Just some fun facts about the corrazinas no one will care about

[Grytviken]

The Met armor isn't the only example with straps on the front. And this armor style would have started becoming more prevalent towards the end of the medieval era to wealthy mercenaries and bands that didn't have the manpower or option to take servants. The Republic of Venice and Genoa for example fielded some galley crews ( think modern day Marines ) of professional mercenaries who protected their holdings in Greece and the Eastern Med and that fought in various battles/campaigns vs the Ottomons/ rival Italian states towards the end of the medieval era/ early renaissance who weren't from any knightly orders.

Full Plate Armor overall was already falling out of use by this time in the way we saw it in the medieval era as it was just too cumbersome and unpractical to use, even those who could afford it weren't using it.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Leshma]

why these constant snide remarks? you dont gain anything from it other than maybe making yourself feel better

i'd say something but then uther would mute me so i'll stay silent instead

[Deus Immortalis]

The Met armor isn't the only example with straps on the front. And this armor style would have started becoming more prevalent towards the end of the medieval era to wealthy mercenaries and bands that didn't have the manpower or option to take servants.

Yes... and no. You see, the Corrazina is a later 14th and early 15th century armor. It was a knightly armor, and it had the straps at the back.
What you're referring to is a later development of the corazzina, known as the brigandine. It was an infantry development, with two main differences. While the corrazina became the solid breastplates you see in the 15th century, the brigandine went the other way and had tons of small plates, which was easier to make. It was generally an infantry armor, with the straps at the front. It is not the same armor, and should not be confused. It came a few decades later

Full Plate Armor overall was already falling out of use by this time in the way we saw it in the medieval era as it was just too cumbersome and unpractical to use, even those who could afford it weren't using it.

Oh no, it was definitely not. I don't know where you got that idea from. There's so much wrong with that sentence

Plate armor never actually fell out of use. Full plate harnesses did yes, but that was in the 17th century, not the 15th. And even so curaissers still used breastplates, and even some WW2 troops used heavy metal armor. The body armor worn today is still steel plates (unless you use kevlar).

"it was just too cumbersome and unpractical to use"

Said no one ever. That has ever used plate armor at least. It is neither cumbersome nor unpractical. A general 15th century suit weighed around 25-30 kg, and that's the mail and helmet counted too. The 30 kg was really only the Italian armors, since they for some reason still wore full mail shirts under their plate armors. Most other regions did only wear mail sleeves or voiders, which brought the weight down a few kilos

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The second part of it was that the weight was distributed naturally across your body. The breastplate is distributed mostly on your waist and a bit on your shoulders. The arm armor goes on the arm. The leg armor goes on the leg.

What this does is that you don't actually feel the weight excessively. You still tire faster than without wearing it, and movement is slightly limited. But to call it cumbersome? No, never

It was extremely practical too, being able to stop virtually any weapon, from lances to crossbows and even firearms if we're talking 16th century plate. Everyone who could afford it wore it.

And if you still don't believe me: just look at this guy go climbing, doing a sommersault and even a half flip in mid 15th century armor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

[Zimke Zlovoljni]

Since a own an armor (breastplate with backplate), I can tell you that I do not need help to put it on. As for weight, it lies on shoulders and waist, but also on you back as well, you can't really feel it much, it's like wearing a nicely fitted winter jacket. As for mobility, you can bend, tie your shoes, lie down, stand up, drink a beer, drink votka, drink mead, fall in grass, crawl back to your tent, no probs. Now, there are folks who have really bad armors and behave in them like bipedal turtles, and then draw conclusions from their experiences, but you know, fuck them.

[Deus Immortalis]

Since a own an armor (breastplate with backplate), I can tell you that I do not need help to put it on. As for weight, it lies on shoulders and waist, but also on you back as well, you can't really feel it much, it's like wearing a nicely fitted winter jacket. As for mobility, you can bend, tie your shoes, lie down, stand up, drink a beer, drink votka, drink mead, fall in grass, crawl back to your tent, no probs. Now, there are folks who have really bad armors and behave in them like bipedal turtles, and then draw conclusions from their experiences, but you know, fuck them.

Yeah, wearing it beats speculating. Thinking of getting my own in the future, however I still am not sure whether to go for a early-mid 15th century English style or a mid-late 15th century Milanese suit. Of course, I'll have to buy it gradually, since they're expensive as hell, but it will be worth it if I do. Some pics (first is English, second is Milanese):

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Leshma]

Well if Zimke says it isn't too heavy I'll believe him because he's built like 15th century peasant, maybe a little bit heavier. I doubt those 1.5-1.6m on average peasants weighted more than 50 kgs on average and 30 kg of armor should be heavy on them. Knights could be better build and bulkier, a bit like Zimke.

[Tristan_of_Erzoth]

Since a own an armor (breastplate with backplate), I can tell you that I do not need help to put it on. As for weight, it lies on shoulders and waist, but also on you back as well, you can't really feel it much, it's like wearing a nicely fitted winter jacket. As for mobility, you can bend, tie your shoes, lie down, stand up, drink a beer, drink votka, drink mead, fall in grass, crawl back to your tent, no probs. Now, there are folks who have really bad armors and behave in them like bipedal turtles, and then draw conclusions from their experiences, but you know, fuck them.

I own a brigandine and can get in and out of it myself if I'm not being lazy. Sometime I feel like I run even faster in it because of the extra momentum for the weight

[Grytviken]

Oh no, it was definitely not. I don't know where you got that idea from. There's so much wrong with that sentence

Plate armor never actually fell out of use. Full plate harnesses did yes, but that was in the 17th century, not the 15th. And even so curaissers still used breastplates, and even some WW2 troops used heavy metal armor. The body armor worn today is still steel plates (unless you use kevlar).

"it was just too cumbersome and unpractical to use"

Said no one ever. That has ever used plate armor at least. It is neither cumbersome nor unpractical. A general 15th century suit weighed around 25-30 kg, and that's the mail and helmet counted too. The 30 kg was really only the Italian armors, since they for some reason still wore full mail shirts under their plate armors. Most other regions did only wear mail sleeves or voiders, which brought the weight down a few kilos

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The second part of it was that the weight was distributed naturally across your body. The breastplate is distributed mostly on your waist and a bit on your shoulders. The arm armor goes on the arm. The leg armor goes on the leg.

What this does is that you don't actually feel the weight excessively. You still tire faster than without wearing it, and movement is slightly limited. But to call it cumbersome? No, never

It was extremely practical too, being able to stop virtually any weapon, from lances to crossbows and even firearms if we're talking 16th century plate. Everyone who could afford it wore it.

And if you still don't believe me: just look at this guy go climbing, doing a sommersault and even a half flip in mid 15th century armor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

I've read accounts of the siege of Constantinople, and other various military actions around the time, the Spanish conquests of the Americas etc, Full plate was too cumbersome that's why it fell out of use.  Few Full suits of plate were unearthed in Venetian holdings in the Med, these were ceremonial suits showing off wealth status for Captains and Governors. Just because someone can use it without a problem for a short amount of time comfortably in a youtube video or HEMA competition doesn't mean the weight won't exhaust you over time. For example most people considered in good shape today couldn't last 10 minutes in a boxing ring wearing nothing, wearing 30kg + of armor would quickly exhaust you in melee combat no matter how evenly the weight was distributed or how good of shape you are in, it was only ever practical to use full plate on horseback.

Also when only 1-2% of the population could afford a full set of plate armor around it's hayday of popularity it's not surprising to read that in the late medieval era even those who had access to it could still prefer a mail shirt or just a cuirass instead given circumstances. A siege or military campaign could involve vast amounts of marching and physical labor. You would need servants to carry it everywhere for you or some place to store it, it's logistically cumbersome for everyday military tasks.

  Very few Kingdoms or states could support a sizable contingent of fully plated nobles for prolonged warfare. France, Spain and some very rich and corrupt City-States in the Italian Wars come to mind and they faired well in some battles, but in the big picture they were still a very small minority of all troops involved. When laws were abolished and violated prohibiting the use of gunpower, artillery and other ranged mechanisms, full plate quickly became obsolete again. ( These laws were purposely made to rig the economy for armor smiths and mercenaries who were war-profiteering for their city states by creating rules of war in their favor ) To counter these violations armor smiths started to make plate armor heavier and thicker, and this caused the need for their Armies to start breeding stronger, larger but slower cavalry horses to sustain the increased weight of the plate armor but in the end it didn't matter. The Spanish were employing lighter faster horses to outflank them and using more and more gunpowder weapons. Castilian lanceros were able to take the helmet off a French or Italian Knight's head at a full gallop killing them instantly before they even had a chance to react or defend themselves. Their heavier and stronger plate armor couldn't even protect them from a lance meanwhile a gun.


Also later in the medieval ages armor was either fitted or crafted for general use. General use armor would not be nearly as protective or comfortable ( Only the very richest nobles / mercenaries could afford personally fitted plate ). Another thought on the front straps is that as general use armor became more widely available something like front straps for fitting non-tailored armor would have saved soldiers alot of money and labor, it also may have allowed second hand armor to be utilized more effectively. Fitted armor for a noble probably wouldn't have had or needed them.

[Deus Immortalis]

I've read accounts of the siege of Constantinople, and other various military actions around the time, the Spanish conquests of the Americas etc, Full plate was too cumbersome that's why it fell out of use.  Few Full suits of plate were unearthed in Venetian holdings in the Med, these were ceremonial suits showing off wealth status for Captains and Governors. Just because someone can use it without a problem for a short amount of time comfortably in a youtube video or HEMA competition doesn't mean the weight won't exhaust you over time. For example most people considered in good shape today couldn't last 10 minutes in a boxing ring wearing nothing, wearing 30kg + of armor would quickly exhaust you in melee combat no matter how evenly the weight was distributed or how good of shape you are in, it was only ever practical to use full plate on horseback.

Full plate fell out of use because armies got centralized, not because it was unpractical. When the state started to hold a regular army which got paid, and which had the profession of being soldiers, they realized that they could really not afford to give people armor. So what they did was give people guns instead. Because guns were cheap and required minimal training. Cuirassiers, which were the wealthy bunch, still wore bulletproof breastplates.

I'd really like to take a look of those accounts of yours.

Sure, you will get exhausted over time, but so will you without wearing armor. And if you're gonna get exhausted anyway, might as well do it boing protected from 99% of the hits you will receive. And it really isn't 30kg +, it's more like 30kg -
Especially if you count the various mercenaries who would only use parts of a full plate harness.

The english knights would like to differ about that horseback thingy. During the Hundred Years War, they mostly fought on foot. And know what? Their armor was heavier than most around during that time. History doesn't agree with you

[Grytviken]

Full plate fell out of use because armies got centralized, not because it was unpractical. When the state started to hold a regular army which got paid, and which had the profession of being soldiers, they realized that they could really not afford to give people armor. So what they did was give people guns instead. Because guns were cheap and required minimal training. Cuirassiers, which were the wealthy bunch, still wore bulletproof breastplates.

I'd really like to take a look of those accounts of yours.

Sure, you will get exhausted over time, but so will you without wearing armor. And if you're gonna get exhausted anyway, might as well do it boing protected from 99% of the hits you will receive. And it really isn't 30kg +, it's more like 30kg -
Especially if you count the various mercenaries who would only use parts of a full plate harness.

The english knights would like to differ about that horseback thingy. During the Hundred Years War, they mostly fought on foot. And know what? Their armor was heavier than most around during that time. History doesn't agree with you

Was it really the English Knights who carried the day at Agincourt?    Or was it the horde of naked archers who more or less executed the exhausted Fully Armored French Knights who were stuck in the mud dying of heat exhaustion?

Again i'm not saying plate is totally useless, it's just far more exhausting and has many more drawbacks then people tend to describe. The French were absolutely slaughtered at Agincourt mainly due to exhaustion. Obviously it offers better protection, but by no means protects you from from 90% of danger on the battlefield.

Here is just a small list


1. Falling off your horse in 30-60kg of armor/equipment at a gallop would at the least leave you completely out of action but probably outright kill you.

2. Bad peripheral vision

3. Exhaustion

4. Priority target

5. Greatly reduces your chances to retreat or fall back if on foot

6. Way more exhausting march to the battle, your legs will probably be jelly by the time you reach the enemy lines if you are attacking on foot.

7. http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm#.WtmAEIjwaUm You can read here how easily people can be felled in full plate, knocked unconscious, grappled etc. You are far from invulnerable just because you have plate armor, and these were just 1v1 duels.

[Deus Immortalis]

Was it really the English Knights who carried the day at Agincourt?    Or was it the horde of naked archers who more or less executed the exhausted Fully Armored French Knights who were stuck in the mud dying of heat exhaustion?

Again i'm not saying plate is totally useless, it's just far more exhausting and has many more drawbacks then people tend to describe. The French were absolutely slaughtered at Agincourt mainly due to exhaustion. Obviously it offers better protection, but by no means protects you from from 90% of danger on the battlefield.

Here is just a small list


1. Falling off your horse in 30-60kg of armor/equipment at a gallop would at the least leave you completely out of action but probably outright kill you.

2. Bad peripheral vision

3. Exhaustion

4. Priority target

5. Greatly reduces your chances to retreat or fall back if on foot

6. Way more exhausting march to the battle, your legs will probably be jelly by the time you reach the enemy lines if you are attacking on foot.

7. http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm#.WtmAEIjwaUm You can read here how easily people can be felled in full plate, knocked unconscious, grappled etc. You are far from invulnerable just because you have plate armor, and these were just 1v1 duels.

Yes, the knights played a big role in Agincourt.  And the french knights were not 'dying of heat exhaustion', instead they stupidly charged the well entrenched positions of the english, through muddy ground. That's a death trap whether you wear armor or not. And the archers were not the only ones there, surprise. The English dismounted knights helped a fair bit.

1. Stop saying 30-60. It's 25-30 at max. And no, it won't kill you. People fall of horses all the time in jousting armor, which is quite a bit heavier. They're fine.

2. Yes, I totally agree. That is, with the visor down. Which was likely only done in lance charges and when getting shot by arrows. Otherwise, the visors were up.

3. Not enough for it to matter over the protection you get

4. Not really. In fact, the armor says "Don't kill me, I have lots of money. Ransom me!" Sure, a priority target. But for other reasons. And that still doesn't mean they'd actually be able to do anything to you. Especially if they were peasants. Wouldn't stand a chance.

5. No it doesn't

6.You don't march with armor on, you march with the armor off. Then you put the armor on, and go to battle. And even if you did march with it on for whatever reason, it would be fine. Just ask anyone who owns an authentic set. An authentic set, not a cheap badly made one.

[Dalhi]

Didn't the knights kill each other squires during the battle and than in the evening share the stories of killing whose poor peasants while drinking ale?

[Deus Immortalis]

Didn't the knights kill each other squires during the battle and than in the evening share the stories of killing whose poor peasants while drinking ale?

Not at all

Not saying they were the greatest people out there, but they certainly would not kill each others squires. Especially when the squires were generally of noble blood, and future knights or men-at-arms themselves

[Dalhi]

But someone has to die in the battle, so didn't the knights show off their shiny armors while squires kill each other so the knight could tell the stories of their squire death in the evening while drinking ale?

[Torben]

Deus,  thanks for this thread,  rly fun read!

Gryt,  you are getting off topic and trying to use arguments that arent valid to the subject,  although making some good points - just not to the underlying discussion of combursome armor.

two things Id like to mention after reading:  go to venice and check out its armory,  its huge and has beautiful and weird shit!

also,  read about Haselrigs lobsters,  a fully plated unit that absolutely ruled the battlefield - in the 17th century!