Matt and Lloyd don't always agree, but when in comes to heavy metal rock music studded leather "armor" they form a stronger unified front than an Anglo-Saxon shield wall.
If I am able to watch a man speak for 16 minutes and be excited while listening to him, I'd call that a win. Great job, Matt. I love how easly you have managed to tie up all the sharp edges of this topic into one informative package. I am looking forward to see more videos of this sort. Again, good job!
Great video, you mention that this applies mostly to northwestern europe. I would very much like to see you talk about a comparison of armor/weaponry between the different areas of Europe.
Thanks for taking us into a deeper water of medieval armour topics. I loved this episode and apparently I was not alone - 300 views and 200+ likes tells it all.
Interesting video! I remember hearing somewhere that during the period brigantine armor was popular, it was also popular in civilian fashion to wear soft leather jackets with rivets meant to evoke brigantine armor, and that this may be where the popular conception of "studded leather armor" may have come from. Looking forward to more videos about armor!
Great video about the types of armor within the medieval period. I feel like it's a lot harder to find accurate information on armor than it is to find such information on weapons of any given period in history, so thanks for that, Matt. I reckon that perhaps weapons are simply more glamorous to talk about and such. And perhaps it is that there are so many ways with which people can kill each other and relatively so few ways of effectively protecting themselves from being killed, that the subject of weapons simply warrants more discussion. In any case, certainly you see a lot more people talking about weapons than about armor. I get the impression from what you've said in this video that the notion of all soldiers in any given unit all wearing the same identical gear is also a fictitious embellishment of modern film? It's common to see in film that all the archers, or all the spearmen, or what have you, are all wearing the same and often nearly identical sets of armor. Is it very likely that wasn't often the case during this period? With most soldiers supplying whatever arms and armor they could afford for themselves, it seems likely that this sort of uniform look in gear just didn't exist in an actual historical context.
I was happy you mentioned the lighter armor seen in Scotland. To my knowledge, it was only the very high nobility or those more associated with Anglo cutlure that wore a lot of plate. Most gentry elected to wear a long aketon and a bascinet, many times with a long maille hauberk. Take the gallowglass for example. During this time Gaelic culture was ubiquitous north of the Forth and so were their traditions in arms and armor. I do believe their armor was lighter than their southern counterparts due to geography and their preference to guerilla warfare.
A simple advice, specially useful for your non-english audience: if there are some key words which you mention in the video (like names of weapons, armor pieces, etc), it would be really useful to have them written in the video description. Otherwise, if we don't know them, then we aren't able to google them for pictures, descriptions, etc. For example, in this particular video I didn't know how to spell Brigandine, so I had to google for related armor pieces and read until I found something that was similar to what you were pronouncing :)
scholagladiatoria though instead of always refering to "knights" you could explain that knight was a noble title for those born into lower nobility and had nothing to do with the type of armor he would wear if he even fought while basicly everyone whop could afford full plate armor did wear full plate armor with some exceptions. Sure you can say if you are a knight chances are that you can afford full plate though there were quite some knights that did not have plate armor and some even did not have a horse while a wealthy merchant could outfit himself in full plate armor wtih horse and shiny weapons. And ofc that the "knightly knights" we imagine are usually just pure fantasy or based on some very very rare characters that actually were dukes or barons and not knights.
I know its a joke but actually the Irish light infantry known as the Kern never wore helmets or shoes into battle. Its also never recorded of them wearing any armor what so ever but it possible they could have wore some padding or leather underneath their robes.
Wasn't the brigandine also warn without mail, or more precisley as the better alternative to chainmail? I heard that it was made sometimes out of outdated breastplates that became to thin for modern guns. Small scales are easier to produce even by minor forges and the assembly and repair is much faster and easier. It protects more from stabs and arrows and dissipates energy further. Moreover it can be produced from scrapmetal/mail. The only disadvantage I see is the tendency of rust due to the moist leather.
11:40 I'm pretty sure it's commonly accepted knowledge that "(studded) leather armor" derives from Gary Gygax and others misunderstanding depictions of brigantines. But I'm just as sure that Hollywood people putting such on screen (just like the average consumer thereof) don't have idea one that there're actually supposed to be plates underneath to be at all effective.
Brigandines could also be an attractive choice for wealthy people to show off the fancy fabrics they can afford and the decoration that can be put on it.
Yes but this function was more often served by the surcoat, waffenock, or jupon, which was worn over already existed armor, like a brigandine or plate cuirass.
Thank you very much for this video, it's coming as if by order for me :) I'm currently looking for books/resources regarding 15th/early 16th century weapons and armor. Can you suggest some bibliography? Edit: actually I found your forum on "fioredeiliberi", so I guess I'll start from there.
Thanks Matt for this awesome overview of both troops and common medieval armor types! Although I am a little surprised there was no mention of leather armors in the light and cheap section. Either buff coats, cuirboilli as limb protection or full body, or leather or skin top layers on gambesons or jacks. Leaving out lamellar makes sense though as its a more eastern style. Still, a bit of leather love... I know you've addressed it in previous videos so why leave it out here? Also, since you're doing much about Vikings, you may want to do some of the pros and cons we see on Game of Thrones... which actually shows most of these armor forms rather well.
I wanted to add that archers often wore a thick/thickish leather glove and a thick leather bracer on either of their arms. While it's not nearly as much as plated gauntlets, some of the bracers (like mine) are pretty substantial. So maybe a well equipped archer might have a bracer on each arm, in addition to his shooting glove.
To fit the specific role of a heavily armored infantryman using a case of rapiers-esc manor of fighting in close quitters (this is all for re-enactment) would brigandine and a steel plackart be an appropriate for the torso.
Good evidence for the utility of helmets: bronze age helmets, both bronze and organic...even when you had very little armor, the first thing you get are helmets.
Im wondering if you would be open to giving your thoughts ( or even doing a video ) on the practicallity of the armour worn by the different races in the Lord of the rings/ The Hobbit movies. The Tolkien mythology is what got me into ancient /midieval weapons, armour and fighting styles. Tolkiens work are very enjoyable, but alas are fantasy. I would very much enjoy to hear your thoughts and opinions on this topic, as yours is the channel that has broken me out of alot of the b.s of fantasy warfare, and im trying to become better educated in this field. Thank you for your time, and i thoroughly enjoy all of your videos. Very informative and enjoyable.
The knights could also be wearing brigandine because they either couldnt afford plate or they couldnt afford two sets and their only set was too battered to be worn, So if they had to fight again before it could be replaced, they could probably afford to buy a brigandine of another.
You're right, there actually no such rule/boundary that only noble using full plate harness & lower hierarchy only using light padded & mail. This is no such clearly distinguish for the equipment using between cavalry & infantry. For example, those famous mercenaries units such as landsknecht & Swiss Reisläufer are notable for using more expensive plate harness, especially for veteran "Doppelsöldner" (meant "double pay man"). Basically, the type of equipment that soldier can get is decide by his economic condition rather than social position. I remember in another collab video called "Top 5 Medieval Myths" created by a group of my favored history podcasters (Metatron, Shad, Antony Cummins and Medieval Review) has better explain about this issue.
+scholagladiatoria so how hard were these solider to defeat? It sounds like with a padded jacket plus mail and then brigidine. They were really well protected. Also how hot did they get and was that an effect on the type of armor worn? Great video!
You know, in American football, there was once a phenomenon where people stopped wearing helmets to improve their vision compared to people who did wear helmets. And after a while, nobody wore helmets, so everyone was on the same playing field again, but they weren't at all safe. That is until helmets became mandatory by rule.
What was the cost of mail compared to the cost of plate? I have tried to look this up but couldn't find any decent answers. The bottom line is was there any point in a man-at-arms using mail after the advent of plate?
Mail was the most expensive protection money could buy for a long time. After the black death, labor costs rose sharply in europe and made mail even more expensive than munition plate. Before custom made high end full plate, the rich chose mail.
Hello scholagladiatoria, love your channel especially about armor topic, wallace collection & new opinion from modern historians about Battle of Agincourt. I just like to add that is another one may be also used by common soldier or even civilian during this period called Jack of plates, they found a relative intact piece near Jamestown (ruclips.net/video/pwrDUplLO-0/видео.html). According to wiki, its kind like a sewing type of brigandine.
