[Richard Fay]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!

Here's an interesting reproduction of the appearance of a pair of Knights of Malta in uniform. I wouldn't swear to the accuracy of the details, but it gives you a general idea of how the tabard fit over armour, even armour with large pauldrons. This was taken from one of the web sites that I linked to earlier. Note the figure on the left:

[Richard Fay]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Ack! Late 17th-century Hospitalers!

[Richard Fay]

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!

I found an interesting painting of the Grand Master of the Order of St. John during the period of the siege of Malta, Jean de la Valette. It shows an alternative to the heraldic tabard or sopravest; the Grand Master has the Order's cross painted (and possibly engraved or embossed) right onto his breastplate. This is similar to that seen on the effigy of Don Juan de Vergara, Proctor of the Langue of Castile from 1575. I'm not sure if the painting is contemporary with the siege of Malta, but it's a good visual representation of the sort of thing seen on de Vergara's breastplate.

Here's the information from the web site where I found the painting:

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Hello Fellows!
Take a look to this armour, i think that they would embose or engrave the cross instead of painting it, mayde painter painted it to make more visible the cross.
Iwouldn´t wear a tabard, i mean, iwould prefer an engraved cross insted of a loose supravest wich flies arroun me everytime i deliver a chop. Maybe, like cloacks, supravests were more important to wear during ceremonies, while not being an obligated ornament during battle.
Lucky of them that they didn´t need too much signals to realize who is a friend or who is a foe.

[Richard Fay]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Richard Fay]

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Mmm... that XVII century tabard doesn´t seems to be much loose, specially with those big pauldrons...
I´ve read before that Malta Knight´s half armours were for foot combat. And the Full ones for horsed combat. Please correct me if i´m wrong.
I think that an armour reflects your acquisitive power, so if a knight use a half armour, it´s becouse it was the best thing he could afford. There are a lot of full harnesses in Malta, i don´t think that a knight, knowing that legs armour don´t limit your movement, would buy a half armour if he could have a full one. I mean, if so, he would be sacrificing a lot of protection for a little more movement. You can make somersaults while wearing a full armour, so Why not buyng one if you have the money?
Both armours were designed for foot combat and there is not a huge difference of weight between them.

[Steven H]

Half-armour is not necessarily just about money. It does have practical advantages. While mobility with leg armour is not impaired much, one is still more mobile without it, especially because of the weight. There are plenty of accounts of knights and others who clearly owned full armour not using it when they didn't think they'd need it. A decision made because of the weight and heat exhaustion problems.

Full leg armour is certainly more practical and necessary for cavalry than for infantry.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

As leg armour doesn´t mean so much plus weight i don´t think that is much more mobility advantage, but a protction disadvantage. If you recive an harquebuz bullet shot in your toe or leg (Wich, if a far shooted not full powered bullet, will not cause any or much damage to you if using leg armour) without any protection, your mobility will decrease dramatically, believe me, it´s not like it´s said that you recieve a bullet shot or an arrow in your leg and you still can made rude Rambo stuff. You must be very unlucky to recive a shot in your toe, or leg (In Malta the Turks shoted thousands of rounds against them), but a sword or any other weapon can more easily harm them, in Flos Duellatorum, Dei Fiori says that if your opponent tries to hit hour head, hit his legs, and vice versa. Not even talking about the gonads!. i´m not saying that those men were weak, they were fighting for their faith and they would fight even if burned. See the example given by Richard in the other topic, it´s not about half armours, but pay attention to the ¨fanatism¨, or sense of duty of those knights.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, anybody wishing to make a practical comparison between half-armors and full suits of plate really ought to try those things out themselves. Half-armor is often made of thicker and heavier steel than full harnesses--trading coverage for increased strength and integrity. However, full harnesses aren't really all that comfortable either--and one of the most difficult things to adapt with is the sabatons. If you're not on horseback, they're a bit tiring to wear and also "enhances" the sensation of having a hot, sweaty foot. In fact, I have an amateur fancy to say that three-quarters armor might have been invented specifically to get rid of those sabatons.

After all, wouldn't we expect the Maltese defenders to spend at least part of their time fighting behind fortification walls? This would have helped compensate a great deal for the reduced coverage of half- and three-quarters armor.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

[Steve Grisetti]

[Rodolfo Martínez]

That´s right, the appearance of the fire guns triggered the decline of the armour, but the point is that during the siege of Malta both types of armour were still used. The Harquebuz shot is not very powerful at certain distance because the spherical bullet slows down very quickly. If there is a gun that truly put Gendarmes or any armored guy against the wall, were muskets, but they weren´t very common weapons during the early 1500. Maybe in Malta Turks used guns as powerful as muskets, but that scapes from my knowledge. There are some examples of cuirlass with bullet marks, i will post other one in the next post (But there are not full proof armours, it was more like making thiker the vital parts and the rest as it is). I´ve never seen a full suit with a proof breastplate, it might be any, i think that it was more a half armour business.
The horse armour was abolished during that century in countries like Spain, only letting it to be protected with frontal armour. But i don´t know if in Italy, France or Burgundy (Were i think that they were abolished too) were still used.
I have an italian´s horse armour from XVI century, but i´m not sure if it is from early 1500 or if wasn´t abolished in Italy.

Some days ago a friend told me that Samurai warriors, after having contact with portuguese, used to wear spanish breasplates (Only the richest ones could afford them), with bullet shot´s marks on them as a sign of proof armours. (That goes against the metal cutter katana myth too)

[Lafayette C Curtis]

*grins* And if you could have personal preference for full suits, then those 16th-century soldiers should be free to have personal preferences for three-quarters or half-armor too.