wearing armour while travelling -- myArmoury.com

William P · Posted: Thu 19 Sep, 2019 8:32 am Post subject: wearing armour while travelling

I got this question on a comment thread on youtube that went like this

Edward Lee · Posted: Thu 19 Sep, 2019 2:22 pm Post subject:

In my opinion it would make more sense to travel in a caravan if the group is hauling valuable goods. However if traveling alone I'm guessing some sort of mail might have been worn depending on the personal preference, that is to say if one does not get jumped by five armed bandits. Unless you are some sort of jedi knight then no matter the armor you will probabaly lose the fight.

I am uncertain about brigandine, might have been a personal preference as well. However I think a well made mail shirt would have been better mostly because it covered more parts of the body.

An interesting note, I played this game called "Kingdom come Deliverance" for a while, I'm not sure how historically accurate it depicts the period. More than often I would come across some wealthy Burgher getting ambushed by a bandit while traveling alone. Through a series of questioning the bandit would admit the attack was from behind. Although the Burgher did not wear any bodyarmor, if an attack was done from behind to the head then I suppose body protection would not have mattered at all.

Dan Howard · Posted: Thu 19 Sep, 2019 4:21 pm Post subject:

There is more than one source telling us that the wealthy had multiple sets of armour, one of which was specifically intended to be won while travelling or making an entrance into a town. Armour was a fashion statement and any noble worth his title would be wearing the latest fashion into town. Brigandine was often reserved for this task. It think it was De Commines who wrote about two brothers who had brigandines specifically made without the metal plates so that they had the fashionable cloth and rivet patterns but would not be a burden while travelling. These "faux brigandines" seem to have been rare in Western Europe; they were more popular in Asian courts.

Dan Howard · Posted: Thu 19 Sep, 2019 4:28 pm Post subject:

This might prove edifying. It is a letter written by Ulrich von Hutten in 1518. It is reply to a suggestion by Willibald Pirckheimer that if he was not happy, he could return to his peaceful life in the country after Pirckheimer read an earlier letter from von Hutten recounting his experiences at court. The second paragraph is pertinent here. It tells us why landholders had to be armoured and under heavy escort whenever they travelled.

"Do you know what sort of place it is to which you ask me to return? Do not make the mistake of equating your own situation with mine. You city people, who lead comfortable, placid easy going lives, seem to think that a man in my position can find peace and quiet in his country retreat. Are you so ignorant of the turmoil and insecurity to which my sort is subject? Do not imagine that your life has anything in common with mine. Even if our estates were large enough to support us and our patrimonies ample, there are many troubles that deprive our minds of peace. Our days are spent in the fields, in the woods and in fortified strongholds. We lease our land to a few starving peasants who barely manage to scratch a living from it. From such paupers we draw our revenues, an income hardly worth the labour spent on it. To increase our revenues would require enormous effort and unremitting diligence.

Most of us are, moreover in a position of dependence on some prince to whom our hope of safety is attached. Left to ourselves we would be at everyone's mercy, but under princely protection we still live in constant apprehension. Indeed, whenever I leave my tower I face danger. If I fall into the hands of those who are at war with my overlord, they seize me and carry me away. If my luck is bad I lose half my patrimony in ransom... No wonder we must spend large sums on horses and arms and employ retainers at great expense to ourselves. I cannot travel a mile from my home without putting on armour. I dare not even go hunting or fishing except clad in iron. Not a day passes without some dispute or altercation breaking out amongst our retainers. Often it is nothing more than a contention among stewards, but every quarrel must be approached with caution, for if I respond aggressively to a wrong done to one of my men, I may find myself embroiled in war while submission or concessions lay me open to extortion and a thousand new injuries springing from the first. And, remember, these quarrels arise not among foreign rivals but among neighbours, relatives and even brothers...

Sean Manning · Posted: Sat 21 Sep, 2019 2:24 am Post subject:

There are quite a few sources from the 14th century to the 17th century for Europeans wearing concealed armour in town and at court. You might find this post of interest.

J.D. Crawford · Posted: Sat 21 Sep, 2019 1:18 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't recommend it on international flights. Sets the metal detectors off like crazy.

(Sorry, read the title and couldn't help myself.)

Karl G · Posted: Fri 27 Sep, 2019 9:55 am Post subject:

I think like any military accoutrement or mode of dress it would be highly situation dependant. I am ex army and as an example I have worked in areas your body armour is always on in public whereas the normal mode of address back on barracks does not require it.

I think you would find enough variations in history and countries during times that armour was worn anytime you stepped out, to not being called upon unless you are suddenly going 'operational' much like a SWAT guy does.