Sleeveless knee-length surcoat over full plate is crazy aesthetic.

The Burgundians did this a lot. I do like the look of a good coat of plates or even brigandine.

I can't believe nobody has responded to this! There's also the some what famous German lobster armor as well. Straight up heavy breastplates with a lower segmented piece. Crazy stuff in WWI, but they gave it up because it was too heavy and only caused issues. Troops hated the weight and awkwardness.

+SnowCrash That's certainly the most plausible theory I've come across.

+SnowCrash You can see a historical looking coat of plates in mount and blade

+SnowCrash I can definitely see that as the reason for the misunderstanding. Then things like that get perpetuated by the entertainment industry and it becomes ingrained in pop culture.

+Alexandros grivas There is brigandine, coat of plates, studded leather armor, and banded armor all in Mount and Blade

TotalBarbarian i know

+Christopher Hamilton Not technically a video about lamellar armor. So I think you are still waiting.

+Christopher Hamilton This is not a Lamellar. Lamellars are different.

+Christopher Hamilton nothing to do with lamellar armour ^^

+diskordianer Thank you!

+Zach Clark Thank you! Glad you're enjoying the videos!

😂

Underrated comment XD

Hee hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

+Almus Quotch I suspect the longevity of the coat of plates / brigandine is a testament to people enjoying its flexibility (although that's not the only reason). However, a solid breastplate is still going to provide more impact protection and make the wearer safer from harm than a series of small plates. I don't know that it's possible to quantify the exact advantage, but there's a reason solid plate becomes far and away the predominant protection.

+Reed Noss I don't play nearly as often as I used to, but thank you!

+Knyght Errant I've actually subscriebed to you because of you Heartbreaker solo 2 or 3years or more ago, since about a year and a half I am getting more and more into medival arms and armor so seeing you doing this on your cannel now is fantastic

+Dave Lillethun The distinction between brigandine and later coats of plates is not all that cut and dry. Medieval terminology is often very imprecise and fluid (and varies from place to place). I will do my best to point out some of the possible distinctions in the next video when I look at more advanced coats of plates.

+TanitAkavirius Medieval buff leather was still very flexible. We must be careful not to assume leather's properties were identical to what we use today. It's all in the tanning process. Medieval buff leather was tanned in a way that imparts incredible flexibility and pliability for high thickness. Besides, leather facing will still impart the flexibility of the leather to everything else because the rivets passed through both layers.

+Knyght Errant And again i learned something new and interesting. Thank you. Maybe you should make a video about leather at all. If they got it that soft it sounds like a completely different material. There has been also cuir bouilli or boiled leather which should have been used like plastic to decorate things. Also i met some guy who mad his shield out of several layers of rawhide. it was nearly indestructible compared to the wooden ones. so there should be great potential for a lot of interesting things to say.

Nighti88 I have a friend who has some modernly made 'buff leather.' I'll see about trying to obtain a sample to show.

+Knyght Errant Some interesting links i dug out about cuir bouilli to show what im talking about: www.jeanturner.co.uk/static-content/tutorials/CuirBouilliTechnique.pdf makersgallery.com/rexlingwood/waterer.pdf I dont know how much that has been used in the MA, but could be relatet to splinted armor. All that leatherstuff is a big topik...

+TeutonicEmperor1198 What are you referring to when you say they abandoned it?

Knyght Errant I am talking about the fact that the descendant of coat of plates was solid plate cuirass and not a series of overlapring ones!

+TeutonicEmperor1198 Oh ok, I see what you're saying. A large solid breastplate will still be more protective in general than a series of smaller plates, but if you're have to use smaller plates, overlapping them is superior to not overlapping them. Earlier in the 14th century they weren't able to produce large enough blooms of steel to manufacture big enough continuous plates to make full sized solid breastplates. As blast furnace technology improved, larger plates of steel could be made, and then you see the shift to solid breastplates.. Coats of plates and brigandine survive through the age of solid plate though, probably because they were easier to make from smaller pieces of steel..

