German vs. Italian armor styles, circa 1470, Which do you prefer?

little tip, you CAN break your neck when falling from horse even with an armet.

And the Avant armor originally had an armet. The armet is still in the Churburg, the guy who bought it in the '70s simply insisted that he gets the barbute. Maybe he didn 't like armetsā€¦

a dat brigandine! Please guys, stop believing brigandines are some thing beneath a plate cuirass that they are cheaper and offer less protection. This is absolute rubbish! Making a brigandine takes far more time than forging a single piece breastplate. There is a good reason why all the folks walked around with breastplates and the high quality brigandines were worn by nobility. (Note: I 'm talking about 1470, where the brigandine was fully developed, very small plates etc. etc.)

At 1403 breastplates were quite common. I 'm convinced they were the bigger part of torso protection. Moving away from the coat of plates towards armor which doesnā€™t need a fabric cover to work. Btw. tassets at 1403 would be VERY rare, mostly you find skirts on illustrations. Be it lamellar or plate rows overlapping each other, just like back and front on late gothic armor, but mounted to a textil cover. Wait i got a picture :wink:

It 's dated to 1380, but can still be found at later date.
[Munich Breastplate][1]

and this one is from the Churburg dated to 1410,

Slightly later, what also can be found in KCD is this piece. Look at the similarity, the armorer just added 3 strips, that 's it. :smile:


[1]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomas-b/sets/72157629656588156/

do you have some sources you state your price calculation on?

Polishing could cost up to 80% of the cost: Building Medieval Plate Armor: An Operatorā€™s Guide by Dr. Tobias Capwell

Knightly Milanese armor cost about 8 pounds in 1441: English Weapons & Warfare, 449-1660, A. V. B. Norman and Don Pottinger, Barnes & Noble, 1992 (orig. 1966) page 112

I donā€™t believe at all that Brigandine is inferior, however, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, it has a lot more leeway than a cuirass when it comes to fitting, therefor is easier to mass produce. Second, the quality and size of the plates varied a lot, sure there were top-tier brigandines for nobility, but there were also some pretty shoddy ones for common infantry that we have extant examples of.

Ah Toby againā€¦ -.- wish he at least would have ever used a hammer in his lifeā€¦ (WARHAMMERS DONā€™T COUNT!) 80% is to much, even for ā€œback thenā€. It is more like 30-40%, people always think it is hard to get a good polish on steel without electricity and modern tools, but some folks prove otherwise. In fact they could have been faster as we are nowadays.

Thanks for the second source! :smile:

The thing with the fitting is the following. When you buy armor where do you go? You either go to the armorer himself and order something or you go to some guy who sells the armorers stuff. In the first way it will be likely made to your measures in the second you can pick out of dozens of pieces, like there are 100 breastplates and you have to find one that fits. In bigger cities where armor-merchants sold their stuff this was probably the common way. So you probably found something that fit you.

Mass produce brigandines and mass produce breastplates are very very different things. The breastplate is quicker and easier to make. Brigandines just take to long. Have you ever made a coat of plates? No? I did, it was one piece similar to the visby coat of plates and it still took forever. As the fabric had to be 100% perfect, I had to watch out during riveting not to get any scratches in it. And all those damn rivets, and a brigandine has far more than those coat of plates. Mass produce breastplates using waterpowered hammers as it was down in milan since the 14th century is the easiest thing to do. And that 's what they did. There is a simple reason why the breastplates take over in the 15 century, they are cheaper and can be produced quicker. This already counts in 1403.

Woah there, friendo, where are your sources? This is the precedent you set, now give me the sauce.

Especially for this one.

And this one too.

And donā€™t try and come at me with anecdotal crap, either. Your name is Plattnerlehring, not Plattnermeister, no one cares about your experiences in making brigandines.

Also, I notice that you keep saying breastplate, instead of cuirass. It is silly to compare a full brigandine to just a breastplate. We need to compare armors that have the same coverage, which means we need to be talking breastplate, backplate, plackart, and fauld.

Experience, that 's my source. Let 's say you need 8 hours to form a single piece breastplate, with cutting, dishing, rolling edges, and adding holes (hammered by hand & waterpowered hammer). And these are 20% of the work. So you would need !36! hours for grinding and polishing. This is to much. You have so called handfiles and later waterpowered stonewheels for rough grinding and need another two or three steps for a shining (not mirror-like) surface. Andrej Pfeiffer Perkuhn does demonstrations from time to time how to polish armor with leather and abrasive.
Starting on page 77 of ā€œIron Documents. Interdisciplinary studies on the technology of late medieval European plate armour production between 1350 and 1500ā€ you can read more about polishing. I believe there also was something in ā€œThe knight and the blast furnaceā€, but Iā€™m not sure. Reitzenstein, ā€œDie NĆ¼rnberger Platterā€, S.711, writes also about polishing mills.

ā€œin fact they COULD have been fasterā€¦ā€ didnā€™t say they were. But I believe if you do nothing else than polishing steel, you will get really quick, compared to us modern armorers who also have to do all the other work. Practice makes you quick.

Do you want a source for the fact that breastplates take over in the 15 century? Every ā€œZeughausinventarlisteā€ (= arsenalinventorylist) there is.
Or do you want a source that breastplates in 1403 were made quicker than coat of plates? For this, ask any random armorer you want. You are ALWAYS faster with dishing a breastplate.

Ok, if you want to compare a cuirass and a brigandine, have a look. This is a simple cuirass from 1480, now in the Metropolitan.

and this is a brigandine of similar date, from the ā€œBurgunderbeuteā€ in Basel, 1470s. (Sorry for the bad quality, the light there was really low, as not to stress the fabric)

I can break my neck by falling over as well, it is just reduced by an armet, naturally. Also, Barbutes offer protection and visibility. Hence why they were popular. But yes, you are right.

yeah, you 're right. It just sounded to me like ā€œif you fall with an armet your neck will breakā€. And barbutes were very popular in italy. That 's true, but not for knights. They did own them, but it doesnā€™t make sense to ride against some guy with a lance, when you can 't protect your face. The condottiero had their shields, but the knights didnā€™t, that 's probably the reason why barbutes were worn by riders only for parade.

2 Likes

Yes exactly! In your case, jousting in an barbute wouldnā€™t be very wise. Iā€™d say a barbute is more infantry based where field of view is needed and face slashes and hits are more common. An armet is the higher class of a barbute in my eyes (being knightly, unlike a barbute which suits a man-at-arms better) and designed for warfare and adjusted for jousts by adding a bevor. I mean seriously, it is practically a fashion statement when it comes to wearing an armet. Same for any late armour really. Just, an armet is way more fashionable than a sallet :stuck_out_tongue:

Just, an armet is way more fashionable than a sallet

YOU DARE COMPARE THE BEAUTY OF A SALLET TO THE LOW-BORN PEASANT THAT IS AN ARMET!? You mock me sir!

P.S. Yes, I am attempting at humor. :joy: You just sparked my love for sallets with your comment.

1 Like

No. I do not compare a sallet to an armet as an armet has no equal. The sallet is in fact worn by thy low born peasantry scum. Only the boldest of the nobility dare wear an armet for it is better protection than having a holy saint sit upon thy head! :stuck_out_tongue:

Sallets have nothing on this helmet.

This helmet is better in terms of weight and protection, and it looks way better.

3 Likes

Luckily Iā€™m from germany and doesnā€™t have to choose. Sallet, as armets werenā€™t in use where Iā€™m from. :slight_smile: Also I would look horrible in an italian suit Iā€™m much to thin for an italian harness. (No kidding, I have the perfect figure for german late gothic armor, but italian would look horrible on me :smiley: )

As a German? You still had way cooler helmets than a sallet! :stuck_out_tongue:

personally i wouldnā€™t wear a full suit of plate. i would just run around with a full plate cuirass (probbly Italian style) with a Gambeson and a kettle helm. the rest i will probably just use some thicker leather to cover. it would save me a pretty penny and plus i donā€™t plan on getting too close i am just gonna stick to the archers and crossbowmen.

2 Likes

way cooler helmets than a sallet!

YOU SPEAK MADNESS! ABSOLUTE UNCONTROLLABLE MADNESS!

1 Like

My sallet is going to be awesome :stuck_out_tongue:
@fib118 leatherā€¦ noā€¦ no leather. Bullshit, no leatherarmor at 1470. Itā€™s simple as that. Textil armor can be found, like this dated to 1430-40, in Stendal.

Some paintings like this one from the Ursula shrine show the above mentioned type and that white one with a square pattern.


The only source for leather used for armor-purpose in the 15th century I know of is a book. Somewhere from france, where it is written that they reinforced textil armor with deer-leather and are praising how good they protect from arrows.

Liked only for italian style.

No you do! Sallets are soooooo last year :stuck_out_tongue: