Brigandine vs Plate Armor vs chain mail - protection / damage

Hello fellow knigths,

as far as i found armour (to expensive for me atm) in the game so far, the brigandine seems to be straigth better than the plate armor. Isn’t this unrealistic?
A good plate armor should be nearly inpenetrable to hand weapons and bows. Also a plate armor shouldn’t get damaged easy, only very ligth dents from strong blunt force. I remember a situation where i shoot with my beginner bow on an enemies shoulder plate and it got a BIG dent where it shouldn’t even get scratched.
An the other hand a brigandine would get damaged very easy by cutting the outer layer.

I’m still at the start of the game and most of the time i wear 0% chain mail. The mail shirt get’s damaged much to easy. I real life it wouldn’t matter if a few rings get damaged but in this game, after every fight with 2 guys i have to completely overhaul the armor… this is just to expensive.

1 Like

You my friend Just started a discussion Like “But i’ve Seen this in History Channel”, “No i’ve Seen that Test on YouTube” and “its prooven that…”, Most of that by people who Just dont have the scientific knowlege to state Whats right or wrong. Even historians are discussing theese aspects and have different opinions.
And the Lack of knowlege will probably be supported by insults :wink:


Warhorse did spend a lot of time testing armor and weapons to get the best feel for the realistic, the actual realistic values of armor and weapons against. They have videos and posts all about it.

fact over therory on their part and I appreciate every bit of it.

1 Like

I actually saw a video where they put an expensive historic accurate plate armor against an english longbow with (i think it was) 180 pound. The longbow wasn’t able to penetrate or dent the armor. It just made a little scratch. If you consider, that plate armor could even withstand some modern pistole rounds from penetrating… :wink:

1 Like

I’m interested! Where can i see this videos?

One moment let me find links Scroll to the bottom

Hope this helps


1 Like

@MasterBurte And thats exactly what i’m talking about. There are so many Tests Claiming to be historically acurate, you can Just find the one that Suite you best. It’s Like the Longswords vs. Katana Thing.
I’m Not saying you’re Test is wrong by any means, i got my opinion on all of These topics i Just dont Like to discuss them in a Forum because some people really get butthurt and then there’s insults all over again.
The only Thing we know for Sure (and every serious Test, Historian and reenacment whatsoever should clearly state this) is, that we can’t know for Sure. Wenn can investigate and Maybe geht Close to the truth But we can Not know for Sure and so there’s Always rooms for Interpretation.


The main difference between armor is mostly revolving around it’s purpose.

However, the difference in defensive values, commonly accepted by historian (i am one) differs wildly from era, location and timeframe. the French where known to make some of the best armours, the italian were pretty close as well and had some very interesting designs. the gothic and german armour it too had some merits, but each ‘style’ differed in it’s factors defined by whom they expected to fight against, what types of weapons, the fighting style, horseback on not, etc… For instant, the french knight where much more willing to fight on foot - something that reflects in the design in comparison to the gothic style.

However, simply saying X is better than Y is wildly wrong. it would be like saying “Bullpup rifles are better than then revolvlers.” different ideology, with different design and reasons.

Insofar as brigandine is concerned, that mostly evovled out of poorer people, who could not afford armour, just riveted, sowed or otherwise attached plates (not always uniform is thickness or size - or even matierial) to a leather sheet, or other material. Over the years, and by the time this game happens, the brigandine fill in the roll of a cheaper version of plate, with advantages in flexibility (but a good plate specificly made for a person would have almost no problem in flexibility) and a few other areas. The technology for making brigandine evovled to the point where was not considered a ‘poor man’s amor’.

What i am saying here, is that there is no better. Like the sword vs katana thing that dacrimal referred to above - they are different with different ideologies and reasons for making them the way there are. Simply put, you cannot compare katanas and longswords, bastard swords or otherwise and claim one is better. They are different and are not filling the same specific role. The same aplies to armor, they are both different and apply and use vastly different concepts that give rise to a piece of armour with different attribute and strengths.

edit: also I would like to add that mail was very goot for defense against slashing, but almost useless against any sharp points such as arrows, bolts, etc… However, gambersons (or alternatively spelled gambeson) were very good at stopping arrows. These were usually home made by the solider himself or his wife/mother and thus varied significantly in construction and quality. Some used different formulas - tight sheets of linen sown together, others added a couple layers of leather, others added padding and fillers. So the combination of gamberson + mail (maille) gave the soldier a very good, all-round protection. However, and especially with crossbows, it did not always suffice. That is why we see a drastic increase in armor following the increasing spread use of the crossbow and other more powerful bows and missiles around the 12th century.

edit continued: in regards to the OP’s question above. my answer is no. They are different and not necessarily better. In-game this is not reflected as it is a vastly simplified version of real life attributes, concepts and otherwise. Though I think it is faithful in it’s representation of the basic role they fullfilled.

Plate is also much thinner then most realise and can be easily dented. The main advantage usually arise from what we would now call a “deflection angle”. The bows and striges slide or bounce of rather then their force be complete absorbed. This allows for much lighter armour without compromising defence value to much. However, if struck at just the wrong blow, one can easily and severly dent plate armour. This is not true across all models and styles though but more of a ‘rule of thumb’.


Don’t let the guys there deceive you, Plate is obejectively the best protection. When it comes on how resistant some thing is the matter is entirely objective and fully independent of anyone’s opinions or feelings. Plate IRL is not only thougher (a single thicker piece of well treated steel) and also lighter, a brigandine is your budget option if you cannot afford plate.


There is not opinions or feelings here, its objective if something is tougher than some other thing and Plate definetely was the toughest armor. You would only wear a brigandine if you could not afford plate armor.

In this case plate is tougher than brigandines so they are wrong, don’t know why they made it like that tho.

This is not arts or anything like that, this is scientifically testable so there is no room for debates or opinions.

now that is a complete lie, plate is extremely hard to dent. The thougher ones (heat treated steel ones specially) are even almost impossible to dent, even by bludgeoning weapons and not simple arows.


I would not put too much historical facts about armour in this game. The mechanics how armour and clothing breaks are way more just a game mechanic and not close to a historical simulation. I am no weapon expert but I do work as a historian with main focus on Abrahamitic Religion-History. And I am certain that all historians in the world would agree that the damage system in regards to armor is not realistic in this game, but that is not an issue as it still works within the game context and the economy in the game.

Actually there is plenty of room for argument. Depending on time period, region and manufactorer you can have differing results. For instance, a well crafted Aachen type brigandine with plates made up of high quality plate armour could offer significantly more protection than a mid 15th century munitions grade plate armour. More mobility too. I would much rather have a bespoke brigandine than a generic one size fits all plate armour chestplate. Also as far scientific tests, there are too little to draw conclusive evidence. People like skallagrim and theng do impressive work but it is far from being scientifical. It seems to indicate a trend that I personally agree with and suspect it is the case but it wouldn’t be enough to get published and taken seriously. I devised several scientific experiments on this subject and compare the methodology to what is made and honestly, even academia historians fall short.

1 Like

There isn’t much brigandine in the game. There’s coats of plate in spades, which use large iron plates and are pretty protective, but inferior to basically all cuirasses in the game. The only brigandine in the game I can think of is the Aachen Brig set, which is just 20 armor. Menawhile the Milanese covered breastplate is 22 and the solid cuirasses are all superior.

There is a brigantine in the game that is 24 armor and comes in 3 “colors” very comparable to plate.
I wore it for a large part of the game until I acquired the Nurenburgrian 25 armor plate. chest off a bandit.

Dude, this thread has been abandoned in february… Don’t play a necromancer, just get over it.
And don’t tell me that there are “no feelings involved” on your side. Without giving proper sources your doing nothing more than stating an opinion. And this opinion doesn’t get true by just telling it’s true.

So the the brigandine was actually an evolution of the coat of plates, along with full plate harnesses.
In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries the armorsmiths of the time were messing around trying to make armor better. They came up with putting small plates into a coat basically, over time, as smithing became more advanced the coat of plates turned into the brigandine and the full plate harness.

The reason why one would wear a plate harness over a brigandine is obvious, better protection, hands down. A single, solid piece of metal is obviously better than one of many plates, the same reason why plate is better than mail for example. Yes I know they were used in conjunction, however the mail was just to fill in niches where the plate couldnt protect.

The reasons why one would wear a brigandine also exist. Cost, for one is a big factor, it would have been considerably cheaper to get a brigandine, middle class citizens would probably be able to afford one. Comfort, this is another one, where plate is horrendous to wear for extended periods of time, and if you dont have anyone to carry it for you, you have to wear it. For. The. Entire. Campaign. Also plate almost always requires someone to help you into it, whilst a brigandine was made to be able to be worn alone.

Tell me if i missed anything,