AHC: Have the Byzantines Adopt Plate Armor

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The Byzantines were quite famous for using lamellar armor which was a type of armor that used sets of smaller plates fitted together atop a type of padding.

What would it take for the Byzantines to adopt Western Style plate armor, or even make their own versions? How would this affect the Byzantine army and state?

 

[Avrorrange]

The Byzantines were quite famous for using lamellar armor which was a type of armor that used sets of smaller plates fitted together atop a type of padding.

What would it take for the Byzantines to adopt Western Style plate armor, or even make their own versions? How would this affect the Byzantine army and state?

But they did.They were using a lot of plate armour in the last two centuries of the empire’s life at the same time they were introduced.

 

[Silver01]

By the time plate armour starts to appear in significant quantity in the body the roman empire has under gone the bubonic plague and the 1341 civil war that killed any prospect of the Romans surviving with out side help, plate armour is expansive so even if the roman empire stabilized before that cheaper made mass produced could exist but things you see from the 14/15th century knights would only be limited to aristocrat, wealthy generals or commanders which some used

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

By the time plate armour starts to appear in significant quantity in the body the roman empire has under gone the bubonic plague and the 1341 civil war that killed any prospect of the Romans surviving with out side help, plate armour is expansive so even if the roman empire stabilized before that cheaper made mass produced could exist but things you see from the 14/15th century knights would only be limited to aristocrat, wealthy generals or commanders which some used

Do you have an recommendations in terms of sources about the late byzantine empire in terms of its foreign policy, military tactics/organization, and economy? I'm thinking of writing a late Byzantine tl set around the reign of Andronikos II/Andronikos III. The Second Palaiologian restoration was honestly a travesty as it was the empire literally self-sabotaging itself.

The worst instance was the misrule of Andronikos II who removed competent generals each time they tried to relieve the dire situation in Anatolia. Andronikos did this to his brothers/relatives whom he accused of treason, and then to Philanthropenos who described to be a Second Belisarius.

 

[Elfwine]

Do you have an recommendations in terms of sources about the late byzantine empire in terms of its foreign policy, military tactics/organization, and economy? I'm thinking of writing a late Byzantine tl set around the reign of Andronikos II/Andronikos III. The Second Palaiologian restoration was honestly a travesty as it was the empire literally self-sabotaging itself.

I am not Goldensilver81, but I highly recommend both of these (though the first does not go into military tactics/organization, and the second is more about the army as an element of the state than the specifics of its battles the information is still very useful) if you don't own a copy of them already:

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

And I do not have a copy of this so I cannot comment on its merits or lack of, but as it was mentioned by a reviewer of the second I feel its worth acknowledging.

Amazon.com

Andronikos II was certainly not a great emperor, but writing him off as just an incompetent fool making bad decisions because he was foolish and incompetent is not doing justice to the problems he had to juggle and the means he had to do so.

Could, say, things been handled differently with Philanthropenos? Absolutely. Was treachery even from family members a thing Andronikos had to worry about? Absolutely.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I am not Goldensilver81, but I highly recommend both of these (though the first does not go into military tactics/organization, and the second is more about the army as an element of the state than the specifics of its battles the information is still very useful) if you don't own a copy of them already:

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

And I do not have a copy of this so I cannot comment on its merits or lack of, but as it was mentioned by a reviewer of the second I feel its worth acknowledging.

Amazon.com

Andronikos II was certainly not a great emperor, but writing him off as just an incompetent fool making bad decisions because he was foolish and incompetent is not doing justice to the problems he had to juggle and the means he had to do so.

Could, say, things been handled differently with Philanthropenos? Absolutely. Was treachery even from family members a thing Andronikos had to worry about? Absolutely.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll definitely check those out. Though looking back it does make sense why Andronikos was weary of his younger brother Constantine. Constantine was highly favored by his father Michael VIII for being a true "purple born" and was spoiled by his father who gave him numerous honors, going well beyond his station, the title of Despotes.
With that context in mind, its no wonder he felt so insecure about his brother.

This was what happened in GOT with Renly who was encouraged by the Tyrells to rebel talking up how much better of a King he'd be than his younger brother. In Western Kingdoms, there was more precedent for hereditary rule, but in the ERE, there wasn't much of that.

I guess a similar thing could explain the distrust between the regency of Emperor John and Kantekouzenos.

 

[Elfwine]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll definitely check those out. Though looking back it does make sense why Andronikos was weary of his younger brother Constantine. Constantine was highly favored by his father Michael VIII for being a true "purple born" and was spoiled by his father who gave him numerous honors, going well beyond his station, the title of Despotes.
With that context in mind, its no wonder he felt so insecure about his brother.

It's not a great context, especially with Constantine not being fond of or much impressed by his older brother.

This was what happened in GOT with Renly who was encouraged by the Tyrells to rebel talking up how much better of a King he'd be than his younger brother. In Western Kingdoms, there was more precedent for hereditary rule, but in the ERE, there wasn't much of that.

I guess a similar thing could explain the distrust between the regency of Emperor John and Kantekouzenos.

It seems like one with little trust and less affection, especially with that while Kantakouzenos may not have wanted to be Emperor he seems like he absolutely wanted to be regent (and not necessarily in harmony with John's mother or anyone else).

Taking that as putting him in a position too close to take the throne for comfort is not the most irrational decision anyone ever made, IMO.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Plate armour requires the ability to make relatively big plates of thin but strong iron. Clearly making helmets is feasible from a long time back and smaller plates (Roman lorica segmentata, lamellar armour and the eastern style mail with some plates incorporated along with coat of plates are the precursors, but until you can make even thin plates and articulate them plate armour will be too heavy and inflexible to be useful.

There is also the question of what is driving the need to use it. Mail provides good protection, allows reasonable movement and is relatively easy to repair, adjust and maintain in the field - and to improve with a double thickness or incorporate plates. That's why it lasted so long.

So really plate armour needs a combination of improved metalworking skills to allow larger higher quality steel/iron [1] blanks, that in turn are more readily worked into thin well-fitted shapes that can be heat treated to balance strength and toughness [2] with sufficient durability and repairability in the field, and then having a need for a higher degree of protecion. All the while having the means to pay for it.

So partly technology, but also need, money and ability to keep it working on campaign need to line up

[1] last time I read about it, early plate armour used iron that was not far different from modern mild steel, although more variable in thickness.
[2] which is quite difficult to develop and test when you don't know the science behind it, less so now we do hsve a better understanding.

 

[Domz]

I don't even think the Ottomans adopted plate armor, even though they were much richer than Late Middle Ages Byzantium.