Are you interested in general medieval warfare tactics and formation, too? Or "just" the actual fighting technique stuff? Do you think about making videos about strategy and tactics? That would be really interesting imho.
Overrepresented in movies and games: leathercuirasse (was it ever used in the middle ages???) leather bracers scale armor (why did it fall out of favor and got replaced by mail?)
It would be a bit more accurate to say that maille armor was replaced by lamellar, in terms of evolution. Lamellar armor has a more sturdy construction because it has multiple wires securing the plates rather than one. So the connection is stronger and you can't slip a blade inside from the right angle like scale armor. And no, a leather cuirass was never made and used. Leather armor was more often used to hold armor together, rather than provide the protection. The only full protective leather armor I know of is leather lamellar armor, sometimes used by Easter European and central Asian people who couldn't afford metal armor.
I think there were a few incidents of hardened leather cuirasses but it wasn't particularily common and almost more of a fashion article for nobles going on hunts rather than armour that was meant for actual combat.
Matt, I might be wrong but I read on several different independent sources that mail shirts and plate breastplates never existed on an equal footing with each other. Once full plate became available it was cheaper AND more effective than mail, which is why mail began to be used only on parts that had to stay flexible like armpits or as an extra layer of protection additional to plate for a warrior who has nigh infinite ressources. Are you really sure about the combination of brigantine and mail or even full male shirts over padded jackets, because I can't recall such a combination from a single museum or depiction of late medieval warfare.
As troops were mostly levied rather than recruited there was little opportunity to standardise arms. However, there were often statutes that mandated what troops had to bring as far back as early hoplites. While not strictly a regular force with quartermasters for such things, it was required to supply oneself with a pre-defined set of equipment. This continued, with feudal rulers demanding their subjects provide x number of y and z men in the event of war and there are examples of contracts (with amusing insurance clauses) that set out what was demanded. Thus, until standing armies, branches of armies were largely homogenous, if not strictly 'regular' simply due to terms of service and, as Matt explained, established ideas of what various types were to possess. That said, there are examples of, say, the Immortals who were depicted with identical arms. However, firstly this may be artistic license. If true, it certainly was not the norm and has little bearing on fighting, tactics, organisation, etc. like the Romans. Still, the Sumerians are also shown having nicely organised gear and its simplicity lends credence to the idea -- there were not a billion styles of armour form which to choose for them. Their close relatives the Assyrians are perhaps the only example that I feel confident in touting as a force with similar standardisation, not only of arms but doctrine and training, etc. Let me know if I missed something: needless to say, I'm no expert :P
Thundercide Well, you missed medieval Europe, actually - kinda. Standardized equipment was used by, and was considered something of a staple of, knightly orders (Templar, Hospitaller, Teutons, pretty much everyone), though almost always monastic. Secular orders mostly just had a rule about displaying the badge (Order of the Dragon, for example), but hey, still counts at least a bit. Then there is also the matter of Royal (in Hungary)/Imperial(Germany) cities, that had an obligation to provide a number of troops. Since they were paid by the city, they could often have same-ish equipment, if only because it was made by the same guys. Lastly, what mercenary companies did with their equipment varied on a case by case basis. That said, you did have some feudal troops with distinctive look, like The Black Army of Hungary (go on, guess what color they used).
MartinGreywolf Yeah, I omitted mercenaries due to the question focusing on states, though of course you are correct, and the Imperial cities fell under the category of feudal rulers' contracts (admittedly I neglected to list all applications of this, but that would have been tedious). Other than that, thanks :D , I really should have mentioned the religious orders; thank you again! On the topic of knightly orders, though not relating to combat, many gave their members special clothes to denote their association. The Knights of the Ship had an ingenious device (emblem) which were built upon with achievements, a blue jupon, a white surcout, red shoes, red mantle and hood; the Knights of the Garter have their distinctive cloaks; the Knights of the Duke of Lancaster's retinue were given a chain collar of S-links: it was a popular custom to have a pseudo-uniform for orders and retinues. Still, this did not extend to combat aside from in tabards or surcoats over mail in early days. Once more, thank you heartily!
clubinglex Damn it again, you could well be right. Could I cling to the flimsy "it could be.../not enough evidence/who knows"? I fear it may be the only refuge :P
Quick question regarding brigandines; Is the plating being on the inside of the garment just a matter of convenience, making it easier to clean, repair etc or is there some clear defensive reason why you would want Textile>Plate over Plate>Textile
Yes there is a reason. If the metal plates were on the outside, piercing weapons that hit a plate will often slide across it and slip down into the gaps between them. In contrast, with the plates on the inside, a piercing weapon will snag on the fabric/leather. Once snagged, it will have a tendency to continue to penetrate straight in, and be stopped by the plate. It was actually common to have cloth on BOTH sides of the metal plates. Adding another layer to the inside would help improve comfort and add more padding.
I imagine, meaning it's just in my head with no research, that it was preferable to have the plates covered by the fabric because it would cover any seams and keep them from flapping about if one of the rivets popped out.
Pretty much what Overwatch said, though I think it's fair to assume that concealed plates are less prone to rusting, which would be a definite advantage, considering that for most of the time, soldiers aren't fighting, but do need to continuously keep their equipment in good condition.
What the other guys said, but also probably something with rust. Having the plates outside your armor meant they could get rained on ,and rust. The poor footmen whose been given this armor likely doesn't know or have the proper items to take care of wet metal larger then his sword, so by keeping the plates as dry as possible made it better for care of the coat.
A final reason - concealment of the weak spots: If your plates are on the OUTSIDE of your garment, then your enemy can see exactly where they are and aim any directed thrusts for the weak spots 'between' them instead - the intersection where the edges of 4 plates meet, for example. With the plates hidden from view by an outer layer of leather with nothing but completely regular rows of rivets even to show that they are there (or with even the rivets covered in turn by a final completely smooth canvas outer layer), an enemy can't see the spots where the plates abut or overlap each other. Which means on pure percentages, a directed thrust has a much greater chance of landing squarely ON the protective plates rather than BETWEEN them. Much safer.
Also if you search "brigandine" on google/google images, about 50% of the results will be a fantasy medieval turn based game for PS1. The funny thing is that most of the game characters are plate armor users.
Something I've been thinking about is the question of breastplates v. brigandine. I'd imagine they'd be more or less equally heavy. The brigandine would offer a bit more manoeuvrability, whereas the breastplate would offer a bit better protection. Given how armour in Europe evolved over the 100 years following 1450 we spoke of here, and how the breastplate seems to have become the 'medium' armour of choice, I've been considering why one would pick a brigandine over a breastplate. I don't imagine the tiny bit greater range of motions really make it worthwhile.
I don't think anyone really knows a definitive answer to this question - there are a range of reasons why someone might choose a brigandine over a plate cuirass. Comfort is definitely one reason - they are more comfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time, I believe. There ae some people who argue that brigandines give better protection from certain missile weapons - I am unconvinced by that, though I can see it potentially being true if the person could only afford either a brigandine or a mediocre breastplate (rather than the best steel ones).
As almost always, cost. Brigadine was simply cheaper (prices vary, but ballpark from what I've seen is half to quarter of cuirass price, for ordinary pieces), as it required comparatively less skill, if plate of a cuirass cracks during manufacture, you can go make a new cuirass, if brigadine plate cracks, you go get a new tiny plate. Same thing also makes repairs easier.
Going off of the point about repair. As an owner of some brigandine, I can say that it is incredibly easy to repair and maintain. All you need to fix a plate is a ball-pin hammer and a rivet.
I several times heard the following statements and wonder whether there is any truth to them? The properly manufactured mail is a much more practical and in most cases provides better protection than the armor made of many small plates on the leather or textile basis. However it's much more expensive to manufacture so its use in new armor is justified only when plates are also not cheap enough. That was true in earlier centuries and where mail was known it dominated. But by 15th century the metallurgy sufficiently advanced and new plate armor was not only more effective but also cheaper to produce. On the other hand there accumulated some stockpile of mail armor so when soldiers could not afford completely new armor it was very likely that they would use mail.
fizikshizik There was a huge amount of mail armour in circulation by the 15th century, and also quite a lot was still being made. However the simple fact is that mail is not as effective at dealing with things like lances or crossbow bolts as plate armour is. Plate armour was more expensive than mail in the 15th century - this is clearly demonstrable from inventories, wills and the fact that lower class soldiers wore mail in quantity still.
akumabito2008 to make mail you dont need no expert craftsman - for armoursmiths totaly the opposite and higher quality material ... so yes, economy doeas played considerable role
scholagladiatoria I still have some questions. Was mail cheaper because it was easier to manufacture or because it was abundant and technologies were not widespread? Did it remain cheaper in 16th century when plate armor became more mass produced? If you can advice some reading, would be great.
fizikshizik Almost certainly because of the amount of pre-existing mail: check out this article - www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html Under the heading "Plate Development" it covers a comparison of producing mail vs producing plate.
