Did light types of Armour were stopped to be used without real reason in Europe?

[jo the greek]

This is a thing that made me curious .

Ιf you think the course of armour in Europeans history

you see the course going from lighter types to full plates which were much heavier .
When firearms appear the full plate armour is getting much more lighter by leaving parts that wasnt so usefull like chain mail parts or later even parts of plate armour .
And in that sense you end in the european Cuirasser .

But this armour was kept only for elite horseman and not even all .

While when you read about cavalry clashes in Napoleonic era
you see how the riders tried to modify their own equipment in order to get some minimal protection. Examples their coats their hats their cloves .
Even had read examples how thick clothes could stop a pistol shoot.

And when you read about battle between Europeans and Eastern states
you read how difficult was for European rider hurt an oriental rider that wore just a simple Chain vest (much more light than a cuirass) .
In the end europeans would win cause of training and discipline .


So what i am trying to say is that light types of armour were stopped to used cause europeans forgot to make them and using them.
In exact the same logic as had been done with the Lance .

For example how effiecient could been a hussar or a dragoon and etc in a battle against an unarmored opponed while he would wear a simpe chain vest or etc.

So what do you think ?

[Dr. Croccer]

I've never heard of any account of Middle Eastern armour stopping bullets, but when the Chinese general Coxinga invaded Dutch Formosa, with his heavily armoured Iron Troop who were armed with extremely thick Rattan shields and ''Rolling Cover'', a two-inch thick cotton cover for use against projectiles. In the one single really major engagement 240 Dutch led by captain Pedel who advanced in rows of 12 to meet the Chinese force 4000 or so. They discharged 3 volleys at relatively short range, with apparantly little effect on the heavily armoured Chinese troops, who responded with arrow volleys. A hidden force of 800 Chinese appeared on the Dutch flank and the Dutch troops panicked and fled, being persued by the Chinese. There were no reports of any Chinese casualties IIRC.

Rattan shields in question were extremely thick, to the point where musket balls would simply be embedded within it, not punch through it. The Iron Troop were a special invention by Coxinga, who created them as an elite unit protected by thick armour scales that weighed 30 ''jin'', more than 15 kilogrammes, so the troops were trained extremely heavily with sandbags to move fast.



This was the only occassion in which heavily armoured troops were almost unharmed by musket weapons that I know. To answer your question if the abandonement of armour was a good thing for Europe, I would say yes. Making armour wasn't easy. Most of the thickest Medieval pieces of armour were masterworks which took ages to complete and were often made by mastersmith families, mainly Italian ones. It simply wasn't profitable to equip a handful of knights with masterwork armour, which was useless against gunpowder weapons anyway. It was far cheaper, and far more effective to raise large units of relatively lightly armoured cavalry instead.

It would be impossible to create armour-proof units in that period without turning them into human tanks that sticked together as one giant shield, which, as you can imagine, would be extremely costly and hard. Even then, such a large body of slow, heavily-armoured troops are easy targets for artillery and harassing cavalry. If Coxinga's force had fought against a well-balanced European army, and not a small, overconfident colonial garrison, the outcome would probably be a bit different.

[Seleucos of Olympia]

I think the question is more about why cavalrymen didn't use more armour, since they often fought with sabres against other, similarly armed, cavalrymen or infantry with bayonets.

[torongill]

In my view the problem is the all but disappearance of heavy cavalry in the European armies. Heavy cavalry are great for pitched battles and there were a lot less of those. Lighter types of cavalry, like the hussars, dragoons and lancers had more use, since they could move faster over longer distances. Since the ruling arms had become infantry and artillery, cavalry was tailored to be better against these. Against artillery the cavalry simply needed to get there faster, meaning more lightly armed soldiers. artillery shots were lethal even at extreme range, so armor didn't help against them, it only slowed the advance. Against infantry the reason was also faster advance but for other aspects. Musket fire was accurate up to 70-100m, at which range the cuirasses of the french heavies couldn't really stop it, and to close the gap of accurate fire, the cavalry would have to move fast. In this context, the only advantage armor would give would be in a prolonged cavalry-vs-cavalry engagement, which would be a very small part of the tasks for the cavalry arm. Thus it was reasonable to keep a small corps of heavy cavalry for precisely that purpose, but otherwise it was too expensive - that meant breeding pure horses, selecting elite men, providing them with fine quality equipment and paying them handsomely. And then you'd have to hope the arrogant fools don't go charging and spoil your plan.
All of this is, of course, personal opinion and does not represent a thouroughly researched view.