Knyght Errant Ok,thanks a lot about your answer!can you say the same for the knee long articulated tassets,that were used by cuirassiers? Have they been less protecting than solid cuisses?

The less shaped the waist, the more weight is transferred to the shoulders.

Possibly, though it might also have had some defensive benefit, or was seen as bling-worthy. Deerskin is mentioned for covering jacks, and a leather cover was on the 12th century Dublin Gambeson. Additionally doe skin was used to cover bascinets and plates.

+Mart Shearer The right type of leather can be really tough, but I suspect it was way more expensive than simple textile. And more luxerious textiles like velvet or brocade are just more fashionable.

That's what I thought too. Leather would be super hard to repair once it is cut. You can stitch it but it'd never be the same. I think it would have been better at holding the rivets to the material. I do feel multiple layers of linen can be just as strong as leather. I feel people underestimate the strength of linen. Linen is much more repairable. But if the rich wanted rain cover you think they'd just put I leather coat over of some sorts. But who knows.

+Conor Hughes It's definitely more restrictive than a properly fitted solid breastplate, but it's likely a better alternative to not wearing it.

+Fingolfin74 There's such a tremendous gap between Roman plate armors and the re-emergence of plate armor in the late medieval that I hesitate to say they were evolutionary steps, more like a re-invention of the concept of plate armor. Although from my understanding, lorica and things like lamellar are construted via mechanical attachment to the other plates (or lamellae). This is fundamentally different than a coat of plates or brigandine where the structural component of the armor is the outer foundation garment.

+Graham Field Virtually all surviving coats of plates with the exception of one I can recall, which retain at least fragments if not complete foundations are composed of fabric. Even the Visby CoPs that have intact leather fragments seem to have textile *under* the leather (closest to the plates), so the leather was just acting as a shell, with the fabric as the undermost layer. Thordeman in Armour from the Battle of Visby asserts that leather could be the sole foundation, but offers little evidence.

+Knyght Errant Fabulous, other than Visby, do you have any further reading/source information for coats of plates so I can learn more?

Graham Field In the 'Part 2' video there's a link in the description to a nice album of the pieces of later CoPs from the Chalcis horde and various others where many have some really wonderful pieces of textile still intact If you track down some of those individual pieces you might find some better write-ups on them. . www.pinterest.com/knyghterrant/late-14th-early-15th-coats-of-plates-and-covered-a/

+KnightOfTheNight Thank you. Yeah me too, if you find a way, let me know! :)

And then he never did 😢

+HebaruSan It was, in fact, common practice to retrieve armor and weapons for reuse or resale, as well as to prevent their continued use by your enemies. The Battle of Wisby occurred in the heat of the summer, and several days of campaigning continued afterwards. It is thought the summer heat combined with the decaying bodies to make it undesirable to remove some of the body armor, though they did apparently take all the weapons and helmets. manuscriptminiatures.com/5715/21384/

+HebaruSan What Mart said. Helmets and weapons are easy to quickly remove from a rotting corpse. Torso armor is a bit more involved to remove, and wouldn't be very quick, so they were tossed into the pit along with the host body. One other piece of evidence that lends credence to the hasty burial theory is that there was at least one example I recall of a full coin purse being buried with the bodies, so people weren't spending time checking the bodies for valuables that weren't immediately available.

The hard part about making plate armour is making large plates. Making large plates required large blooms of iron as a starting point to avoid the need to forge weld into larger panels. Small pieces of iron could be more easily forged from farm scale smelting blooms. A full suit of plate armour was the equivalent of owning a Ferrari. (Which is appropriate because Enrico’s ancestors made armour (hence his surname)).

+macharim With a textile foundation, depending on the plate configuration, some of them will yield the same accordion style collapsing you see on later faulds. Coats of plates were generally worn in addition to padding and mail. Mail is not as effective against powerful piercing shots as you would expect from a lance for example. Rigid protection in the form of plates in addition to mail and padding is far more protective.

Knyght Errant Thank you, that explains it. I always forget that not all fighting was on foot :)

+ilikewasabe I wouldn't say it's to conceal anything. People should have been able to immediately recognize that there were armor plates riveted to the inside. I think it's more to protect the plates and provide a smoother surface to present to weapons. Plates on the outside would be very 'snaggy' for weapons.

+KalteGeist From my understanding the layers are simply riveted on without any adhesives. I don't know if the leather fragments on the few that even had any leather on them are in good enough shape to determine the thickness, but there's really no need for leather at all.

That's awesome to hear. Canvas is so much cheaper than leather, lol.

Hi! Those chains could be used for a combination of things. We see anywhere from one to sometimes four chains on coats of plates, and they would be used to retain the dagger, sword and great helm. Here you can see them going towards the weapons (effigiesandbrasses.com/2507/2925/) For the helm, it's often depicted in a lot of artwork worn slung over the shoulders when not in use, because it's not a very good helm for seeing and breathing. You could put it on during a cavalry charge, and take it off when not needed since it's worn over a smaller helmet anyway. If you look at surviving great helms, they often have little cut outs in the shape of a cross near the 'chin' and those are the holes where the chains go in, and a small toggle on the end of the chain prevents it from accidentally falling back out. In this image you can see one of the chains going up to his helm (manuscriptminiatures.com/4365/16836/). Here you can see it being worn on the back - (although the chains aren't visible) manuscriptminiatures.com/5434/17879/

Thank you very much for the answer.

It looks to be entirely based on the fantasy armor that Mel Gibson wore in Braveheart and has little to do with historical designs.

@@KnyghtErrant where can you recommend me 2 get an good brigade full combat approved to use full contact in Knight fight here in the US to purchase

All of the above as far as I know. Many survivals also show evidence of tinning as well to further protect the plates from corrosion.

Aces Low do you mean half swording?

+HIRVIism should be fixed now, thank you

+KorKhan89 Contemporary textual sources like wills and inventories refer to pairs of plates, and other such descriptions of plate defenses, but none that I'm aware of that describe cuir bouilli or other forms of leather, but I suppose it's a possibility.

Fair enough. I don't have enough knowledge of the sources to judge for myself. The only explicit references to cuir bouilli I know of are from the 14th century and all refer to arm and leg defences. I suppose the biggest bit of evidence for leather torso defence is the fact that we have the word "cuirass".

+KorKhan89 The 1322 inventory of Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of March includes three distinct body armors: ij. paribus de plates; j. quirre; ij. paribus lameriorum; (2 pairs of plate; 1 cuirie, i.e. leather body armor; 2 pairs of lamers, possibly scale armor).

+Mart Shearer Thanks, that's a good find; I just checked it out myself. Shame we don't have a closer description of what the armour actually looked like.

+klyana130 This is the forerunner to a stand alone solid breastplate. We'll look more at this evolution in part 2, but while one path went toward solid breastplates and eventually the full cuirass, coats of plates / brigandine armor still continued its own development.

Knyght Errant Thank you for the reply. Many of them look like continuations of Roman plated armour.

+Max The Gaming Man If you were of the knightly class, pairing your coat of plates with a set of mail sleeves and skirt, or a full haubergeon would have been normal. The further down the social ladder you go, the less likely you'd have a full kit.

+Matt Lentzner I thought one driving factor for rigid chest defense was high impact lance warfare, something that has only been around since the early middle ages and the development of stirrups and the couched lance. Mail is rather inadequate against these kinds of attacks, thus I would assume that this played its part in driving the development of more solid body defense.