Many (usually well informed) historical fiction books I've read refer to knights of the sort of 10th-13th centuries wearing leather underneath their mail. Do you know what they're referring to? Are they simply wrong and mistaking a sort of padded jack type thing made of cloth for leather?
Thanks for the video. I was wondering: How much heavier was full plate armour to the brigandine-mail-jack combo? I was under the impression that the difference in weight wasn't actually that huge, and armour choice in the 15th century was mainly affected by issues around cost and availability. By the 16th and early 17th centuries, when mass-production of plate armour had become more widespread, a plate cuirass seems to have been the gear of choice for front-line infantrymen, so I wonder if most 15th century longbowmen would have preferred a breastplate to protect their torso over a brigandine if they'd been able to acquire one.
KorKhan89 I might be wrong, but given that a rigid breastplate limited the way you could move your shoulder and back muscle I imagined the longbowmen would opt for more flexable defense instead.
There are illustrations of soldiers wearing mail UNDER their gambesons. Did it depend on the type of gambeson? Was it artistic license? Also, how common were jack chains in this era?
When speaking about the Brigandine, what quickly comes to mind is the vest worn by the William Wallace character in the movie Braveheart. How close to authentic is that? And maybe you are confusing studs with rivets? Thank you for such educational videos.
What about jack chains? Were they a common addition to a padded jack or gambeson? Seems like an economical way to provide decent arm protection with minimal sacrifice of mobility and dexterity.
When did the leather armour fall out of use? I know it was still used in the 13th century, but I didn't hear you mention it in the 15th. So did it fall out of use in cca 14th. century?
While not cuir-bouilli, so perhaps not "leather armor" per se, sturdy leather jerkins were in use through the 16th century by soldiers and would eventually become the buff coats of the 17th century. The tough leather buff coat offered decent protection in hand-to-hand engagements. Some cavalrymen and infantry also used it as padding for their cuirasses. Not sure if this helps with the exact question, but leather did remain in use for protective gear in various forms in Western Europe for a while (as did padded armor).
whowantsabighug A mixture of backgrounds - yes sometimes un-knighted aristocracy, or minor gentry, gentleman farmers, wealthy merchant class, middle class educated (like lawyers). England for example had quite a prominent middle class after the Black Death - anybody who could afford the equipment could serve as a man-at-arms (ie. armoured heavy cavalry).
Depends on where in Europe you're talking about. In France it was almost exclusively nobility, since France at the time had a ridiculously large number of knights as a percentage of the entire population, but in more mercantile places like Northern Italy or the Low Countries, the majority of men-at-arms could actually be guildsmen or otherwise wealthy middle-class people.
I hope I can find a nice helmet before christmas, that would complete my kit - at least for this year. Brigandine, jack-chains and billhook go great together.
Serious question about steel plate vs various missiles here. I'm involved in SCA so I have any number of armor-related conversations. But I've put the same question to a lot of people, and between books, various experts and "definitave sources" I get different answers, both opposite to each other. Obviously plate armor had a function, otherwise no one would wear the damn stuff. But how effective was it against the following (I'd just go ahead and assume optimum range for each, but damn me, that seems like an eternal debate, too) : Longbow shaft, crossbow bolt, musket ball, and just for kicks, a modern round from a firearm. I get the same two countering responses each time I pose the question; crossbow bolt (or whatever) will/won't penetrate a brestplate. Has there been any modern empirical testing on this? I saw something like it on Gunny's old show Mail Call, but even I could tell the testing was a little...made for TV.
There were obviously a lot of variables in play, but this would give some general idea: 1. A lot of 16th century sources seemed to dismiss the effectiveness of longbow arrows against properly made plate armor, and a lot of battle descriptions indicated that the advance of well armored troops was generally hard to check with archery alone. Although to be fair the latter was true for any 16th century missile troops. 2. Musket balls were generally quite effective against plate armor at short range. A 16th century source noted that no protection was proof against the very heavy musket (8 gauge) used in that era within 50(?) paces. The lighter cuirass of the Napoleon's heavy cavalry was originally proofed by testing them with three musket shots (much lighter weapons, 16 to 20 gauge balls) at 30 yards, but numerous failures led to a trial of just one shot at an indeterminate range. Pistol balls were a different matter, Sir Arthur Haselrigge's cuirass and helmet withstood three powder-burn distance pistol shot at the Battle of Roundway Downs, including one where his attacker actually touched his helmet with the muzzle before pulling the trigger! King Charles joked that should the man be provisioned as well as armored, he might even withstood a siege:p. Obviously Hasselrigge's armor was of the finest quality and not the norm, but nevertheless the penetration potential of pistol balls were a lot less than long arms. 3. Modern rifle rounds should render most historical plate armor completely impotent. The Brewster Body Shield developed by the US Army during World War I was made of modern chrome nickel steel, and was supposedly capable of withstanding point-blank hits from the very potent .30-06 round, however at 40 lbs for just a helmet and breastplate it was ridiculously heavy compared to medieval or even renaissance era plate armor. The German army also issued similar armor for some specialist soldier in static positions that was similarly cumbersome. The British Munition Invention Board came up with a quite practical armor set in 1917, weighing only 9.5 lbs and consisting of a breast-and-back with groin plate. However this was only proof against .45 pistol rounds and rifle bullet impacting at less than 1,000 fps.
John Huang Thanks for this. I'd never seen any tests of modern munitions against historical armor; I just asked for kicks. I pretty much expected modern bullets would pennetrate. Otherwise steel plate might still be used and, obviously if the metal had to be as thick and heavy as the US Army test showed, it just isnt feesable. We'd have some pretty strong soldiers, though!
On missile infantry, specifically, the gunners and artillery crew, those men had little armour often because they were quite close to civilians. Especially in the early days and before established musket companies, they (the chaps in charge of the guns) were seen as alchemists -- somewhat mysterious and arcane. Hired on for specialist purposes, they were a group apart from the 'regular' soldiers until adoption as a mainstay of pike and shot. Sorry for much irrelevance :P
Still, they are a highly specialized crew. I guns would probably be expensive.. I dont see why they wouldnt be professionals. And as such they surely would take every step within their means to armour protect themselves as much as possible until it made their job harder to do.
Artillery crew were probably best served by pavises to duck behind and then running off if enemies came too close. And Archers and especially gunners were also better off running away if it came to close quarters fighting against any solid body of troops.
WakarimasenKa Gunners (my catch-all term) were absolutely professionals, my point about civilians was related to their appearance (not just the physical). You would find roving 'bands' of gunners trying to sell their services to patrons, especially with artillery. Due to their primary role being besiegers, artillery crews nearly never found themselves in danger (once a rotating shutter was constructed) unless their foes sallies forth in which case, yes they would scarper. Often, there was the relatively wealthy proprietor and a series of apprentices backed up with the hired help to do heavy lifting, chisel the shot, etc. The skill was with the powder, hence the strong alchemical focus, no gunnery which was unnecessary due to short ranges and the predominately stationary nature of walls :P No armour needed here. By the time things started to change, pike and shot was becoming established, little armour was present here either. By 'change' I means musketry was beginning to grow, before it was almost exclusively bombards and their offspring. With musketry, the troops were becoming standardised(ish) and states would never shell out for every man-jack to have armour. Re your second post, I confess much of its point(s) is lost on me :(
Thundercide I probably misunderstood what you meant by missile infantry and gunners. I read it as archers and hand gunners. Your point was about artillery crew and they would most likely never see close quarters fighting. Although if they did, my point would certainly still stand... Artillery crew were there to work, not fight. So there would be little reason to wear plate or even much padding.. a helmet might still be nice, if there was any chance of getting hit slingshots or arrows.
Do you have any recommendations for reproduction armors, such as a padded jack or breastplate? I'm also wondering did halberdiers typically wear mail under a breastplate?
Why was brigandine (spelling?) armor made with the plates on the inside of the leather garment? It seems to me that the leather garment ought to be underneath the metal plates instead, thereby protecting the garment from slashing damage. Continued damaged to the leather would see its failure, possibly with underlying metal plates falling off, making a more vulnerable area. Having the leather garment beneath the metal plates seems more logical. Is there a reason why it was done in the converse?
If it still interests you: It had the simple advantage of not having the plates on the outside. Otherwise there would have been a risk for stabs to just glide off and inbetween plates. With the plates on the inside, stabs still would be able to get caught on the leather, even if a plate was hit. It also made it harder to target areas with no plates if you couldn't see how excactly they were aligned from the outside.
Curses, now you're doing armour I've got to think of something else to request you do. Erm, fortification? Artillery? Eh, I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever you pick.
Hi Matt! Have you seen the findings from the battle of Visby 1361 AD? There are lots of original 14th century armors, as well as some really nasty examples of battlefield injuries.
scholagladiatoria It's interesting how much influence the various Wisby Coat of Plates have had on modern 14th century reenactment, yet the designs were quite outdated by 1361 from what I recall.
Didn't coat of plates exist as far back as 13th century? AKA an armored surcoat? A robe that hangs off your shoulders with a belt to hold it up. Usually worn with a full suit of mail, so that the belt wouldn't have to hold up a hauberk as well.
I know this doesn't necessarily relate to the video but do you think knights/men at arms or whatever talked about fighting moves? shared experience with each other? took interest in another's technique? constantly learning? Also, do you think that let's say knights we're better at handling ones weapons than lower fighting men. I mean knights we're the richest but we're they the best in their moves when it came to combat or whatever? the best warriors literally, of their time? Do you think they took it as a martial art? I mean all this questions because i dont know how to take these men. They we're all practically sportsmen.
In almost all places, all eras, as a warrior, you had to provide your own armor and weapons. If you don't, you were provided with the minimum equipment and downgraded to tasks related to your equipment.
I was searching on your channel a video about the use of two-handed swords on the battle field but didn't find any. Lindybeige made a video about it and spoke about them maybe being used to hack through pike formations, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about that.
Could you possibly do a video on the different stiles, as concerning fashion in the way the amour was designed, that changed throughout the middle ages?
In some of the late 16th & early 17th fencing treatises the authors mention how the introduction of gun powder had changed warfare. I've done some research but the whole situation seems rather confused. It sounds as if a lot of the instruction & advice relates to skirmishing rather than fighting in a battle line. Would it be possible for you to do a talk on this subject?
Hello Schola I have a quite serious question regarding my armor, I own a suit of milanese plate armor and the sabatons are beginning to pop up rust spots. are there ways to prevent this from further spreading and also can I treat these rust spots before they become deep?
Still, I am mostly just wondering which armor best protects from the dreaded Battle Stool (most people round here use three leg, but I assume the concept is the same for four...)
How common were jack chains among infantry? If a soldier could afford either jack chains or chain mail to put overtop a padded jack, which would he have picked?
The common myth is that europeans of that time were all armored. Armor was expensive. There was no way the 15th century economies of western europes could afford armoring all the troops while immensely wealthy empires of the time like the Ming dynasty could not.
Could one practically start with just a gambeson and then, having accumulated sufficient funds, buy a hauberk to go over it? Or would you need to trade-in your gambeson for an aketon specifically designed to go under mail? Likewise, could you later buy some brigandine to use over the gambeson and hauberk you already have?
Robert Fisher In general the kind of gambeson worn by poorer soldiers as a defense of its own was much thicker than those designed to be worn under mail (or even more so under plate), as was logical. Louis the XI required that his foot soldier's gambeson to be made of either 30 layers of linen or 25 layers with a layer of deerskin on top. A gambeson made to be worn under mail would be much lighter, the one stated in the Burgundian Ordonnance of Charles the Bold being of 10 layers of linen. During the War of Roses period however it's common to wear another padded garment OVER your mail in addition to the one you have under it, which was often as much as 30 layers thick, as an added defense against arrows. They Byzantine also have a similar type of quilted armor, called an epilorikion. Brigandine could obviously be worn over a simple gambeson or over mail and gambeson, just don't forget the chest size! ;)
Is it possible to cover other parts of the body with the same principle as brigandine or is it not flexible enough? More importantly, did people do it?
Robert R There are examples of leather gauntlets with plates riveted to the insides, I believe LindyBeige has a video where he visits a museum and sees both an archaological find and a reconstruction of such a gauntlet.
DushinSC In the early medieval period it seems that they did indeed just throw a mail shirt over their tunic. There is practically no evidence for padding worn under mail until after 1066.
DushinSC It doesn't have to be thick. I've worn mail over a single tunic made out of moderate-weight cotton twill (the kind you'd find in khakis and chinos) and it wasn't particularly uncomfortable. That being said, it's perfectly possible that early mail garments had integral padded liners (instead of a separate padded/quilted garment worn underneath), which might help explain the apparent absence of padded garments on Bayeux Tapestry corpses that had been stripped of their mail.
did lamellar armor come into north west Europe? also if there was leather armor (boiled and thickened) when would have it been used in European history?
4:45 Come to think about it, that may very well be the reason why in English "knight" prevailed for this type of warrior instead of "ridder" and/or "chivaler", mayn't it? Then again, you island folks do have lots of other unique differences to us largely consistent continental peeps when it comes to (particularly West) Germanic cognates, so it could just as well merely be pure coincidence.
This brings one question. Why bother with cuting weapons? Why would any one put an axe head on polearm (like poleaxe) when in such scenario your best guess is to bash someone to death with a hammer side?
Jagdpz5 Because even in 15th century battlefields there were still plenty of unarmored targets. The poleaxe was famous for use in judicial duels, but they were of course battlefield weapons too
Hey how come wood wasn't used as armor, or was it? Wood is cheap, hard, super easy to work with and lightweight, absorbs impact, doesn't rust, helps you float in water etc. The more I think about it, the more it seems like wood has a lot more advantages over steel armor..? Maybe wooden armor was used, but the wooden armor would have decayed by now leaving little or no evidence behind?
Padded hardwood like ash would probably offer decent protection when thick enough, if it was kept dry that is. It could also be banded with iron strips to further protect from swords and axes. However, this is the dark ages we are talking about, not exactly the pinnacle of human thought and invention.
I like your videos but i would love more Reference photos
Matt and Lloyd don't always agree, but when in comes to heavy metal rock music studded leather "armor" they form a stronger unified front than an Anglo-Saxon shield wall.
If I am able to watch a man speak for 16 minutes and be excited while listening to him, I'd call that a win. Great job, Matt. I love how easly you have managed to tie up all the sharp edges of this topic into one informative package. I am looking forward to see more videos of this sort. Again, good job!
Great video, you mention that this applies mostly to northwestern europe. I would very much like to see you talk about a comparison of armor/weaponry between the different areas of Europe.
Thanks for taking us into a deeper water of medieval armour topics.
I loved this episode and apparently I was not alone - 300 views and 200+ likes tells it all.
One of your best videos in my opinion! I'm eager to see more about armors!
Interesting video! I remember hearing somewhere that during the period brigantine armor was popular, it was also popular in civilian fashion to wear soft leather jackets with rivets meant to evoke brigantine armor, and that this may be where the popular conception of "studded leather armor" may have come from.
Looking forward to more videos about armor!
I love the attack on soft leather, this is sooooooo true.
You left out the Jack of Chains! Which I believe is rather interesting and deserves more attention in film and TV.
That was for people too cheap or poor for chain. Wasn't all that effective.
Great video about the types of armor within the medieval period. I feel like it's a lot harder to find accurate information on armor than it is to find such information on weapons of any given period in history, so thanks for that, Matt. I reckon that perhaps weapons are simply more glamorous to talk about and such. And perhaps it is that there are so many ways with which people can kill each other and relatively so few ways of effectively protecting themselves from being killed, that the subject of weapons simply warrants more discussion. In any case, certainly you see a lot more people talking about weapons than about armor.
