There's punching thru armour with a point and a lot of energy behind it, mosty this is done with lances, crossbows an pole arms.
But that needs a chargeing horse, a really big crossbow at short range or big swing with both hands.

Quite a few of the skulls from battles like Towton that have clearly had a spike penetrate.

Sean,

I believe you are correct in identifying the passage of Primat (by way of Guillaume de Nangis in our case) as containing this detail. Not sure, why the 'double hauberks' count as coat-of-plate, though?

The issue of heavier armour is also referred to in Herde's quite extensive 'Schlacht bei Tagliacozzo', in which there is a reference to Spanish knights wearing early forms of plate armour, too.
Apparently, there was some scholarly confusion even at the time, which ought to be regarded as the first recorded instance of use for such protective equipment.

As to the mix up, from the text it seems pretty indisputable, however, that the armpit anecdote refers to Benevento, not Tagliacozzo.

Again, very much in agreement. However, that still leaves me wondering, how you get from there to suggesting this means coat of plates. The description in the French text seems to suggest otherwise and the Latin, as you said, is vague.

At least in Primat, there should be little cause for confusion between the two, I think. The second reference, which is commonly cited with regard to armour, is to the Iberians involved at Tagliacozzo. Can't see, why that would lead one to mix it up with Manfred's forces.

The short passage, of which not only Herde was aware, begins on p. 662 l. 2 for the French and l. 38 in the Latin in the volume you cited.

There is another issue. If Wikipedia is correct, the French version of Primat's chronicle is a translation after his death by one Jean de Vignay. So has the translation 'improved' the lost Latin original by making it more detailed, as translators before the 20th century often do?

Without actually sitting down and reading the sources carefully and then seeing what medievalists think about them (which would be great to do if I were independently wealthy), I can't say anything more about this story about the battle of Benevento than what I have already said. I thought that a link to some of the medieval sources which Oman might have been thinking of, and a summary of them in English, would be helpful.

No objections from me to any of what you say. I was just trying to articulate, that reading through the text I was left somewhat bewildered, that this appears to be the passage, which is often cited. I find it to be quite confused, no matter whether it's in French or Latin.

I am with you, too, regarding the logic of more rigid types of armour and the armpits. The text, in describing the protection under the arms, seems to exaggerate the extent of this flaw for rhetorical effect, though, which creates a certain incoherence.

Thanks for the pointer to Mendola, Sean. Looking forward to reading it, once it is published.

Michael, you're welcome! I had a quick look at the two other writers who Oman mentions in his study of this battle, Saba Malaspina (Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores viii) and Ricordano Malaspina (Muratori, RIS viii). They don't seem to describe how the two sides fought.

Dan Howard wrote:

They didn't exist during the time in question so we don't need to consider them when translating these passages.

And even in 16th and 17th century Europe, articulated plate voiders/gussets covering the armpits were very rare, not something the typical front-ranker in a cavalry charge was equipped with. "When you hear hoofbeats in Paris, expect horses not zebras."

Well, just goes to show we should always check the sourcing!

From memory, Herde's essay on Tagliacozzo is fairly good on this; he also went to Italy to take a look for himself and hopefully identify the geo- and topographic features mentioned in the various accounts of the battle, the events leading up to it &c. No wonder it all added up to roughly 70 pages...

I had a little time and used it to transcribe and translate some of the sources on this battle and reorganize things from this thread and write them up as Give Point! I hope that the translations are helpful.

I think people use the word kill when talking about combat too much. Rather, they should use words like seriously injure or defeat. Sometimes just defeating the enemy is “good enough” but most of the time defeating the enemy without killing him is even better.