Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

Kel Rekuta wrote:
William P wrote:


now all we need is a man willing to get up in harness and trudge through the mud all the while being whacked with sticks..


Been there, done that. SCAdians call it Pennsic. :p

Ha! Ya beat me to it! But maybe Gulf Wars is a better comparison...usually moist and humid with lots of mud...
and just how tired does one get?
William P wrote:
and just how tired does one get?


Well it does depend on your general stamina, motivation and how much you had to drink the night before. People fall down in front of you, often breaking your momentum. At the best, its a struggle. And no one is shooting massive arrows at your flanks and back at relatively close range. ;)

I think being a French man at arms in the front ranks at Agincourt would have been a severe test of courage and will.
Kel Rekuta wrote:
William P wrote:
and just how tired does one get?


Well it does depend on your general stamina, motivation and how much you had to drink the night before. People fall down in front of you, often breaking your momentum. At the best, its a struggle. And no one is shooting massive arrows at your flanks and back at relatively close range. ;)

I think being a French man at arms in the front ranks at Agincourt would have been a severe test of courage and will.


or crecy

i was more looking at it in terms of your ability to fight in the melee at the end of the slog, after being continually battered by arrows since each arrow, as i understand from the ranges of 100m or closer, would have been the ones that would start to hurt i.e like being hit with a stick, to be constantly battered woul;d have affected their ability to fight the english men at arms, and then to have a horse of archers appearing on your flanks would have worsened the situation for the french enormously.
William P wrote:

simply put, even if the arrows could puncture plates, i personally consider it pretty much impossible to penetrate BOTH maile and a plate over said maile, at the same time.


William, they were not wearing full length body suits of mail under the plate. Helmets, visors, most of the arms, hands and legs and feet were covered by plate only (without mail underneath) of varying thicknesses and quality depending on the owner's status. Some plate was significantly less than 1mm thick and made of pig iron, some was over 3mm thick and hardened steel.

You can't really talk about 'plate armour' as one homogenous entity.

Matt
William,

You can't compare the field conditions at Crecy and Agincourt. When you read more about those two battles, you will find two things they had in common was that the English were trapped and the French lost.

And read what Matt said again, then look at the armour worn in those two periods as evidenced by funerary monuments at this handy website. http://effigiesandbrasses.com/
There are plenty of places to hit an armoured man where he may only have mail or thin plate.
According to Clifford J. Rogers and various primary sources, many if not most of the knights at Agincourt wore mail hauberks under their plate harnesses even at Agincourt. That may be a misinterpretation of the iconographic evidence, but "long coats of steel" really sounds like a hauberk.
A full *shirt* of mail, usually with sleeves to the elbow at most and down to the crotch.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that they usually wore full length mail chausses and sleeves under their plate. If they are suggesting that then I'd be interested to know what the source evidence is.

That leaves the arms and legs predominantly covered only by relatively thin plate.

To dress like a 12thC knight in head-to-foot padding and mail and then put plate over the top of that would be insanely hot and heavy.


Last edited by Matt Easton on Sat 24 Mar, 2012 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
According to Clifford J. Rogers and various primary sources, many if not most of the knights at Agincourt wore mail hauberks under their plate harnesses even at Agincourt. That may be a misinterpretation of the iconographic evidence, but "long coats of steel" really sounds like a hauberk.


At this time I believe the accepted form of maille beneath the plate harness would have been a haubergeon (or little hauberk), so mid-thigh length and 3/4 sleeves, perhaps shorter. Regardless, I think the point is you can really only count on the chest being protected by both maille and plate, perhaps the upper arms as well depending on the style of plate defenses worn. English top of the line armor would have been a fully articulated rerebrace with integrated shoulder protection as seen on countless effigies, but a separate spaulder and upper cannon is possible as well. So, even the very best armor of the day would not have double protection on the lower arms and pretty much all of the legs up to the mid-thigh where depending on your gait and stride may have some haubergeon hanging down low enough when the arrow comes your way. But yes, I agree that it's unlikely without completely faulty armor that an arrow could reliably penetrate plate, maille, and textile armor layers in combination.

