[Jeffrey Faulk]

The primary reason plate is superior to mail is that it has far better impact resistance as it's inflexible (apart from joints, obviously). This gives you more protection from blunt trauma even without a protective undergarment, which you can't do without when wearing mail. A broken bone can be a tactical 'kill' even if not fatal, as it easily removes a combatant from action. Plate is more likely to protect you from injuries of such a nature.

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

I agree that if the commander is not doing well there are issues. And it might indeed be overall the most important aspect, though there are poor commanders who still win so not always. Look at Edward II for a medieval example. He is pushing more and more armour but often losses to an inferior force, many likely in very little armour. But he does win on occasion even with poor tactics.

But the OP is about the technology. Not tactics.

So I think we all can agree the tactics and leadership among other things like logistics in food and other supplies and a plethora of other things have major impact on battle but lets go back to answer the OP and let us assume the two are both able commanders.

We have indications of this in period accounts so it is not like we cannot do that. Look at Bovines. at the onset the Germans even with bad strategy are doing well because superior plate armour. The writer William the Breton indicates they cannot be defeated basically due to this.

The French are fighting with German knights and finding their attacks are largely failing due to the pairs of plates or proto pairs of plates until they start hitting the armpit. Sounds a bit fanciful but still.

In this case the Germans seem to have awful tactics in most respects. But the armour is displayed by the commentator as a major factor.

RPM

[Mart Shearer]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

As far as a sixteenth-century military writers go, Niccolò Machiavelli, Raymond de Fourquevaux, and Sir John Smythe all considered armor extremely important. Fifteenth-century travel and military writer Bertrandon de la Broquière did as well, describing more and better armor as a key advantage Western Europeans had against the Ottoman Turks.

The difference between mail and plate isn't necessarily that great - depending on the mail and on the plate - but it strikes me as enough to matter. It would be particularly relevant in the direct cavalry confrontations and infantry slugfests that often happened in medieval and Renaissance battles. Positioning could of course prove a bigger factor, depending on the battle.

As I mention, I think the difference between mail and plate would count most for heavy cavalry. Men-at-arms 1450-1550 relied on being nearly invulnerable to muscle-powered weapons to do their thing. I'm skeptical mail-armored cavalry could claim quite the same level of impunity, particularly against pikes, halberd spikes, and crossbows. On the other hand, Smythe wrote that the Persians still fielded men-at-arms in his day (1590s), and as far as I know they wore mail-and-plate armors at that time.

[Henrik Granlid]

Having read the thread, and looking at the original question again, my answer would be this:

If 2000 men at arms from 1470's England charged (and met a charge from) 2000 Norman knights from 1170, both with the lance of their respective times, the 12th century men at arms would be ran clean through and nearly unable to inflict harm on the 15th century ones. Remember, even the maille itself evolved.

The same would go for a protracted mounted battle. The weapons of the 12th century simply weren't made to defeat plate, whilst the lances of the 15th were made to attempt harm at plated men or at least pass through 15th century voiders. There is a reason we do not see brigandine chest protection on men at arms in lance charges when looking at art.

The route would come soon after the innitial catastrophic charge as well as the following seconds of neither unhorsing, nor properly wounding the plated warriors. Although I am actually unsure of how much damage the secondary weapons of the 15th century men at arms actually would be cusing in return, but the psychological aspect of the visgage of the white harness alongside the innitial clash of run through maille warriors would break the line of 12th century soldiers.


Now, what would be truly interesting would be if they, instead, were on foot.

We'd see kite Shields, spears and 12th century swords stood against plate harnesses and pollaxes with longswords as sidearms.

Again I believe the plate would win, but the grinding battle would be far longer and much more brutal on both sides, although pollaxes and longswords are horribly efficient weapons, so are the spears and sidearms of the 12th century man at arms.

I cannot see a head on collision between two equal forces in skill and size go any way but that of the plate, hoqever, the ground battle would be much harder fought than the cavalry charge. Simply because the long spear and heavy lance are two very different weapons, designed for different defenses, and the heavy lance would not only gain purchase in the flexing material of the maille, but continue on through, whereas the long spear would glance off the plate.