I get the impression from what you've said in this video that the notion of all soldiers in any given unit all wearing the same identical gear is also a fictitious embellishment of modern film? It's common to see in film that all the archers, or all the spearmen, or what have you, are all wearing the same and often nearly identical sets of armor. Is it very likely that wasn't often the case during this period? With most soldiers supplying whatever arms and armor they could afford for themselves, it seems likely that this sort of uniform look in gear just didn't exist in an actual historical context.
I was happy you mentioned the lighter armor seen in Scotland. To my knowledge, it was only the very high nobility or those more associated with Anglo cutlure that wore a lot of plate. Most gentry elected to wear a long aketon and a bascinet, many times with a long maille hauberk. Take the gallowglass for example. During this time Gaelic culture was ubiquitous north of the Forth and so were their traditions in arms and armor. I do believe their armor was lighter than their southern counterparts due to geography and their preference to guerilla warfare.
A simple advice, specially useful for your non-english audience: if there are some key words which you mention in the video (like names of weapons, armor pieces, etc), it would be really useful to have them written in the video description. Otherwise, if we don't know them, then we aren't able to google them for pictures, descriptions, etc.
For example, in this particular video I didn't know how to spell Brigandine, so I had to google for related armor pieces and read until I found something that was similar to what you were pronouncing :)
Man I miss the look of this room, so nostalgic.
Looking forwards to more videos from you on this topic
So, did the irish wear paddyed jackets?
Yes, everybody did at the basic soldier level. Certain areas could field far fewer 'knights' than other areas, because they were poorer.
Irish my life pointing this out no doubt, but you done missed the joke.
This whole questions is a sham - rock on!
scholagladiatoria though instead of always refering to "knights" you could explain that knight was a noble title for those born into lower nobility and had nothing to do with the type of armor he would wear if he even fought while basicly everyone whop could afford full plate armor did wear full plate armor with some exceptions. Sure you can say if you are a knight chances are that you can afford full plate though there were quite some knights that did not have plate armor and some even did not have a horse while a wealthy merchant could outfit himself in full plate armor wtih horse and shiny weapons.
And ofc that the "knightly knights" we imagine are usually just pure fantasy or based on some very very rare characters that actually were dukes or barons and not knights.
I know its a joke but actually the Irish light infantry known as the Kern never wore helmets or shoes into battle. Its also never recorded of them wearing any armor what so ever but it possible they could have wore some padding or leather underneath their robes.
Would love a video like this covering 16thC armour in detail.
Wasn't the brigandine also warn without mail, or more precisley as the better alternative to chainmail?
I heard that it was made sometimes out of outdated breastplates that became to thin for modern guns. Small scales are easier to produce even by minor forges and the assembly and repair is much faster and easier. It protects more from stabs and arrows and dissipates energy further. Moreover it can be produced from scrapmetal/mail.
The only disadvantage I see is the tendency of rust due to the moist leather.
11:40 I'm pretty sure it's commonly accepted knowledge that "(studded) leather armor" derives from Gary Gygax and others misunderstanding depictions of brigantines. But I'm just as sure that Hollywood people putting such on screen (just like the average consumer thereof) don't have idea one that there're actually supposed to be plates underneath to be at all effective.
Brigandines could also be an attractive choice for wealthy people to show off the fancy fabrics they can afford and the decoration that can be put on it.
Yes but this function was more often served by the surcoat, waffenock, or jupon, which was worn over already existed armor, like a brigandine or plate cuirass.
Thank you very much for this video, it's coming as if by order for me :) I'm currently looking for books/resources regarding 15th/early 16th century weapons and armor. Can you suggest some bibliography?
Edit: actually I found your forum on "fioredeiliberi", so I guess I'll start from there.
Thanks Matt for this awesome overview of both troops and common medieval armor types!
Although I am a little surprised there was no mention of leather armors in the light and cheap section. Either buff coats, cuirboilli as limb protection or full body, or leather or skin top layers on gambesons or jacks. Leaving out lamellar makes sense though as its a more eastern style. Still, a bit of leather love... I know you've addressed it in previous videos so why leave it out here? Also, since you're doing much about Vikings, you may want to do some of the pros and cons we see on Game of Thrones... which actually shows most of these armor forms rather well.
I wanted to add that archers often wore a thick/thickish leather glove and a thick leather bracer on either of their arms. While it's not nearly as much as plated gauntlets, some of the bracers (like mine) are pretty substantial. So maybe a well equipped archer might have a bracer on each arm, in addition to his shooting glove.
Very nice overview. Thanks!
Matt, I don't think you should be covering armor in your videos.
The armor should be covering you. (*laugh track*)
To fit the specific role of a heavily armored infantryman using a case of rapiers-esc manor of fighting in close quitters (this is all for re-enactment) would brigandine and a steel plackart be an appropriate for the torso.
Good evidence for the utility of helmets: bronze age helmets, both bronze and organic...even when you had very little armor, the first thing you get are helmets.
Great video, hope you do more of these that concern armour.
Im wondering if you would be open to giving your thoughts ( or even doing a video ) on the practicallity of the armour worn by the different races in the Lord of the rings/ The Hobbit movies. The Tolkien mythology is what got me into ancient /midieval weapons, armour and fighting styles. Tolkiens work are very enjoyable, but alas are fantasy. I would very much enjoy to hear your thoughts and opinions on this topic, as yours is the channel that has broken me out of alot of the b.s of fantasy warfare, and im trying to become better educated in this field. Thank you for your time, and i thoroughly enjoy all of your videos. Very informative and enjoyable.
Really like your channel
Those Italians with the spear/shield combo while being somewhat armored sound like a 15th century hoplite from the Peloponnesian era.
fascinating. Cant wait for more armour videos!
The knights could also be wearing brigandine because they either couldnt afford plate or they couldnt afford two sets and their only set was too battered to be worn, So if they had to fight again before it could be replaced, they could probably afford to buy a brigandine of another.
You're right, there actually no such rule/boundary that only noble using full plate harness & lower hierarchy only using light padded & mail. This is no such clearly distinguish for the equipment using between cavalry & infantry. For example, those famous mercenaries units such as landsknecht & Swiss Reisläufer are notable for using more expensive plate harness, especially for veteran "Doppelsöldner" (meant "double pay man"). Basically, the type of equipment that soldier can get is decide by his economic condition rather than social position.
I remember in another collab video called "Top 5 Medieval Myths" created by a group of my favored history podcasters (Metatron, Shad, Antony Cummins and Medieval Review) has better explain about this issue.
In movies, fully armoured guys are so rich that they can afford a helmet
+scholagladiatoria so how hard were these solider to defeat? It sounds like with a padded jacket plus mail and then brigidine. They were really well protected. Also how hot did they get and was that an effect on the type of armor worn? Great video!
I like the idea of that medium armored guy with a pavis and longspear, sounds very versatile.
Not only what could be afforded but also what could be picked up off the battlefield.
You know, in American football, there was once a phenomenon where people stopped wearing helmets to improve their vision compared to people who did wear helmets. And after a while, nobody wore helmets, so everyone was on the same playing field again, but they weren't at all safe. That is until helmets became mandatory by rule.
What was the cost of mail compared to the cost of plate? I have tried to look this up but couldn't find any decent answers. The bottom line is was there any point in a man-at-arms using mail after the advent of plate?
Chain was pretty effective and was sometimes cheap to make
Mail was the most expensive protection money could buy for a long time. After the black death, labor costs rose sharply in europe and made mail even more expensive than munition plate. Before custom made high end full plate, the rich chose mail.
Leather with studs in... I remember a Lindybeige comment or video about this...
Hello scholagladiatoria, love your channel especially about armor topic, wallace collection & new opinion from modern historians about Battle of Agincourt.
I just like to add that is another one may be also used by common soldier or even civilian during this period called Jack of plates, they found a relative intact piece near Jamestown (ruclips.net/video/pwrDUplLO-0/видео.html).
According to wiki, its kind like a sewing type of brigandine.
Are you interested in general medieval warfare tactics and formation, too? Or "just" the actual fighting technique stuff? Do you think about making videos about strategy and tactics? That would be really interesting imho.
Overrepresented in movies and games:
leathercuirasse (was it ever used in the middle ages???)
leather bracers
scale armor (why did it fall out of favor and got replaced by mail?)
It would be a bit more accurate to say that maille armor was replaced by lamellar, in terms of evolution. Lamellar armor has a more sturdy construction because it has multiple wires securing the plates rather than one. So the connection is stronger and you can't slip a blade inside from the right angle like scale armor. And no, a leather cuirass was never made and used. Leather armor was more often used to hold armor together, rather than provide the protection. The only full protective leather armor I know of is leather lamellar armor, sometimes used by Easter European and central Asian people who couldn't afford metal armor.