+Ize Bird That would still put around 250-300 years between this high impact lance warfare you describe and the introduction of the CoP. I think it's no coincidence shields were rather large and common when mail + padding was the only body armor worn. I suppose people figured strapping some metal plates to the body could be more efficient than carrying a shield.

It is certainly not the only reason, just one factor which might have played a role from the top of my head.

+Ize Bird I would agree into the lance as a big problem for ring armor. Along with other piercing weapons like arrows and spears. Its not that hard to punch some rings open with a spiky thing. Maybe swords got more pointy at that time too? The other need for plate armor is the right technique to forge sheets of metal strong enough to be good as armor and cheap enough to be affordable. So the 250- 300 years have been used to invent weapons against ring armor and the time people need to recognize their armor is not good enough anymore.

Nighti88 swords did indeed get more pointy as time went on.

+Travis Blandford I'm always looking for decent reproductions to show you guys. If I can get my hands on some good lamellar, I'd be happy to talk about it.

+Hinterfragen! I appreciate the feedback, but I'm far more concerned with getting the information out. I don't always know exactly how I want to phrase things and I already spend enough time prepping for and making these videos that I'm honestly not too worried about it.

Knyght Errant It's fine, I just ment it at constructive critism. I watch your videos with passion, anyway ;)

+Nearoth The plates are worn close to the body, never on the outside of the foundation. Wearing them on the outside would cause weapons to snag and get caught on the armor. You want weapons to shed from the armor. I'm not sure why you think wearing the plates next to the body would cause injury to the wearer. They are smooth and don't present any edges to the wearer's body.

+Knyght Errant thanks for the responce. I've only worn chainmail so have no experience with other types of armor. It just seemed to present a pinching possibility, but it does make sense to keep it close. But do edges of the plates on the outside point up? And is this just because the top of the plates need to be riveted to the foundation that's on the outside? Was also wondering if the examples smaller plates are all overlapping in the same direction across the body (left to right) or are placed symmetrical? Again thanks for the responce and look forward to the second part.

The individual plates don't create enough of a gap for anything to get pinched in them. This would also typically be worn over at least a padded gambeson if not in addition to mail. Neither of those drape enough to get caught between plates. Yes, the plates ideally need to be riveted from the top edge. We'll take a look at a later style Coat of Plates in the next video that has a very large number of small plates in places, so maybe that will answer some more of your questions.

+Knyght Errant thanks I'll be looking forward to it. :-)

+Lord Shnitzel A lot of cultures had similarly constructed armors. My primary focus is Western European medieval.

+Lord Ultor While medievals differentiate at times, the boundaries between a lot of these things are a lot more fluid than we moderns prefer. We'll take a look at the perceived differences between brigandine and a coat of plates in the next video. Splint armor really refers to limb defenses that use rigid splints riveted to a foundation like a coat of plates, but for the limbs. Terms like 'scale mail' or 'splint mail' with the word 'mail' appended to them are kind of inventions of the gaming industry and a bit erroneous (Thanks Gary Gygax!) :)

+Knyght Errant While the terms certainly were popularized by gaming, I was under the impression that the misuse of the word 'mail' was actually a Victorian thing, and Gygax simply got them from outdated works. Is this not the case? I think that';s also the origin of fictional armor like ring-mail and studded leather (which is probably a misidentification of coats of plates from artwork). Where they got the idea of a buckler being strapped to your arm but not held, I have no clue, that's 180 from history.

+Knyght Errant Thank you! Your channel is a great source for fixing up all the misinformation that bad films and old RP games spreaded (and are still spreading) around!

+DoktorWeasel The term 'chainmail' from my understanding is a Victorian thing. I'm not sure about the origins of appending the word 'mail' as a suffix to everything else to imply a type of armor. Might be VIctorian as well, but I'm not sure. Gaming certainly made it transcend the history world.

+Cody Hettrick There is no way to know that. These are funeral effigies, i.e., carvings. They literally have no back.

+Knyght Errant is there any evidence to what the backs of later coat of plates of this type looked like? or is it mostly speculation?

+Cody Hettrick In the part 2 video you will see the backs of several later Coats of Plates. These were probably at least very similar, also similar to what you see on the front of the survival at 10:54 in this video.

+Knyght Errant Thank you, I hope that you are able to continue putting our quality material. This is definately one of the best channels I've seen that talks about this type of historical material.

+Cody Hettrick Thanks Cody, I appreciate the vote of confidence! :)

+Wille k I do plan on doing a video on lamellar at some point in the future, but I do not have access to a reproduction at the moment. Take Osprey's books with a grain of salt though, they often take great liberties in some of their representations of things. Visby #25 *is* lamellar armor (www.pinterest.com/pin/7881368072956495/). Visby #24 seems to have still been constructed like a coat of plates. The fundamental difference is that the CoP construction's primary structural component is the garment foundation itself, with all the plates being riveted to it. Lamellar, like Visby #25 is constructed by lacing all of the individual lamellae to each other.

+jaysbob Probably some kind of arming jacket (not for suspension, just padding) or something underneath to pad from blunt force, i suspect.

+jaysbob There's speculation about lining the inside, but no evidence that it was ever done. It would be worn directly over the hauberk.

In the case of militia and urban levies, they most likely went over an aketon. The knightly class could afford the double protection of haubergeon and plates.

+Knyght Errant How would you clean and maintain the plates if the plates are sandwiched? Seems inpractical to sandwich them.

Philip Dyer That's one of the reasons I don't think it was done.

+Hands on History Because that style of plates was fashionable on the late XIIIth century, and the battle of Wisby happened on the late XIVth century, when more fitting armours with wasp-like hips.

I think it's the same reason some poorer countries today still use "outdated" technologies and weapons like AKM and T-72 instead of more modern weapons like the AK-74 and T-90.

+Hands on History Visby is very special because many bodys have been buried in the armor. It was a very hot time of the year and they had to hurry up getting rid of the smelling corpses. The fashion style is compared to epitaphes and pictures of that time. since battlefield remains are rare we cant say how big the difference between art and reality has been.

+Hands on History The side that was defeated at Visby, and is therefore most well represented in the mass graves, was a populist army that was less well equipped and recruited from poorer classes of people than their opposition. So its a known fact that the equipment recovered at Visby was considered by contemporaries to be old-fashioned and out of date. On a related note, this phenomenon, of armor being used long after it ceased to be cutting edge, tends to prove that pedantic claims about anachronism in the mixing of different styles of armor from different periods in modern portrayals of history may be a little overblown. It seems clear that there was some overlap between the eras delineated by modern scholars.

+Thisold Hatte The way you explain it is a circular argument if i don't misunderstand you. The assumption they are poor peasants is proved by the poor armor and that the armor is poor is proof by the assumption they are poor peasants?

+serindas I'll talk about this in the next video, but there's a lot of overlap between the two.

Historically speaking my guess would be 18 to 16 gauge

seems thinner than a breastplate? i would have expected the opposite?

+Gloin79 maybe it would be thinner because you have to add the thickness (and weight) of the covering (textile, sometimes textile + leather). Also, Several plates built together on a support are heavier than a single solid breastplate. It's only a supposition though, I hope someone gives the real answer to this question ^^

@@AngelsArmour how many mm is that

@@cariopuppetmaster 1.2mm to 1.5mm about.

Those chains were in fashion for a relatively short period of time, maybe two or three generations. It seems likely that over time they proved more cumbersome than they were worth.

One of the ways we they tried to mitigate the risk of corrosion was by tinning the plates before riveting them to the fabric foundation. By coating the individual plates in a thin layer of tin, especially for the less accessible fabric-facing side of the plate, it became almost entirely rust-resistant. If the inside face of the plate lost the tin due to abrasion, it was at least more accessible for cleaning than the opposite face, which shouldn't have as much wear. We're also lot more squeamish about having to do heavy maintenance on our armor today than medievals were though. A piece of armor might only be expected to last you one battle, and if you're alive afterwards, it did it's job. The majority of coats of plates listed in inventories are usually listed with very stout but inexpensive fabric coverings like undyed hemp canvas, not the fancy velvets of the higher end examples, and since the ability to forge quality single piece breastplates didn't exist yet, the labor was worth the result.

thank you for the response. I had not thought of medieval metal plating (other than fancy work), silly me. I am more surprised by the idea of armor as disposable. I am thinking specifically of brigandine worn by common soldiers, would this have been cheap enough for a common soldier to replace every few battles (as might be necessary for a pikeman, spearman or other front-line soldier, I may be making an unfounded assumption here), the finds at Visby are referenced as being decades old at the time of the battle, would these not have been used and damaged in battle in that time. or are these the armors of soldiers that managed to avoid being hit and thus went home with undamaged armor. (probably hard to say for sure, the foundation garments are long rotted so we won't see signs of repair) this also brings up another question. there is an idea in the public consciousness that a full suit of plate took a very long time to make, D&D 3.5 full plate took about a year to make. is there any information on the actual time it would have taken to produce a chain shirt, brigandine or plate harness. in terms of hours labour and in terms of delivery time once ordered.

+Philip Dyer I don't understand what you're asking.

I why didn't you show how the overlapping stomach plates can flex into each other and the upper chest ribcage plates squeeze together?

+Philip Dyer The particular leather used on this example is a little too stiff to allow the plates to collapse on themselves if that's what you mean? This would work better with a textile based coat of plates, but even then it doesn't quite collapse as completely as a fauld would.

Thanks for the expo. Probably another reason to explain why leather wasn't as common as textile for a shell for COP, along with expense.

Probably from splint armor

super late but iirc the first mentions of coats of plates or armor similar to coats of plates referred to solid breastplates worn under one’s hauberk or surcoat to protect against lance blows, which seems like the natural progression from just mail when one is faced with the power of a couched lance. it could be that the plates were later segmented after encountering lamellar in the east, although in most early depictions the plates don’t appear to overlap as with lamellar. on the other hand, they might have simply been segmented to provide greater flexibility and comfort for the wearer. an interesting argument i’ve seen is that the early configuration of plates bears some resemblance to armor used by guards in china around or prior to that time, and that this knowledge was transferred from the mongols to europeans, but this seems unlikely.

+stephend50 If I'm not mistaken, the brigandine is a refinement of the coat of plates, with it having smaller plates in greater numbers and with a more anatomical fit

+melchaios It seems like the coat of plates evolved in two different directions: On the one hand, the plates merged together to form a breastplate and fould, ultimately dispensing with the backing cloth and giving us the famous 15th century plate armour. On the other, the plates became smaller and increased in number, giving us the brigandine.

+stephend50 Medieval terminlogy is far more fluid than we moderns would like it to be. They did make distinction between brigandine and coats of plates at times, but the difference is not very clear. Most attempts to differentiate the two are application of modern classification, not necessarily how they were viewed in period.

+stephend50 We do know that they made some distinction between the two, as both brigandines and pairs of plates appear side-by-side in the 1397 inventory of the Duke of Gloucester, among others. forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=180283&p=2743865

It is my understanding that Brigandine Armor and Coats of Plates were quite similar, but different beasts. Brigandine Armor had the plates riveted to the base, whereas Coats of Plates they were sewn. That is how I understand the difference.

+Anton Berger Shield is one use for it, another theory I've heard that makes a lot sense to me is that configurations with 4 chains use 2 chains for the great helm. A number of great helms have a cross punched on both sides of the helm. With 2 chains securing the great helm it would ride a lot better on your back when slung over the shoulders and you wouldn't risk having it swing around to the front.

+Knyght Errant this thought seems rather practical! thank you for sharing it! another strange thing about these chains is the fact that they seem to be rather short, also the original from ingolstadt shows short chains. if you try to hold e.g. a belt in that length to your chest and try to make full blows with your arm, you will notice that your movement is severely restricted, you can't even stretch out your arm!

+Anton Berger another strange thing about the ingolstadt original is that all chains are ending in a toggle - how shall that be fixed to a sword or dagger...

You usually will always have some sort of foundational textile garment, like a gambeson. It does not need to be overly thick though when worn under a rigid armor like a coat of plates and mail.

Ok, so the super thick and protective gambesons are usually worn either with light or no armor over it?

In my opinion, yes. There is also evidence for thicker padded garments being worn **over** another form of armor.

+Byrnie Interesting point. i can imagine that leather restricts the movement cause it's much stiffer than textil.

+Byrnie Thordeman It's definitely a gray area. Bengt Thordeman and even Toby Capwell imply that leather foundations are certainly possible, but the evidence leans toward textile as far more common. As far as leather being too 'stiff' this is all a function of the tanning process. Medieval buff leather could be made very thick and still incredibly flexible and pliable. Some modern leather tanners still produce analogues to historical buff, and it's incredibly mobile for its thickness.

+Knyght Errant yes, they could make coat of plates with leather, but there is no hard evidence for this (as I'm aware of).It seems that they for whatever reason preferred textile.

Byrnie I'm not disagreeing with you. I thought I said the same thing in the video. There is one example of a 15th century brig supported by leather only, but some people are suspicious of it. (The red velvet on the inside is the mannequin, not part of the armor) www.pinterest.com/pin/570127634054731162/

+Jason Clark Both forms of armor (coat of plates and breastplate) would have been worn in a virtually exclusively military context. No one would wear a coat of plates as a day-to-day garment on the off chance they suddenly became involved in combat. So the theoretical adaptability of the coat of plates is a non starter as a concept.

+Jason Clark The brigandine and jack of plates, which are largely evolved forms of the coat of plates, did indeed see use as a lighter and more stylish alternative to full plate armour. This sort of armour was popular with more lightly equipped troops in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, it was probably still somewhat cumbersome to wear in day-to-day civilian life, unless your lifestyle involved getting into fights on a regular basis.

Okay. Thank you.

+Jason Clark I do remember some referencing that brigandines were used by high nobility and royalty while travelling. Especially when travelling through somewhat dodgy areas, but not dodgy enough to warrant full combat gear. Much like the use of a light bulletproof vest today - no reason to use a full flak jacket and combat helmet in peacetime.

Thank you.

+William Stanway Saint Maurice was a 3rd century African saint, so he was intentionally depicted as black. As far as the armor, it was a common convention to depict historical peoples in armor that was contemporary to the artist.

+William Stanway You're not mistaken. St. Maurice was often (but not always) depicted as a black African during the middle ages. The story goes that he was a soldier in the Roman army, the commander of the Theban Legion, who was martyred alongside his men when they refused to renounce their Christian faith. Like St. George and St. Martin, he was a popular soldier-saint, held up as a virtuous example for knights to emulate. Here are more examples of depictions of St. Maurice. www.metmuseum.org/~/media/Images/Exhibitions/2015/Cranach/CranachsSaintMauriceDIGITALPoster.jpg?mw=481 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mathis_Gothart_Gr%C3%BCnewald_011.jpg

+Knyght Errant Wow, I do hope you didn't explain that In the video, as it would prove how much my mind can wonder, but either way I'm glad I asked you, because I now feel a little more educated .

+KorKhan89 cheers for the incite my friend , that depiction you gave me the link to is amazing, the armor is stunning , to be fair he has more bling that JZ that fluting is fit for a pimp .

+William Stanway That's the early 16th century for you! Compared to some of the stuff worn by the landsknechts, his gear is positively modest.