Exploatores I'm talkin' mittens, aventail, the whole works. If it's fleshy, you gotta keep teeth away from it, zombie, vampire or any combination of the two. :p
Hah hah hah..........so totally yes! Back in the late 70's Garry Gygax looked at a bunch of medieval manuscripts, saw fabric festooned in studs and said, "yep, there's the third worst armor in my new game"................and for the next 4 decades folks the world over were wrong, assuming those tiny little studs would deflect arrows and ping sword blows. That fantastically entertaining and by all accounts lovely man has historically a LOT to answer for.
Just to be nit picky; studded was part of D&D before Gygax. He wasn't part of it until the 4th pamphlet. And first time I've heard anyone describe him as lovely.
Strangely enough there is evidence of fabric and leather armour baring studs at the joints where they're likely to pull and tear, not so much to reinforce the jerkin or doublet but to help it being torn at its weakest points
In ye-olde DnD and ADnD 1st editions, Coat of Plates was called Plate Mail. Proper plate armors were added later in an expansion book to AD&D in the 1980s. Originally, "Studded Leather" was based on "Leather Armor" which was supposed to rely on cuirboulli as its primary protection over a still heavy but more flexible leather suit. "Studded leather" was just supposed to also include some metal augmentation to improve that protection without qualifying as "scale mail" (jazerant) or much better and heavier brigandine. Even "Cloth Armor" (the worst armor type besides unarmored) was based on actual armoring like Aketons and Gambesons. Arneson, Gygax, and crew were tabletop wargamers that developed their game system from their historical knowledge c. 1970's. The names they gave things, like calling Coat of Plates "Plate Mail" or calling an Arming Sword a "Long Sword" was done in a bit of a vacuum of available information and common nomenclature and long before you could become an expert just by checking out wikipedia. As for the "ridiculous studded leather", unfortunately, artists and costume designers didn't tend to care about such things described in the game rules and portrayed novelized and movie characters in what amounts to leather clothing with decorative metal bits... which in turn became big sellers for crafters at the ren-fair. But that's not what was intended by the folks at TSR.
saw that Statue with this coat of plates in Czech, I was immediately impressed. I didn't even know about it before hand, that's how much it stands out.
Sir, I think that you answered the questions about coats of plates / brigandines. They have to be, at least in my RPG campaign, considered the same thing. I really like the way you present your subject. It does speak of careful preparation. Thank-you very much for your time, and your knowledge. I am enjoying your channel immensely. Dante.
As a reeanactor in germany that likes to be in the style of 1400 to 1430 i love this channel a lot! i have ordered a costume made corrazina with splittet breast plate in 4 parts, soon it will be here and your video just made me so excited for that i can niot sit still :)
Kinda reminds me of modern ballistic armor. My body armor is made of steel plates in a plat carrier vest. Mine is an older model with flat plates but the newer models have curved plates. They aren't riveted in place but other than that it is a similar idea.
Medieval armour was actually so well thought out, that NASA studied it when making the space suits. So yeah, military application seems very reasonable.
***** Yeah, depending on your definition of when the middle ages ended (in fact with most common definitions), it was Renaissance armour. BUT, most people associate plate armour with the middle ages, and don't even know that plate armour was still a thing after the middle ages.
In modern german, you can still use "a pair" (ein paar) interchangeably as an actual pair as well as a few, some, or a little. For example, "Hol mir mal ein paar Schrauben" (Get me once a pair of screws) does not mean your journeyman wants an actual pair, but you should get enough screws to roughly cover the task ahead (speaking from apprenticeship experience here ^^).
+Rasgonras The difference is in capitalisation. A pair (i.e. exactly two) is "ein Paar", whereas "ein paar" is a few (i.e. an unspecified small number). That doesn't help you when you're saying it out loud, though.
KorKhan89 Actually, the difference is nominalisation which is commonly MARKED with capitalisation. Especially in older documents you might find it difficult to distinguish.
In Russian equivalent word is used in the same two meanings without any capitalization. (well, not much capitalization in Russian besides first letter in a sentence or in a name...) So, yea, welcome to the wonderful world of Indo-european grammar!
Nice two-parter on a very overlooked subject.I've never worn either brigandine or a coat of plates myself, even though 14th century armour is my favourite. I was a bit surprised at just how noisy it is when moving, but I guess it really shouldn't be surprising, considering it's a load of overlapping metal plates sliding over each other directly on top of maille.
@@markberlanga6375 jeff wasson made it. Couldn't give you a quote obviously because I'm not jeff wasson, you know? But his FAQ section mentions a full harness costing anywhere from 15-50k so expect to pay at the very least a few thousand.
+KorKhan89 No, it's not mine, but the owner is much closer in size to me. Suspension chains are much more common in German artwork and Central Europe than anywhere else, my living history group depicts England.
i never even heard or knew about coat of plates. I would easily mistake it as a breast plate or a brigandine.. Im glad i subbed to this channel.. His munich example of a breastplate type of coat of plates looks like an armor that have been inspired the armor of the Lanisters.. Yes.. The North Remembers..
The Lannister armor is (it seems to me) trying to evoke an Eastern feel, especially with the samurai-style helmets and Chinese-style round decorated pauldrons, so I imagine the horizontal lines are meant to mimic look of Japanese brigandines. But a covered brigandine would help explain why they look the way they to, and other houses seem to make extensive use of brigandines/coats of plates, most notably the Northern houses.
Is there any particular reason why the individual lames on back portion of the fauld are made out of six different pieces, instead of just two? Does it affect the comfort of sitting if they're made out of a larger number of pieces?
I don't see how the longer lames would affect how the armor contours on the spine if shaped correctly. To be more clear, my question was, why do we have: "hinge - lame-lame-lame - buckles - lame-lame-lame - hinge" instead of "hinge - longlame - buckles - longlame - hinge"
This last piece of armor looks very good! The disadvantage is probably a long time getting dressed, more difficult maintenance. Btw., isn't it actually quite similar to the Japanese samurai armor from the 16th century? Textile, leather, mostly relatively small steel plates for better mobility.
Great vid! I've always been interested in the transition from mail to plate, and am glad I stumbled on your videos. I've noticed a lot of effigy drawings and historical representations which show knights' thighs covered with studs, while the lower legs were typically covered in bare plate. This seems have been a short lived "fashion" peculiar to the period from around 1350-1380. Do those studs in the thighs represent fabric covered plate?
They are likely representing splinted cuisses, with an outer layer of fabric or leather and a series of overlapping steel or iron splints arranged vertically inline with the length of the quadriceps riveted to the inside. The _studs_ would be the heads of the rivets holding it all together. There are also examples of splinted rerebraces and vambraces on arm harness, constructed much the same way.
Hmmm, I still have one question I didn't hear a direct answer for. Why were these used? What were their advantages over having metal on the outside instead? Was it about a more mobile armor with a lot of elements that keep together even when lining is damaged, and didn't present any open gaps? But then any bladed weapon would damage the lining quickly and it'd have to be replaced frequently... But then maybe it's easier than maintaining scratched plates. Would it disperse the force a bit better?
+TrollDragomir It presents a far smoother surface for weapons to glance off of. A bunch of exposed overlapping plates would likely cause weapons to 'stick' to it, ideally you want to shed them instead. It might also snag on the rest of your kit as you move around. The last thing you want in a fight is for the mail on your arm to catch up on the corner of a plate on your CoP. It also aids in protecting the plates from the elements, and finally provides a means to make it look nicer (yes, this is important to the late medieval eye).
Would coat of plates be effective without underlying chaimmail? How would CoP+gambeson compare to chainmail+gambeson in terms of protection? Could I pierce between the plates with a dagger or a spear? (if I were not such a wimp, that is...)
Yes, it's still very effective without mail underneath. A lot of records indicate that pairs of plates were issued with sleeves and paunces (skirts) of mail from the Tower Armouries in the 14th century, so just a pair of sleeves and a skirt with no actual body of mail. That means there was nothing directly under the coats of plates other than the arming clothes in many cases. Wearing it with a full mail shirt can be redundant, but may be desirable depending on how much plate protection there is on the back. Could you pierce it? It's possible, but probably not very likely. The earlier designs are not quite as protective as the later designs (especially the kind like I show in the video that basically has a full breastplate inside it), but even then the earlier ones are still very protective but anyone can have a bad day.
Thank you! It was made by Jeffrey Wasson, www.wassonartistry.com I'm not sure what gauge steel he used for this one, but from memory the breastplate was thicker than the small plates of the fauld and back defense.
Yeah, with the back connections definitely need a squire helper. With all of the styles of armor you own, when and how do you chose to wear them? Is some only for jousting competition recreating. Or some just for walking around to seem more authentic during a Renfaire?
