Posts: 33 Location: Bologna, Italy
Sat 11 Aug, 2007 5:43 am
hi, this is my first post.
First, sorry for my poor english, but i'm Italian.
Second, sorry but i don't visit this forum very often, so probably i will never read your answers.
Well, for what is concerning the subject mail vs. brigandine, I'd just like to state that if mail had been used for more than 1000 years, there will be a reason... As others said befor me, mail is good against cuts but by itself can't do much against thrusts. In fact, it was always used with an aketon/subarmalia/gambeson etc...
Now, let's take the brigandine. Is it such an innovation? I think no. Well, technologically speaking, it's a nice step forward, but conceptually it's not all that different from a roman lorica segmentata.
So the question (for me) is not whether brigandine is better than mail, but "why hadn't it being used before?".
My answer is: because it is expensive.
In XIII cent. Italian "comuni" (cities) based their military strength on common citizens averagely trained for war; most of them used to wear a simple gambeson and some hardened leather protection. Only knights and rich men could wear mail protections. In XIV century, we have the rise of a new kind of warrior, the mercenary, a very skilled and dedicated figure. War is now fought between well-paied men, that wanted the best for themselves. This, combined with the introduction of fireweapons, longer swords and many new kind of thrust weapons (warhammers and so on) made the
chain mail not very usefull. So, if you are a well paied warrior, why not buying a better armour?
In the previous century (we go back to XIII cent.) cities couldn't afford to pay an heavy iron armouring for all the militia. The strength was more based on number and battlefield tactiques, not on technology or the skill of the single man, as it is in XIV cent.
Well, this is just my opinion.
All corrections welcome.
:D
Have a good day.