Brigandine vs. Mail -- myArmoury.com

Benjamin H. Abbott · Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject:

I'd love to hear how the pollaxe did.

Dan Howard · Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject:

Benjamin H. Abbott · Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject:

I can't find anything about what the brigandine was made out of it. It was made by Roy King.

The breastplate he tested was reenactment quality, whatever that means. Later on he said it was mild steel.

Michael Edelson · Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject:

Alessio J. Orlandi · Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

hi, this is my first post.
First, sorry for my poor english, but i'm Italian.
Second, sorry but i don't visit this forum very often, so probably i will never read your answers.

Well, for what is concerning the subject mail vs. brigandine, I'd just like to state that if mail had been used for more than 1000 years, there will be a reason... As others said befor me, mail is good against cuts but by itself can't do much against thrusts. In fact, it was always used with an aketon/subarmalia/gambeson etc...
Now, let's take the brigandine. Is it such an innovation? I think no. Well, technologically speaking, it's a nice step forward, but conceptually it's not all that different from a roman lorica segmentata.
So the question (for me) is not whether brigandine is better than mail, but "why hadn't it being used before?".
My answer is: because it is expensive.
In XIII cent. Italian "comuni" (cities) based their military strength on common citizens averagely trained for war; most of them used to wear a simple gambeson and some hardened leather protection. Only knights and rich men could wear mail protections. In XIV century, we have the rise of a new kind of warrior, the mercenary, a very skilled and dedicated figure. War is now fought between well-paied men, that wanted the best for themselves. This, combined with the introduction of fireweapons, longer swords and many new kind of thrust weapons (warhammers and so on) made the chain mail not very usefull. So, if you are a well paied warrior, why not buying a better armour?
In the previous century (we go back to XIII cent.) cities couldn't afford to pay an heavy iron armouring for all the militia. The strength was more based on number and battlefield tactiques, not on technology or the skill of the single man, as it is in XIV cent.

Well, this is just my opinion.

All corrections welcome.

Big Grin

Have a good day.

Dan Howard · Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject:

Hi Alessio, welcome to myArmoury. Your English is very good. You write far better than many native speakers Wink

You make some interesting points. IMO the lorica segmentata was peasant armour. It was mass produced for those legionaries who could not afford anything better such as scale or mail. There is no evidence that any roman soldier of any means - not even a centurio - ever wore segmented plate. Brigs, as you say, are far better tailored and meant for a better class of soldier. Mail saw continuous use on the battlefield for closer to 2000 years. Not 1000. As you said, it must have ben for a reason. It was very good against cuts. But so was anything ever used for armour. Testing armour against cuts is a waste of time. The greatest threat by far on any battlefield during the so-called Ageof Mail was from spears and arrows. i.e. thrusts. If an armour offered poor protection against these weapons then nobody would have bothered to wear it. Modern tests against good historical recontructions suggest that mail and its associated padding provided far better protection against thrusts than many previously thought.
For reasons why mail armour was superceded by plate this is a decent summary.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041