Also, let's not forget about the back. People wearing something similar to the Churburg #14 globose breastplate most likely only had criss-cross straps in the back over a layer of maille with no plate defense at all. Most effigies make it all but impossible to determine if there was any back defense other than maille, and even chest defense is difficult to discern due to effigies and miniatures of the time depicting the torso defense covered by a surcoat. It's possible that when archers flanked your lines, your back is open to arrow shots.
On the subject of the back there are some good clues around - for example Fiore dei Liberi's treatise clearly shows solid breastplates and coat-of-plates type back defences, and that treatise is dated to only 5 years before Agincourt. Additionally there is the famous statue of St.George from Prague, dating to about 1400, which shows a similar combination of solid breastplate and coat-of-plates back.

But the arms and legs were prodominantly only covered in a layer of steel plate, and generally amongst the thinest plate you will find in a plate harness, often only around 1mm thick and at this time often only iron or low carbon steel.

I'm not sure many of us would function very well with even just an inch of steel point stuck in our shin or forearm. Even less well if we had more than one such wound.
Matt Easton wrote:
A full *shirt* of mail, usually with sleeves to the elbow at most and down to the crotch.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that they usually wore full length mail chausses and sleeves under their plate. If they are suggesting that then I'd be interested to know what the source evidence is.

That leaves the arms and legs predominantly covered only by relatively thin plate.

To dress like a 12thC knight in head-to-foot padding and mail and then put plate over the top of that would be insanely hot and heavy.


They actually did have full mail under their plate during the time of Crecy and Poitiers.
Look at the effigies I posted earlier. They have long sleeved haubergeons under their plate that come down over their hips.
Under partial plate, yes (eg, front-only greaves and gutter-vambraces. Under fully enclosed greaves, cuisses and vambraces by the time of Agincourt, unlikely.
Once again it comes back to the percentages. How much of the army was fully enclosed in plate? How much wore partial plate? I doubt that this question can be answered.
Hi Josh

Quote:
It was armour such as this that defeated the longbow. Note the deep plackarts, effectively forming an almost double-breastplate, as well as the huge pauldrons and elbow defenses.


I may be wrong but the suit you posted above looks specifically suited to jousting, not wading into battle on the field.

Cheers

GC

ooops, did I really quote a post from the first page? ;)
Dan Howard wrote:
Once again it comes back to the percentages. How much of the army was fully enclosed in plate? How much wore partial plate? I doubt that this question can be answered.


Very true, especially at Crecy I should think. Art from the 1340's still sometimes shows knights covered head to foot in pretty much only mail (except probably for a coat of plates under the jupon), whereas other art shows quite a lot of plate. Even the brasses and effigies show there was a big disparity in the 30's and 40's and of course they generally show the most wealthy gentlemen by their very nature.
Matt Easton wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
Once again it comes back to the percentages. How much of the army was fully enclosed in plate? How much wore partial plate? I doubt that this question can be answered.


Very true, especially at Crecy I should think. Art from the 1340's still sometimes shows knights covered head to foot in pretty much only mail (except probably for a coat of plates under the jupon), whereas other art shows quite a lot of plate. Even the brasses and effigies show there was a big disparity in the 30's and 40's and of course they generally show the most wealthy gentlemen by their very nature.


Dr. Strong's analysis of effigies sheds some light. Looking at the 1340's and 50's English Effigies we see the overwhelming majority of body defenses being all maille in the 1340's to a huge shift to what Dr. Strong refers to and defines as Rounded - "Rounded means a body defense that is covered by a jupon that has a rounded profile. These may represent a globose cuirasses or breastplates or rounded coats of plates. "

If we look at the 'All Countries' version for the 1340's and 50's we see a roughly 70/30 split of maille to Coat of Plates in the 40's, then in the 50's 20% maille, 35% CoP, and the rest 'Rounded' with a couple outliers.

