Hey everyone, heres something I've been wondering about lately. Buff coats seem pretty much come out of nowhere in early 17th century Europe, whereas padded jacks (and other items of padded armour) seem to have been abandoned in the 16th century. My question is why?

Now I know that the increased use of firearms is a factor in the decline of armour in this period, but melee weapons such as; swords, pikes, and arquibus / musket butts, where still a major force on the battlefields of the thirty years war, and the English civil war. So even if padded jacks were ineffective against the firearms of the day, wouldn't they be useful (as they had been for centuries before) against melee weapons?

From what I've heard about buff coats, they were effective against melee weapons, pistols, and perhaps long range musket fire, so you might think that they were an improvement over padded jacks but they were also much more expensive, more expensive than the helmet, gauntlet, and cuirass, which a heavy cavalryman of this time would have worn. While most pikemen of this time couldn't afford a buff coat, but could afford a helmet and cuirass, why is it that they didn't wear a padded jack under there cuirass? And as the men who couldn't even afford a cuirass, they surely could have afforded a padded jack, why didn't they at least wear one?

As always thanks in advance for any help.

It's hot under a padded jacket and at least the great German poet Schiller writes that a "Elenshaut"(=skin of an elk) could stop bullets. So you have pretty much an argument for thick leather out of the hope to withstand bullets (they also did some magic for this purpose).

Most likely there reason is technological and ranching development.

In the 16th c, plate armour manefactury had become so efficient that it was cheaper to buy a thin plate armour than a padded jack. The imense amounts of fabric used to make a jack also made them rather expesnsive.

By the 17th c, there had also been a hughe rise in cattle ranching. This can be seen in civilian fashion as well; Whereas large leather items are rare in the middle ages, the 17th fashion include tall boots, wide leather belts and wide brimmed leather hats.

Also, people forget quickly. A single generation is often enough for knowledge or tradition be lost.

To 17th century eyes, a buff coat looks cooler. (In both senses of the word. ;) )

To simplify the matter: fabric armour was "replaced" by the leather jerkin in the 16th century, which in turn preceeded the buff coat.

I do love BUFF COATS,and it istypical 17th. cent.,when soldier,they hadonly a breast and back plate,or,the officials,a gorget,usually scalloped with leather lining in contrast.Brocco period was all about the looks,but,if you try real buff coat,as one from KARL ROBINSON UK,they preserve you fromswords cuts,nd,they say,from bullet,if was shotted from pretty far,o course.Then,they were done most times with wollen arms,in different colos,exmple,buff alwys lmost yellowish naturl color,arms,burgundy woll,with golden braids s embellishments,silk bottons,and silk lining,can cost 2000 usd,esy,good one.But,the heavy fighting version,was not easy to crry around,then,there were lighter leather types,used as doublets.
I did several copyes of them in Pakistan,were leather and labour is cheap,and you can find thousands o diferent braids,they came out perfectly and cheap,but you got to goto Asia.
Andrea

From a practical perspecive is there an advantage to the Buff coat over the Padded Jack? Would a Buff coat be easier to keep clean and dry in the field? It would seem that if a padded jack got wet it is going to stay wet for what seems like forever and if not dried quickly it would get moldy.

During this time there was many changes in how wars were fought and I believe that one of those changes was that soldiers were spending more time campaining and more time in the field so having equipment that could take the weather may have become more of a priority.

A dozen layers of quilted linen provides as good or better protection than a buff coat against all attacks - especially thrusting attacks. But during the time in question the most common threats are from sword cuts and firearms. Pretty much anything will protect you from a sword cut and nothing except a heavy breastplate will protect you from firearms. I think Elling is right that cost is the main issue. By the 17th century a padded jack probably cost more than a buff coat. It would stay like this until the industrial revolution produced automated weaving mills.

Ah, I wasn't aware that padded jacks were that expensive. I suppose the question now is, which was more expensive, the padded jack, or the buff coat?

Probably the padded jack. Cloth prices were more stable and they were an established medium of exchange and credit. As has already been pointed out - leather prices did drop as many parts of europe stopped supporting anything but herding for a while, while cloth prices apparently only began to fall during the industrial revolution.

Interesting point Daniel, I'm learning quite a bit from this thread.

Buffcoats are threated in a special way to make them tough. This might make them suceptible to water as well.
Even modern biker jackets soaks through eventually, and when they do they take ages to dry.

One weakness of padded cloth is that friction will eventually wear through the outer layers. A buff coat would be more resistant to this kind of wear and tear.

One thing I cant help wondering about with regards to the disappearance of the padded jack is a possible connection with the increasingly padded nature of fashion during the course of the 16th century. It took a whole lot of padding to build a doublet out to a good peascod shape, and perhaps this padding was enough to substitute for much of the protective value provided by padded armour?