[Adam H.]

As I have been trying to assemble a 15th-16th century kit, I have wondered; Just how fast did one type of armor go out of style, or become obsolete? For instance, say you are a novice man at arms, ready to join his first campaign. Your family before you were pretty successful, and assembled a decent kit of armor. Would it be absolutely unthinkable to use armor that belonged to your father, or even your grandfather, (had they not sold the stuff in retirement) along with brand new stuff? So far I have a half-sleeve, thigh-length mail shirt, and after I save up enough to pick up a sallet and bevor... I'm not sure where to go after that. I want to go for an unmounted fighter, with a medium amount of armor. Any suggestions or examples would be wonderful. Thanks a lot!

[Doug Lester]

I think your answere lies in the fact that the absense of a proof is not proof of an absense. Nothing goes out of fasion quicker on the battlefield than getting killed. If, by reason of restricted means, a person could only outfit himself with let's say a heavy leather jack over mail over a heavy padded undergarment combined with plate armour covering the shoulders and upper arms, a gorget, and an out of fasion barbuta on his head, he'd do so. I would doubt that it could ever really be known how often this occured. The problem with reinacting is that we are portraying what we think things were like based on somewhat limited evidence. While you might not be able to prove that your kit is correct, it might be impossible to prove that it isn't.

[Lawrence Parramore]

Well we only have to look at the modern day battlefield to see things that are at least 50 years out of date.

Durrer illustrates many pieces of armour being used at least a hundred years out, in the Civil War in England armour that was 2-300 years old was being used.

As long as it is not a piece from later than you are portraying I cannot see a problem, even in production centres in Italy you see art work showing 14th century armour being used in the mid 15th.

Lawrence

[D. Austin]

[Adam H.]

[Dan Howard]

There are two parts to the question. Firstly whether the character is buying his own gear or having it issued by the state. Secondly the wealth of the individual. There is no way that the nobility would be caught in armour that was out of fashion. Those with the means would change their armour more often than today's upper classes change their cars. And they would not own just one suit. Look at how many cars today's super-rich own and the nobility of the past would have just as many suits of armour.

[Jeff Kaisla]

If not a full 15th c. cuirass, a plackard and gorget or bevor would suit the period, I believe.

http://www.merctailor.com/catalog/product_inf...ucts_id=38

I agree that it was probably quite common for outdated armor to be seen on a battlefield. Though, again, as of yet I have not taken part in any re-enactments so I don't know how sticky they are on the rules of outfit (if thats what you're assembling it for). I think the look you're going for would be quite fitting and probably a common sight in the first few ranks of an assault, armed with a pole weapon....with the richer, better outfitted and mounted warriors behind.

The picture you referred to, in IMHO, is quite fitting for an archer of that period as well. I cant imagine trying to fire a long bow, or even a cross bow in full plate armor.

[Adam H.]

I would like to say that I am going for something of a middle class character, but I'm not sure if that even existed back then with the feudal system. I'm thinking padding, my mail, helm & bevor, and some minimalist plate pieces. I like the plackard, but I just wouldn't like having my chest exposed like that. Is there any kind of basic, utilitarian breastplate type that would suit the role?

Thanks

Adam

[Jeff Kaisla]

There are just plain breastplates that would suit your character. Check out the rest of Merc tailors site. I was thinking you could wear the plackard over your maille or leather jack. It would give you a fair bit of mobility for your arms. Were you looking at full legs and arms or just couters and poleyns?

I know earlier on archers were a lower class but in 15th c. they may have been held in a higher regard and paid more after their usefulness had been recognized. Someone else will have to verify that theory though, I cant say for certain.

[Max Chouinard]

I've seen some tombs in Ste-Canice's cathedral in Kilkeny, Ireland with clearly out of date armors.
http://s234.photobucket.com/albums/ee160/Empe...nt16e2.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee160/Empe...1214844486

If I remember right the first is 1542, and the second 1507. And those were from one of the richest anglo-norman nobility in Ireland. I suppose the style would also be influenced by the regional particularities and the prefered ways of doing war (or art).

