[ Linked Image ]
Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/gfworkshop/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1139688512845399

All of us here probably have seen re-enactors wearing sets of full plate armor but discarding the underneath mail protection that was supposed to be worn for the exposed parts of the body. I never knew with this was ever historical at all, but bothered me when I saw a modern descendant of the Médici Family doing a re-enacted ceremony with two bodyguards with plate armor but without the mail (the garment and the harnesses were all well made though).

I never saw any artistic evidence for that, but I know that being partially armoured was something that garrisons and noblemen would generally did. So, is it historical at all?

The armour you have posted in your image looks to me to date somewhere between circa 1400-1425 AD. Having a look at manuscript images from a varieties of places, there seems to be almost no evidence for cloth without mail, and ample evidence for mail being used wherever there were gaps in the plate armour.

One possible exception is the following image from Germany; http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4478/12002/. However, I would be careful when interpreting this image. Is it really that Tryphon has no mail armour, or is it simply the case that he has an arming garment worn over top of the mail? It's impossible to say. Even if we assume he has no mail underneath, this image is one out of literally hundreds that I reviewed from France, Italy and Germany, the Czech Republic, England, the Netherlands, Spain.

If the visual evidence from manuscript illustrations is a reliable guide, I think the answer is that it would be exceedingly rare to almost never.

I dug around for some pics of guys in armour without mail. Sure seems that mail was more common but no mail does seem to be a thing

---

 Attachment: 103.41 KB



 Attachment: 72.43 KB



 Attachment: 110.65 KB
[ Download ]

Mark,

The first image shows a soldier with what looks like partial brigandine, so it's unlikely he has no protection. The second image may show a soldier with only arming garment sleeves to protect his forearm, yet he could have mail underneath. This image is indeterminate at best. In the final image, we simply have a type of surcoat over top of armour. The cross hatching signifies mail, so both the man in green has mail (his bishops mantle and presumably elsewhere as well) and the soldier in brown definitely has substantial mail reinforcement.

These images do little to support the idea of exposed arming garments without additional protection-whether mail or brigandine. Two out of the three images actually reinforce the idea of supplementary armoured protection.

I think the first image depicts cloth-covered plate, given how the rivets are arranged.

The second image shows a brigandine, with a visible mail collar. The cloth sleeves might cover mail, but they also might not; it's feasible, but IMO not evident enough to use as evidence.

The third image, indeed, shows soldiers wearing coats over their armor, including visible mail collars on all and mail sleeves on at least one. (And the two coatless soldiers whose forearms are visible also have them colored metal grey, too, just without the cross-hatching.)

Of course, art is not photography and we have no idea of the extent of artistic license in these images, so any conclusions drawn from them should be taken with a handful of salt.

What about tournaments and hastiludes? Since combats at both were meant to be non-lethal at such events (well, as non-lethal as swinging swords or charging with blunted lances could ever be), would maille have been worn under plate harness? Going without maille would have made things lighter for participants.

Mikko,

Regarding the first image Mark posted, could it not be splint armour covered with fabric? The vertical rivet lines on the arms seem to suggest it.

The use of mail with plate armor seems to have gradually lost popularity during the 16th century. This may have been in part due to the use of thicker metal plates convincing soldiers to ditch the mail parts of their armor to save weight, or because "munition"-quality plate and "almain rivet" had started becoming much cheaper or easier to create than mail. By the late 16th century, some sources considered mail in particular to be a health hazard since bullets would often drive some of the iron links into the wound.

I think Pietro Monte at the start of the 1500s did argue that in a 1v1 duel it would be better for a skilled fighter to leave some parts unarmored than to overly weighed down. So there might be some situations where it was preferred to reinforce only the front parts of the armor and leave the back of the legs or arms uncovered.

It does look to me like the photo you gave seems to be leaving far more of the arm exposed than most very late suits of plate armor did. However it's perhaps still not completely impractical. This period also saw the frequent use of jack chains by lightly armored troops, which would only protect from blows to the outside of the arm and not much else.

[ Linked Image ]

Some b&w images of 4469 here:
https://muscovitearmor.wordpress.com/2016/03/15/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0-%E2%84%96-4469-%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B/

http://io.ua/15983785
http://io.ua/15983788
http://io.ua/15983906

Battle of Orsha, painting from around 1530

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Krell_Battle_of_Orsha_%28detail%29_04.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Krell_Battle_of_Orsha_%28detail%29_18.jpg/800px-Krell_Battle_of_Orsha_%28detail%29_18.jpg

http://hussar.com.pl/orsza/index.php?option=c...tstart=40# (image number 6 here)|

No sign of any mail.

Though the Polish/Lithuanian armor in this picture is most certainly exegarated very much.

Huge amounts of incredibly elaborate man and horse Maximilian(ish) plate....

In some of the more complete armours you could do so at not risk to your self.
A Visit to the Armor Galleries, 23:45 you can see how the inner arm is covered with plate, a little later you see the back of the knees covered like wise.

Ok it's more a not beyond the whit of man then a common thing.
I don't have as good support for the next argument, but a lot of the later munitions armour lacked mail, not only had bullets have replaced blades as the main threat but mail was costly versus now much cheaper munitions armors like the Almain rivet.

Perhaps the use of jazeraint mail (cloth covered mail) be causing some the confusion? Tobias Capwell mentions it in his Armour of the English Knight. I haven't actually seen any, but perhaps this would cause illuaion that there is textile when there is indeed mail in the joints and elsewhere?