I think there were a few incidents of hardened leather cuirasses but it wasn't particularily common and almost more of a fashion article for nobles going on hunts rather than armour that was meant for actual combat.
Matt, I might be wrong but I read on several different independent sources that mail shirts and plate breastplates never existed on an equal footing with each other.
Once full plate became available it was cheaper AND more effective than mail, which is why mail began to be used only on parts that had to stay flexible like armpits or as an extra layer of protection additional to plate for a warrior who has nigh infinite ressources.
Are you really sure about the combination of brigantine and mail or even full male shirts over padded jackets, because I can't recall such a combination from a single museum or depiction of late medieval warfare.
Excellent video!
With the exception of the Romans were there any other nations prior to the modern age which had had standardization with arms and armor?
As troops were mostly levied rather than recruited there was little opportunity to standardise arms. However, there were often statutes that mandated what troops had to bring as far back as early hoplites. While not strictly a regular force with quartermasters for such things, it was required to supply oneself with a pre-defined set of equipment.
This continued, with feudal rulers demanding their subjects provide x number of y and z men in the event of war and there are examples of contracts (with amusing insurance clauses) that set out what was demanded. Thus, until standing armies, branches of armies were largely homogenous, if not strictly 'regular' simply due to terms of service and, as Matt explained, established ideas of what various types were to possess.
That said, there are examples of, say, the Immortals who were depicted with identical arms. However, firstly this may be artistic license. If true, it certainly was not the norm and has little bearing on fighting, tactics, organisation, etc. like the Romans. Still, the Sumerians are also shown having nicely organised gear and its simplicity lends credence to the idea -- there were not a billion styles of armour form which to choose for them. Their close relatives the Assyrians are perhaps the only example that I feel confident in touting as a force with similar standardisation, not only of arms but doctrine and training, etc.
Let me know if I missed something: needless to say, I'm no expert :P
Thundercide
Well, you missed medieval Europe, actually - kinda.
Standardized equipment was used by, and was considered something of a staple of, knightly orders (Templar, Hospitaller, Teutons, pretty much everyone), though almost always monastic. Secular orders mostly just had a rule about displaying the badge (Order of the Dragon, for example), but hey, still counts at least a bit.
Then there is also the matter of Royal (in Hungary)/Imperial(Germany) cities, that had an obligation to provide a number of troops. Since they were paid by the city, they could often have same-ish equipment, if only because it was made by the same guys.
Lastly, what mercenary companies did with their equipment varied on a case by case basis.
That said, you did have some feudal troops with distinctive look, like The Black Army of Hungary (go on, guess what color they used).
MartinGreywolf
Yeah, I omitted mercenaries due to the question focusing on states, though of course you are correct, and the Imperial cities fell under the category of feudal rulers' contracts (admittedly I neglected to list all applications of this, but that would have been tedious). Other than that, thanks :D , I really should have mentioned the religious orders; thank you again!
On the topic of knightly orders, though not relating to combat, many gave their members special clothes to denote their association. The Knights of the Ship had an ingenious device (emblem) which were built upon with achievements, a blue jupon, a white surcout, red shoes, red mantle and hood; the Knights of the Garter have their distinctive cloaks; the Knights of the Duke of Lancaster's retinue were given a chain collar of S-links: it was a popular custom to have a pseudo-uniform for orders and retinues. Still, this did not extend to combat aside from in tabards or surcoats over mail in early days.
Once more, thank you heartily!
ancient egypt :p ?
clubinglex
Damn it again, you could well be right. Could I cling to the flimsy "it could be.../not enough evidence/who knows"? I fear it may be the only refuge :P
Quick question regarding brigandines;
Is the plating being on the inside of the garment just a matter of convenience, making it easier to clean, repair etc or is there some clear defensive reason why you would want Textile>Plate over Plate>Textile
Yes there is a reason.
If the metal plates were on the outside, piercing weapons that hit a plate will often slide across it and slip down into the gaps between them. In contrast, with the plates on the inside, a piercing weapon will snag on the fabric/leather. Once snagged, it will have a tendency to continue to penetrate straight in, and be stopped by the plate.
It was actually common to have cloth on BOTH sides of the metal plates. Adding another layer to the inside would help improve comfort and add more padding.
I imagine, meaning it's just in my head with no research, that it was preferable to have the plates covered by the fabric because it would cover any seams and keep them from flapping about if one of the rivets popped out.
Pretty much what Overwatch said, though I think it's fair to assume that concealed plates are less prone to rusting, which would be a definite advantage, considering that for most of the time, soldiers aren't fighting, but do need to continuously keep their equipment in good condition.
What the other guys said, but also probably something with rust. Having the plates outside your armor meant they could get rained on ,and rust.
The poor footmen whose been given this armor likely doesn't know or have the proper items to take care of wet metal larger then his sword, so by keeping the plates as dry as possible made it better for care of the coat.
A final reason - concealment of the weak spots: If your plates are on the OUTSIDE of your garment, then your enemy can see exactly where they are and aim any directed thrusts for the weak spots 'between' them instead - the intersection where the edges of 4 plates meet, for example. With the plates hidden from view by an outer layer of leather with nothing but completely regular rows of rivets even to show that they are there (or with even the rivets covered in turn by a final completely smooth canvas outer layer), an enemy can't see the spots where the plates abut or overlap each other. Which means on pure percentages, a directed thrust has a much greater chance of landing squarely ON the protective plates rather than BETWEEN them. Much safer.
Excellent video! I feel like role playing games have been lying to me...
Also if you search "brigandine" on google/google images, about 50% of the results will be a fantasy medieval turn based game for PS1.
The funny thing is that most of the game characters are plate armor users.
Something I've been thinking about is the question of breastplates v. brigandine. I'd imagine they'd be more or less equally heavy. The brigandine would offer a bit more manoeuvrability, whereas the breastplate would offer a bit better protection. Given how armour in Europe evolved over the 100 years following 1450 we spoke of here, and how the breastplate seems to have become the 'medium' armour of choice, I've been considering why one would pick a brigandine over a breastplate. I don't imagine the tiny bit greater range of motions really make it worthwhile.
I don't think anyone really knows a definitive answer to this question - there are a range of reasons why someone might choose a brigandine over a plate cuirass. Comfort is definitely one reason - they are more comfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time, I believe. There ae some people who argue that brigandines give better protection from certain missile weapons - I am unconvinced by that, though I can see it potentially being true if the person could only afford either a brigandine or a mediocre breastplate (rather than the best steel ones).
As almost always, cost. Brigadine was simply cheaper (prices vary, but ballpark from what I've seen is half to quarter of cuirass price, for ordinary pieces), as it required comparatively less skill, if plate of a cuirass cracks during manufacture, you can go make a new cuirass, if brigadine plate cracks, you go get a new tiny plate. Same thing also makes repairs easier.
Going off of the point about repair. As an owner of some brigandine, I can say that it is incredibly easy to repair and maintain. All you need to fix a plate is a ball-pin hammer and a rivet.
I several times heard the following statements and wonder whether there is any truth to them?
The properly manufactured mail is a much more practical and in most cases provides better protection than the armor made of many small plates on the leather or textile basis. However it's much more expensive to manufacture so its use in new armor is justified only when plates are also not cheap enough. That was true in earlier centuries and where mail was known it dominated. But by 15th century the metallurgy sufficiently advanced and new plate armor was not only more effective but also cheaper to produce. On the other hand there accumulated some stockpile of mail armor so when soldiers could not afford completely new armor it was very likely that they would use mail.
fizikshizik There was a huge amount of mail armour in circulation by the 15th century, and also quite a lot was still being made. However the simple fact is that mail is not as effective at dealing with things like lances or crossbow bolts as plate armour is. Plate armour was more expensive than mail in the 15th century - this is clearly demonstrable from inventories, wills and the fact that lower class soldiers wore mail in quantity still.
scholagladiatoria Was that an economic issue? I can imagine materials (steel) being quite expensive at the time, but labor being pretty cheap..
akumabito2008 to make mail you dont need no expert craftsman - for armoursmiths totaly the opposite and higher quality material ... so yes, economy doeas played considerable role
scholagladiatoria I still have some questions. Was mail cheaper because it was easier to manufacture or because it was abundant and technologies were not widespread? Did it remain cheaper in 16th century when plate armor became more mass produced? If you can advice some reading, would be great.
fizikshizik
Almost certainly because of the amount of pre-existing mail: check out this article - www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Under the heading "Plate Development" it covers a comparison of producing mail vs producing plate.