And as has been quoted, the long spear could sometimes be defeated even by period maille, 3 centuries of innovation and development in steel, technique and design would only make that more likely to happen on contact with 15th century voiders.


TLDR: Heavy lance makes maille shishkabob, on foot it's more of a meatgrinder, but eventually, steel plate wins out over iron maille.

[Matthew Amt]

[Henrik Granlid]

I considered shield deflections, but having seen balsa lanses punch through plywood Shields, a heavy lance with a sharp tip would, in my opinion, punch straight through a linden or ashwood shield. I don't see any reason for knights not to wear large one-use Shields into the initial charge of reinessance cavalry warfare if this wasn't the case.

Again, the lances are vastly different in form and function between the two eras.

Also, there is nothing for a smaller spear tip to catch on to unhorse the plated knights, especially considering the tall, supportive saddle.

The cavalry charge would be absolutely devastating.


And agreed for the ground at least, although the more I think of it, the scarier the prospect of pollaxes vs iron maille becomes. The triangular stabbing points as well as the swift and brutal striking surfaces. However, Shields can be suprisingly efficient against two handed weapons, although I do wonder if the plated men at arms can't simply wrest the Shields to the sides with their hands whilst being pretty damn immune.

As for faces, greathelms only came about in the 13th century, likely around the time of early coata of plate (faceplate helms ca 1215, early mentions of CoP's ca 1230 I Believe?) Meaning that the all maille warrior wouldn't actually have more than maille and a nasal for face protection and nothing rigid to the sides of the face. This would likely turn out to be a huge factor, since faces are so easely broken, even from plated punches.

The more I think about it, the snall things, the more terrifying the prospect of the 12th century knight becomes qhen they face 15th+ century knights.

Christ... I mean, even semi plated infantry at the time dreaded the cavalry charge.
*shudders*

[Dan Howard]

[Philip Dyer]

[Edward Lee]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

The question of fifteenth- or sixteenth-century men-at-arms against twelfth-century heavy cavalry makes me think of Sir John Smythe's tactics for light cavalry or stradiots. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect plate-armored men-at-arms would have a significant advantage against mail-armored twelfth-century cavalry in a direct confrontation. This particularly applies to proper men-at-arms as imagined by Raymond de Fourquevaux and Sir John Smythe, with considerable plate barding to protect their horses. Fourquevaux thought barding key in a contest between men-at-arms, arguing that men-at-arms in heavy barding would defeat opposing counterparts with little or no horse armor. Smythe proscribed the same kit for men-at-arms and lamented their absence, but he apparently considered it a lost cause to advocate for their reintroduction. It was instead Hungarian- or Turkish-style light cavalry that Smythe focused on in addition to mounted archers and crossbowers. Smythe argued that light cavalry - armed with either lancegays/zagayas (double-headed lances) or common English border lances used as punching staves - could do well against lancers (basically men-at-arms in slightly less armor astride unarmored horses) by adopting a half-moon or oblique formation, refusing the lancers charge, and then attack the lancers once they couldn't effectively use their heavy lances.

While twelfth-century cavalry had rather different equipment than Smythe's imagined light cavalry or stradiots, I think the plan of declining to engage the men-at-arms on their own terms would be wise. I believe twelfth-century lances tended to be more manageable than heavy lances designed for use in a lance rest, so the mailed knights could have the same advantage against the men-at-arms as Smythe wanted his stradiots to have against lancers. However, assuming the men-at-arms had full harnesses and full barding, attempting tire them out by repeated false charges and retreats would probably be best.

Sixteenth-century men-at-arms were extremely powerful in their specific role. From what I've seen, only other men-at-arms and pike formations could meet or withstand their charge. Nobody wanted to meet them head on without the same kit or a pike and a lot of friends.

Of course, simply declining to meet them head on was often pretty easy. And the were fantastically expensively to equipment and maintain.

[Randall Moffett]

Mart,

Sure. that was indeed part of his question and my bad for writing it the way I did. My point was we had ignored pretty much everything else he asked for most of the post

But this was the bulk of his question-
'I'm intersted especially in differences between different kind of armor used in war, is it possible that an army of soldiers equipped with only chainmail (like european soldiers during XI and XII century) against an army equipped with plate armor could win a battle with a proportional number of soldier on each side (i assume that chainmail itself is a worse armor than the plate one)?'

