Hello guys.
Sorry for bothering again with lancers armours, but i have several questions about peascod breastplated armours, and some kinds of pauldrons. Since that kind of armour with such pauldron config are my favourite ones i was collecting photos of them, but the earliest i have seen was around 1540. Yesterday i finished to read Osprey´s book Landsknetchs, and it said something about Maximilian style armours, and then it said that the style started to go out of fashion since the appearance of peascod armours in 1530.

When did peascod armours first appeared?
When did the pauldron style-pattern-shape of the photos first appeared?
Did Lancer heavy cavalry men-at-arms truly used those armours in warfare, or those were pistoleers armours?
And finally, Were horse armours like the one of the photo (With rear protectionand plainer) used in warfare during later XVI century, or they were mostly parade armours?

Thanks.

---

 Attachment: 55.98 KB



 Attachment: 38.88 KB

I guess it could be a half armour, but there are armours like this with legs and sabatons.

 Attachment: 16.45 KB

I have moved this topic to the Historic Arms Talk forum.

Please note the description for this forum:

"Discussions of reproduction and authentic historical arms and armour from various cultures and time periods"

Thank you.

Rodolfo;

I'll see if I'm understanding your question properly here.

To begin with, the pauldrons as generally thought of in the later-16th Century were pretty well developed with Maximilian armours from the 1510's, I would say. Cimplete with haute-pieces, too.

[ Linked Image ]


Secondly, what is generally considered to be the "Peascod" form of breastplate really doesn't appear on the scene until well after 1550. There are some moves towards it, with the central point in the breastplate seen around that time, but the over-hanging pouch/belly of the true "Peascod" doesn't really come into the fore until the 1570's or so, just as with civilian doublet fashions. And by that time, the pauldron was indeed quite fully developed.

[ Linked Image ]

Per your lower photo of the black and white armour, note the hole in the breastplate in the right-hand side "white" stripe. I would venture to guess that it is for a lance arrét, just like the photo posted above (top) has. It was therefore made for use with a lance, though that of course doesn't preclude the use of pistols as well. (Note also that the right pauldron is also cut away to facilitate the use of the lance.) In general, armours with full greaves and sabatons were still made for the gendarmerie, who were (generally) still (as of 1580 or so) attached to the Lance.

(There is the outside possibility that the hole is rather for a plackart or reinforcing plate to be attached to the breastplate, making it not only pistol-proof but perhaps even musket-proof, but I'm not convinced that it is for this purpose, but rather for the lance arrét instead. The fact that the pauldron is cut away for using a lance rather helps in this, I believe. :cool: )

Per horse armours, the use of the crupper armour was pretty well abandoned by late in François I's reign. The hommes d'armes of a compagnie d'ordonnance was still required to provide himself with the peytral (breastplate) and chamfron (head protection) for his warhorse into the 1570's, but that seems to have been honoured more in the breach than in the practice by then.

I hope that this answers your questions?

Cheers!

Gordon

Were the flanchards ever particularly popular in the first place? I thought they came up mostly in the armors of the great nobles, while the ordinary gentlemen and men-at-arms were only required to have (and only cared to have) frontal portection for their horses.

Thanks for the useful info. As a requirement for horse barding, if a lord, or man-at-arms had enough money and a good horse, could he equip his horse with flanchards and croupiere armour by his own choice, or it was forbidden?

Thanks

P.D.

Do you know how the situation of lancer men-at-arms was in other countries like Italy and Germany, since Spain droped the lance around 1600 but used both pistoleers and lancers?

Since most of Italy was under Spanish domination at the time, I would expect that the Spanish ordnances would cover most Italian troops, other than those of the Papal States and Venice. Italy was pretty much left to it's own devices after the end of the Habsburg-Valois Wars, with their soldiers mostly being in the employ of others. One could make an argument about most of the Venetian energies being spent on Naval matters after 1550 or so, too.

From my understanding of it, German nobility tended to be rather less wealthy than their French counterparts, and thus complete barding on their horses was more rare among them. I am unaware of any system of ordnances in place in the Holy Roman Empire, which did not have any sort of standing army at the time, so any such demands for armour would be subject to either Imperial edict for a campaign, or a mecenary captain's contractual requirements.

I can't see anywhere that an archier or coustillier would be forbidden to have armour for his horse, but if he had that much money, he'd probably be promoted to the rank of homme d'armes pretty quickly, I would imagine. Often as not it was lack of equipment (i.e. money to purchase it with) that kept men in lower ranks, rather than experience or ability. Blaise de Monluc complained that when he first went to war, he was forced by poverty to enlist as a mere archier,, but is quick to note that "in those days" such a rank was perfectly honourable for a gentleman of humble means.

Cheers!

Gordon

Hello again.
Sorry to bother again, but, do you know of any man-at-arms, lord, or historical character who used that style of armour with the full armoured horse as a lancer in the later XVI century?

Thanks.

Thanks for the info, but, since i was a bit curious about reiter cavalry and pistolers, Do you know if lancers ever defeated mounted pistolers?

Thanks

P.D.
What is a musket proof plate?

Rodolfo;

Per your first question, at least according to Sir Roger Williams, it was a pretty regular occurance. :cool: But certainly it happened at the Battle of Mookerheyde in 1574, when the Dutch Pistoliers drove in the Spanish Horsed Arquebusiers, but were then hit by the Spanish Heavy Horse with their lances while in the process of reloading. Not a pretty sight, which lead to the destruction and total defeat of the Dutch forces present. Williams suggests that this was indeed the proper time to engage Pistoliers with your Lancers, while they busy are reloading. Makes sense, if you can arrange the timing properly. :confused:

"Musket Proof Plate" means plate armour (as opposed to maille) that has been proven, or is "proof" against the shot of a musket at fairly close range. It's heavy stuff, and usually only the very best armours were musket proof, and of those, at best the breastplate (or a plastron which was fitted over the breastplate) and helmet would be so proofed. Since a heavy musket fired a lead round ball of approximately 16mm or better at approximately 600 meters per second, it was pretty stout armour to resist it at close range. Luckily round ball looses its velocity pretty quickly, so at much over 150 meters you'd be fairly safe in even pistol-proof armour.

Cheers!

Gordon

I really don't know the last time that "Lancers" defeated "Pistoliers". Williams said that "I was often in their company (Reiters) when they ran away from Launtiers in large groups and small". He doesn't state exactly when these occasions were, however, other than being prior to the publication of his work (1590).

There is a LOT of stuff that happened in Eastern Europe, especially between the Poles and the Swedes, during the 16th and 17th Centuries that is beyond my ken. The Polish Hussars were all Lancers (with pistols as secondary weapons), and definitely defeated the Swedes a number of times. But whether those Swedes were actually of the same calibre troops and arming as Reiters were, I'm not certain. I know that when real Cuirassiers hired in Germany went up against the Poles, things were different. Danlel Staberg has a much better knowledge of all of that than I do, though, so if he weighs in here I'm sure he will have excellent information for you on that score.

But an enormous amount of "Who beats Who" has more to do with the generalship of the commanders and the moral of their followers, rather than simply the arms and armour they are using. There was a continuing discussion by both theorists and soldiers from the 1550's through even in to the middle-years of the 17th Century as to which manner of arming (pistols or lances) was superior. Mookerheyde convinced many that Lancers would generally defeat Pistoliers. Coutras, Ivry and Tournhout convinced most however that Pistoliers could meet Lancers on even terms, and would defeat them. So most Western armies dropped the Lance by the early years of the 17th Century, but it held firm in the East, and proved victorious in the hands of the Poles on many occasions there-after, well into the 18th and even the 19th Centuries.

Cheers!

Gordon