The chap in a turban shown at 9:42 seems to be wearing only short sleeves of mail underneath his brigandine. You tend to showcase complete suits of armour, but how common is "dressing down" like this in art?
+Ville Siivola I'm not sure it's really possible to quantify exactly how common full armors vs less complete armors were, but I would venture a guess that configurations of armor that were less than complete cap a pie plate were pretty common.
Often the mail would have been left out or mail sleeves worn instead, but yeah, perfect for a halberdier/guisarmist/billman. It´s the armour that allowed them to fight with a twohanded weapon. The worse half of the common infantry, wearing just gambeson and helmet, would be better off if they fought with spear and shield. Not saying some of them didn´t carry a two-handed poleweapon into batte, but I sure wouldn´t risk it without torso and upper leg (the centers of mass) protection against piercing weapons that go through gambeson - you are completely exposed to quarrels and arrows when closing in and then you have to wade into a flurry of spearpoints and halberdspikes, just waiting to lodge themselves into your gut... With just a guisarme to protect yourself .P It´s dangerous going into battle, but it´s suicide without either a shield or decent pointproof armour. Jon Snow, take notes! x)
+Knyght Errant as always I love and appreciate all the time you out into your videos .... In an unrelated question where did you get the interesting decal for your laptop? I think it is pretty cool looking and I kinda want one.
I always wonder, regarding body armor that is closed from the front: Would‘t that make the body more vulnerable to thrusts from the front? Even with interlocking alternating patterns of plates, it feels like armor that closes from the sides has an advantage there.
The advantage of front-closing is its much easier to put on and off yourself, or with something like thick gloves or gauntlets on. Rear-closing is the most protected, but what happens when you have an itch on your chest, or drop something down the collar? Trading protection for convenience, because soldiers spend most of their time NOT fighting.
Titanium and aluminium armour is bullet proof. Therefore, we can continue to evolve knights armour in to the twenty-first century. And inside a building the titanium knight is actually more dangerous than a gunman.
I've been looking at the breastplate of one of the effigies in Scotland. he's actually my ancestor. He's Alexander Leslie First Laird of Kininvie. His death date is 1549 but it is unknown what his birth date was. His grave effigy has a wasp shaped chest armor like the one you have but I can't tell if it's a single plate, or a coat of plates. His arm/leg armor is also really warn down on the effigy. It appears that he also wears a bascinet with an aventail. I've been trying to replicate his look by starting a list of gear I'd need. What would be an appropriate chest armor for the early 16th century?
Did any of those late 14th century armors have armored/plated sleeves or would they rely on there mail under shirt? thanks and this is a awesome video !!!!
+Mike Hamza During the 14th century, you did get increasingly elaborate arm and leg defences, sometimes made of iron, sometimes of cuir bouilli. They would have been separate from the coat of plates, however. Ian did a video about the arm harness, with his own armour being based on late 14th/ early 15th century era examples.
+Mike Hamza Yes, you can see many varieties of plate arm harness that would have been worn with these armors in my arm harness video. I just didn't bother getting fully kitted up for this video. th-cam.com/video/uiDZ35_Ym3A/w-d-xo.html
+Knyght Errant I saw an image either in one of your videos or one of Matt Easton's, (Can't remember exactly now) depicting a guy in what looks like a later brigandine, with plate arm and leg protection and with some sort of pollaxe, but I don't know when the image is dated
In the later ("Munich") style, would that (historically) still be worn over a full mail coat/haubergeon as you demonstrate, or would it be worn with mail voiders (if accompanied by full arms) or mail sleeves?
I suspect that historically it could have been used in _either_ configuration. English inventories from the Tower of London Armouries at the same time period list numerous sets of separate sleeves and paunces (skirts) of mail alongside pairs of plates that likely took a similar form to the Munich example. They were almost certainly being worn together at times. As long as the torso armor can support the decision of wearing separate sleeves and paunces of mail without leaving critical vulnerabilities then I believe it is a valid way to do it. Of course, wearing it with a full coat of mail is perfectly valid as well.
@@KnyghtErrant Thanks. I was just curious, because as you know, the full mail coat was dropped in favor of voiders or sleeves with the advent of plate, as it was considered redundant. It seems to me that those later versions of the CoP, like the one you had for demo, are every bit as protective of the torso as a plate cuirass. As always, very informative and enjoyable video. How about a video for your armor series on shoulder protection (spalders, pauldrons, and their predecessors)?
A cuirass with a solid breast and backplate is more protective and in many cases lighter, but we still see coat of plates style construction for the remainder of the Middle Ages in the form of the brigandine. We even see the brigandine being worn by high status individuals, just not as commonly as we see them wearing plate cuirasses.
in Swedish a "Pair" or "Par" is much more often used for a "set" of something than 2 of something, I thought it was the same all over. Perhaps not? Very interesting non the less.
I'm a bit late to discover this video - but anyway, it's absolutely fantastic! Thank you for your great work. How much does this particular coat of plates weigh, at least roughly? Would such piece of armour (that is, a "coat of plates" or "brigandine" kind) be generally heavier than a similar-sized plate cuirass with solid breast and back plates?
Hi, and thank you! I wish I had weighed that pair of plates when I was borrowing it, but alas that was an oversight on my part. It's been a long time since I've handled it so I'm hesitant to venture a guess, but it is heavier than my personally owned plate cuirass. It's owner is bigger than me, so it's not a perfect comparison but I believe his plate cuirass is also lighter for equivalent coverage. The main reason for that is the coat of plates, by virtue of being made from so many small plates, has to have lots of overlapping segments and so you end up with a lot more metal to cover a given surface area compared to a single plate. Historically it's difficult to say if they were typically heavier than equivalent coverage plate cuirasses though, because there are simply not enough surviving examples to draw broad conclusions. While the overlapping requirement of brigs and pairs of plates require a lot more surface area of metal, those individual plates can be made thinner, so it can make up some weight difference there. Also some pairs of plates are made up of very few larger plates while others are lots and lots of very small plates, and that's going to affect things a lot. Surviving plate cuirasses also vary quite a bit in weight and thickness, so even there it is difficult to say what a 'typical' example weighed... That was a long non-answer, but hopefully it sheds some light on why it's not really possible to conclude that one was typically heavier than the other.
@@KnyghtErrant Thank you ever so much! And it's certainly not a non-answer - quite the opposite in fact. Generally speaking, since we don't have any clear evidence that brigandines were heavier than plate cuirasses, then it would be more reasonable to assume that it was probably all down to each individual piece and how it was made. That's just the kind of general understanding I was looking for. I hope you don't mind if I bother you with one more similar question. Can you say something about the weight of a piece of wargear commonly referred to as "gambeson"? I mean the garment that could be worn, say, by a late 14th century man-at-arms under his chainmail (or on its own if he's not so well-off). I'm certainly not asking you for a single precise figure - I'm interested in understanding just a very general ballpark. As far as I understand, real historical info on this is also rather scarce, but maybe you could share some experience in handling modern-day replicas? Perhaps some rough comparison can be drawn - like, would a gambeson likely be clearly heavier than anything a modern person might wear in everyday life? Or can it be in the same ballpark as, say, a thick warm winter coat? Also, would it be (at least more or less) correct to assume that a relatively tougher gambeson would be thicker (more layers of material/thicker padding/etc) and therefore heavier? Many thanks in advance!
@@TheSeekingOne That's another difficult one to answer as there's a lot of modern confusion surrounding textile armors and arming garments. The modern term 'gambeson' is used as kind of a catch-all phrase to include almost every type of textile worn with or as armor. Period terminology is woefully imprecise for our modern tastes, but in general a 'gambeson' is usually more of a standalone textile defense, while an arming doublet or aketon is worn as the foundation garment for a more complete harness. A late 14th / early 15th century man-at-arms would be wearing a pretty lightly padded (if padded at all) garment under his armor. It would prevent chafing and stand as a strong foundation to attach components of the rest of his armor, corset his waist to shape and prepare the body for the wear of armor, but it is not necessarily a defense all on its own. A less wealthy individual might instead be wearing a heavily padded or thickly layered garment intended to serve as a defense on it's own, but it would be much to thick to wear a proper armor over top of. 15th century 'jacks' are sometimes documented with over 20+ layers of quilted textile, claiming proof against arrow shot on their own. These would be heavy, substantial garments totally unsuitable for wear under armor but perhaps more accessible to individuals who had no access to a plate cuirass. To add nuance, these things can also change dramatically over time and region. Some may favor layered construction, while others favor stuffed quilted channels, these things could also be hybrids where garments are differentially padded. For example, the surviving 'Lubeck Jacks' are heavily padded and reinforced on the backs of the garments (soaked in linseed oil in places, which polymerizes in the fibers and essentially hardens the textile), but on the front many places are very lightly padded or not padded at all. This is because these jacks were intended to be worn with a stand-alone breastplate and no backplate, a fashion common in German-speaking lands at the time these garments were in use, so the jack is unpadded where plate would be, and is armor-weight on its own where there is no plate present... It's a whole topic of study on its own, ripe for some budding PhD candidate to create a gargantuan dissertation on I'm sure, haha!
+docjjp brigs and CoPs are constructed in a fundamentally different way than lamellar. CoPs derive their mechanical structure by riveting the individual plates to the foundation garment. The plates are not connected to each other (at least not normally). Lamellar armor consists of individual lamellae that are generally laced to each other.
Hi,sir,so i have a question.Are all kind of armour that with leather outside and iron plates inside can be called “coat of plate“？in my culture,they had a kind of armour ,with leather outside and iron plates inside,but the form of iron plates are different from the coats in your vedio.（sorry my english is not good...）
The term 'coat of plates' is mostly a modern term anyway. In the Middle Ages they were generally referred to as a 'Pair of Plates' or simply 'Plates' so I don't think it really matters too much. Different cultures (even within Europe) probably called them different things at different times.
My question is, why would one choose to wear a brigandine like yours instead of a proper breast/backplate? It seems like it would be heavier, offer less protection and not really improve mobility. Was it just because they were cheaper?
+David Cookson For most of the 14th century you didn't have a choice. There were no uncovered solid breastplates and there were no solid backpaltes until the 15th century. By then most people did choose to wear a plate cuirass instead of a brigandine style armor. But even then brigandine exists alongside plate right through to the 16th century. It should be easier and cheaper to manufacture and may offer some better mobility depending on the configuration. We see it on wealthy individuals as well, but not as commonly as plate cuirasses.
Thanks for the comprehensive answer! I had no idea that breastplates were always covered during that period. So does that make your armour late 14th and/or early 15th century?
I don't own the piece in this video. It was borrowed from a friend, but this covered cuirass is appropriate for the late 14th century and would be starting to go out of fashion in the early 15th. Solid stand-alone breastplates start to appear in the last quarter of the 14th century, while full plate cuirasses with solid one piece backplates don't show up until the 15th.
Can u tell me if the coat of plates sold by dark Knight Amory under the name English brigadine is based on the st mauricious of magdeburg style or what are your thoughts it doesn't have shoulder plates
Two questions: Does the "Split-front,frobt-opening-globus-Coat-of-plates" have a widespread name, be it period or a neologism? Do you have any pictures of or links to what you would consider a likely-to-be-accurate reconstruction of such a plate. I don't even know what to google.
i would have thought for a coat of plate like the one you showcase a set of buckles on the side would have been far more convenient then the back buckles and wouldnt sacrifice any real protection, would allow you to put the armour on with much the same ease but also do the buckles yourself instead of forcing you to relly on some one else to do them for you would also allow you to use larger plates for the back for a little more protection there
There are some that buckle on the side as well. Convenience is never really a priority in any of this as it is assumed you will not be armoring up by yourself.
Knyght Errant for the higher classes yes, but surely some men at arms and later gaurdsmen who were outfitted with this sort of armour would have been required to armour up by themselves (hence why later brigandines buckle at the front)
One question what century be the plate ciurass that has total of 4 pieces where lower skirt of back plate gets attached with strap as well as the lower skirt part of front plate and additional strap over clavicle shoulder and sides too put armor on it has same look as your late 14th example exept no multiple straps to close on back
Hey Ian, what are your thoughts on why someone might choose a coat of plates/brigandine over a normal solid breastplate? from what I've seen they seem to take more time to make therefore (I would assume) making them more expensive. So is there some difference in protection or flexibility that I'm missing that would make it worth it? Anyways thanks for the video, there's always a ton of good info in these! :D
+ImEvan Well, for most of the 14th century you didn't have a choice. There were no single piece breastplates. They developed out of the coat of plates. By the 1380s the single piece breastplate became more of an option and ultimately by the 15th century the plate cuirass kind of supplanted the coat of plates. The brigandine obviously survives through to the 16th century, and was probably always easier to make, cheaper, easier to store etc.
A brigandine is notably easier to store and wear than most breastplates. Also fits a range of wearers better, while a solid plate cuirass will only be a good fit on one size.
Most are only adjustable in so much as the closure buckles can be loosened or tightened and still maintain an overlap along the line of closure, so we're talking an inch or two of adjustability on tightness. Depending on exactly when and where you're talking about, it's most commonly worn over at least some form of mail and whatever arming garment is beneath, but it could conceivably be worn only over textile for a less equipped troop type.
@@KnyghtErrant was thinking late 15th century. The campaign armour used by scurrors, thought it might be likely they would upgrade with mail when battle imminent.
Ian, do you know if these were still around in the 15th century, or have they been completely abandoned and replaced by a brigandine? Thanks very much! Awesome video, as always. I'm just 1 and half years late with the comments XD
It's very likely that the coat of plates stuck around for at least the first quarter of the 15th century among those individuals of lesser means. This is speculation, but I would not be surprised to see several developed coats of plates on both sides at Agincourt. Pairs of plates (the period term for these) exist in the Tower of London Armoury inventories as late as AD 1406 (11 total in inventory), although the quantity of them drops off significantly from the AD 1399 total of 99 pairs of plates accounted for. Individuals could of course have clung to them for longer, or came by older armors that were no longer in use from their once wealthy owners, but how far that would be reasonable and exactly by whom is a matter of opinion.
I'm starting into the craft of armouring, currenly working in a 14th century arm harness, and in long term i would like to complement it with a coat of plates covered in some colourful velvet. I'm interested into the one shown in this images: manuscriptminiatures.com/5711/20906/ manuscriptminiatures.com/5711/20909/ Seems like it would pair with the pieces thatyou show in the eighth minute of the video since it doesn´t show any kind of closing at the back, what do you think? Also, do you know of other depictions of the back of globose coat of plates? Thanks for your great work, anyway
I have a question: I believe I saw somewhere something called a "demi-cuirass." It had the upper torso covered by a solid, uncovered plate, and the lower torso and abdomen was covered by brigandine. Is there any historical reference to this?
+MalletMann There's stuff like this "www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour/st-maurice.jpg" But what you have to understand is that this is a 15th century painting of an imagination of what ancient Greco-Roman armor looked like to Medieval man's mind, not necessarily something intended for use in warfare.
MalletMann Yes, for the most part. Did they ever really build armors like this? Well, it's hard to say. There's an interesting discussion about that armor (built for Toby Capwell) here: www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour.html
I realize I’m very late with this question, but if you’re reading this I would love to know how the weight is distributed. Is it mostly worn on the waist or do you carry more of it on your shoulders?
+Hedge Twentyfour cheaper, easier to make, repair and store. remember, all armor has to be carried on campaign- i'd rather have a nicely collapsible coat than a bulky cuirass.
As David mentions, storage and transport is important, and may be the explanation for the pinned hinges at the shoulder, to allow this armor to "flatten out". The brigandines' smaller plates might have been easier to harden and temper, as well as to tin for rust resistance.
+Blank- blade I've honestly never worried too much about typology. I think we modern people make far more big a deal of it than anyone who used these weapons did. I'll think about doing the video though as a primer on oakeshott typology though.
Knyght Errant Definetly. As i get more and more into the topic i value typos less and less ^^ They are a good base though. Weaponry would be cool as a whole. You could do one about thrust-centric swords (Types XV, XVI, XVII ish) And one on lucerne hammers and pollaxes etc :)
I see here that there is textile on top of it (for recognition on field of battle i presume) and in earlier times they had coverings on top of chainmail for the same reason. How about when it comes to full armor in later times, often i see that modern reproductions have just armor without anything on top, wouldn't that be confusing on field of battle? Or am i just misreading something here. Thanks :)
+I Miletic The problem is with your presumption. I think you're mixing the concept of a heraldic surcoat or cote armor, with a necessary construction element of a coat of plates. So a surcoat (the long textile worn over armor) like you see over earlier mail harnesses is like you said, to display heraldic motifs etc.. But this is not why 'pairs of plates' are covered in textile. When they start to develop torso protection from plate in the second half of the 13th century (for earlier examples see my Coat of Plates pt 1 video) the textile layer is necessary for construction. The best they could do at the time was to make lots of small plates since the ability to manufacture large continuous pieces of high quality steel and iron were not present. The textile is what gives the armor its foundation and structure because the plates are affixed to it and not to each other. A heraldic surcoat, if worn, would have been worn *over* the coat of plates. For the bulk of the 14th century, even as the underlying plates become larger and more complex due to a variety of reasons, they still stick to the formula of affixing the plates to a textile foundation (probably because to them 'that's how you make body armor.") Standalone breastplates, don't really show themselves until the end of the 14th century, and even then they would have had a separate heraldic textile layer worn over them in a lot of cases, but it's probably not a coincidence that when they start to divorce the plate protection from it's foundational textile that they also want to start showing it off. By the 1st quarter of the 15th century, when torso armors are being constructed without a needed textile, since they are now self-supporting, people start to forego the surcoat (or coat armor, or jupon or whatever you prefer), giving birth to the 'white harness.' It was really more of a fashion statement than anything else, and it just kind of stuck. People who were important still displayed banners of their arms, and displayed their wealth through other means on their armors though.
Thank you very much on explanation. Yeah you're right about me mixing stuff up, i'm really new to this stuff so i have bunch of questions, and your awesome videos put lots of stuff in perspective. Thanks again.
+SnowCrash If you watch his video on arm harness, the bracers are all you need to defend the forearms. The mail just needs to come far enough to cover the inside of the elbow. Wearing mail under your bracers makes them excessively bulky and can cause them to interfere with your gauntlets and impede wrist movement.
+SnowCrash that's about where you want a maille haubergeon to come down to on your arms. A plate arm harness protects the area that the maille doesn't cover.
+SnowCrash The sleeves on my style of armor only need to reach into the vambraces to cover the gap on the inside of the elbow. Since I wear an 'English' style set of arms, virtually all English effigies show a close-fitted mail sleeve worn under the arm harness that fully protects the interior of the elbow. As long as the sleeves are long enough to not gap open as I move, there's no reason to interfere with the close fit of the vambrace further down the forearm
Another question: Is there any historical evidence of the textiles on the covered breastplate being decorated, in any way? Something else I would like to see in a video is a discussion of surcoats, the history of decorated armor and the adoption of the "white harness."
Why did Medieval armorers leave the fabric or leather as the outer part of a coat of plates or brigandine? I think that fabric and leather do not withstand cut well in comparison to metal plates. I mean - why did the armorers not leave the plates outside for covering the fabric or leather, which would be easier damaged by sharp weapons?
+ศานต์ไท หุ่นพยนต์ It presents a smoother surface for weapons to glance off of. A bunch of exposed overlapping plates would likely cause weapons to 'stick' to it, ideally you want to shed them instead. It might also snag on the rest of your kit as you move around. The last thing you want in a fight is for the mail on your arm to catch up on the corner of a plate on your coat of plates. It also aids in protecting the plates from the elements, and finally provides a means to make it look nicer (yes, this is important to the late medieval eye).
for as long as plate armor was worn there was always typically some combination of an inner garment (not necessarily very padded, or padded at all), some form of mail to protect the gaps (in the form of a full shirt, sleeves and a skirt, or just small voiders) and then plate. The fewer gaps in the plate, the less padding and less mail one needs.
No, that one would be a few decades later than Crecy and Poitiers. A more appropriate style for that period would be like some of the more 'weasel-waisted' pairs of plates we see in the Romance of Alexander MS - manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7024/
I'm sorry for late reply, but from what i read in wikipedia, in jack of plate the plates inside is sewn into textile or leather, while coat of plate the plates is riveted.
On the topic of the St. George at Prague, I had a long discussion a number of years ago with a group on the Armour Archive, including Robert Macpherson and others, about the viability of the armour the St. George was wearing under his Globose CoP. There was argument for it just being mail, but artistically stylized. Myself and a few others, however suggested that it was scale. In the latter part of the discussion, I did an experiment with some linen scrap and card stock to show the possibility that it was, in fact, scale that was used. The section I mocked up was around the elbow joint, since part of the counter to our position was that scale would bind up. I have a very short video here: th-cam.com/video/G223PUpt1SQ/w-d-xo.html that shows how functional it is. (Old old video - forgive the cell phone cam)
Interesting experiment. St George definitely looks like he's wearing scale to me. It would be a very unusually stylized depiction of regular mail if that was the intent. It would be cool to see someone build an appropriate 'coat of scales' to test it out under a pair of plates or cuirass.
I was headed that direction, hence the experiment, when I had a sudden change in life plans. :) I plan to get back to it, now that I am back to the hammer and armouring. I will have to post a video when I get there. That particular St. George is my absolute favorite.
More likely the 'weasel waisted' pairs of plates that you see in sources like Bodley 264 (The Romance of Alexander) and other mid century visual sources. Bodley 264 - manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7024/ German, but the right silhouette - effigiesandbrasses.com/830/2813/
+Robert R I don't really have a way to precisely quantify it, but I would think a solid cuirass is less prone to failure and more protective in general than most coat of plates configurations.
+Knyght Errant Could you do a video on the development of the brigandine and jack of plates and why armors at the later time when for the more weather and abrasion resistant nail to shell construct to cord to shell construction?
Very nice video thank you very much for all the detailed info as always :)
+Metatron Grazie, mio amico!
Metatron hello!
15:30 - 16:35 is just pure armor/chainmail ASMR
Loved when he struck the statue pose from memory, nice detail!
Faded denim and armor. I hope that becomes fashionable.
+neanderthor66 I've always thought that a well fitted suit of mail would make survival in a zombie apocalypse a done deal. :D
+Kenneth Pryde Don´t forget Neck protection, or is that only vapires :)
Exploatores I'm talkin' mittens, aventail, the whole works. If it's fleshy, you gotta keep teeth away from it, zombie, vampire or any combination of the two. :p
+neanderthor66 You saw the trend start here!
+Kenneth Pryde I support your idea. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=939258732810229&set=pb.100001783343422.-2207520000.1459364211.&type=3&theater
Now I finally know where the silly idea of studded leather probably originated!
Hah hah hah..........so totally yes! Back in the late 70's Garry Gygax looked at a bunch of medieval manuscripts, saw fabric festooned in studs and said, "yep, there's the third worst armor in my new game"................and for the next 4 decades folks the world over were wrong, assuming those tiny little studs would deflect arrows and ping sword blows. That fantastically entertaining and by all accounts lovely man has historically a LOT to answer for.
Just to be nit picky; studded was part of D&D before Gygax. He wasn't part of it until the 4th pamphlet. And first time I've heard anyone describe him as lovely.
David Bunner: Nope, he was there before the 3 little books.
Strangely enough there is evidence of fabric and leather armour baring studs at the joints where they're likely to pull and tear, not so much to reinforce the jerkin or doublet but to help it being torn at its weakest points
In ye-olde DnD and ADnD 1st editions, Coat of Plates was called Plate Mail. Proper plate armors were added later in an expansion book to AD&D in the 1980s.
Originally, "Studded Leather" was based on "Leather Armor" which was supposed to rely on cuirboulli as its primary protection over a still heavy but more flexible leather suit. "Studded leather" was just supposed to also include some metal augmentation to improve that protection without qualifying as "scale mail" (jazerant) or much better and heavier brigandine.
Even "Cloth Armor" (the worst armor type besides unarmored) was based on actual armoring like Aketons and Gambesons.
Arneson, Gygax, and crew were tabletop wargamers that developed their game system from their historical knowledge c. 1970's. The names they gave things, like calling Coat of Plates "Plate Mail" or calling an Arming Sword a "Long Sword" was done in a bit of a vacuum of available information and common nomenclature and long before you could become an expert just by checking out wikipedia.
As for the "ridiculous studded leather", unfortunately, artists and costume designers didn't tend to care about such things described in the game rules and portrayed novelized and movie characters in what amounts to leather clothing with decorative metal bits... which in turn became big sellers for crafters at the ren-fair. But that's not what was intended by the folks at TSR.
saw that Statue with this coat of plates in Czech, I was immediately impressed. I didn't even know about it before hand, that's how much it stands out.
I absolutely love these. All of your videos are so well done, definitely a must watch for every one of them
I've made maille, a Wisby coat of plates and this video makes me want to make one like this.
Sir, I think that you answered the questions about coats of plates / brigandines. They have to be, at least in my RPG campaign, considered the same thing. I really like the way you present your subject. It does speak of careful preparation. Thank-you very much for your time, and your knowledge. I am enjoying your channel immensely. Dante.
+100dfrost Thank you!
I love all your lessons - I fight in a Wisby #1 in the SCA, and have loved your perspectives on the history of the rig.
Also, go Navy, beat Army!
As a reeanactor in germany that likes to be in the style of 1400 to 1430 i love this channel a lot! i have ordered a costume made corrazina with splittet breast plate in 4 parts, soon it will be here and your video just made me so excited for that i can niot sit still :)
What an awesome armor. I love how well designed it is. And its look rocks!
Best two videos on the subject on youtube. Well done!
Very nice two part presentation.
Kinda reminds me of modern ballistic armor. My body armor is made of steel plates in a plat carrier vest. Mine is an older model with flat plates but the newer models have curved plates. They aren't riveted in place but other than that it is a similar idea.
Medieval armour was actually so well thought out, that NASA studied it when making the space suits. So yeah, military application seems very reasonable.
*****
Yeah, depending on your definition of when the middle ages ended (in fact with most common definitions), it was Renaissance armour.
BUT, most people associate plate armour with the middle ages, and don't even know that plate armour was still a thing after the middle ages.
Love your videos. Signed, Class of ‘87 History major.
I now have a favorite medevil/renaissance armor. The combination of mail and coat f plates looks fantastic.
I am glad you made this, because I use armour similar to that in my comic and now I can see how it actually moves.
Just when I thought things couldn't get any better...wow what a great video! Keep up the great work!
In modern german, you can still use "a pair" (ein paar) interchangeably as an actual pair as well as a few, some, or a little. For example, "Hol mir mal ein paar Schrauben" (Get me once a pair of screws) does not mean your journeyman wants an actual pair, but you should get enough screws to roughly cover the task ahead (speaking from apprenticeship experience here ^^).
+Rasgonras The difference is in capitalisation. A pair (i.e. exactly two) is "ein Paar", whereas "ein paar" is a few (i.e. an unspecified small number). That doesn't help you when you're saying it out loud, though.
KorKhan89
Actually, the difference is nominalisation which is commonly MARKED with capitalisation. Especially in older documents you might find it difficult to distinguish.
+Rasgonras To anyone just tuning in: Welcome to the wonderful world of German grammar! :D
In Russian equivalent word is used in the same two meanings without any capitalization.
(well, not much capitalization in Russian besides first letter in a sentence or in a name...)
So, yea, welcome to the wonderful world of Indo-european grammar!
Yes.
ein Paar Schrauben = a pair of screws
ein paar Schrauben = a couple of screws
:)
Nice two-parter on a very overlooked subject.I've never worn either brigandine or a coat of plates myself, even though 14th century armour is my favourite. I was a bit surprised at just how noisy it is when moving, but I guess it really shouldn't be surprising, considering it's a load of overlapping metal plates sliding over each other directly on top of maille.
so elegant
super informative, helps to clarify some misconceptions i had
thanks
Just curious who made that globus coat-of-plates, and/or what we be a good source to purchase one?
I second that inquiry also about what would the price be?
@@markberlanga6375 jeff wasson made it. Couldn't give you a quote obviously because I'm not jeff wasson, you know? But his FAQ section mentions a full harness costing anywhere from 15-50k so expect to pay at the very least a few thousand.
Excellent
Nice one.
"Hi folks, Ian Lespina (SP) here, KnyghtErrentatoria..."
*LaSpina not lespina
I'd love to see a more detailed video on Brigandines specifically.
Going to try and build one!
Great video. I notice that this CoP fits you a lot better than the Visby-style one from last time. Is it yours?
If so, I notice you went for the variant without suspension chains. Was there a practical reason for this choice, or just personal preference?
+KorKhan89 No, it's not mine, but the owner is much closer in size to me. Suspension chains are much more common in German artwork and Central Europe than anywhere else, my living history group depicts England.
i never even heard or knew about coat of plates. I would easily mistake it as a breast plate or a brigandine.. Im glad i subbed to this channel.. His munich example of a breastplate type of coat of plates looks like an armor that have been inspired the armor of the Lanisters.. Yes.. The North Remembers..
***** i was just saying that the design not the materials of the munich armor was an inspiration to the armor crafts of the Lanister armor
***** though it was my own speculation. i was just "it kinda looked so maybe".. i was just theory crafting :)
The Lannister armor is (it seems to me) trying to evoke an Eastern feel, especially with the samurai-style helmets and Chinese-style round decorated pauldrons, so I imagine the horizontal lines are meant to mimic look of Japanese brigandines. But a covered brigandine would help explain why they look the way they to, and other houses seem to make extensive use of brigandines/coats of plates, most notably the Northern houses.
I dont know why but it was quite amusing when you just turned around and did the same pose as the statue haha
Is there any particular reason why the individual lames on back portion of the fauld are made out of six different pieces, instead of just two? Does it affect the comfort of sitting if they're made out of a larger number of pieces?
Indeed, your spine.
I don't see how the longer lames would affect how the armor contours on the spine if shaped correctly. To be more clear, my question was, why do we have:
"hinge - lame-lame-lame - buckles - lame-lame-lame - hinge"
instead of
"hinge - longlame - buckles - longlame - hinge"
This last piece of armor looks very good! The disadvantage is probably a long time getting dressed, more difficult maintenance.
Btw., isn't it actually quite similar to the Japanese samurai armor from the 16th century? Textile, leather, mostly relatively small steel plates for better mobility.
Great vid! I've always been interested in the transition from mail to plate, and am glad I stumbled on your videos. I've noticed a lot of effigy drawings and historical representations which show knights' thighs covered with studs, while the lower legs were typically covered in bare plate. This seems have been a short lived "fashion" peculiar to the period from around 1350-1380. Do those studs in the thighs represent fabric covered plate?
They are likely representing splinted cuisses, with an outer layer of fabric or leather and a series of overlapping steel or iron splints arranged vertically inline with the length of the quadriceps riveted to the inside. The _studs_ would be the heads of the rivets holding it all together. There are also examples of splinted rerebraces and vambraces on arm harness, constructed much the same way.
Hmmm, I still have one question I didn't hear a direct answer for. Why were these used? What were their advantages over having metal on the outside instead? Was it about a more mobile armor with a lot of elements that keep together even when lining is damaged, and didn't present any open gaps? But then any bladed weapon would damage the lining quickly and it'd have to be replaced frequently... But then maybe it's easier than maintaining scratched plates. Would it disperse the force a bit better?
+TrollDragomir It presents a far smoother surface for weapons to glance off of. A bunch of exposed overlapping plates would likely cause weapons to 'stick' to it, ideally you want to shed them instead. It might also snag on the rest of your kit as you move around. The last thing you want in a fight is for the mail on your arm to catch up on the corner of a plate on your CoP. It also aids in protecting the plates from the elements, and finally provides a means to make it look nicer (yes, this is important to the late medieval eye).
Would coat of plates be effective without underlying chaimmail?
How would CoP+gambeson compare to chainmail+gambeson in terms of protection?
Could I pierce between the plates with a dagger or a spear? (if I were not such a wimp, that is...)
Yes, it's still very effective without mail underneath. A lot of records indicate that pairs of plates were issued with sleeves and paunces (skirts) of mail from the Tower Armouries in the 14th century, so just a pair of sleeves and a skirt with no actual body of mail. That means there was nothing directly under the coats of plates other than the arming clothes in many cases. Wearing it with a full mail shirt can be redundant, but may be desirable depending on how much plate protection there is on the back. Could you pierce it? It's possible, but probably not very likely. The earlier designs are not quite as protective as the later designs (especially the kind like I show in the video that basically has a full breastplate inside it), but even then the earlier ones are still very protective but anyone can have a bad day.
Thanks!
Ian, is that "Dragons of Summer Flame" I spy up on your shelf, next to other Dragonlance books? (Chronicles Trilogy if I had to guess)
+Michael Eversberg II Yes, it is, right next to the other Dragonlance books and the Dune series :)
Knyght Errant
Hah, thought that might have been Dune up there as well. All good books. Cheers!
That looks positively awesome! Who made this? What gauge steel did they use?
Thanks for your detailed videos. Very informative! :)
Thank you! It was made by Jeffrey Wasson, www.wassonartistry.com I'm not sure what gauge steel he used for this one, but from memory the breastplate was thicker than the small plates of the fauld and back defense.
Yeah, with the back connections definitely need a squire helper.
With all of the styles of armor you own, when and how do you chose to wear them? Is some only for jousting competition recreating. Or some just for walking around to seem more authentic during a Renfaire?
+klyana130 I don't own this armor, it was borrowed for the video. I only own one breastplate.
The chap in a turban shown at 9:42 seems to be wearing only short sleeves of mail underneath his brigandine. You tend to showcase complete suits of armour, but how common is "dressing down" like this in art?
+Ville Siivola I'm not sure it's really possible to quantify exactly how common full armors vs less complete armors were, but I would venture a guess that configurations of armor that were less than complete cap a pie plate were pretty common.
Brigandine over mail over gambeson must be pretty heavy, but I would imagine a person wearing that much armor would be hard to bring down.
+Charles W Unless he takes an arrow to the knee
Often the mail would have been left out or mail sleeves worn instead, but yeah, perfect for a halberdier/guisarmist/billman. It´s the armour that allowed them to fight with a twohanded weapon.
The worse half of the common infantry, wearing just gambeson and helmet, would be better off if they fought with spear and shield.
Not saying some of them didn´t carry a two-handed poleweapon into batte, but I sure wouldn´t risk it without torso and upper leg (the centers of mass) protection against piercing weapons that go through gambeson - you are completely exposed to quarrels and arrows when closing in and then you have to wade into a flurry of spearpoints and halberdspikes, just waiting to lodge themselves into your gut... With just a guisarme to protect yourself .P
It´s dangerous going into battle, but it´s suicide without either a shield or decent pointproof armour. Jon Snow, take notes! x)
+Knyght Errant as always I love and appreciate all the time you out into your videos .... In an unrelated question where did you get the interesting decal for your laptop? I think it is pretty cool looking and I kinda want one.
+Michael Thomas Hi, it's the decal of the manufacturer's logo, it came with the laptop (Razer makes it).
Would the covering impact a weapon's tendency to slide off of the armor?
I always wonder, regarding body armor that is closed from the front: Would‘t that make the body more vulnerable to thrusts from the front? Even with interlocking alternating patterns of plates, it feels like armor that closes from the sides has an advantage there.
The advantage of front-closing is its much easier to put on and off yourself, or with something like thick gloves or gauntlets on. Rear-closing is the most protected, but what happens when you have an itch on your chest, or drop something down the collar? Trading protection for convenience, because soldiers spend most of their time NOT fighting.
Titanium and aluminium armour is bullet proof. Therefore, we can continue to evolve knights armour in to the twenty-first century. And inside a building the titanium knight is actually more dangerous than a gunman.
I've been looking at the breastplate of one of the effigies in Scotland. he's actually my ancestor. He's Alexander Leslie First Laird of Kininvie. His death date is 1549 but it is unknown what his birth date was. His grave effigy has a wasp shaped chest armor like the one you have but I can't tell if it's a single plate, or a coat of plates. His arm/leg armor is also really warn down on the effigy. It appears that he also wears a bascinet with an aventail. I've been trying to replicate his look by starting a list of gear I'd need. What would be an appropriate chest armor for the early 16th century?
Did any of those late 14th century armors have armored/plated sleeves or would they rely on there mail under shirt? thanks and this is a awesome video !!!!
+Mike Hamza During the 14th century, you did get increasingly elaborate arm and leg defences, sometimes made of iron, sometimes of cuir bouilli. They would have been separate from the coat of plates, however. Ian did a video about the arm harness, with his own armour being based on late 14th/ early 15th century era examples.
+Mike Hamza Yes, you can see many varieties of plate arm harness that would have been worn with these armors in my arm harness video. I just didn't bother getting fully kitted up for this video.
th-cam.com/video/uiDZ35_Ym3A/w-d-xo.html
+Knyght Errant I saw an image either in one of your videos or one of Matt Easton's, (Can't remember exactly now) depicting a guy in what looks like a later brigandine, with plate arm and leg protection and with some sort of pollaxe, but I don't know when the image is dated
In the later ("Munich") style, would that (historically) still be worn over a full mail coat/haubergeon as you demonstrate, or would it be worn with mail voiders (if accompanied by full arms) or mail sleeves?
I suspect that historically it could have been used in _either_ configuration. English inventories from the Tower of London Armouries at the same time period list numerous sets of separate sleeves and paunces (skirts) of mail alongside pairs of plates that likely took a similar form to the Munich example. They were almost certainly being worn together at times. As long as the torso armor can support the decision of wearing separate sleeves and paunces of mail without leaving critical vulnerabilities then I believe it is a valid way to do it. Of course, wearing it with a full coat of mail is perfectly valid as well.
@@KnyghtErrant Thanks. I was just curious, because as you know, the full mail coat was dropped in favor of voiders or sleeves with the advent of plate, as it was considered redundant. It seems to me that those later versions of the CoP, like the one you had for demo, are every bit as protective of the torso as a plate cuirass.
As always, very informative and enjoyable video.
How about a video for your armor series on shoulder protection (spalders, pauldrons, and their predecessors)?
The Coat of Plates seemed like great armor. Do we have any idea why it fell out of fashion?
A cuirass with a solid breast and backplate is more protective and in many cases lighter, but we still see coat of plates style construction for the remainder of the Middle Ages in the form of the brigandine. We even see the brigandine being worn by high status individuals, just not as commonly as we see them wearing plate cuirasses.
in Swedish a "Pair" or "Par" is much more often used for a "set" of something than 2 of something, I thought it was the same all over. Perhaps not? Very interesting non the less.
I'm a bit late to discover this video - but anyway, it's absolutely fantastic! Thank you for your great work.
How much does this particular coat of plates weigh, at least roughly? Would such piece of armour (that is, a "coat of plates" or "brigandine" kind) be generally heavier than a similar-sized plate cuirass with solid breast and back plates?
Hi, and thank you! I wish I had weighed that pair of plates when I was borrowing it, but alas that was an oversight on my part. It's been a long time since I've handled it so I'm hesitant to venture a guess, but it is heavier than my personally owned plate cuirass. It's owner is bigger than me, so it's not a perfect comparison but I believe his plate cuirass is also lighter for equivalent coverage. The main reason for that is the coat of plates, by virtue of being made from so many small plates, has to have lots of overlapping segments and so you end up with a lot more metal to cover a given surface area compared to a single plate.
Historically it's difficult to say if they were typically heavier than equivalent coverage plate cuirasses though, because there are simply not enough surviving examples to draw broad conclusions. While the overlapping requirement of brigs and pairs of plates require a lot more surface area of metal, those individual plates can be made thinner, so it can make up some weight difference there. Also some pairs of plates are made up of very few larger plates while others are lots and lots of very small plates, and that's going to affect things a lot. Surviving plate cuirasses also vary quite a bit in weight and thickness, so even there it is difficult to say what a 'typical' example weighed... That was a long non-answer, but hopefully it sheds some light on why it's not really possible to conclude that one was typically heavier than the other.
@@KnyghtErrant Thank you ever so much! And it's certainly not a non-answer - quite the opposite in fact. Generally speaking, since we don't have any clear evidence that brigandines were heavier than plate cuirasses, then it would be more reasonable to assume that it was probably all down to each individual piece and how it was made. That's just the kind of general understanding I was looking for.
I hope you don't mind if I bother you with one more similar question. Can you say something about the weight of a piece of wargear commonly referred to as "gambeson"? I mean the garment that could be worn, say, by a late 14th century man-at-arms under his chainmail (or on its own if he's not so well-off). I'm certainly not asking you for a single precise figure - I'm interested in understanding just a very general ballpark. As far as I understand, real historical info on this is also rather scarce, but maybe you could share some experience in handling modern-day replicas? Perhaps some rough comparison can be drawn - like, would a gambeson likely be clearly heavier than anything a modern person might wear in everyday life? Or can it be in the same ballpark as, say, a thick warm winter coat? Also, would it be (at least more or less) correct to assume that a relatively tougher gambeson would be thicker (more layers of material/thicker padding/etc) and therefore heavier?
Many thanks in advance!
@@TheSeekingOne That's another difficult one to answer as there's a lot of modern confusion surrounding textile armors and arming garments. The modern term 'gambeson' is used as kind of a catch-all phrase to include almost every type of textile worn with or as armor. Period terminology is woefully imprecise for our modern tastes, but in general a 'gambeson' is usually more of a standalone textile defense, while an arming doublet or aketon is worn as the foundation garment for a more complete harness. A late 14th / early 15th century man-at-arms would be wearing a pretty lightly padded (if padded at all) garment under his armor. It would prevent chafing and stand as a strong foundation to attach components of the rest of his armor, corset his waist to shape and prepare the body for the wear of armor, but it is not necessarily a defense all on its own. A less wealthy individual might instead be wearing a heavily padded or thickly layered garment intended to serve as a defense on it's own, but it would be much to thick to wear a proper armor over top of. 15th century 'jacks' are sometimes documented with over 20+ layers of quilted textile, claiming proof against arrow shot on their own. These would be heavy, substantial garments totally unsuitable for wear under armor but perhaps more accessible to individuals who had no access to a plate cuirass. To add nuance, these things can also change dramatically over time and region. Some may favor layered construction, while others favor stuffed quilted channels, these things could also be hybrids where garments are differentially padded. For example, the surviving 'Lubeck Jacks' are heavily padded and reinforced on the backs of the garments (soaked in linseed oil in places, which polymerizes in the fibers and essentially hardens the textile), but on the front many places are very lightly padded or not padded at all. This is because these jacks were intended to be worn with a stand-alone breastplate and no backplate, a fashion common in German-speaking lands at the time these garments were in use, so the jack is unpadded where plate would be, and is armor-weight on its own where there is no plate present... It's a whole topic of study on its own, ripe for some budding PhD candidate to create a gargantuan dissertation on I'm sure, haha!
Is there any difference btwn the tiny, overlappling plates brigantine (9:59 mark) and lamellar armor?
+docjjp brigs and CoPs are constructed in a fundamentally different way than lamellar. CoPs derive their mechanical structure by riveting the individual plates to the foundation garment. The plates are not connected to each other (at least not normally). Lamellar armor consists of individual lamellae that are generally laced to each other.
+Knyght Errant Thank you for the explanation.
Hi,sir,so i have a question.Are all kind of armour that with leather outside and iron plates inside can be called “coat of plate“？in my culture,they had a kind of armour ,with leather outside and iron plates inside,but the form of iron plates are different from the coats in your vedio.（sorry my english is not good...）
The term 'coat of plates' is mostly a modern term anyway. In the Middle Ages they were generally referred to as a 'Pair of Plates' or simply 'Plates' so I don't think it really matters too much. Different cultures (even within Europe) probably called them different things at different times.
+Knyght Errant thanks,sir.
+Knyght Errant in my culture,we call them 布面甲（means armour with cloth surface）
Great stuff. Will you do any vids on the gothic sallet and the bevor any time soon? :)
+Per Magnus Haaland I'm limited by what I physically have access to. I'm trying to get a sallet and bevor to show you guys soon.
Awesome. Keep up the good work. :)
My question is, why would one choose to wear a brigandine like yours instead of a proper breast/backplate? It seems like it would be heavier, offer less protection and not really improve mobility. Was it just because they were cheaper?
+David Cookson For most of the 14th century you didn't have a choice. There were no uncovered solid breastplates and there were no solid backpaltes until the 15th century. By then most people did choose to wear a plate cuirass instead of a brigandine style armor. But even then brigandine exists alongside plate right through to the 16th century. It should be easier and cheaper to manufacture and may offer some better mobility depending on the configuration. We see it on wealthy individuals as well, but not as commonly as plate cuirasses.
Thanks for the comprehensive answer! I had no idea that breastplates were always covered during that period. So does that make your armour late 14th and/or early 15th century?
I don't own the piece in this video. It was borrowed from a friend, but this covered cuirass is appropriate for the late 14th century and would be starting to go out of fashion in the early 15th. Solid stand-alone breastplates start to appear in the last quarter of the 14th century, while full plate cuirasses with solid one piece backplates don't show up until the 15th.
That would look awesome with the rest of your armor
+Charlie Broder Here's what it looks like with a full armor www.wassonartistry.com/images/armor/1380senglish/IMG_1480.jpg
Thanks. It looks badass.
extremely jealous of that! I wish I could afford such a nice piece of armor
Can u tell me if the coat of plates sold by dark Knight Amory under the name English brigadine is based on the st mauricious of magdeburg style or what are your thoughts it doesn't have shoulder plates
Two questions: Does the "Split-front,frobt-opening-globus-Coat-of-plates" have a widespread name, be it period or a neologism?
Do you have any pictures of or links to what you would consider a likely-to-be-accurate reconstruction of such a plate.
I don't even know what to google.
What are your thoughts on the 1361 visby brigedine based on the battle of visby Denmark compared to the ones that closed in front
i would have thought for a coat of plate like the one you showcase a set of buckles on the side would have been far more convenient then the back buckles and wouldnt sacrifice any real protection, would allow you to put the armour on with much the same ease but also do the buckles yourself instead of forcing you to relly on some one else to do them for you
would also allow you to use larger plates for the back for a little more protection there
There are some that buckle on the side as well. Convenience is never really a priority in any of this as it is assumed you will not be armoring up by yourself.
Knyght Errant
for the higher classes yes, but surely some men at arms and later gaurdsmen who were outfitted with this sort of armour would have been required to armour up by themselves (hence why later brigandines buckle at the front)
They had each other.
Knyght Errant Indeed, people tend to overlook this.
One question what century be the plate ciurass that has total of 4 pieces where lower skirt of back plate gets attached with strap as well as the lower skirt part of front plate and additional strap over clavicle shoulder and sides too put armor on it has same look as your late 14th example exept no multiple straps to close on back
Hey Ian, what are your thoughts on why someone might choose a coat of plates/brigandine over a normal solid breastplate?
from what I've seen they seem to take more time to make therefore (I would assume) making them more expensive. So is there some difference in protection or flexibility that I'm missing that would make it worth it?
Anyways thanks for the video, there's always a ton of good info in these! :D
+ImEvan Less skill required to make multiple small plates as opposed to a single piece breastplate. Also heat treating would have been easier too.
+ImEvan Well, for most of the 14th century you didn't have a choice. There were no single piece breastplates. They developed out of the coat of plates. By the 1380s the single piece breastplate became more of an option and ultimately by the 15th century the plate cuirass kind of supplanted the coat of plates. The brigandine obviously survives through to the 16th century, and was probably always easier to make, cheaper, easier to store etc.
A brigandine is notably easier to store and wear than most breastplates. Also fits a range of wearers better, while a solid plate cuirass will only be a good fit on one size.
Thanks for the info guys, I guess I overlooked quite a few possibilities :)
Were brigandines/coat of plates adjustable? Would the same set of armour be worn over mail (and gambeson) as well as just gambeson only?
Most are only adjustable in so much as the closure buckles can be loosened or tightened and still maintain an overlap along the line of closure, so we're talking an inch or two of adjustability on tightness. Depending on exactly when and where you're talking about, it's most commonly worn over at least some form of mail and whatever arming garment is beneath, but it could conceivably be worn only over textile for a less equipped troop type.
@@KnyghtErrant was thinking late 15th century. The campaign armour used by scurrors, thought it might be likely they would upgrade with mail when battle imminent.
Ian, do you know if these were still around in the 15th century, or have they been completely abandoned and replaced by a brigandine? Thanks very much! Awesome video, as always. I'm just 1 and half years late with the comments XD
It's very likely that the coat of plates stuck around for at least the first quarter of the 15th century among those individuals of lesser means. This is speculation, but I would not be surprised to see several developed coats of plates on both sides at Agincourt. Pairs of plates (the period term for these) exist in the Tower of London Armoury inventories as late as AD 1406 (11 total in inventory), although the quantity of them drops off significantly from the AD 1399 total of 99 pairs of plates accounted for. Individuals could of course have clung to them for longer, or came by older armors that were no longer in use from their once wealthy owners, but how far that would be reasonable and exactly by whom is a matter of opinion.
so what time period of the 14th century does this armor come from would it be from about 1360-1400?
Hi Ian,what was the material covering the armour?by the way who ever made the armour did a fine job.
+Paul and Sue Roberts The one I demo'd is covered with leather only.
I'm starting into the craft of armouring, currenly working in a 14th century arm harness, and in long term i would like to complement it with a coat of plates covered in some colourful velvet. I'm interested into the one shown in this images:
manuscriptminiatures.com/5711/20906/
manuscriptminiatures.com/5711/20909/
Seems like it would pair with the pieces thatyou show in the eighth minute of the video since it doesn´t show any kind of closing at the back, what do you think?
Also, do you know of other depictions of the back of globose coat of plates?
Thanks for your great work, anyway
I have a question:
I believe I saw somewhere something called a "demi-cuirass." It had the upper torso covered by a solid, uncovered plate, and the lower torso and abdomen was covered by brigandine. Is there any historical reference to this?
+MalletMann There's stuff like this "www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour/st-maurice.jpg" But what you have to understand is that this is a 15th century painting of an imagination of what ancient Greco-Roman armor looked like to Medieval man's mind, not necessarily something intended for use in warfare.
Interesting, so sort of like the fantasy of the medieval era, almost.
MalletMann Yes, for the most part. Did they ever really build armors like this? Well, it's hard to say. There's an interesting discussion about that armor (built for Toby Capwell) here:
www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour.html
+Knyght Errant IT certainly /looks/ awesome
I realize I’m very late with this question, but if you’re reading this I would love to know how the weight is distributed. Is it mostly worn on the waist or do you carry more of it on your shoulders?
Later coats of plates like this are mostly supported on the waist by virtue of the tight fit in that portion of the armor.
Are there any clues as to why they'd choose to take a brigandine with smaller plates rather than the globose with a single piece breastplate?
+Hedge Twentyfour Cost? the bigger plates might be that bit more costly?
Flexibly?
+Hedge Twentyfour cheaper, easier to make, repair and store. remember, all armor has to be carried on campaign- i'd rather have a nicely collapsible coat than a bulky cuirass.
+Hedge Twentyfour More flexibility in the torso area?
As David mentions, storage and transport is important, and may be the explanation for the pinned hinges at the shoulder, to allow this armor to "flatten out". The brigandines' smaller plates might have been easier to harden and temper, as well as to tin for rust resistance.
+SuperFunkmachine Easier to dish to a person's body shape, smaller plates are easier and less risky to heat treat. Less potential metal waste.
will you be going over weapon typology I now it's a tricky subject to cover especially with swords
+madman11893 Please do Ian ^! :)
+Blank- blade I've honestly never worried too much about typology. I think we modern people make far more big a deal of it than anyone who used these weapons did. I'll think about doing the video though as a primer on oakeshott typology though.
Knyght Errant Definetly. As i get more and more into the topic i value typos less and less ^^
They are a good base though. Weaponry would be cool as a whole. You could do one about thrust-centric swords (Types XV, XVI, XVII ish) And one on lucerne hammers and pollaxes etc :)
Curious, what does the mail tunic weigh with doublet? How much does the breast plate weigh?
I see here that there is textile on top of it (for recognition on field of battle i presume) and in earlier times they had coverings on top of chainmail for the same reason. How about when it comes to full armor in later times, often i see that modern reproductions have just armor without anything on top, wouldn't that be confusing on field of battle? Or am i just misreading something here. Thanks :)
+I Miletic The problem is with your presumption. I think you're mixing the concept of a heraldic surcoat or cote armor, with a necessary construction element of a coat of plates. So a surcoat (the long textile worn over armor) like you see over earlier mail harnesses is like you said, to display heraldic motifs etc.. But this is not why 'pairs of plates' are covered in textile.
When they start to develop torso protection from plate in the second half of the 13th century (for earlier examples see my Coat of Plates pt 1 video) the textile layer is necessary for construction. The best they could do at the time was to make lots of small plates since the ability to manufacture large continuous pieces of high quality steel and iron were not present. The textile is what gives the armor its foundation and structure because the plates are affixed to it and not to each other. A heraldic surcoat, if worn, would have been worn *over* the coat of plates. For the bulk of the 14th century, even as the underlying plates become larger and more complex due to a variety of reasons, they still stick to the formula of affixing the plates to a textile foundation (probably because to them 'that's how you make body armor.")
Standalone breastplates, don't really show themselves until the end of the 14th century, and even then they would have had a separate heraldic textile layer worn over them in a lot of cases, but it's probably not a coincidence that when they start to divorce the plate protection from it's foundational textile that they also want to start showing it off. By the 1st quarter of the 15th century, when torso armors are being constructed without a needed textile, since they are now self-supporting, people start to forego the surcoat (or coat armor, or jupon or whatever you prefer), giving birth to the 'white harness.' It was really more of a fashion statement than anything else, and it just kind of stuck. People who were important still displayed banners of their arms, and displayed their wealth through other means on their armors though.
Thank you very much on explanation. Yeah you're right about me mixing stuff up, i'm really new to this stuff so i have bunch of questions, and your awesome videos put lots of stuff in perspective. Thanks again.
Ian,
Are thinking of getting felvet on your main kit?
Nicely done. Can I share this?
+Steven Schroeder Yes of course, please do!
The chain mail you are wearing in the video, are the sleeves a bit short for you?
+SnowCrash If you watch his video on arm harness, the bracers are all you need to defend the forearms. The mail just needs to come far enough to cover the inside of the elbow.
Wearing mail under your bracers makes them excessively bulky and can cause them to interfere with your gauntlets and impede wrist movement.
Hmm, interesting i was always sort of under the impression of it being sort of the shirt sleeve rule.
+SnowCrash that's about where you want a maille haubergeon to come down to on your arms. A plate arm harness protects the area that the maille doesn't cover.
+SnowCrash The sleeves on my style of armor only need to reach into the vambraces to cover the gap on the inside of the elbow. Since I wear an 'English' style set of arms, virtually all English effigies show a close-fitted mail sleeve worn under the arm harness that fully protects the interior of the elbow. As long as the sleeves are long enough to not gap open as I move, there's no reason to interfere with the close fit of the vambrace further down the forearm
Were these Pairs of plates common in 1360-1370 or only after 1380?
I mean the first two which I usually see in art after 1380.
Lovely armor, but it could really benefit from being a more vibrant color
Another question: Is there any historical evidence of the textiles on the covered breastplate being decorated, in any way?
Something else I would like to see in a video is a discussion of surcoats, the history of decorated armor and the adoption of the "white harness."
Why did Medieval armorers leave the fabric or leather as the outer part of a coat of plates or brigandine? I think that fabric and leather do not withstand cut well in comparison to metal plates. I mean - why did the armorers not leave the plates outside for covering the fabric or leather, which would be easier damaged by sharp weapons?
+ศานต์ไท หุ่นพยนต์ It presents a smoother surface for weapons to glance off of. A bunch of exposed overlapping plates would likely cause weapons to 'stick' to it, ideally you want to shed them instead. It might also snag on the rest of your kit as you move around. The last thing you want in a fight is for the mail on your arm to catch up on the corner of a plate on your coat of plates. It also aids in protecting the plates from the elements, and finally provides a means to make it look nicer (yes, this is important to the late medieval eye).
+Knyght Errant Thanks for clarifying this point, I has been trying to figure it out for years.
+Knyght Errant After some more study, the outer fabric or leather protected the plates against weather as well.
Not even one dislike. A record
+the Creative Assembly machinimas You just had to go and say something didn't you? :)
+Knyght Errant i am sorry I swear it was not me
You really should get customized armor parts where u don’t need a squire. Never know, what if your by yourself and you need to pit on the armor?
So, from when to when was it common to see the gambeson-mail-plate combo?
for as long as plate armor was worn there was always typically some combination of an inner garment (not necessarily very padded, or padded at all), some form of mail to protect the gaps (in the form of a full shirt, sleeves and a skirt, or just small voiders) and then plate. The fewer gaps in the plate, the less padding and less mail one needs.
would that coat of plates at the end of the vidio be right for the period between Crecy and Poitiers or would it be later?
No, that one would be a few decades later than Crecy and Poitiers. A more appropriate style for that period would be like some of the more 'weasel-waisted' pairs of plates we see in the Romance of Alexander MS - manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7024/
@@KnyghtErrant Thank you this is helpful
Are you Navy? Also, these videos are great. I always fancied coat-of-plates and the like. Very informative.
+Riley Beuttler He is a Navy helo pilot
+Riley Beuttler I was a navy helicopter pilot for 10 years. I'm just in the reserves now, but that's my USNA sweatshirt.
Is your maille too small? It seems to be restrictive around the shoulders.
+Wade Kirby It's not too small, it's just not tailored like historical mail is (armpit gussets and elbow pockets).
Is any distinction between jack-of-plates and coat of plates?
I'm sorry for late reply, but from what i read in wikipedia, in jack of plate the plates inside is sewn into textile or leather, while coat of plate the plates is riveted.
Excellent! I'm becoming more interested in a topic of which previously I only had a marginal interest.
link to the armor?
On the topic of the St. George at Prague, I had a long discussion a number of years ago with a group on the Armour Archive, including Robert Macpherson and others, about the viability of the armour the St. George was wearing under his Globose CoP. There was argument for it just being mail, but artistically stylized. Myself and a few others, however suggested that it was scale. In the latter part of the discussion, I did an experiment with some linen scrap and card stock to show the possibility that it was, in fact, scale that was used. The section I mocked up was around the elbow joint, since part of the counter to our position was that scale would bind up. I have a very short video here: th-cam.com/video/G223PUpt1SQ/w-d-xo.html that shows how functional it is. (Old old video - forgive the cell phone cam)
Interesting experiment. St George definitely looks like he's wearing scale to me. It would be a very unusually stylized depiction of regular mail if that was the intent. It would be cool to see someone build an appropriate 'coat of scales' to test it out under a pair of plates or cuirass.
I was headed that direction, hence the experiment, when I had a sudden change in life plans. :) I plan to get back to it, now that I am back to the hammer and armouring. I will have to post a video when I get there. That particular St. George is my absolute favorite.
Please keep me posted, or make a thread on the Armour Archive about it!
I hail from skull grims channel, Heller
would they have had globose cote of plate at Crecy or poitiers ?
More likely the 'weasel waisted' pairs of plates that you see in sources like Bodley 264 (The Romance of Alexander) and other mid century visual sources.
Bodley 264 - manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7024/
German, but the right silhouette - effigiesandbrasses.com/830/2813/
@@KnyghtErrant Thank you this is helpful
Does anyone have a fine detailed design of these plates?
How effective is that coat of plates compared with a full cuirass?
+Robert R I don't really have a way to precisely quantify it, but I would think a solid cuirass is less prone to failure and more protective in general than most coat of plates configurations.
+Knyght Errant Could you do a video on the development of the brigandine and jack of plates and why armors at the later time when for the more weather and abrasion resistant nail to shell construct to cord to shell construction?
Wouldn't that be the hohenshau model? Mid 14th century
do you know if anyone makes a reproduction jack of plate, where it's sewn? like, Jamestown era?
All you need now is the hair of the Czech st George.
Who made that cuirass ? :)
+Blank- blade Jeff Wasson
Who else ? :D
Looks magnificent !
Yours ? :)
No, this is just being borrowed. It's a little big for me, but it was at least close enough that I could put it on :)