| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Tue 13 Sep, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
The so-called "arms race" certainly had a major influence over how plate armour developed over the 15th to 17th centuries but it had little to do with why it was introduced in the first place. One would be far better looking at the economic and social reasons outlined in the mail unchained article.
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Sep, 2011 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gregory J. Liebau wrote: | | In my opinion, and using an entirely under-studied theory, the changing forms of armor also have a ton to do with what weapons were popular at any given time. |
Hardly under-studied. It had been the most popular theory since Victorian times. It is only recently that historians have started looking at the larger picture.
|
|
|
|
|
T. Arndt
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Sep, 2011 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | The so-called "arms race" certainly had a major influence over how plate armour developed over the 15th to 17th centuries but it had little to do with why it was introduced in the first place. One would be far better looking at the economic and social reasons outlined in the mail unchained article. |
When it comes to armor for the torso I thought....
In somewhat chronological order:
heavy saddle and stirrups ==> couched lance replacing held lance
couched lance replacing held lance ==> armored surcoat (over mail)
armored surcoat ==> coat of plates (over mail)
coat of plates (over mail) ==> less need for sheild ==> longsword replacing arming/warsword
coat of plates + bow/crossbow threat + need to decrease weight ==> breast plate
If I am correct the "arms race" started long before the 15th century.
Wisconsin Historical Fencing Association (WHFA) - La Crosse
A HEMA Alliance Affiliate
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” -Juvenal
|
|
 |
|
|
Gregory J. Liebau
Location: Dinuba, CA Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 669
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Sep, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes in boxes from Mail: Unchained, by Dan Howard.
| Quote: | | Other factors that need to be considered include technological innovations in mass production, namely the water-powered and the blast furnace. These technologies enabled iron plate to be manufactured in much larger quantities and much more cheaply than previously. |
From the public source we all love to hate, Wikipedia:
"Water-powered and mechanised reappeared in medieval Europe by the 12th century. Their use was described in medieval written sources of Styria (in modern-day Austria), written in 1135 and another in 1175 AD. Both texts mentioned the use of vertical stamp mills for ore-crushing. Medieval French sources of the years 1116 and 1249 both record the use of mechanised used in the forging of wrought iron."
Same for the blast furnace [Wiki entry snip]:
"The oldest known blast furnaces in the West were built in Dürstel in Switzerland, the Märkische Sauerland in Germany, and at Lapphyttan in Sweden, where the complex was active between 1150 and 1350. At Noraskog in the Swedish county of Järnboås, there have also been found traces of blast furnaces dated even earlier, possibly to around 1100. These early blast furnaces, like the Chinese examples, were very inefficient compared to those used today. The iron from the Lapphyttan complex was used to produce balls of wrought iron known as osmonds, and these were traded internationally – a possible reference occurs in a treaty with Novgorod from 1203 and several certain references in accounts of English customs from the 1250s and 1320s. Other furnaces of the 13th to 15th centuries have been identified in Westphalia."
Considering your own correlation between the large gap in time between actual widespread use of plate and the use of weapons which could defeat mail, I must bring up the same point. If and blast furnaces are being used as early as 200 years before plate to forge wrought iron - the most lucrative aspect of this business being the production of weaponry - why on earth would this technology have anything to do with plate suddenly becoming available for use at the turn of the 14th century and beyond? Ideas and technology spread like wide fires through Medieval Europe, particularly during the 12th and 13th centuries. This is attested to by the largely synchronized evolution of everything from liturgical principles to University curriculum to the weapons, armor and tactics used in warfare. There's no excuse for these technologies not becoming readily available if their services were considered valuable - and it is more likely, in my opinion, that they *were* available and not necessary exactly because plate became popular when it did due to the arms race.
| Quote: | | In addition, labour costs dramatically increased after the Black Death (14th century), and the technologies previously mentioned meant that mail actually cost more to produce than all but the finest of plate armour. Williams compares the cost of 12 oxen for a 9th century helmet, mail and leggings with the cost of only 2 oxen for horseman's plate armour at the end of the 16th century. At Iserlohn in the 15th century, a mail haubergeon cost 4.6 gulden while plate armour only cost 4.3 gulden.112 Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times that of a "double breastplate." These records also indicate the huge difference in labour involved. The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate, only 2 days. |
Yes, but what does the difference between the costs from the 9th century to the 15th century plate tell us about the era when it was being developed? Or the 16th century example? Or the 17th....!? From Michael Prestwich's Knight.
"An inventory of an elderly English knight's possessions made in 1374 gives some comparative prices, which show that it takes about 14 days wages to buy a bascinet (wages being around 2 shillings a day)...
Bascinet with aventail - 1£, 6s, 8d.
...
Three hauberks - 8£, 13s, 8d.
Two pairs of plate gauntlets - 6s. 8d.
This is what some Spanish armour came to in 1383; the most expensive item is the coat of mail, which took a lot of labour to make:
Bascinet with aventail - 20 florins
Coat of mail - 25 florins
A piece of iron - 15 florins
Harness of leg pieces - 10 florins
Gauntlets - 4 florins"
So, we see that mail has indeed become expensive, but was it ever not expensive? Is this plate armor actually cheaper than mail? A bascinet with aventail in both cases costs half and then nearly as much as a single hauberk. The "piece of iron" costing some 65% of the coat of mail in the Spanish case is most likely a one-piece cuirass. These are pretty solid figures for examples.
On the other hand, You use an established comparison of cattle prices to support the theory that plate became less expensive, but this is a very tentative way to view this situation - currency estimates are much more precise, and any comparisons over long periods of time is dubious. For example, in 1319 there was a major famine in England that killed approximately 50% of all livestock, doubling food prices and making materials such as wool extremely scarce and far more valuable than it had been prior to the catastrophe. So, if you wanted to look at the ratio of prices between livestock and armor, this would make a dramatic difference on the statistics of the time! Livestock became so valuable that it was probably worth twice or more what it had been compared to any armor pieces, particularly purchased from hungry soldiers or artisans... Tricky business.
The same can be said for a lot of the 14th century because of the characteristics of the era as it was shaped by the plague and such events as the famine I mentioned. Price and wage setting by Edward III in the Ordinance and Statues of Laborers (1349/51) also confuses the economic comparisons that can be made during this era, and such statutes remained effective in England until after the Peasant's revolt of 1381! It would require a confounding amount of research - which I believe neither you nor I have done - to set the records straight as to what exactly plate cost during the mid-14th century in contemporary economic terms compared to what it had at any given time in the past.
Finally, none of your examples actually deal directly with the era that plate was beginning to supersede mail, which brings me to your next sentence...
| Quote: | | If plate armour was cheaper, quicker to produce, and offered better protection than mail, one could argue that it would have become popular even if weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and lances never existed. |
Considering that the hauberk remained the foundational form of armor for knights throughout the 14th century and even into the 15th century in such plates as Italy, even under entire, beautifully constructed Milanese harnesses, how can you justify this perspective? Mail was in use across the European world as a mainstay form of armor until well into the 16th century, even after we see plate being mass-produced on such a scale as to be nearly staggering in its production levels. If plate was such a better form of protection, particularly by the standards of the transitional era when it was only becoming relatively widespread in use, why was mail *always* there to back it up? Because it was so much more expensive or useless in comparison?
| Quote: | | There were also social changes occurring at the time. By the time plate had been introduced, the replacement of feudal levies with scutage ("shield money") as payment in lieu of service enabled commanders to make much greater use of mercenaries and professional soldiers, who were generally better armed and armoured than earlier peasant levies, were more experienced and better disciplined, and did not have to be home in time for the harvest. The "armour industry" expanded because more men were willing and able to pay for better armour and a higher percentage of any host was likely to be wearing decent armour on the battlefield. |
It's hard to tell whether or not this trend was one that neglected the use of mail or merely supplemented it. What evidence I've seen of shop and castle stores suggests that there was indeed a rising amount of plate kept or expected to be sold, showing a significant increase in arms available to these rising classes of professional warriors... But also, judging by the price of mail and the hundreds of 13th and 14th century images we have, an ideal coat of mail was expected to be tailored for use - in itself probably a rather pricey thing to have done. So, with a concession that these new soldiers might be wearing less mail and more plate, it doesn't distract from the fact that mail was still used by those who could afford it. It was still integral to a cap-a-pie harness during this era.
| Quote: | | In addition to this, the primary goal of the knight in battle was shifting away from an emphasis on capturing fellow knights for ransom and more towards killing them (the difference between so-called "good war" and "bad war"). At the same time, town militias were becoming more organized and proved themselves capable of withstanding the knightly cavalry charge with disciplined ranks of infantry. Examples include Genoese crossbowmen, Scottish schilltrons, Swiss halberdiers and Flemish pikemen. The English longbow, while not as effective against mail as heavy crossbows or hafted weapons could definitely cause injuries simply through the huge numbers of arrows that were fired at the enemy. Even the small percentage of arrows that penetrated mail far enough to incapacitate the wearer added up to a very real threat. In addition, the longbowman did not drop his bow and retire from the field when he ran out of arrows. He was an integral part of the infantry who drew hand weapons (axes, mauls, knives, and so on) and waded into the melee alongside the men-at-arms. The best work on the subject is by Kelly DeVries, who surveys the importance of infantry in nineteen different battles in England and Europe during the first half of the 14th century—many of which resulted in infantry defeating heavy cavalry. Note that none of the weapons discussed here were particularly new innovations (except perhaps the superseding of self crossbows with composite ones). It is the organized manner in which they were used that proved decisive. Clearly, the infantry, who were not seen as much of a threat in earlier times by the knight, were becoming a force with which to be reckoned. |
None of these are social changes - they're tactical. Every sentence in the previous quote plays directly into this aged, Victorian theory about the arms race, which is integral to the tactics and outcome of combat on the field.
-Gregory
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolas Grinschgl
Location: Austria Joined: 30 Dec 2010
Posts: 9
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The "arms race" theory says that plate armour was developed because knights were threatened by weapons such as mounted lances and longbows. If this was an issue at all, then it was a very minor one. The article tried to outline some of the other issues that were involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T. Arndt wrote: | When it comes to armor for the torso I thought....
In somewhat chronological order:
heavy saddle and stirrups ==> couched lance replacing held lance
couched lance replacing held lance ==> armored surcoat (over mail)
armored surcoat ==> coat of plates (over mail)
coat of plates (over mail) ==> less need for sheild ==> longsword replacing arming/warsword
coat of plates + bow/crossbow threat + need to decrease weight ==> breast plate
If I am correct the "arms race" started long before the 15th century. |
Couched lances have been used since at least the Sarmatians and Sasanians. They had no troubles using this weapon without stirrups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | T. Arndt wrote: | When it comes to armor for the torso I thought....
In somewhat chronological order:
heavy saddle and stirrups ==> couched lance replacing held lance
couched lance replacing held lance ==> armored surcoat (over mail)
armored surcoat ==> coat of plates (over mail)
coat of plates (over mail) ==> less need for sheild ==> longsword replacing arming/warsword
coat of plates + bow/crossbow threat + need to decrease weight ==> breast plate
If I am correct the "arms race" started long before the 15th century. |
Couched lances have been used since at least the Sarmatians and Sasanians. They had no troubles using this weapon without stirrups. |
what the sassanians and sarmations used would quite rightly be called a SPEAR if it wasnt wielded on horseback or a pke if it got any longer, theres a difference between THAT and the specially engneered cavalry lance that developed in the 13th century in terms of the amount of impact one could transfer to the target on impact
but still fair point, though i always wondered about how the coat of plates being put OVER the hauberk fit into things, the hauberk was a good defense i see that but its not like the COP was plated mail that was swn INTO the mail fabric but went over it, that suggests it was protecting against something,
although it could still be worn on its own by lesser soldiers too i guess,
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we set aside the topic of armour evolution (and everything else) and devote more effort to helping the OP find a harness?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Giulia Clark wrote: | ...that for a man in 2011 who is not accustomed to wearing it, that this armour is heavy...
Giulia |
Thing is, not really. I'm more cyclist than anything else and the only things that I find bothersome about my plate, which is decently but not perfectly fitted, is heat dissipation. Not the weight. Steel does not breath and modern clothing of all kinds does (unless intended not to). Seems trivial but I found it to be anything but trivial. The weight of plate, even for a cyclist, is entirely tolerable because of how it is distribution and because correctly made kit is not all that heavy.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | [quote="Giulia Clark"...that for a man in 2011 who is not accustomed to wearing it, that this armour is heavy...
Giulia |
Thing is, not really. I'm more cyclist than anything else and the only things that I find bothersome about my plate, which is decently but not perfectly fitted, is heat dissipation. Not the weight. Steel does not breath and modern clothing of all kinds does (unless intended not to). Seems trivial but I found it to be anything but trivial. The weight of plate, even for a cyclist, is entirely tolerable because of how it is distribution and because correctly made kit is not all that heavy.[/quote]
out of curiosiy have you tried cycling in your harness?
the reason i ask is based on a comment for a particularly famous japanese dance, the hare hare yukai (from the popular anime series the melencholy of suzumiya haruhi) a fantasy game of sorts based on their exploits is being made and the harehare yukai performed by the characters in their costume one of them, called kyon, is doing the dance wearing a half plate harness minus helmet (half plate for those who dont know excludes greaves cuisses and sabatons.
and i wonder how hard might it be to dance like that in plate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPCEA3vORwE&feature=related
the comment in question was nooting how kyon was able to move about so well despite all the heavy plate, i informed him that plate is deceptively lighter than one would think.
( i would be almost willing to pay to have someone film themselves dancing to that in full harness, helmet and all)
as for providing harnesses id have to bow out of this because i dont even know where I could get a harness, i know where you could buy them, but not borrow,
but i have one suggestion,
guilia clark, have you considered borrowing one from a reenactor who owns one in the local area, a sound idea might be to search for all reenactment groups which exist in the new york area, and ask them about the possibility of them loaning you their armour, film companies do this all the time for cars needed for film scenes or advertisments, as you might probably know being in the film/ TV industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic