So, a few years ago I came across a picture from a private collection, showing the Swedish landing at Pomerania, in the midst of the 30 Years War. What I found odd is that the armor has both closed greaves and sabatons:

[ Linked Image ]

I didn't take it very seriously until I found another private collection image showing similar helmet and full armor:

[ Linked Image ]

I have read in one of Osprey's books that painting of Gustavus were made coping one another, so we can see reminescent traces from the ones that were used as basis. I think the enclosed helmet might be the main (or perhaps the only) link between them.

My question is: these sources are reliable? I mean, if you take French Kings paintings or even any artistic evidence from the 17th century they were all 3/4 armor. I don't know when exactly magnates, officers and commanders started dropping leg armor, but I'm quite sure by that time they already have.

Henry VIII's tonlet armor and some other pieces from Greenwich Armoury had leg armor in 16th century, so, who knows ...

It was not unusual for late royal armours to come complete with greave/sabatons, such as this famous harness of Charles I, but the extent to which they were used for anything but royal portraits is uncertain. The greaves are exceptionally ugly because they were made to fit over boots.

---

 Attachment: 108.49 KB
[ Download ]

The pictures are probably for propaganda reasons to demonstrate power. The boats in the first picture look unrealistic like viking ships.

Gustavus Adolphus was unable to wear armour after being shot 1627 and the bullet still lodged in his shoulder. Instead he wore a buff leather coat which could deflect sword cuts. This may have led to his death at the Battle of Lützen in 1632.

These pictures may help in understanding.

---

 Attachment: 98.9 KB



 Attachment: 97.84 KB



 Attachment: 98.63 KB
[ Download ]

If there is any extant pieces of armour related to Gustav II Adolph, they would be held at the Swedish Royal Armoury

https://livrustkammaren.se/en

They are usually friendly and should be able to answer questions about their collection.

I know about armours form earlier regents kept there, and they have he actual items worn by him when he fell at Lützen (no arnour then, apart from a leather coat)

It’s known that Gustavus Adolphus rarely wore armour. He is said to have put his trust in God. After sustaining several battle ”blemishes” he experienced physical discomfort from wearing armour. He also advocated new military tactics which emphasized mobility, where heavy armour was unhelpful. As firearms came to dominate the battle fields, armoured cavalry became increasingly obsolete.

The buff coat of Gustavus Adolphus is made from tough thick moose skin which is definitely able to deflect sword cuts by the rapiers commonly used at the time, and could even deflect bullets fired from a distance. It could obviously not deflect shots at point blank range nor rapier thrusts at 90 degree angles.

The Royal Armoury in Stockholm has battle armour used by Gustav Vasa and his sons, but I believe Gustavus Adolphus 17thC armour was mainly used for tournaments and pageantry.

The armour I posted is the armour of Charles I of England and is in the Tower of London, with a couple of other royal armours. Check the Royal Armouries website.

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/#/objects

What was he wearing when he got killed? The buff coat?

Quote:

Towards 1:00 pm, in the thick mix of gun smoke and fog covering the field, the king was separated from his fellow riders and suffered multiple shots. A bullet crushed his left arm below the elbow. Almost simultaneously his horse suffered a shot to the neck that made it hard to control. In the mix of fog and smoke from the burning town of Lützen the king rode astray behind enemy lines. There he sustained yet another shot in the back, was stabbed and fell from his horse. Lying on the ground, he received a final, fatal shot to the temple.

Sounds like tactics be damned, he would have benefited from a stout 3/4 harness and a helmet.

Yeah that makes a lot more sense. I suppose it was a fitting punishment from the Poles considering how much suffering he caused them.

It also of course makes sense that he was not by himself behind enemy lines just separated from the main force along with his bodyguards. Do you know how many enemy troops attacked him? Would horse armor have still been in common use? I'm a little out of my depth when it comes to the 17th Century. A very apocalyptic time...