Armour

Toby Frost

Toby Frost

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
7,740
I was going to call this thread "Women in Armour" but then wondered how traffic to this board is measured. What I was wondering was:

1) General queries about armour from about 1400 to, say 1650. Obviously, it would change vastly between those dates. My own particular interest is in the late Renaissance to the English Civil War. How heavy was it? How was it stored? How did it, and all the rest of the stuff that heavy troops would use, get moved from battle to battle?

2) What, if any, adjustments would be needed for an (average-sized) woman to wear (realistic and functional) armour? I'd be thinking, again, of the later, cuirass-type body protector rather than the entire suit (or chainmail, etc from earlier periods).

Do we have any experts here, or can you point me towards a good book on this? Thanks.
 
1. You're talking about the period where gunpowder was effectively taking over the battlefield. The nearest research I've done is for the Condotierre of Italy, which covers much of the 15th century. I know King Henry VIII had a set of ceremonial plate armour, as I saw it on display at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. Plate armour has always been something that belonged to the upper class, though. By the time you get to the English Civil War, there are basic breastplates available for hand-to-hand combat, but gunpowder now rules the field.

The armour isn't too heavy for the wearer - the weight is distributed. Again, at Royal Armouries, I saw a display where two men in full plate did forward rolls in it, to show the lack of encumbrance. However, it's also worth noting that the fighting nobility were well-training athletes, with generally good physiques - their life could be spent doing hunting and training.

I'm not sure exactly how it's stored, but it does need protecting from rust. I know swords were oiled with linseed, so I would presume the similar could apply to plate armour.

So far as I understand it, plate armour would ordinarily be moved in wagons. It was simply too valuable to risk ordinary corruption by the elements and the wear of travel.

2. Plate armour is generally tailored to the wearer - this is expensive stuff.

However, there's a whole range of options below what the nobility wear - a cuirass can be more standard, but it doesn't have to be made from expensive steel - hardened leather or linen are options. Mail (chainmail) armour is expensive, but is usually made to have a degree of stretch, so it can hug the body as it's worn:


I wouldn't have a problem if I read a book where a woman might scavenge a cuirass or mail shirt to wear. However, unless she has boob support, they might rub terribly.
 
It might be worth a look at Osprey Publishing - I don't quite have what your looking for, as my focus is more on ancient at the moment, but I do have English Longbowman 1330-1515. Generally, although a bit pricy I admit, they are full of quite a lot of very useful information and pictures and really quite detailed on equipment. But I'm sure they will also partially answer some of your other questions.

Perhaps if you are near a big Waterstones, they might have a big revolving display of them and you can take a look at them before you take the plunge and purchase one. I see from their website that the current selection on your time period is a bit patchy, but there's stuff like Ironsides: English Cavalry 1588-1688 and Tudor Knight and a whole bunch of other tempting things (if only I had oodles of money...)
 
Can't help with the armour, but I know I've read of women police officers moaning like mad over the basic stab vest things they wear which are designed for men and consequently don't fit at all well, and that's with something that has an element of flexibility in it and a chance of pulling the strap things to make it fit better.

Breast size is going to be a major factor, obviously, so do her a favour and give her small breasts which will make life easier for her.

Corsets of the Victorian kind hadn't been invented in that time period, but women did wear a tight two part garment called a bodice from about the mid 1500s which your heroine could use to constrict her breasts, making any body armour easier to wear, or alternatively tight strapping with linen would help, though not too tight otherwise she won't be able to breathe.
 
Or pad it below the breasts and on the shoulders. After all, a lot of men may have a larger chest than the bust, and be wider in the shoulders.
 
There is a painting done in between 1450 and 1500 (20 to 70 years after her death)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_arc
How accurate it is? No idea.
The much later probably totally imaginary 19th C painting commonly used in books is on that link to.

Wikipedia can be biased, inaccurate or rubbish. But often quite good and usually a good starting point.

It's really a very strange story, and somewhat vindictive to burn her at the stake (which wasn't THAT common).

Neither though has the sort of armour beloved of Marvel style comics, computer games or most deviant art web site "mythic" women warriors (obviously mostly art by males spending too much time on page 3).

There are two other more complex paintings in the link, they are not so clear, but not "busty".

Edit: Seems extremely likely she was wearing ordinary men's armour.

In the end, she appears to have been executed for cross dressing rather than heresy!
But contemporaneously exonerated (but excuted already) on the basis it's acceptable for a woman to wear male armour or military clothing for protection.

It seems the English were fairly determined to execute her.

she had previously been wearing male (i.e. military) clothing in prison because it gave her the ability to fasten her hosen, boots and tunic together into one piece, which deterred rape by making it difficult to pull her hosen off.[73][74] A woman's dress offered no such protection. A few days after adopting a dress, she told a tribunal member that "a great English lord had entered her prison and tried to take her by force. [i.e. rape her]"[75] She resumed male attire either as a defense against molestation or, in the testimony of Jean Massieu, because her dress had been taken by the guards and she was left with nothing else to wear.[76]

Her resumption of male military clothing was labeled a relapse into heresy for cross-dressing, although this would later be disputed by the inquisitor who presided over the appeals court which examined the case after the war. Medieval Catholic doctrine held that cross-dressing should be evaluated based on context, as stated in the "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas, which says that necessity would be a permissible reason for cross-dressing.[77] This would include the use of clothing as protection against rape if the clothing would offer protection. In terms of doctrine, she had been justified in disguising herself as a pageboy during her journey through enemy territory and she was justified in wearing armor during battle and protective clothing in camp and then in prison. The Chronique de la Pucelle states that it deterred molestation while she was camped in the field. When her soldiers' clothing wasn't needed while on campaign, she was said to have gone back to wearing a dress.[78] Clergy who later testified at the posthumous appellate trial affirmed that she continued to wear male clothing in prison to deter molestation and rape.[73]

She referred the court to the Poitiers inquiry when questioned on the matter. The Poitiers record no longer survives but circumstances indicate the Poitiers clerics had approved her practice.[79] She also kept her hair cut short through her military campaigns and while in prison. Her supporters, such as the theologian Jean Gerson, defended her hairstyle for practical reasons, as did Inquisitor Brehal later during the appellate trial.[80] Nonetheless, at the trial in 1431 she was condemned and sentenced to die.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
An active female warrior of the nobility, like her male counterparts, would likely be very athletic. Not a lot of body fat. Think Olympic rowers and the like. So she might need some padding, but I don't imagine she would need big boobs sculpted on her armour.
 
Thanks for the comments, everyone.

I'm completely unsure about Joan of Arc: Poul Anderson says in "Of Thud and Blunder" that she never did fight -I doubt being a shepherd really equips you for medieval warfare - but she might well have worn some kind of armour. It's further complicated by the fact that she seems to have become really popular again quite a long while after her death. Hard to say.

My understanding is that a late-model breastplate would rest on the hips as much as the shoulders for comfort, and I'd expect it to be pretty padded with a shirt and (New Model Army style) perhaps a coat of some sort. I suppose the only issue then is bust size. I am not sure to what extent things can be held down, and probably the best plan is just to make everyone concerned on the smaller end of the spectrum.

I'm not sure whether an adventurer - which seems a very fantasy-novel concept in itself - would travel in that sort of armour. I would have thought that it would be pretty awkward to wear for very long. But if you didn't, you'd need at least a squire to help you, which feels much more medieval than the Renaissance-type era I'm thinking of (which itself covers a lot!).
 
Toby Frost said:
My understanding is that a late-model breastplate would rest on the hips as much as the shoulders for comfort, and I'd expect it to be pretty padded with a shirt and (New Model Army style) perhaps a coat of some sort. I suppose the only issue then is bust size. I am not sure to what extent things can be held down, and probably the best plan is just to make everyone concerned on the smaller end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

My understanding of breastplates is that they were generally tied shut around the waist (if we're talking about two hinged parts). My experience here is limited, though!

Toby Frost said:
I'm not sure whether an adventurer - which seems a very fantasy-novel concept in itself - would travel in that sort of armour. I would have thought that it would be pretty awkward to wear for very long. But if you didn't, you'd need at least a squire to help you, which feels much more medieval than the Renaissance-type era I'm thinking of (which itself covers a lot!).
Click to expand...

Context is everything - something like that might be worn ordinarily as a precaution in very dangerous countryside. When not expecting trouble, though, perhaps just a tunic - else a mail shirt.

A squire and page were the norm among the knights of Europe. In fact, for the Condottiere of Italy, knight + squire + page was the basic military unit. This is from my reading from the Osprey book on the topic:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1846030773/?tag=brite-21

As for women in armour - I know I linked to a story here a while back, about a leading swordswoman. However, I can't find which thread it was - all I remember is that she's called Rose, and lives in Canada. I think there may be another thread linking to illustrations of women in suitable plate armour.
 
I was talking to someone that studied historic clothing etc as part of art course,
She says, like the references on wikipedia to Joan of Arc, that any women fighting before 20th C simply wore men's outfits.
 
Hi,

My thought would be that there would be no adjustments made because armour simply wasn't made for women. There was a reason that Joan wore men's armour and it had nothing to do with wanting to cross dress. It was what was available.

There are of course a few exceptions to this. Liz the First is often depicted as wearing armour on the battlefield, and I assume it was made for her. But I suspect it was also as much about fashion(?) for want of a better term, as anything else. At no point would she ever have been expected to wade into battle. Just sit on her horse and look regal.

Cheers, Greg.
 
I found the following two articles


Emily Asher-Perrin
It’s Time to Retire “Boob Plate” Armor. Because It Would Kill You.
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you

Let’s begin by stating the simple purpose of plate armor—to deflect blows from weaponry. Assuming that you are avoiding the blow of a sword, your armor should be designed so that the blade glances off your body, away from your chest. If your armor is breast-shaped, you are in fact increasing the likelihood that a blade blow will slide inward, toward the center of your chest, the very place you are trying to keep safe.


Lauren Davis
What kind of armor did Medieval women really wear?
http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338

We know that skimpy armor that shows off a woman's cleavage is rather impractical for combat and that sculpted "boob plate" armor can be a hazard to your health...
 
psychotick said:
There was a reason that Joan wore men's armour and it had nothing to do with wanting to cross dress.
Click to expand...
That's what the posthumous exoneration decided. It wasn't regarded as cross dressing to wear male soldier style clothes for protection. All church authorities agreed on that.

Glitch said:
What kind of armor did Medieval women really wear?
http://io9.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338
Click to expand...
Good link, pretty much what I was told and fits with common sense.
 
Hi,

Did some googling of Liz the first for her famous speech and got this from the wiki as to what she wore, armour wise:

"Elizabeth’s physical appearance was vital to the historical event, and just as important, if not more, than the actual speech. Dozens of descriptions of Elizabeth on that day exist with slightly differing details. Similarities between descriptions indicate that she at least wore a plumed helmet and a steel cuirass over a white velvet gown. She held a gold and silver truncheon, or baton, in her hand as she rode atop a white steed."

Cheers, Greg.
 
Thanks, everyone. So I think we have three possible sorts of armour: the patently stupid, the ceremonial, and that designed for actual use, which in a lot of cases would be identical to that used by men, if on average a bit smaller. I suppose if the breastplate needed any adaptation, it would have a sort of expanded chestplate angled to deflect hits, without the dent in the middle that comes from using two half-bowls (which would direct swords directly towards the heart anyway and would probably be less durable).

Actually, while going into battle in metal underwear would be very stupid indeed, it seems to me not quite as stupid as going into battle in high-heeled shoes/boots, which is another favourite of the cheesier school of armour depiction. At least someone in no clothes can get out the way, as the crazier Ancient Britons seem to have done, rather than just tottering about.

As an aside, I have vague memories of Kate Bush singing a song in absurd metal armour, although this might just be the sort of thing that I’d expect Kate Bush to do, rather than something that really happened.
 
I expect tummy and chest under boobs padded with thicker than usual padding which gives support and allows male shaped breast plate to fit. The men had padded garments anyway, front and back, or a blow on armour would crack a rib or a vertebrae.

I don't think Kate Bush expected to fight anything worse than fans or record company executives.

I always assumed real stuff under armour was what I wore learning to fence, except more so. Certainly had to have been a lot more substantial than "cowboy" style long johns or every blow would be agony.

Toby Frost said:
into battle in high-heeled shoes/boots
Click to expand...
High heeled boots started with horsemen to allow standing in stirrups? Or whatever. Originated in East and copied in Europe.
Hence cowboy boots have heels.
But liability without horse.


Edit:
In the ninth century, Persian horseback warriors wore an extended heel made up for keeping feet from sliding out of stirrups. This also kept riders still when they needed to stand up and shoot arrows.
...
Mediæval Europeans wore wooden-soled patten shoes, which were ancestors to contemporary high heels. Elizabeth Semmelhack, curator at Toronto's Bata Shoe Museum, traces the high heel to Persian horse riders in the Near East who used high heels for functionality, because they helped hold the rider's foot in stirrups. She states that this footwear is depicted on a 9th-century ceramic bowl from Persia.

It is sometimes suggested that raised heels were a response to the problem of the rider's foot slipping forward in stirrups while riding. The "rider's heel", approximately 11⁄2 inches (3.8 cm) high, appeared in Europe around 1600. The leading edge was canted forward to help grip the stirrup, and the trailing edge was canted forward to prevent the elongated heel from catching on underbrush or rock while backing up, such as in on-foot combat. These features are evident today in riding boots, notably cowboy boots.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_footwear

and
The modern riding boot is relatively low-heeled, with a heel of less than one inch, though historically a higher heel was common, as it has always been critically important for riding boots to prevent the foot from slipping through the stirrup. Today, only some styles of cowboy boot retain a higher heel than other modern riding boots.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_boot

Cowboy boots are rubbish to walk long distances or run.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D What would be the best type of armour setup for a Witcher or similar? SFF Lounge 1
Brian G Turner Getting dressed in plate armour History 14
Brian G Turner Longbow vs armour History 15
HareBrain Chekhov's armoury and narrative dead ends Writing Discussion 14
Brian G Turner Armour doesn't exist! History 7

Similar threads


Back
Top