Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Coat of Plates vs. Brigandine Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Wed 21 Jun, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Sequence again.         Reply with quote

In English use, general adoption of the brigandine post dates the introduction of cap a pie full plate.
Rod,
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 21 Jun, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Sequence again.         Reply with quote

Rod Parsons wrote:
In English use, general adoption of the brigandine post dates the introduction of cap a pie full plate.
Rod,


Source? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that full plate harness was worn during the same period as the brigandine and by the same class of people. Start with Bob Reed's excellent analysis of the Howard Loans and Lists. The first part is in the first Journal of the Mail Research Society. The second half is in the first Journal of the Armour Research Society. One specific example is John Talbot. He died at Castillon wearing a brigandine, not full plate. Isn't there a surviving brigandine that was owned by one of the French kings (Charles VIII?). It is beautifully made of the finest materials.

I agree that the brig was more an infantry armour than a cavalry armour. The word "brigand" actually means "foot soldier". Brigandine armour has nothing to do with bandits or concealability.
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Wed 21 Jun, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Correct         Reply with quote

There is no doubt that plate continued to be in use particularly amongst the higher ranks and that the brigandine was more in use on foot than in fighting on horseback, but it is also true that many gentlemen adopted the brigandine for fighting afoot rather than full plate.
Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 2:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is a really interesting discussion.
However I'd like to add that plate-armour was also worn by foot-soldiers, especially in the first part of the 16th century.
The most polular combination was probably a typical Landsknecht breastplate with long segmented tassests and a mail "bishop's cape" for neck-protection. I can't say with certainty how popular this combination was, but period artwork suggests that that this combination was often worn by the front-ranks. The ranks behind them often seem to have worn less or no armour at all. Paul Dolnstein, Burgkmair, Dürer are all very precise observers and I haven't seen a single Brigandine in their works. There are quite a few paintings and woodcuts that show brigandines as well, of course.
It's just my rather uneducated guess that plate-armour wasn't unpopular with foot-soldiers. The most polular protection in the 15th century among the Swiss seems to have been the typical Milanese breastplate with tassets(if you believe the osprey book).
I'm not saying that brigandine wasn't used (most likely it was very popular), but it appears to me that plate-armour was equally sought after. Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 2:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wolfgang Armbruster wrote:
This is a really interesting discussion.
However I'd like to add that plate-armour was also worn by foot-soldiers, especially in the first part of the 16th century.
The most polular combination was probably a typical Landsknecht breastplate with long segmented tassests and a mail "bishop's cape" for neck-protection. I can't say with certainty how popular this combination was, but period artwork suggests that that this combination was often worn by the front-ranks. The ranks behind them often seem to have worn less or no armour at all. Paul Dolnstein, Burgkmair, Dürer are all very precise observers and I haven't seen a single Brigandine in their works. There are quite a few paintings and woodcuts that show brigandines as well, of course.
It's just my rather uneducated guess that plate-armour wasn't unpopular with foot-soldiers. The most polular protection in the 15th century among the Swiss seems to have been the typical Milanese breastplate with tassets(if you believe the osprey book).
I'm not saying that brigandine wasn't used (most likely it was very popular), but it appears to me that plate-armour was equally sought after. Happy


Especially if a lot of better armour might be " liberated" from a better equipped fallen enemy. The real situation is probably never just a neat A to B to C with fixed dates for each and no overlap, concurrent evolution, regional preferences and anachronisms.

I think I read somewhere that a brigantine was considered to be comfortable to wear and might be worn when more uncomfortable armour might be packed away until needed for imminent battle or in the field in dangerous territory.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Kel Rekuta




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 616

PostPosted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Re: Confused sequence.         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
Rod Parsons wrote:
The sequence is coats of plate, then full plate, then brigandines.


Not necessarily. From Claude Blair:

Quote:
A development from the coat of plates that remained in general use until the 17th century was the brigandine. The word first occurs in Italy in the second half of the 14th century


Also, he says:

Quote:
The brigandine was widely used by all classes throughout the 15th and 16th centuries.


So I stand corrected on that point, though it is strange to see portraits of so many nobles wearing full plate and not brigandines.


Chad,

You repeatedly infer knights and nobles wore a different scheme of armour than non-nobles and commoners. I think this misperception may instill the strangeness you mention. Knightly effigies tend to represent very wealthy or influential men at arms. Less wealthy men at arms, whether knighted or not, are not well represented in funerary monuments. But we know many of them wore good plate. (Hawkwood's White Company is a convenient example.)
We may also be assured that good birth did not guarantee wealth. (second sons, et cetera) Likewise very wealthy merchants, even ones known to own and wear rich armours in their lifetimes, are represented in civilian dress on their effigies. When we draw information from than monumentary evidence, we should be careful not to read too much into the distinction it presents. Some of the presentation is social tradition.