But, as Mr. Easton has stated, effigies are pretty much only a spyglass into the armor of the rich and important people of the time, since they didn't make effigies and brasses for normal people. I think it can be safely assumed that maille was the norm a bit longer for men-at-arms than the effigies would show. Although, the data on the effigies would suggest that amongst even the knightly class of French at Crecy, only about half would have had something other than just a maille body defense.

By Agincourt though, the English are sitting at about 25% 'Rounded' and the rest are exclusively Cuirass. Whereas the French are 65/35 'Rounded' and Globose. As Mr. Howard pointed out though, the true percentages of who was wearing exactly what, are really just a guessing game when it comes to the make up of the entire army.

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armour/effi...lysis.html
Matt Easton wrote:
Under partial plate, yes (eg, front-only greaves and gutter-vambraces. Under fully enclosed greaves, cuisses and vambraces by the time of Agincourt, unlikely.


None of the effigies I posted show gutter defenses.
Fully enclosed greaves, vambraces and rerebraces were already in common use before Crecy, and they were worn over mail.
Obviously not everyone was equiped this way, with a lot of harness still being mostly mail. (as you said.) But it shows that extensive plate over mail was certainly historical.
Jojo Zerach wrote:
Matt Easton wrote:
Under partial plate, yes (eg, front-only greaves and gutter-vambraces. Under fully enclosed greaves, cuisses and vambraces by the time of Agincourt, unlikely.


None of the effigies I posted show gutter defenses.
Fully enclosed greaves, vambraces and rerebraces were already in common use before Crecy, and they were worn over mail.
Obviously not everyone was equiped this way, with a lot of harness still being mostly mail. (as you said.) But it shows that extensive plate over mail was certainly historical.


The effigies you showed indicated no evidence that there's any maille underneath the vambraces or leg harnesses of those knights. The only indication that there might be maille on the lower arm is that the maille is depicted continuously in the gap on the inside of the elbow. Having a modern reproduction of virtually that same exact style arm harness, I can tell you that vambraces are typically far too fitted to leave any room for maille underneath. Upper cannons yes, lower vambraces, no way.

Same for the legs. Plate cuisses and fully cased greaves were not designed to be worn over maille chausses. Maille chausses would defeat the purpose of making cased greaves so closely fitted like they are in your effigy examples. From practical knowledge of wearing a late 14th century leg harness made, again, to duplicate the style seen in those effigies, I can tell you from experience that there's no way you could comfortably or effectively wear maille underneath. The only effigies I've seen that would indicate maille chausses being worn are like Mr. Easton said, people wearing front greaves only, like in this example with front greaves and what appear to be either gamboised or splinted cuisses:

[ Linked Image ]
Some things to consider

With effigies and art in general they need be used with some caution for dating and percentage of use. Personally I avoid using effigies for dating at all, too much artistic tradition in many cases. As well dating is highly subjective. Half of these are dated by similarity to other effigies which have their dated arrived at by the same means. The ultimate in chicken and egg dating. And you have the other choice of date of death, which often is incorrect or adding some to after they died which is also likely wrong as well. Truth is we just do not know for the vast majority of them. And those we have dates for often show development being much more advanced than comparable ones. The Hasting Effigy is a great example. Some other effigies of the 1340s look like someone out of the 1280s or 1290s.Then you have effigies dated to the same decade or with in a few years even of two gents of similar standing and one is wearing armour nearly a 1/2 century or more old compared to the other. Seems highly suspect. And another variable to consider, if effigy centers were in use as is commonly thought by people such as Dr. N. Saul we also have to wonder how 'economy' effigies were compared to those completely tailor made. You might have a dozen or more apprentices carving out a basic slab or working on brasses that can be detailed by the master when needed, which may or may not be right away. Some effigies are so similar there can be little doubt some of these were made as part of a larger system of manufacture.

At least with manuscripts we often can arrive at dates by events in text or calendars included. even better if the date is included. This does not help always either. I can pull up gents in full armour in many illustrations for the same MS from England in the 1310s and one similar make same time will show gents in all mail. Why would they be so different if they are ultimately drawing upon the same environment for inspiration?

Now for me the place to start for dates is literature and other written accounts. By the 1330s we see plate everywhere in textual evidence. By 1320s Blair states he has not found a complete martial inventory without Coat of plates among the knightly class. For those I have seen it looks right. I really doubt many men that were knights or their betters did not have at least a fair amount of limb armour by the 1320s and 30s, at least in England. By the 1340s I'd think it highly unlikely a knight would lack plate armour on the limbs. By the 1320s there are accounts of townsmen in Southampton that are more or less in complete harness. Now these gents are wealthy but I doubt the nobility was following martial trends in this case started by merchants and tradesmen.

Now as to if men were wearing hauberks and aketons under plate, seems to be the case until the 2nd quarter of the 15th to mid 15th. Even into the Later Hundred Years War we see this being seen as the norm. Monstrelet claims the men at arms of the French at Agincourt wore aketons, hauberks and full white harness. Some others include Bertrand du Guesclin's chronicle, written around the time of his death which also gives a similar example when a lance penetrates his Pair of plates, hauberk and stops on the last layer of his aketon.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
Some things to consider

With effigies and art in general they need be used with some caution for dating and percentage of use. Personally I avoid using effigies for dating at all, too much artistic tradition in many cases. As well dating is highly subjective. Half of these are dated by similarity to other effigies which have their dated arrived at by the same means. The ultimate in chicken and egg dating. And you have the other choice of date of death, which often is incorrect or adding some to after they died which is also likely wrong as well. Truth is we just do not know for the vast majority of them. And those we have dates for often show development being much more advanced than comparable ones. The Hasting Effigy is a great example. Some other effigies of the 1340s look like someone out of the 1280s or 1290s.Then you have effigies dated to the same decade or with in a few years even of two gents of similar standing and one is wearing armour nearly a 1/2 century or more old compared to the other. Seems highly suspect. And another variable to consider, if effigy centers were in use as is commonly thought by people such as Dr. N. Saul we also have to wonder how 'economy' effigies were compared to those completely tailor made. You might have a dozen or more apprentices carving out a basic slab or working on brasses that can be detailed by the master when needed, which may or may not be right away. Some effigies are so similar there can be little doubt some of these were made as part of a larger system of manufacture.

At least with manuscripts we often can arrive at dates by events in text or calendars included. even better if the date is included. This does not help always either. I can pull up gents in full armour in many illustrations for the same MS from England in the 1310s and one similar make same time will show gents in all mail. Why would they be so different if they are ultimately drawing upon the same environment for inspiration?

Now for me the place to start for dates is literature and other written accounts. By the 1330s we see plate everywhere in textual evidence. By 1320s Blair states he has not found a complete martial inventory without Coat of plates among the knightly class. For those I have seen it looks right. I really doubt many men that were knights or their betters did not have at least a fair amount of limb armour by the 1320s and 30s, at least in England. By the 1340s I'd think it highly unlikely a knight would lack plate armour on the limbs. By the 1320s there are accounts of townsmen in Southampton that are more or less in complete harness. Now these gents are wealthy but I doubt the nobility was following martial trends in this case started by merchants and tradesmen.

Now as to if men were wearing hauberks and aketons under plate, seems to be the case until the 2nd quarter of the 15th to mid 15th. Even into the Later Hundred Years War we see this being seen as the norm. Monstrelet claims the men at arms of the French at Agincourt wore aketons, hauberks and full white harness. Some others include Bertrand du Guesclin's chronicle, written around the time of his death which also gives a similar example when a lance penetrates his Pair of plates, hauberk and stops on the last layer of his aketon.

RPM


Interesting. So it seems like pieces of armour were showing up in inventories about a generation or so before they show up in effigies.
Perhaps many of these effigies were custom made, and are depicting the knight's personal armour he wore earlier in life.
(Most effigies before 1370 seem to be based on unique harnesses, while later ones are usually near-identical.)
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

Page 17 of 21

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum