The issue is that in the medieval period armed tends to mean the armour they are in. A fully armed man was decide by the defensive armour he had on. So a man half armed is not there with half a sword or spear but half armour or less than full armour.

You see this distinction a great deal in the Patent and Close rolls. For the most part they seem to have focused on defensive equipment over weapons for some reason. In fact only a small number of the large amount of the requirement lists I have seen even list the need for weapons, though I think we can assume they had them ;)

I know some later Roman authors use this term in this way as well. Vegetius comes to mind but it has been a while since I looked at Strabo and the likes.

RPM

In England at least towns and city provided all sorts of troops for war, including men at arms. That said the reviews I have seen indicate if you did not have fairly complete armour you were not considered a Man at arms. Once I get my PhD up you can look at the Appdx. and see how often some towns like Soton were used for war. Certainly slows down at points but there is not a single decade between 1300-1500 but one that they did not have men out on military activity for the king.

I have seen weavers and bakers in some English major cities with full harnesses and have no doubt considering this armour, spurs, horse harness and horses they fought as MAA. They also provide armed men quite often which seem to be infantry but well armoured.

I have a fairly long list of inventories from places like London, York, Southampton, Norwich and others of military equipment owned by towns and townsmen.

Jean,

If you any other Imperial sources for the late medieval period along the lines of Urban military activity I'd love them. Once I finish with my research on English towns (decades of work) I'd love to compare them with continental ones.

RPM

I'd also love to see those Randall.

Matt

please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c&feature=related

please keep in mind that this is done with bows that would be considered light for a warbow and at close range so a heavyer bow should be able to do the same damage at a much greater distance or against a thiker target at the same distance these are modern reproductions so the breastplate (1.5mm) was highcrabon steel (so it said) and the bodkins hardened the bow that did the most penetration was a yew bow and only 110 lbs (this was one of the lowest draw wieghts found on the mary rose)

1) Where is the thickness stated?
2) Where did you take HIGH carbon steel?

This video can't be taken as any proof for the following reasons:
1) plate thickness is unknown and can be between 1 and 1.5mm (most likely around 1.3mm if it started as 1.5mm sheet and then was dished and sanded). At least some parts of medieval armor were more than twice as thick.
2) plate is made of low-carbon steel. Many 15th century armors (IIRC over half of the Italian armors mentioned in The knight and the blast furnace) were made of medium-carbon steel which depending on carbon content can be considerably harder even without heat treatment. And some armors were heat treated. And some of those heat treated were heat treated successfully.
3) No padding was used, breast plate was placed against a solid object
4) Garment worn under armor could give additional protection, at least if we are speaking about 14th century
5) Again, in the 14th century and sometimes in the 15th century maille was worn under plate and that maille would certainly give additional protection.

But even in such test that was biased against the armor we seem to get on average only about 1" of penetration. If we take into account padding and the fact that in most places armor does not lie against the body but there is some space between wounds inflicted would be even less deep.

So what would we get if we took a good 15th century armor such as the AVANT armor? Plate thickness is mentioned here http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152&start=44 and IIRC metallurgical analysis is in The knight and the blast furnace.

As already stated many times in this thread, it is much easier to penetrate a weak spot where there is relatively weak armor or no armor at all. These chances are increased when shooting from the side or back as armor was mainly designed to deflect points that come from the front. Leg armor is a good example. While being made of relatively thin plate, it is shaped so that it is very difficult to penetrate it from the front, in most cases points would just harmlessly slide off.

The BEST knightly armour had few gaps. What percentage of the army at Crecy and Poitiers had the best armour?

It's impossible to say, but obviously there would have been a lot of variation in the armour worn.
The above effigies are only really representative of the knightly class. (and probably wealthier men-at-arms.)
Sometime before Crecy, I think Edward was requiring everyone in his army to have a minimum of a bascinet, gauntlets and a coat-of-plates, which gives an idea of how the lower infantryman might have been equipped.

William,

Seems we are crossing wires on Crecy and Agincourt here.

Quote"but according to froissart (from the wikipedia page .. so might be wrong)

Quote:
Froissart writes that English cannon had made "two or three discharges on the Genoese", which is taken to mean individual shots by two or three guns because of the time necessary to reload such primitive artillery.[2] These were believed to shoot large arrows and primitive grapeshot. The Florentine Giovanni Villani agreed that they were destructive on the field, though he also indicated that the guns continued to fire upon French cavalry later in the battle:

The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses...The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners...[by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.
"

This Crecy, but still likely not correct-

Yes the latest version of Froissart includes reference to cannons and so does Villani. Since the preceding 4 or 5 lack cannons in Froissart I am somewhat doubtful as to why he only included it so late. Since Villani had been in Jail in Italy during this period I'd be careful in how one applies what he is saying as everything else he writes is wrong why would this be right in this respect? Seems more like a way to explain the Crossbowmen of Genoa's failure.

I doubt many had full breastplates by Crecy. But I am sure by this point they were beginning to be used as by the next decade they are being given away as gifts as other common militaria was. That said COPs are so common among commoners it'd be unlikely to have a knight without one. Since the 1330s we see requirements in England that more or less give a good idea of basic armaments and COPs are only second to aketons and bascinets.

I still doubt knights at Crecy were not largely equipped the same if not better than knights of later dates. First they had many more layers. Think a gent in the most protective armour, he would likely have a double textile armour below and above his plate and mail, as well as a COP on his chest and a mail hauberk to his mid thigh or so. By Agincourt the outer defense likely is less common but and we are only given info that the French wore, gambesons, hauberks and their harnesses by Monstrelet. Now he might have been well equipped but so many layers must have been an issue so I think we can figure not everyone was armed in this manner. But I think the gap thing gets overblow grossly. Plate harnesses have gaps in many of the same places. The only real difference is the gaps of the COP between the plates largely were replaced in a white harness by the breastplate.


RPM

Like Randall said, breastplates were likely used at Crecy, but were probably small in number.
They would also have been covered by a surcoat or jupon. (not worn exposed in the "white harness" style of the 15th century.)

if the knights at crecy and agincourt had, for the most part, maile under their breastplates... then as far as im concerned that nails the debate about lots of kills from arrowfire, the knights in those battles must have been killed by arrows hittingexposed faces, or gaps in the armour..

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. unless your hit by a period cannonball.
an arrowhead that might punch into plate armour would rapidly lose energy trying to break the maile as well.
not to mention the fact that the type of arrowhead that would break a piece of plate armour and whats needed to bust maile are completely different.

and this consideration isnt including the fact you likely had a gambeson underneath. which would asorb any impact the maile and plates didnt..

im not saying you wouldnt feel it. just that it wouldnt kill you'


maybe the best way to replicate being a frenchman at agincourt and to try and assess the tiring effect of arrow impacts would be to get 2-3 guys to whack the man playing the frenchman with sticks while he walked, in harness, through mud, then had to fight a man, standing on the other end of the field.

this might help quantify the attrition the arrow storm might have caused to the french knights ability to engage efficiently in hand to hand combat.

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..

Remember that while the knights were well armoured, the horses of this period had little protection.
Froissart writes that at the Battle of Poitiers, the English archers noticed their arrows were having little or no effect on the French armour, so the archers moved to the French flanks and shot at their horses.
If you can kill or cripple the knight's horse, you effectively destroy the cavalry charge.