In the case of the Howard inventories detailed by Bob Reed, values for brigandines purchased varied significantly. Brigandines weren't cheap stuff. Padded jacks were. Some retainers must have been very important compared to others. Perhaps the expensive ones were intended as gifts to influence the recipient? Who knows? Wink
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joe Fults




Location: Midwest
Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,646

PostPosted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 10:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Interesting discussion, all I can contribute is the observation that I'm a brigandine fan. Don't have one yet, but someday I hope to be able to afford one.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Thu 22 Jun, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As Kel said, portraiture can be misleading. There is a tendency which is still seen today for men of importance to be portrayed with their highest status clothing. The portraits of businessmen, politicians or generals tend to show them in suit and tie or in dress uniform, respectively. Even if this isn't what they wore most working days, or even disliked wearing, this is how they are shown.

Like Jean, I recall accounts of men wearing brigandines under conditions when battle was not expected because it was more comfortable.
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Fri 23 Jun, 2006 6:55 am    Post subject: Re: Confused sequence.         Reply with quote

Kel Rekuta wrote:
In the case of the Howard inventories detailed by Bob Reed, values for brigandines purchased varied significantly. Brigandines weren't cheap stuff. Padded jacks were. Some retainers must have been very important compared to others. Perhaps the expensive ones were intended as gifts to influence the recipient? Who knows? Wink


Indeed a lord of the 15th century would want to equip his household retainers well not only to keep them alive but to show off how rich he is. Levied soldiers would likely have a jack, many muster rolls show that men show up with their own equipment and towns who supply men often have a supply of Jacks and Salleds for them. The Strykelande muster roll shows that the majority of the men showed up with harness or a Jack.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Fri 23 Jun, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The CoP, as far as i know, was never a "primary" armour, but used in conjunction with mail or gambeson. Over all, it is cheap and simple to make, but has limited coverage and makes you look like a barrel.
The brig, on the other hand, can be tailored to a greater extent, be covered in velvet, and otherwise make you look right dandy. A factor which should not be underestimated in any way.
The brig also requires less skilled labour to make than a solid breastplate; if nothing else, the fact that it does not need to be finished and polished saves a lot of armourer/hours. Riveting can be done by pretty much anyone with a little experience with metalworking.
But over all, I'm partial to the aesthetic explanation. They just plain thought it looked good. As for protection value, a brig would probably stop most swings and thrusts, at least well enough that poor protection would not be a reason not to wear one... Wink

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 23 Jun, 2006 7:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wow now I thought the armour penetration by the longbow and crossbow was a complicated one. I think this is as was stated before not a simple they made A first then B then C. From what I can tell some knights did indeed use Brigandines but that is not a good indication that it took precidence over plate breastplates nor that it was more protection, which I do not think is true as you still would take more impact from the attack. Many upper merchants in the larger cities of England bought up smaller numebrs of breastplates and large numbers of brigs and jacks, likely for their housemen, the nicer plate armour for themselves. I do not think the brig was ever in the place of plate armour but beside it, indeed in the end of Henry VIII reign the jack of plates is replaced by the almaine rivet. I think Bob Reed took more impact from the bow he was shot with in his brig than if he had been in a plate breastplate. John Talbot did in deed wear a brig in that occasion but do not forget two keys to it. One he was supposedly forbidden to go armed into France again, two he was killed in this occasion, which fits in with the common knightly urban myth-like rumor of the importance of wearing your armour or else.... In the end the size of plates does not seem a good indication of definition so perhaps they are one item in the same at different periods of time in more evolved form. The penny for example was called the Styca to the Anglo-Saxons and then became the penny, both were forms of currency of silver about the same size.
In the end I personally think if one wore a brig/COP over plate breastplate depended on a number of factors, economics, comfort, distance traveled, expecting heavy fighting, among maybe a score more, if you are a wealthy kngiht you can have a few suits for light skirmishing lying about. Now I have to say in the 1350's and 1360's it seems that the Prince Edward is giving away alot of COP's from his friends at a time he just bought a large number of breastplates. It seems that these items are being given away as they are not as useful to him at that point. It would be strange if these items were still better than his breastplates for him to be giving them away, although he coudl just be very generous as he gives away a few breastplates as well, though in the end he gives away at least 50-60 COPs.
One issue is the term Coat of Plates (COP). In all the documents I have seen they are refered to as 'plates' or pairs of plates. Recently someone was convincing me Pairs of plates could be breast and back plate reference so perhaps the last should be omitted but I am not sure still as they are listed seperate at times from the other breastplates. I think brigandine comes into term in the 15th so perhaps evolution of the same thing?
In the end still an interesting post.

Randall
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Fri 23 Jun, 2006 11:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is one example of a brigandine with a lance rest attached and we have art with mounted men wearing them in the 15th century. The idea that a man at arms or a knight would not wear one is a bit far fetched.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Coat of Plates vs. Brigandine
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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