[Farnan]

Armor has come full circle.

It went from:



To this:



Now to this:

[intel]

This is a thing that made me curious .

Ιf you think the course of armour in Europeans history

you see the course going from lighter types to full plates which were much heavier .
When firearms appear the full plate armour is getting much more lighter by leaving parts that wasnt so usefull like chain mail parts or later even parts of plate armour .
And in that sense you end in the european Cuirasser .

Yes, the armour was indeed stripped down. But that's because at same time it became thicker and thicker to become bulletproof. In the end, European 3/4 plate armour became much heavier than late medieval full plate.

But this armour was kept only for elite horseman and not even all .

Not really, there were thousands of cuirassiers in numerous conflicts across the Europe, 30 years war as an excellent example.

While when you read about cavalry clashes in Napoleonic era
you see how the riders tried to modify their own equipment in order to get some minimal protection. Examples their coats their hats their cloves .
Even had read examples how thick clothes could stop a pistol shoot.

Thick clothes could indeed stop a pistol shot, but only at very long range.

And when you read about battle between Europeans and Eastern states
you read how difficult was for European rider hurt an oriental rider that wore just a simple Chain vest (much more light than a cuirass)

Indeed, armour gave an great advantage in melee.

So what i am trying to say is that light types of armour were stopped to used cause europeans forgot to make them and using them.
In exact the same logic as had been done with the Lance .

For example how effiecient could been a hussar or a dragoon and etc in a battle against an unarmored opponed while he would wear a simpe chain vest or etc.

So what do you think ?

Armour was dropped in the XVIIIth century because it was no longer economically efficent (as it did help almost exclusively in melee) and did not suit military doctrine of that era.
IMO, in certain circumstances it would indeed be reasonable to use, in the very same way as it was in Napoleonic Wars.

[Mangalore]

Thick clothes could indeed stop a pistol shot, but only at very long range..

If memory serves latter uniforms were still designed in parts for such protection. It would be however mainly like light flak jackets with the main purpose to protect against stray bullets so not any hairwire shot would scratch you, not a direct shot against oneself.

[jo the greek]

But if you look Napoleonic wars logic

You see that militairy commanders tried to utilize every damn trick they could in order to gain some small advantage over their opponents .
I refere that Wellighton asked if Longbow archers still existed (or is myth) in order to gain some small tactical advantage
and i am not conviced that do produce a simple leather armour or a chain vest was such difficult

But rather that they forgot to made them and use them

[intel]

But if you look Napoleonic wars logic

You see that militairy commanders tried to utilize every damn trick they could in order to gain some small advantage over their opponents .
I refere that Wellighton asked if Longbow archers still existed (or is myth) in order to gain some small tactical advantage
and i am not conviced that do produce a simple leather armour or a chain vest was such difficult

But rather that they forgot to made them and use them

No, they didn't. Chainmal was too expensive for the advantage it would grant, hardened leather was VERY widely used in non-military branches, but-again-uniform had advantages which compensated lack of protection.

[Hrobatos]

i read once, about Croatian Hussars, they would wear Cuirasser armor when fighting agains Turks, because Turks still used arrows, ehile when they would go in central Europe battlefields
the didnt used armors, cause the speed was much more useful than extra armor

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I find the story about Coxinga quite doubtful to say the least. It is perfectly possible that the musket balls were stopped by their shields & lost enough kinetic energy to be absorbed by the extremely heavy armour, but it is also quite possible that the Dutch simply missed their shots. I remember seeing reports on the training of the Swedish army circa the Battle of Kirckholm, when they were of below average quality at best, and there are accounts of full battalion volleys being missed at almost point blank ranges! The trend repeats itself with green troops during the Napoleonic Wars, which serves well to dispel the myth that Musketeers were a far cheaper alternative to other arms of the period; indeed, the reason why they were adopted, is because they were effective, but at the same time it took much drilling, discipline and specialization to train an effective company of these, so much that until after the Thirty Years War mercenary contractors were highly prized because they offered battle-hardened veterans without the extra cost and time that intensive drilling required.

Now, "some" armour was always in use during the period in question; it's just that to field any decently sized professional force, the armour had to be of inferior quality to the examples of harquebus-proof Milanese plate which made the cutting edge of armour technology in XVI century Europe. Another important aspect was agility, since cavalry had to cover larger and larger distances in less time while presenting a harder target for bullets; another one includes, purely and simply, practical considerations. Up to Wallenstein the heaviest Cuirassier cavalry wore full 3/4 harquebus-proof plate, but since soldiers tend to spend more time marching and doing menial jobs to ensure their sustenance on the field than properly fighting, it was far easier to just have your own shirt on than to walk around with a bulky suit of plate.

Now, as to plate being "heavy", that's a common myth. Of course plate requires certain conditioning to wear, but a well trained knight can sprint just as fast as an unarmored one; armourers faced great challenges to provide flexible and strong protection for their clients.

[Dr. Croccer]

I find the story about Coxinga quite doubtful to say the least. It is perfectly possible that the musket balls were stopped by their shields & lost enough kinetic energy to be absorbed by the extremely heavy armour, but it is also quite possible that the Dutch simply missed their shots. I remember seeing reports on the training of the Swedish army circa the Battle of Kirckholm, when they were of below average quality at best, and there are accounts of full battalion volleys being missed at almost point blank ranges! The trend repeats itself with green troops during the Napoleonic Wars, which serves well to dispel the myth that Musketeers were a far cheaper alternative to other arms of the period; indeed, the reason why they were adopted, is because they were effective, but at the same time it took much drilling, discipline and specialization to train an effective company of these, so much that until after the Thirty Years War mercenary contractors were highly prized because they offered battle-hardened veterans without the extra cost and time that intensive drilling required.

It's very doubtful that the bulk of 240 soldiers missed 3 times at a most likely relatively close range whilst firing at such a large and visible force. If they were fighting against a large body of pikemen, there would be several casualties at the least, and some noticable panic.

Now, as to plate being "heavy", that's a common myth. Of course plate requires certain conditioning to wear, but a well trained knight can sprint just as fast as an unarmored one; armourers faced great challenges to provide flexible and strong protection for their clients.

It's indeed true that plate armour was quite flexible and walking around with it wasn't that difficult. However, one couldn't run as fast as an unarmoured one, unless he trained as hard as the Iron Troop did. You still carried several kilogrammes worth of iron plate on your body.

[Radosław Sikora]

It's very doubtful that the bulk of 240 soldiers missed 3 times at a most likely relatively close range whilst firing at such a large and visible force.

Why doubtful? It was quite normal situation. Fracoise de la Noue advised cavalrymen to shoot only at the distance of 3 paces, because at 20 paces (it was a distance cavalrymen were shooting in real engagements) efficiency of pistol fire was close to 0. After the battle of Basia river, Russian tzar advised his infantry to shoot only at 6-10 meters, because at 40 meters musket salvos were inefficient. In this battle 1 Polish pancerni banner (that is a company of 130 cavalrymen who used chain mails and shields) charged 7 times at Russians and lost only 2 wounded horses (0 people killed).

[Dr. Croccer]

Why doubtful? It was quite normal situation. Fracoise de la Noue advised cavalrymen to shoot only at the distance of 3 paces, because at 20 paces (it was a distance cavalrymen were shooting in real engagements) efficiency of pistol fire was close to 0. After the battle of Basia river, Russian tzar advised his infantry to shoot only at 6-10 meters, because at 40 meters musket salvos were inefficient. In this battle 1 Polish pancerni banner (that is a company of 130 cavalrymen who used chain mails and shields) charged 7 times at Russians and lost only 2 wounded horses (0 people killed).

Matchlocks and muskets are surprisingly accurate.



Result of one man firing several shots with a matchlock from about 25 metres away.

Firing a matchlock/musket would be a bit cumbersome, as their sights were often quite off, but a fairly experienced soldiers could adjust to it. Again, whilst it's possible that several soldiers would've missed completely, it's very doubtful that 12 fairly experienced men firing 3 volleys, 36 shots in all, would all miss firing at a giant mass of soldiers from a distance from probably 50 metres or less (Maurician tactics demanded that)

By the way, didn't the Russians have very poor quality firearms, and that's the reason why they prefered melee combat?

[Radosław Sikora]

Matchlocks and muskets are surprisingly accurate.

Yes, they are. During tests. But not in combat stress. There was so much talk about it in this forum already...

By the way, didn't the Russians have very poor quality firearms, and that's the reason why they prefered melee combat?

Russians muskets were as good as any other ones. BTW, a lot of them were bought in Netherlands .
The poor accuracy of fire is not a problem of weapon, but a human nature in the combat stress.

[Nissedruva]

The imperial forces (mainly but they were found on all sides) used heavily armored currasiers during the 30 years war:



Their armor were so thick (and the firearms so ineffective) that the Swedish cavalry were ordered not to use meele weapons to either hold their pistol fire until they were so close that they could stick the barrel into the gaps in the armor (or direct against the plate) or simply aim at the unprotected horses.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Kudos to Kapten Gars on Skalman forum

[Radosław Sikora]

So what i am trying to say is that light types of armour were stopped to used cause europeans forgot to make them and using them.
In exact the same logic as had been done with the Lance.

But lance was in constant use until the end of cavalry in 20th c.

Light armors (chain mails) were in constant use in Europe until at least 1775. So no. Europeans didn't forget to make light types of armours.

I suppose that it was more an idea of uniformization of cavalry than anything else, that caused disappearance of light armours. Uniformed cavalry had to keep some standards, described in regulations in detail. Those regulations were written by state officials. It was the state which paid for uniforms and weapons, so there was no place for an individual choices.
Every armour meant some additional cost. As long as weapons and ecquipment were buying by individual soldiers, there was a tendency to pay more for personal protection (different kinds of armours - more comfortable light ones and less comfortable heavier ones). When states began to provide weapons and uniforms, there was not so much pressure to protect soldiers. Better protection = higher costs. So states divided cavalry into 2 categories:
1. those ones who still used armour - and this category preserved plate armours (plate armours gave better protection against bullets and blows at lower costs, but were less comfortable than lighter/elastic armours)
2. the rest - unarmoured

There was no place for chain mails, which were sometimes even more expensive than plate armours, but didn't protect from balls. The advantage of chain mails was a comfort of use, but a comfort of soldiers was the last thing states took care .

[jo the greek]

But lance was in constant use until the end of cavalry in 20th c.

Light armors (chain mails) were in constant use in Europe until at least 1775. So no. Europeans didn't forget to make light types of armours.

I suppose that it was more an idea of uniformization of cavalry than anything else, that caused disappearance of light armours. Uniformed cavalry had to keep some standards, described in regulations in detail. Those regulations were written by state officials. It was the state which paid for uniforms and weapons, so there was no place for an individual choices.
Every armour meant some additional cost. As long as weapons and ecquipment were buying by individual soldiers, there was a tendency to pay more for personal protection (different kinds of armours - more comfortable light ones and less comfortable heavier ones). When states began to provide weapons and uniforms, there was not so much pressure to protect soldiers. Better protection = higher costs. So states divided cavalry into 2 categories:
1. those ones who still used armour - and this category preserved plate armours (plate armours gave better protection against bullets and blows at lower costs, but were less comfortable than lighter/elastic armours)
2. the rest - unarmoured

There was no place for chain mails, which were sometimes even more expensive than plate armours, but didn't protect from balls. The advantage of chain mails was a comfort of use, but a comfort of soldiers was the last thing states took care .

Lance was abandonded in europe after a period of time
and speaking about the lighter lance used by nomads
a

[Radosław Sikora]

Lance was abandonded in europe after a period of time

Yes, it was abandoned in 20th c. . Polish ulans used lances even after WWI.
I agree that some European countries didn't use lancers in some periods. But it doesn't mean that lances weren't in use in Europe at all.
BTW, during wars of Napoleon, Europe saw a revival of lancers. Also in countries (like England) where lances were already abandoned.

[jo the greek]

Buff coat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Portuguese cavalry panoply.


The European Buff coat (so-called because of its yellowish color) was an item of leather clothing worn by both the infantry and cavalry during the 17th century, usually worn under armour.[1] It was derived from the simple leather jerkins worn by soldiers during the Tudor period[2] eventually becoming a 3/4 length, close-fitting garment[3] with long sleeves and a high collar to protect the neck and arms.[4]
Typically, a buff coat was crafted from 3mm-thick suede cowhide and provided protection against swords,[5] blunt trauma and possibly long range pistol balls,[6] however as with all armour of the time it was ineffective against musket fire.[7]
Together with the lobster pot helmet and cuirass it formed the basis of the equipment of the New Model Army's Ironside cavalry during the English Civil War. Cavaliers wore similar buff-coats, either privately purchased and decorated with gold lace, or captured from fallen enemies.[8] Both sides issued a sleeveless version to the musketeers in the pike and shot formations to give them some protection during hand-to-hand combat.
The buff coat was also worn by civilians, including some of the Pilgrim Fathers due to its plain and simple appearance suggesting equality. It was lined with cotton for warmth and fastened with hooks and eyes as the Puritans viewed buttons as extravagant and vain.[9] Due to its durability it was worn by men of all classes and religious leanings, including the Catholic James II of England.[10]
As well as protecting the wearer from bad weather the buff coat became a highly desirable status symbol in the mid 17th century, making it the ancestor of the modern leather jacket.