How much plate?

[JeremyDillon]

Recently, I've become quite confused as to how common plate was on the battlefield. Playing games such as Medieval 2: Total War hasn't helped as thier recreation of the battle of Agincourt has every single foot soldier clad in full harness, which I know must be ridiculous. Does anyone know of a resource that could help me gain a more accurate understanding? I know the distribution must have varied from battle to battle, but I'm sure there must be accounts of specific battles which might shed some light on this.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

If you are talking about a full suit of armour, well, it was quite expensive, so only knights, or nobles could be able to afford it. Armor plate wasn´t as common as seen in games or movies. Long bow Archers and crossbowmen used leather armours, but i don´t remember the rest of the troops.


Maybe this page can help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

P.D.: Do you know till wich century knighs fought?

Thanks

[RayMcCullough]

Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but leather armor was not that popular or better than a linen padded coat(jack,aketon). Brigandine's had leather on the outside sometimes, but they had linen more often. I imagine the leather would be more expensive than linen.

Look at some of the pictures from the battle of Crecy and Poiters. They are usually in every history textbook.You see quite a few men who appear to be wearing brigandines and Jacks, and the knights in the background.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I also believe that the prevalence of leather has been overplayed by fantasy literature and artists. In the real Middle Ages, quilted or other fabric-based defenses were probably at least as common (if not more so) than leather. And, personally, I'd take a quilted jack anytime over a boiled leather cuirass, let alone a soft leather vest (not the very thick 17th-century buffcoat) that gives little actual protection.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Yes, sorry i was wrong, i was refering to that cloth armour wore by foot soldiers (Wich i though it was made of leather), and by long bow archers. I couldn´t remember the name of those armours. Sorry, i was convinced that they were made of soft leather .

Did foot soldiers used that cloth armours wich had little metal pieces inside?

[Allen Johnson]

Medieval Scots wore leather covered aketons.

[Brian Hunt]

Don't forget that we have written evidence of Jacks made out of somewhere around 30 layers of linen with an outer shell made from deer hide.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Did lowlander and highlander knights used plate armour and claymore and the lowlander swords?

[Allen Johnson]

Scots were generally speaking less well equipped than the English or other Europeans. Plate was more scarce there. So yes some did wear plate armor, but probably less than the average European army. The medieval Scots used other weapons than the two handers. Arming swords, bastard swords, falchions and all the usual weapons were present there. Only the sword known as the "claymore" seems to have been a distinctly Scottish modified and flavored weapon (and the Highland dirk). Much of their armor and blades were sent from Germany (Solingen sp?) and then sword slippers would but all the parts together and re-sell them.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Did foot soldiers used that cloth armours wich had little metal pieces inside?

Of course they did. In the 13th century or so, it would have been made up of small plates affixed to the inside of the surcoat and called "pair of plates," whereas in the 15th century it would have been more likely to consist of similar plates (but better shaped to follow the curves of the body) sandwiched between two layers of fabric and leather. This latter variety is usually called "brigandine" in the modern nomenclature although, strictly speaking, the brigandine proper is a type of 16th-century Spanish armor forming a subset of that definition.

I think the original "pair of plates" would have been worn by knights, squires, and other elite men-at-arms whether mounted and dismounted, whereas the later brigandine was more widespread among foot and mounted soldiers alike. The French and Burgundian Ordonnances fro mthe second half of the 15th century often prescribed the use of brigandines for their archers, who were (at least in the beginning) meant to fight as mounted infantry.

I read most of these things several years ago, though, and my memory could be a bit rusty--not to mention that new research may have invalidated some of the points.

[JeremyDillon]

I really hate to be a party pooper, as all this information is very interesting (particularly the stuff about Scots), but I would refer you back to my original post as no one seems to have answered that question yet.

[Brad Johnson]

Look for references on the battle of Wisby. Most battles were fought during winter to free up men from farm duties to fight, however Wisby was fought in summer. The significants being that after the treaties were drawn up and they went back to the battle field, after about a week or so, to scavenge it, it stank. Little to no scavanging took place, instead large pits were dug and the bodies were buried enmass. Again the signifigance, there were several pieces of leather and small metals found that had to date never been seen. Most battle fields were picked clean of anything still usable, leaving little in the way archeological eveidence for an accurate spread of armour. Leather deteriorates over time and small plates would be disgarded and replaced as needed, again deteriorating. Wisby shows that leather was much more common than previously believed. Also most paintings would done showing the "romanticized" idea of the artist, again showing heavieness of plate armour. Also usually done in the artist's period, as much as 100 years after the actual battle. The average person pressed into military service would usually just have a padded jack, if he was lucky enough to survive more than one battle he might have a piece or two that he scavenged from the preceeding encounters.

Brad J.

[Brad Johnson]

"Speculum Regale" a mid-thirteenth century Icelandic chronicle has a father adressing his son in military duties in that when fighting on foot he should wear a byrnie or thick panzar(gambeson), a strong shield or a buckler, and a heavy sword. Nothing is mentioned of plate armour, or even mail.

For fighting at sea he states that a long spear is best for defence, with a long panzar, a good helm, and a broad shield. Apart from the helm, no metal armour is again mentioned.

For horseman he states, "First hose made of soft and well prepared linen cloth, which should reach to the breeches-belt. Then above them good mail hose of such a height that they may be fastened by a double string(suspenders). Next let him put on a good pair of breeches made of strong linen, on which must be fastened knee-caps(poleyns) made of stout iron fastened with strong rivets. The upper part of the body should be clothed first in a soft linen panzar which should reach to mid-thigh, and over this a good breast defence of iron extending from the bosom to the waist belt; above that a good byrnie and over all a good panzar of the same length as the tunic, but without sleeves(surcoat).

"Let him have two-swords-one girt around him, the other hung at his saddle bow, and a good dagger. He must have a good helm made of tried steel, provided with all defence for the face, and a good thick shield suspended form his neck, especially furnished with a strong handle. Lastly, let him have a good and sharp spear of tried steel, with a long shaft."

Hope this helps a bit.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Jeremy,

if you're looking for primary sources, especially ones available on the Net, you can get a great deal out of such sites as the ORB ( http://the-orb.net ) and De Re Militari ( http://www.deremilitari.org ). There's also an extensive and acessible translation of Philippe de Commynes' memoirs here : http://www.r3.org/bookcase/de_commynes/decom_1.html -- it contains extensive first-hand descriptions of warfare and battles in the late 15th century, often including the armors worn by the participants.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
This is what I have gathered so far
The answer really depends of the “country” you are in.
By 1360-1380, the armies of the HYW were really semi-professional/ professional.
And towns (at least in france and in italy) had stock of armour, so I would guess each time a town was taken/surrendered or sent people. The piggy bank was raided.
So that time only poor country or country that relied on mass levies would have been equipped with what the levy could come up with.


Full plate is really a 15th century thing. A full set of plate cost about 8-10 pound at the time. So only nobility could really afford it (or sponsored town militia/mercenaries like in Italy where the armour was on lean/buying plan from a town).
It seems as well that one noble had several set of armour. From memory (so the humber will be incorrect), Falstoff inheritance inventory mention that he had a full set of plate 2-or 3 brigandine, and 3 or 4 jaques, So it is possible that this equipment was used by some of his personal retinue when he was not using it himself

It seems very likely that combination of brig/mail/both and gambeson or jaque were by tropps at that time. Some times gambeseon of the top and the bottom where sewn together as a single garment with the mail trapped inside. Amy of that with a helmet was a sort of the minimum.

From the 12th to 14th century the transitional armour is really what was used.
To be ultra generic and short
It started with mail and gambeson under and over.
Then the top gambeson was replaced by boiled leather
That leather was replaced by plate, coat of plate on the body and finally cuirass and backplate.
Then the gambeson of the top came up to cover the under gambeson the plate.
(in fact I am not really sure if the top gambeson ever really disappeared).
To disaper again to become the white harness (mail and proper plate) which will lead to the full plate proper (i.e. just remaining bit of mail)


Medieval total war II (and I) represents foot soldier in full harness because the English nobility usually fought on foot.
Being used as and heavy infantry to anchor and protect the less well protect common archer (and the not so badly equipped household archer)

phil