I read it years ago and don't have a prayer of finding it now. It was a fairly late text - 15th or even 16th century.

Not sure this a myth yet. We really need someone to read the entire account of the battle. We see something almost the same in William the Breton's account on Bovines decades earlier and it is clear there are two armours in use there over each other.At Bovines tthe words in latin are 100% clear, there are two armours, one over the other.

Just because it is multiple accounts does not mean it is not there or did not happen, in fact if they start using plate over mail it could very easily become a common tactic to get around armour. We see this all over in 14th and 15th century weapons treatises so why should this be taken as impossible or unlikely. If I was fighting a guy in plate I'd as my first choice hit him where he is less well equipped. Even if you can make it through both armours it is far more work and more likely not to work if it could penetrate.

If someone has an online version of this I'll check it out but I already have far too many books on my ILL list to add another right now.

RPM

The myth about this tactic assumes that it is possible to thrust a one-handed sword through a mail-covered armpit. The voiders tested by Williams could not be so easily penetrated. I'd say the same thing about most of the extant mail that I've seen.

Regarding the early use of voiders: this was cited by Bertus Brokamp as evidence for voiders being used in the middle of the 14th C:
--------------
Item die underwamse hatten enge armen unde in dem gewerbe waren si benehet unde behaft mit stucken von panzern, daz nante man musisen.

My translation:
"The underdoublets had narrow arms and in the articulations they were besewn and fitted with pieces of haubergeons, these were called 'mus'irons."

Limburger Chronik, speaking about c. 1351.

Dan,

Who said easy.... I never said easy. Only easier than getting through both the plate and mail together. Since later fightbooks promote this of hitting places protected only with mail it seems fairly clear it worked.

I am not familiar with Williams testing in this case but having seen his other tests not sure I feel I'd take it at face value without seeing it. If you have it I'd love to see it. My problem is he tends to use very low energy for weapons that to me in many ways are just as bad as doing the opposite and using super thin metal for armour or over powerful blows.

As to voiders, skirts, sleeves, aventails etc. of mail. I know they existed before Agincourt and thereabouts. No doubt about it. They show up all over the place in inventories. The issue is how were they used? All those I have seen are not clearly used in place of hauberks and habergeons. Even this one here Dan put up is not 100% clear. It seems to be all about arms of mail and bits of mail used on the arms of the undergarment. One could still easily use a habergeon with mail sleeves or an aketon with mail bits sewn on a aketon.

Early on I have found these bits of mail far more often used by non-knightly/non-noble soldiers making me think mail sleeves and such were in use by poorer troops and likely/possibly not full harnesses. That said it is possible that it is earlier than when I am seeing it but we need clear layering that show no hauberk or habergeon were being used for these other mail bits before I can see that. We also have the termonology minefield to wade through as well....

I have no doubt for some time both full hauberks and habergeons were in use side by side with voiders, skirts and such. The question remains when.

RPM

Writing in the late sixteenth-century, Humphrey Barwick considered brigandines, coats of plate, and mail all decidedly inferior to plate. Of these less armors, he ranked the brigandine equal to the coat of plates and superior to mail. The following passage comes in response to to Sir John Smythe's armor recommendations:

Quote:

And for the long bow, it standeth in the like estimation that other Archers on foote dooth: as for the armours, the best is the Brigandine, the which is but equall with a coate of plate of the best making, which M. Euers or Ewry was armed with, when as the Lord of Grange called Kirkaudie a Scot, and the saide M. Ewry did runne the one at the other, in a challenge by them made with sharpe Speares: but how fell out the same? euen like to haue beene the death of that good and valiant Gentleman M. Ewrye, for Kirkaudy ranne him cleane through the armour, as in at the brest and forth at the back, through both: then to what purpose is that arming in that manner? For shot, all men doth know that the like armours will not defend. . . . force therof, no not the Pistoll being the least of all the rest. For example, was not the Duke of Anieu, the icount of Tourain, the Lord of Chandeuoir, slaine with Pistoll shot, vpon S. Laurence day, néer vnto Saint quintins in Varmendoe, with manye thousands of mener persons? and likewise the Constable of Fraunce Memorancie, was slaine with a Pistoll before Paris, who were better armed then any Brigandine can be of, as by the Duke Anieu his armour, yet readye to be shewed in England, it may be witnessed. Why then should such meane armors be allowed, with men· of vnderstanding and knowledge? it were most fit that our enemies were so armed: for if it would defend against any thing, it wold serue best against archers, whose force is like vnto that maner of arming.