Medievil armour questions

[Sbiper]

Need some help on this and thought to ask the good peeps here if they can help.

I need to figure out the cheapest way to equip a mass army in medieval times with armour against stabbing weapons.

Ignore feeding or moving said army etc. and assume that sufficient iron and steel can be produced by early 1800's type industrial tech (assume Bessemer Converter for steel and water/steam power for blast furnaces and trip hammers etc.)

So with proto industrialisation what's the best (cheapest) armour to produce en mass?

Also ignore gunpowder etc. this is strictly swords and arrows.

So any ideas? Not full plate suits, torso and head protection at a minimum, maybe shoulders and upper arms also....

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Cheap Munitions plate. Something like Almain Rivet, half armor with backplate, breastplate and thigh guards, add in a decent helmet and your good, about a sixth the cost of Three Quarters Plate used by Demi Lancers. Historically this was the answer to mass equipping European armies in the Reformation/Early Modern era. You can add gauntlets and arm guards for a reasonable price if you want

Edit: Given that you have 1800's Metallurgy to work with, you can probably make it lighter and tougher, than period munitions armor, and probably make it rather cheaper

 

[alexmilman]

Cheap Munitions plate. Something like Almain Rivet, half armor with backplate, breastplate and thigh guards, add in a decent helmet and your good, about a sixth the cost of Three Quarters Plate used by Demi Lancers. Historically this was the answer to mass equipping European armies in the Reformation/Early Modern era. You can add gauntlets and arm guards for a reasonable price if you want

The Almain Rivet was a heavy cavalry equipment hardly applicable to a “mass army” which implies that majority of that army are infantrymen (or the nomads).

Of course the OP is too vague for a meaningful answer because a lot would depend upon the tactics of that mass army. If we assume that it is using the massive columns of the pikemen (or rather infantry with various types of the pole arms) then most of the troops need very little except for a helmet and those fighting in the first few rows would need some kind of a quirasse with or without the “extras”. Swiss, IIRC, had been ignoring even that.

 

[Marquis]

New Model Army gear tbh. Maybe add a full-face sallet. Cuirass, a full length gambeson, a helmet and perhaps a vambrace for the dominant arm.

 

[Atterdag]

The Almain Rivet was a heavy cavalry equipment hardly applicable to a “mass army” which implies that majority of that army are infantrymen (or the nomads).

There existed other kinds of munitions armour for infantrymen though.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The Almain Rivet was a heavy cavalry equipment hardly applicable to a “mass army” which implies that majority of that army are infantrymen (or the nomads).

Of course the OP is too vague for a meaningful answer because a lot would depend upon the tactics of that mass army. If we assume that it is using the massive columns of the pikemen (or rather infantry with various types of the pole arms) then most of the troops need very little except for a helmet and those fighting in the first few rows would need some kind of a quirasse with or without the “extras”. Swiss, IIRC, had been ignoring even that.

Given that we are matching 1800 technology with medieval combat I suspect sbiper is researching a new ASB timeline (drools in anticipation).

Bessemer process alone is high Victorian which would imply a host of other technologies to support it.

Another approach would be to consider what armies did in WW1 and retcon it back

 

[RodentRevolution]

Cheap Munitions plate. Something like Almain Rivet, half armor with backplate, breastplate and thigh guards, add in a decent helmet and your good, about a sixth the cost of Three Quarters Plate used by Demi Lancers. Historically this was the answer to mass equipping European armies in the Reformation/Early Modern era. You can add gauntlets and arm guards for a reasonable price if you want

Edit: Given that you have 1800's Metallurgy to work with, you can probably make it lighter and tougher, than period munitions armor, and probably make it rather cheaper

Yes this, very much things along these lines. Even by the 1700s the iron industries of the major powers were capable of producing sufficient iron for thousands of cannon. Affordable armour for even militia should be doable, especially as decently maintained harness will likely outlive the wearer and stocks can be built up over generations if need be and held by the community, crown, some other governor or even private individuals for emergencies.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Almain Rivet was a heavy cavalry equipment hardly applicable to a “mass army” which implies that majority of that army are infantrymen (or the nomads).

The Wikipedia article is illustrated with a piece of infantry armour, so no.

 

[RGB]

The Wikipedia article is illustrated with a piece of infantry armour, so no.

The Almain Rivert factory basically produced all kinds of plate armour including infantry half-harnesses. I'd agree that yes basically that's the way to go. Some kind of jack-of-plates as a second life for broken plate could also be a backup option. Making mail is cheaper on the materials and less infrastructure-dependent but requires more man-hours and a degree of individual skill. Rivet only requires the helmet-maker to be skilled, everything else can be done by apprentices.

 

[alexmilman]

There existed other kinds of munitions armour for infantrymen though.

Of course, there were. My points are:

(a) It is almost pointless to talk about the armor for a “mass” medieval army (how many of them would qualify as “mass” to star with?) without at least some clarification of the tactics and composition of such an army.

(b) If the primary concern are stabbing wounds, we may assume that the tactics assumes formations of the infantry with the pole arms. So, as far as the MA are involved, we have Flemish, Scots and Swiss (I’m skipping earlier MA with the shield walls, etc.). Not sure about the Flemish infantry but AFAIK neither Scots nor Swiss had been overburdening themselves with a plate armor and neither did the Landsknechts. The front rows of the pike formations could have protection but not the whole formation.

Not sure how the post-medieval example, like the New Model are quite applicable because this was an age of the firearms when the pikemen were only a part of the infantry formation (approximately one third) and the musketeers did not wear a protective armor, just a helmet.

 

[fdas]

Since the scenario here assumes a vast amount of steel production far outstripping that which occurred during the actual middle ages, it is entirely possible that due to the cheapness of steel, once could simply outfit your whole army with plate armor, while that would have been prohibitively expensive during the middle ages, it wouldn't be with industrial production of steel.

 

[alexmilman]

Since the scenario here assumes a vast amount of steel production far outstripping that which occurred during the actual middle ages, it is entirely possible that due to the cheapness of steel, once could simply outfit your whole army with plate armor, while that would have been prohibitively expensive during the middle ages, it wouldn't be with industrial production of steel.

But would it make a practical sense?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

(b) If the primary concern are stabbing wounds, we may assume that the tactics assumes formations of the infantry with the pole arms. So, as far as the MA are involved, we have Flemish, Scots and Swiss (I’m skipping earlier MA with the shield walls, etc.). Not sure about the Flemish infantry but AFAIK neither Scots nor Swiss had been overburdening themselves with a plate armor and neither did the Landsknechts. The front rows of the pike formations could have protection but not the whole formation.

I suspect that that was due to reasons of cost, though, rather than "overburdening themselves"; as you say, the front rows had armour, and since a formation can only move at the speed of its slowest members, making the rest lightly-armoured wouldn't add anything in terms of speed or manoeuvrability.

 

[alexmilman]

I suspect that that was due to reasons of cost, though, rather than "overburdening themselves"; as you say, the front rows had armour, and since a formation can only move at the speed of its slowest members, making the rest lightly-armoured wouldn't add anything in terms of speed or manoeuvrability.

Let’s not confuse formation marching with formation acting on a battlefield. AFAIK, on a march even the cavalry did not routinely have their armor on, it was carried in a luggage train. With few infantrymen having an armor the same thing was easy to do but if all infantry is armored then you need a LOT of carts or you have rather short daily marches, which (depending upon specifics of a warfare) may or may not be a major problem.

As far as I can tell, the post-medieval pikemen of pike and shot formations did wear defensive armor (subject to $$) but the the same was not necessarily true for the earlier formations all the way to the Italian Wars. Besides the cost factor (we can speculate on its importance), this did not make too much sense in the deep pikemen formations where only the few first rows had been facing the enemy and the rest was mostly contributing to the “push” of a column. Now, in the later times (30YW) function of the pikemen changed from being a main attacking force to mostly being one protecting the musketeers against the cavalry attacks (“person who kills a pikemen kills a sinless man because there was not a single case of a pikemen hurting somebody”; which is, of course an exagerration but would somebody say something similar for a pikemen of the Italian Wars?). Their percentage in infantry formation decreased to 1/3 or even less (so the marching/luggage considerations can apply). Then again, appearance of a lighter (comparing to the gendarmes) cavalry with the firearms could increase the need of the square defensive formations with a resulting need to have most or all of them armored. However, while the pike did exist all the way to a mass introduction of a bayonet, I’m not sure that the pikemen of the mid-/late-XVII still had been wearing the armor even if it was more available technologically and financially.

Edit: It seems that in GA army the pikemen had been (eventually) wearing just a quirasse and helmet and corselet but not the full pikemen panoply which was including arms and tights protection. In the French army circa 1660’s the pikemen had been wearing heLment and a cuirasse but by 1690’s only the Swiss regiments had been wearing tassets as well. OTOH, in the New Model Army the pikemen had tassets.

 

[Lenwe]

Of course, there were. My points are:

(a) It is almost pointless to talk about the armor for a “mass” medieval army (how many of them would qualify as “mass” to star with?) without at least some clarification of the tactics and composition of such an army.

(b) If the primary concern are stabbing wounds, we may assume that the tactics assumes formations of the infantry with the pole arms. So, as far as the MA are involved, we have Flemish, Scots and Swiss (I’m skipping earlier MA with the shield walls, etc.). Not sure about the Flemish infantry but AFAIK neither Scots nor Swiss had been overburdening themselves with a plate armor and neither did the Landsknechts. The front rows of the pike formations could have protection but not the whole formation.

Not sure how the post-medieval example, like the New Model are quite applicable because this was an age of the firearms when the pikemen were only a part of the infantry formation (approximately one third) and the musketeers did not wear a protective armor, just a helmet.

What about the Spanish Rodeleros? They are late medieval, or really early modern era, 1480-ish to 1560-ish, they were relativelly high armoured as his work was introduce themselves inside the pike enemy formation and kill at short range, of course they need to be supported with pikes of their own againts cavalry, but is an example of a rich-ish country equiping his men

These were the guys that conquered Granada,America, and fight the Italian wars, and eventually give birth to the Tercio, they could be switly included in the OP scenario

Edit: some grammar horrors

 

[Richard V]

Plate armor is expensive not because of material cost but high demand of skilled labor.

If mass production is the idea, I would go for brigandine. Almost the protection of plate but can be put together quickly in an assembly line.

 

[Lenwe]

Plate armor is expensive not because of material cost but high demand of skilled labor.

If mass production is the idea, I would go for brigandine. Almost the protection of plate but can be put together quickly in an assembly line.

Is not a Brigandine basically a Lamellar armour?

 

[alexmilman]

What about the Spanish Rodeleros? They are late medieval, or really early modern era, 1480-ish to 1560-ish, they were relativelly high armoured as his work was introduce themselves inside the pike enemy formation and kill at short range, of course they need to be supported with pikes of their own againts cavalry, but is an example of a rich-ish country equiping his men

These were the guys that conquered Granada,America, and fight the Italian wars, and eventually give birth to the Tercio, they could be switly included in the OP scenario

Edit: some grammar horrors

As you yourself wrote, they were just a part of a major formation, not an independent type of an infantry.

 

[Richard V]

Is not a Brigandine basically a Lamellar armour?

It’s related, but even easier to make as its a fabric tunic with metal riveted on afterwards, instead of metal plates stitched into shape.

Later on with the invention of manganese and nickel steel alloys it would be much easier to make brigandine than shaping those hard to forge alloys into breastplates.

 

[Tripledot]

The cheapest form of armor is a shield, and the most basic, alongside the helmet. If a soldier is going to be using nothing else, they'd be wearing a helmet and carrying a shield. If we're talking about defeating pike walls, though, the best defense is a better offense, i.e. longer pikes than the enemy.