Many (usually well informed) historical fiction books I've read refer to knights of the sort of 10th-13th centuries wearing leather underneath their mail. Do you know what they're referring to? Are they simply wrong and mistaking a sort of padded jack type thing made of cloth for leather?
Thanks for the video. I was wondering: How much heavier was full plate armour to the brigandine-mail-jack combo? I was under the impression that the difference in weight wasn't actually that huge, and armour choice in the 15th century was mainly affected by issues around cost and availability.
By the 16th and early 17th centuries, when mass-production of plate armour had become more widespread, a plate cuirass seems to have been the gear of choice for front-line infantrymen, so I wonder if most 15th century longbowmen would have preferred a breastplate to protect their torso over a brigandine if they'd been able to acquire one.
KorKhan89
I might be wrong, but given that a rigid breastplate limited the way you could move your shoulder and back muscle I imagined the longbowmen would opt for more flexable defense instead.
There are illustrations of soldiers wearing mail UNDER their gambesons. Did it depend on the type of gambeson? Was it artistic license? Also, how common were jack chains in this era?
I'd love to learn more about shield types in particular.
When speaking about the Brigandine, what quickly comes to mind is the vest worn by the William Wallace character in the movie Braveheart. How close to authentic is that? And maybe you are confusing studs with rivets? Thank you for such educational videos.
Sweet, I'm looking forward to the detailed info :)
What about jack chains? Were they a common addition to a padded jack or gambeson? Seems like an economical way to provide decent arm protection with minimal sacrifice of mobility and dexterity.
Lamellar is my favorite.
Googled Brigantine. Found a ship.
That would make good armor.:)
When did the leather armour fall out of use? I know it was still used in the 13th century, but I didn't hear you mention it in the 15th. So did it fall out of use in cca 14th. century?
While not cuir-bouilli, so perhaps not "leather armor" per se, sturdy leather jerkins were in use through the 16th century by soldiers and would eventually become the buff coats of the 17th century. The tough leather buff coat offered decent protection in hand-to-hand engagements. Some cavalrymen and infantry also used it as padding for their cuirasses. Not sure if this helps with the exact question, but leather did remain in use for protective gear in various forms in Western Europe for a while (as did padded armor).
good video just if You could use some sources, more images it would be great
Hey Matt.. I would really like to see a video, where you talk about armor you own.. That would be really interesting :)
What kind of professions would the non-knightly men-at-arms be? Would they be wealthy landowners of noble families who were never knighted?
whowantsabighug A mixture of backgrounds - yes sometimes un-knighted aristocracy, or minor gentry, gentleman farmers, wealthy merchant class, middle class educated (like lawyers). England for example had quite a prominent middle class after the Black Death - anybody who could afford the equipment could serve as a man-at-arms (ie. armoured heavy cavalry).
Depends on where in Europe you're talking about. In France it was almost exclusively nobility, since France at the time had a ridiculously large number of knights as a percentage of the entire population, but in more mercantile places like Northern Italy or the Low Countries, the majority of men-at-arms could actually be guildsmen or otherwise wealthy middle-class people.
My guess would be that there were many second sons. I mean people that did not inherite the titles, land etc. but could afford weapons and training.
I hope I can find a nice helmet before christmas, that would complete my kit - at least for this year.
Brigandine, jack-chains and billhook go great together.
Serious question about steel plate vs various missiles here. I'm involved in SCA so I have any number of armor-related conversations. But I've put the same question to a lot of people, and between books, various experts and "definitave sources" I get different answers, both opposite to each other.
Obviously plate armor had a function, otherwise no one would wear the damn stuff. But how effective was it against the following (I'd just go ahead and assume optimum range for each, but damn me, that seems like an eternal debate, too) : Longbow shaft, crossbow bolt, musket ball, and just for kicks, a modern round from a firearm. I get the same two countering responses each time I pose the question; crossbow bolt (or whatever) will/won't penetrate a brestplate.
Has there been any modern empirical testing on this? I saw something like it on Gunny's old show Mail Call, but even I could tell the testing was a little...made for TV.
There were obviously a lot of variables in play, but this would give some general idea:
1. A lot of 16th century sources seemed to dismiss the effectiveness of longbow arrows against properly made plate armor, and a lot of battle descriptions indicated that the advance of well armored troops was generally hard to check with archery alone. Although to be fair the latter was true for any 16th century missile troops.
2. Musket balls were generally quite effective against plate armor at short range. A 16th century source noted that no protection was proof against the very heavy musket (8 gauge) used in that era within 50(?) paces. The lighter cuirass of the Napoleon's heavy cavalry was originally proofed by testing them with three musket shots (much lighter weapons, 16 to 20 gauge balls) at 30 yards, but numerous failures led to a trial of just one shot at an indeterminate range.
Pistol balls were a different matter, Sir Arthur Haselrigge's cuirass and helmet withstood three powder-burn distance pistol shot at the Battle of Roundway Downs, including one where his attacker actually touched his helmet with the muzzle before pulling the trigger! King Charles joked that should the man be provisioned as well as armored, he might even withstood a siege:p. Obviously Hasselrigge's armor was of the finest quality and not the norm, but nevertheless the penetration potential of pistol balls were a lot less than long arms.
3. Modern rifle rounds should render most historical plate armor completely impotent.
The Brewster Body Shield developed by the US Army during World War I was made of modern chrome nickel steel, and was supposedly capable of withstanding point-blank hits from the very potent .30-06 round, however at 40 lbs for just a helmet and breastplate it was ridiculously heavy compared to medieval or even renaissance era plate armor. The German army also issued similar armor for some specialist soldier in static positions that was similarly cumbersome.
The British Munition Invention Board came up with a quite practical armor set in 1917, weighing only 9.5 lbs and consisting of a breast-and-back with groin plate. However this was only proof against .45 pistol rounds and rifle bullet impacting at less than 1,000 fps.
John Huang Thanks for this. I'd never seen any tests of modern munitions against historical armor; I just asked for kicks. I pretty much expected modern bullets would pennetrate. Otherwise steel plate might still be used and, obviously if the metal had to be as thick and heavy as the US Army test showed, it just isnt feesable. We'd have some pretty strong soldiers, though!
I'd like to hear more about why English knights fought dismounted.
Wasn't there also splint armour? As I understand it, a gambeson with strips of metal riveted to it at strategic points. ie: shoulders, upper arms.
On missile infantry, specifically, the gunners and artillery crew, those men had little armour often because they were quite close to civilians. Especially in the early days and before established musket companies, they (the chaps in charge of the guns) were seen as alchemists -- somewhat mysterious and arcane. Hired on for specialist purposes, they were a group apart from the 'regular' soldiers until adoption as a mainstay of pike and shot. Sorry for much irrelevance :P
Still, they are a highly specialized crew. I guns would probably be expensive.. I dont see why they wouldnt be professionals. And as such they surely would take every step within their means to armour protect themselves as much as possible until it made their job harder to do.
Artillery crew were probably best served by pavises to duck behind and then running off if enemies came too close.
And Archers and especially gunners were also better off running away if it came to close quarters fighting against any solid body of troops.
WakarimasenKa
Gunners (my catch-all term) were absolutely professionals, my point about civilians was related to their appearance (not just the physical). You would find roving 'bands' of gunners trying to sell their services to patrons, especially with artillery. Due to their primary role being besiegers, artillery crews nearly never found themselves in danger (once a rotating shutter was constructed) unless their foes sallies forth in which case, yes they would scarper. Often, there was the relatively wealthy proprietor and a series of apprentices backed up with the hired help to do heavy lifting, chisel the shot, etc. The skill was with the powder, hence the strong alchemical focus, no gunnery which was unnecessary due to short ranges and the predominately stationary nature of walls :P No armour needed here.
By the time things started to change, pike and shot was becoming established, little armour was present here either. By 'change' I means musketry was beginning to grow, before it was almost exclusively bombards and their offspring. With musketry, the troops were becoming standardised(ish) and states would never shell out for every man-jack to have armour.