[Chase S-R]

When you are asking how armor style changed there are two ways of answering this, are you meaning type of armor(i.e.mail to mail and brigandine to plate), or are you meaning subtly as in fashion (pointed sabatons to square toed sabatons).
Armor followed fashion throughout history and then like today you would not want to look weird (would you still wear a mullet and snakeskin) and if you have seen Project Runway "One day you're in, the next day your out." So armor style changed often but the fundamentals were a bit slower and changed in response to the weapons being created, look at the persian armor from the battle of Thermopylae (I am talking about the persian shields and "scale" armor) the metal is very very thin, the reason being they were designed for protection against light slashing weapons, against the heavy bronze thrusting spears of the greeks they stood no chance. later thicker armour was made for greater protection, look at a later lorica segmenta, or, an identical but thicker plated, lorica squamata.
However you can also look at the fact that people used what they had, there is a katzbalger hilt mounted on to a several hundred year old viking blade, and many other instances of re-used blades especially in times of crisis and war. So yes someone (especially if he was poor) would use his grandfathers armor, he may have it modified to suit his taste and that of fashion.
As for what to add to your kit, a brigandine or coat of plates and a pair of spauldrens would look nice. A brigandine is what that knight in the picture you posted is wearing.
Good-luck
Chase

[Dan Howard]

The most common threat on any battlefield from the bronze age to the Renaissance was from spears and arrows. Any armour that could not meet this basic defense was either augmented till it did or it was discarded. The scale armour of the bronze and iron ages, regardless of the culture wearing it, was perfectly capable of resisting spears and arrows. People seriously underestimate the effectiveness of work hardened bronze plate. Persian scale armour may seem thin to the ignorant but modern tests indicate that it was perfectly capable of resisting the threats of the time. FWIW the Greeks at Thermopylae had foregone the use of bronze spear points at least 500 years earlier. It was called the Iron Age for a reason. The plates of the Roman lorica squamata were no thicker than those used by the Persians.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lawrence Parramore]

Also, not all 'Knights' would be 'rich' social circumstances were constantly changing for the 'Landed Gentry' but they would still have to fulfil their role. In England and other places I believe 'laws' were brought in to stop lower class people outdoing their 'betters' by wearing better cloth and jewellery, as the towns folk and merchants became richer.

I only need to walk round town to see people who are out of fashion and if there is a war you have to use what you can, if you haven't got the money for a new suit, you will have to do with an old one.

( Note: Just conjecture not a statement of fact ). I think it best to borrow this from you Jean, hope you don't mind

[Steven H]

A few posters here have noted people wearing whatever armour they could in dire circumstances. However, such situations are rather rare in the Medieval era. On the whole fighting was done by those who could afford to fight. People/towns etc who couldn't afford to fight would usually surrender because that meant good treatment by the attackers.

I also think Dan's point about only effective armour being worn is quite important.

Cheers,
Steven

[Chase S-R]

[James Barker]

Adam

My question is are you trying to save money in building your persona or do you have no idea how things really worked and you are setting out feelers for info?

Everything depends on what kind of historical figure you pick to represent. I do reenactment of the 15th English; if you are a man at arms you would have your own mostly in date (10-20 years back might be ok) armor. A knight or lord would have the best armor and so would his important servants in his household or any man at arms in a lord’s household. Archers would either be supplied by their lord, town, or by what they purchased. Maille shirts, jacks, helmets, and brigandines (after 1470) were commonly issued to archers.

If you are doing English everyone is mounted, even archers, however during the War of the Roses most men dismounted to fight. Archers were even mounted and road into position and then dismounted

So called hedge knights are a fairy tail in this era; if you did not have the money to be a knight you would loose your title.

The middle class was either well off and ended up in gentry like the Pastons or had a family member in the local lord they owed fealty to household. A poorer man working in a lord’s home would be part time servant and part time fighter; you could serve dinner on some nights and be an archer another.


Here is a good overview of how things worked in the 14th century http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2008...ramid.html

[Sean Manning]

[Dan Howard]

[Adam H.]