor with medieval helmets and wearing the latest in medieval fashions.

Yes but that wasn't necessarily out of ignorance - in fact typically it was intentional. They knew what Roman and Greek armor looked like from Roman and Greek art, in fact they used to make imitations of it sometimes, and sort of hybrid designs for both weapons and armor.

You have to keep in mind, late medieval and Renaissance art was almost always representative of several things simultaneously. it was very common to have a painting, a tapestry or a fresco which was Greek or biblical story on the surface, a contemporary political allegory beneath that (referring for example to recent battles, elections or other events), religious controversies or factional positions which may or may not overlap with the politics, and a personal story which had directly to do with the artists immediate circle of friends, family and associates (for example the models who were quite often lovers of the artist).

For example, this famous triptych by Hans Memling featuring the Last Judgement, shows the guy who commissioned the painting, Thomas Portinari, the Medici agent for Bruges, being judged worthy next to his wife. On the far right side you can see people burning in hellfire. if you look closely, many of them are tonsured. Apparently these were Dominican friars and allied priests who Memling disliked. Conversely being judged worthy are several members of a political faction in Bruges (town councilors and guild aldermen and their wives) who advocated neutrality in the Anglo-Hanseatic war instead of siding with England. Two of the women in the background were former girlfriends of Memling and he also put one of his drinking buddies on the 'going to hell' side as a joke. There are also apparently some inside jokes to do with the physical appearance of some of the naked people, which Memling and his audience were familiar with from the baths.

The fact that Saint Michael is wearing a nice Milanese harness or that there is a 15th Century style sword in the top of the painting is simply due to Memlings personal preference, as are similar 'anachronisms' in his paintings to do with Biblical stories or Greek fables.


Ironically on it's way to Florence in a heavily armed Italian galley, this painting was captured by a privateer under a Danzig city-councilor named Paul Benecke, due to an embargo being enforced by the Hanseatic league because of the Anglo-Hanseatic War, and ended up in Danzig (Gdansk) where it remains to this day.

Spoiler: Full Size

Show

I happen to know a bit about this one painting because of research I did on that war, but I've run across many similar deeply complex stories, wheels within wheels so to speak, on many other Flemish, German and Italian paintings.

G

[Eladrinblade]

Mongol horsearchers: comp shortbows or comp longbows?

My 3.5 representation:

Spoiler

Show

CN Human Ranger 4
4d8+4 (25 hp)
Init +3
Spd 30ft
AC 18 (+3 dex, +1 shield, +4 armor)
Bow +8 (1d8+2, x3, 110ft)
Saber +9 (1d6+2, 19-20/x2)
Favored Enemy (humans or animals) +2, Wild Empathy +5, Animal Companion (1 bonus trick, link, share spells)
1 - (1st level spell)
F+5, R+7, W+2
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Animal Affinity, Mounted Combat, Track, Rapid Shot, Mounted Archery, Endurance
Geography 4, Handle Animal 8, Listen 8, Nature 7, Ride 10, Search 5, Spot 8, Survival 8/10/12
Common
MW Mty Comp Longbow (+2), x40 Arrows, MW Saber*, MW Chain Shirt, MW Buckler, Riding Saddle, Light Warhorse Animal Companion,
Wand of Longstrider (x20 Charges), Wand of Cure Light Wounds (x20 Charges), Scroll Case (Barkskin CL 5, Cats Grace CL 3,
Entangle CL 1, Protection from Energy CL 3, Spike Growth CL 3), Oil of Shield (CL 2), Oil of Magic Weapon (CL 2), Potion of
Protection from Arrows, Potion of Shield of Faith +2 (CL 2), 103gp for whatever else (basic gear, special material arrows, etc)

*from the forgotten realms campaign setting

[Lilapop]

Mongol horsearchers: comp shortbows or comp longbows?

My 3.5 representation:

Spoiler

Show

CN Human Ranger 4
4d8+4 (25 hp)
Init +3
Spd 30ft
AC 18 (+3 dex, +1 shield, +4 armor)
Bow +8 (1d8+2, x3, 110ft)
Saber +9 (1d6+2, 19-20/x2)
Favored Enemy (humans or animals) +2, Wild Empathy +5, Animal Companion (1 bonus trick, link, share spells)
1 - (1st level spell)
F+5, R+7, W+2
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Animal Affinity, Mounted Combat, Track, Rapid Shot, Mounted Archery, Endurance
Geography 4, Handle Animal 8, Listen 8, Nature 7, Ride 10, Search 5, Spot 8, Survival 8/10/12
Common
MW Mty Comp Longbow (+2), x40 Arrows, MW Saber*, MW Chain Shirt, MW Buckler, Riding Saddle, Light Warhorse Animal Companion,
Wand of Longstrider (x20 Charges), Wand of Cure Light Wounds (x20 Charges), Scroll Case (Barkskin CL 5, Cats Grace CL 3,
Entangle CL 1, Protection from Energy CL 3, Spike Growth CL 3), Oil of Shield (CL 2), Oil of Magic Weapon (CL 2), Potion of
Protection from Arrows, Potion of Shield of Faith +2 (CL 2), 103gp for whatever else (basic gear, special material arrows, etc)

*from the forgotten realms campaign setting

Ruleswise, you can't use longbows on horseback*. Historically, you'll end up with the same verdict: pretty much every bow that was ever used on a horse would be categorized as shortbow in D&D - the only exception is that asymmetrical japanese thing that afaik has its shape for this specific purpose.
I'd go with fighter over ranger (or a 2/2 combo), rgr4 is getting a bit too magic for my taste and you'd want at least three horses per warrior anyway. Also, look at Oriental Adventures or the Arms & Equipment Guide for typical asian lamellar armor (maybe even mix in those silly bracers and extra breastplates); and jump through some hoops to get a quickdrawn heavy wooden shield (or just accept the move action).

*Thats what I get for not doublechecking. Composite longbows can be used while riding, just regular longbows can't. Still, what the mongols used was the size of a shortbow.

[Kiero]

A horseman's bow will always be a "shortbow" in D&D nomenclature. Footmen can use longer bows with a longer range - which is one of the effective counters to horse archery.

[Incanur]

The 17th-century big-ear Manchu bow, which became the dominant style across China in the Qing era, comes the closest to 3.x D&D's composite longbow.

[Thinker]

Britons were still using chariots, but they weren't Celts. While they had contact with the Celts of continental Europe and lots of shared material culture, they were a distinct and different people.

By some arguments, there was no such thing as "Celts" at all. There was a Celtic language group, which included the Britons, but not a common ethnicity or history.

[Blackhawk748]

By some arguments, there was no such thing as "Celts" at all. There was a Celtic language group, which included the Britons, but not a common ethnicity or history.

To be fair when most people say Celt they are typically either referring to a) the Gaelics or b) the Gauls. On top of this Wikipedia does list Britain as Cetlic, but im pretty sure they're using it as a very broad term.

[Beleriphon]

That is one of the things I was also very disappointed about in the movie version of LotR. From the book it is quite clear that the main armour is mail, and the weapon technology is more like 11th-12thcentury (and for Rohan more like 8th-11th century: Vikings/Anglo-Saxon on horses). If you go through the books descriptions of weapons and armour, there is as far as I remember, only once where armour described in a way that could be interpreted as plate (I think it said that Gimli wore a cuirass or something like that - so perhaps dwarves is experimenting with plate).

So Peter Jackson and team really 'invented' the plate/lack of late medieval technology problem (no advanced poleweapons, no heavy windlass crosbows, no gunpowder guns (only the bombs Sarumans troops use at Helms deep).

In fairness the Lord of the Rings has this weird mishmash of tech levels going on, and by weird its often off by at least a few centuries between groups. So the Rohirrim are horse Vikings, while Gondor has this post-Rome Arthurian vibe that's been going on for three millennia, and Galadriel hasn't updated her outfit in at least 15000 years (she's the oldest character as of Lord of the Rings, last calculation I did was something in the range of 23000 years on the low end), so the elves decided they won at awesome and haven't done anything new for a least a dozen millennia. Dwarves are wearing heavy mail coats and at least some variety of plate armour. Oh, and the Shire is basically a pre-Industrial English countryside, complete with the local pubs. Which is at least a millennia ahead of any place else in the setting.

It is best to remember that Professor Tolkien was a professor and lover of languages, not metallurgy.