And the last half dozen posts established well that we think leadership in war is the more vital but it fails to answer the bulk of the question.

As to the translation and conclusion. Discussed it, sort of. The post you brought up hardly has any information to promote or refute that plate is involved or not at Bovines in any definitive way.

I am still not sure that Bovines should be put into the same category as Benevento though. The translation you have here seems to be layers of armour I was talking about in the original thread. At Benevento it is density of troops at least mentioned before, I do not recall the text for that battle. Very different from what I am seeing there though. So for the one yes it might be right but for this one this seems the wrong conclusion.

The only layers that William gives as out of the norm or noteworthy in the entire account is the mail, aketon and iron plate. If it were mail and aketons that would be the norm for knights of his day and not noteworthy but as he is making a big deal of this seems something else. He never mentions denser mail or other layering systems from what I remember but he does the same thing with the Richard example making it into something flashy and of great importance. So I still think from our prior example with the author it is very likely a conclusion this is what he is referring to as the situation is near identical with its behavior and it is his only other layered equipment given. So while I agree there is a question of what it is for sure I do not see any superior choice here. I think there are other options but I think this still is the prime spot to me.

RPM

[Dan Howard]

Two layers of mail seems to have been more common than we assume.

[Randall Moffett]

I do not assume it was not uncommon in general. I wish there were more examples but I know of enough I would not discount it entirely. But the author does not ever mention this practice but he does mention another layering.

RPM

[Bartek Strojek]

Polish hussars in their early form, before Istvan Bathory time, were pretty 'standardly' equipped with mail and shield, instead of plate armor of 'proper' lancers, for what it's worth.

In the 60's, during the struggles against Moscow, there apparently were appeals to change it into plate, so it is presumed that expectation of facing firearms of Moscow infantry was the reason for it.

I will try to dig up some sources.

[Randall Moffett]

Dan,

I'd love some European examples of doubling mail if you have any. I have a number from the middle east but only rather open interpretation for the European ones. The Middle Eastern ones seem to be very clearly to be.

RPM

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

An encounter with lances in rests involved forces approaching that of a car crash, seeing that the combined speeds could be from 40 to 60 miles per hour. A combatant with no lance rest is at a tremendous disadvantage, and broken thumbs have occasionally been the result of modern day jousters who have not used them, as they are depending on their own strength to deal with the impact. If mail could be made proof against a lance in rest, it would not keep the wearer's rib cage from being imploded (think driver in a collision not wearing his seat belt encountering his steering wheel; I have read an estimate that the force of impact of a rested lance could be as great as 25 tons per square inch! ). By contrast, European breastplates are shaped in such a way as to make it more difficult to strike 'normal' to the surface, thus causing glancing, and if a solid contact is made, the shape also is designed to pass the shock completely around the ribcage (most easily understood by looking at globose breastplates). Studying the fighting between the HRE or the Knights Hospitaler, and the Ottoman Empire would be a good way to get an idea, as the Ottoman forces rely so heavily on mail or somewhat augmented mail with small plates. I should probably point out too that there is mail, and then there is mail. European tailored mail shirts minimize how much the wearer fights his own equipment by means of such features as the sleeves bent at the elbow (looks like the mail 'bags' at the point of the elbow when the sleeve is held straight) and the angle of attachment of the sleeve to the body, which serve to minimize bunching of the mail in the bend of the elbow and between the arm and the body when the wearer strikes a blow. I have not seen this in the eastern mail I have handled. I don't think we know if European mail was tailored in such a way in the XI and XII centuries, however.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

It's worth noting that many Ottoman suits of full armor included plenty of solid plates along with the mail. Some of these suits even included large circular or rectangular plates over the chest. I don't think these plate were insignificant. I don't know of tests of mail-and-plate armor, but I suspect offered more protection than mail alone at any given level of quality.

Are there any direct accords of European cavalry equipped with lance rests encountering Ottoman or other similar cavalry wearing mail-and-plate or mail alone and wielding lances without rests? Bertrandon de la Broquière seemed to think Turkish cavalry - which he described as armored in mail - would be at a disadvantage against Western European heavy cavalry if the Europeans stayed in good order.

[Sancar O.]