Re your second post, I confess much of its point(s) is lost on me :(
Thundercide I probably misunderstood what you meant by missile infantry and gunners. I read it as archers and hand gunners. Your point was about artillery crew and they would most likely never see close quarters fighting. Although if they did, my point would certainly still stand... Artillery crew were there to work, not fight. So there would be little reason to wear plate or even much padding.. a helmet might still be nice, if there was any chance of getting hit slingshots or arrows.
WakarimasenKa
Eh? I'm agreeing with you :P
Do you have any recommendations for reproduction armors, such as a padded jack or breastplate? I'm also wondering did halberdiers typically wear mail under a breastplate?
Why was brigandine (spelling?) armor made with the plates on the inside of the leather garment? It seems to me that the leather garment ought to be underneath the metal plates instead, thereby protecting the garment from slashing damage. Continued damaged to the leather would see its failure, possibly with underlying metal plates falling off, making a more vulnerable area. Having the leather garment beneath the metal plates seems more logical. Is there a reason why it was done in the converse?
If it still interests you: It had the simple advantage of not having the plates on the outside. Otherwise there would have been a risk for stabs to just glide off and inbetween plates. With the plates on the inside, stabs still would be able to get caught on the leather, even if a plate was hit. It also made it harder to target areas with no plates if you couldn't see how excactly they were aligned from the outside.
Curses, now you're doing armour I've got to think of something else to request you do.
Erm, fortification? Artillery? Eh, I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever you pick.
Hi Matt!
Have you seen the findings from the battle of Visby 1361 AD? There are lots of original 14th century armors, as well as some really nasty examples of battlefield injuries.
Maratus volans Yes, I wrote my degree disertation about the development of the coat of plates, using the Battle of Wisby evidence heavily.
scholagladiatoria
It's interesting how much influence the various Wisby Coat of Plates have had on modern 14th century reenactment, yet the designs were quite outdated by 1361 from what I recall.
Didn't coat of plates exist as far back as 13th century?
AKA an armored surcoat?
A robe that hangs off your shoulders with a belt to hold it up. Usually worn with a full suit of mail, so that the belt wouldn't have to hold up a hauberk as well.
Great video!
Would the lightly armored cavalry you mentioned at 5:16 evolve into the demi-lancers of the 16th century?
Juan Estiban the Orange Seller Yes, they are a similar thing.
I know this doesn't necessarily relate to the video but do you think knights/men at arms or whatever talked about fighting moves? shared experience with each other? took interest in another's technique? constantly learning?
Also, do you think that let's say knights we're better at handling ones weapons than lower fighting men.
I mean knights we're the richest but we're they the best in their moves when it came to combat or whatever? the best warriors literally, of their time? Do you think they took it as a martial art?
I mean all this questions because i dont know how to take these men. They we're all practically sportsmen.
In almost all places, all eras, as a warrior, you had to provide your own armor and weapons. If you don't, you were provided with the minimum equipment and downgraded to tasks related to your equipment.
Was the Feather Bonnet really a viable helmet for troops who didn't/couldn't spring for something more solid? Seems kind of sketchy to me.
I was searching on your channel a video about the use of two-handed swords on the battle field but didn't find any. Lindybeige made a video about it and spoke about them maybe being used to hack through pike formations, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about that.
very nice and informative video :)
Could you possibly do a video on the different stiles, as concerning fashion in the way the amour was designed, that changed throughout the middle ages?
The French Men-at-arms and Nobility fought on foot quite often after Crecy.
In some of the late 16th & early 17th fencing treatises the authors mention how the introduction of gun powder had changed warfare. I've done some research but the whole situation seems rather confused. It sounds as if a lot of the instruction & advice relates to skirmishing rather than fighting in a battle line. Would it be possible for you to do a talk on this subject?
Very informative thanks.
Hello Schola I have a quite serious question regarding my armor, I own a suit of milanese plate armor and the sabatons are beginning to pop up rust spots. are there ways to prevent this from further spreading and also can I treat these rust spots before they become deep?
Still, I am mostly just wondering which armor best protects from the dreaded Battle Stool (most people round here use three leg, but I assume the concept is the same for four...)
How common were jack chains among infantry? If a soldier could afford either jack chains or chain mail to put overtop a padded jack, which would he have picked?
The common myth is that europeans of that time were all armored. Armor was expensive. There was no way the 15th century economies of western europes could afford armoring all the troops while immensely wealthy empires of the time like the Ming dynasty could not.
Could one practically start with just a gambeson and then, having accumulated sufficient funds, buy a hauberk to go over it? Or would you need to trade-in your gambeson for an aketon specifically designed to go under mail? Likewise, could you later buy some brigandine to use over the gambeson and hauberk you already have?
Robert Fisher
In general the kind of gambeson worn by poorer soldiers as a defense of its own was much thicker than those designed to be worn under mail (or even more so under plate), as was logical. Louis the XI required that his foot soldier's gambeson to be made of either 30 layers of linen or 25 layers with a layer of deerskin on top. A gambeson made to be worn under mail would be much lighter, the one stated in the Burgundian Ordonnance of Charles the Bold being of 10 layers of linen.
During the War of Roses period however it's common to wear another padded garment OVER your mail in addition to the one you have under it, which was often as much as 30 layers thick, as an added defense against arrows. They Byzantine also have a similar type of quilted armor, called an epilorikion.
Brigandine could obviously be worn over a simple gambeson or over mail and gambeson, just don't forget the chest size! ;)
Is it possible to cover other parts of the body with the same principle as brigandine or is it not flexible enough? More importantly, did people do it?
Robert R There are examples of leather gauntlets with plates riveted to the insides, I believe LindyBeige has a video where he visits a museum and sees both an archaological find and a reconstruction of such a gauntlet.
You mentioned that some infantry troops used a more classic spear and shield combo. How effective was it due to all the heavy armor available?
Commonly worn over a padded jack? I think wearing riveted mail without a padded jack is only for those who are into Sado/Masochism.
DushinSC In the early medieval period it seems that they did indeed just throw a mail shirt over their tunic. There is practically no evidence for padding worn under mail until after 1066.
scholagladiatoria Thanks for the pointer. Did they wear thick woolen tunics under them though?
DushinSC It doesn't have to be thick. I've worn mail over a single tunic made out of moderate-weight cotton twill (the kind you'd find in khakis and chinos) and it wasn't particularly uncomfortable. That being said, it's perfectly possible that early mail garments had integral padded liners (instead of a separate padded/quilted garment worn underneath), which might help explain the apparent absence of padded garments on Bayeux Tapestry corpses that had been stripped of their mail.
did lamellar armor come into north west Europe? also if there was leather armor (boiled and thickened) when would have it been used in European history?
What happened to cuir bouilli? Barbour and Chaucer refer to it; it must have been in use.
Fantasy books like talking about boiled leather for armour... how effective would that be?
4:45 Come to think about it, that may very well be the reason why in English "knight" prevailed for this type of warrior instead of "ridder" and/or "chivaler", mayn't it? Then again, you island folks do have lots of other unique differences to us largely consistent continental peeps when it comes to (particularly West) Germanic cognates, so it could just as well merely be pure coincidence.
Why mail under brigandine ? brigandine can't be pierced by muscle powered steel points right ?
This brings one question. Why bother with cuting weapons? Why would any one put an axe head on polearm (like poleaxe) when in such scenario your best guess is to bash someone to death with a hammer side?
Jagdpz5
Because even in 15th century battlefields there were still plenty of unarmored targets. The poleaxe was famous for use in judicial duels, but they were of course battlefield weapons too
Hey how come wood wasn't used as armor, or was it? Wood is cheap, hard, super easy to work with and lightweight, absorbs impact, doesn't rust, helps you float in water etc. The more I think about it, the more it seems like wood has a lot more advantages over steel armor..? Maybe wooden armor was used, but the wooden armor would have decayed by now leaving little or no evidence behind?
Padded hardwood like ash would probably offer decent protection when thick enough, if it was kept dry that is. It could also be banded with iron strips to further protect from swords and axes. However, this is the dark ages we are talking about, not exactly the pinnacle of human thought and invention.
Also, I've heard of "Scottish brigandine". Does anyone know anything about that. It seems to be be prices of leather or rawhide riveted over a jack.