I don’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 again… -.- wish he at least would have ever used a hammer in his life… (WARHAMMERS DON’T COUNT!) 80% is to much, even for “back then”. 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! 
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 don’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 “Iron Documents. Interdisciplinary studies on the technology of late medieval European plate armour production between 1350 and 1500” you can read more about polishing. I believe there also was something in “The knight and the blast furnace”, but I’m not sure. Reitzenstein, “Die Nürnberger Platter”, S.711, writes also about polishing mills.
“in fact they COULD have been faster…” didn’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 “Zeughausinventarliste” (= 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 “Burgunderbeute” 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 “if you fall with an armet your neck will break”. And barbutes were very popular in italy. That 's true, but not for knights. They did own them, but it doesn’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 didn’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 wouldn’t be very wise. I’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 
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. 
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!
Sallets have nothing on this helmet.
This helmet is better in terms of weight and protection, and it looks way better.
3 Likes
Luckily I’m from germany and doesn’t have to choose. Sallet, as armets weren’t in use where I’m from. 
Also I would look horrible in an italian suit I’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 
)
As a German? You still had way cooler helmets than a sallet!
personally i wouldn’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 don’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 
@fib118 leather… no… no leather. Bullshit, no leatherarmor at 1470. It’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