HOME | DD
LeValeur β Armour evolution
Published: 2013-12-24 12:08:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 65726; Favourites: 1534; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 88
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
What nation do these guys represent? I don't recognize the shield.
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
I quite like how the coat of arms changes... it's like a depiction of the same family over the years.
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
It's as if between the last two stages there'd been a paradigm shift :3
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
There was. By 1610 firearms had been invented, and most European powers were scrambling to adopt them in some form. Gone were the days of the fully clad knight, and in their place you saw soldiers in lighter but better built armor that covered the vital organs and head while giving them more flexibility.
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome! It's nice to see centuries worth of armored soldiers lined up for comparison.
What's the red thing the 1330 knight is wearing on his torso? Is that just cloth or is that actually armor? It looks more like the latter to me, resembling brigandine the most, but I'm not 100% sure.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are correct, that is a brigandine.
π: 1 β©: 0
Thia is one of the best images I have ever seen. Thanks man
π: 0 β©: 0
This is very informative. I hadn't realized that full plate armour had come so late, relatively speaking. Thank you for creating this.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't get it, now why did the French or any Euro kingdom for that matter lower their armor to that degree? It's certainly would help them against war fights.
π: 0 β©: 1
Which one? The period of 1610? At that time, guns and other flexible tactics were becoming better and better and more desired than soldiers in full plate armor. The reason for this is, from watching how the evolution went, is probably because of how expensive plate armor was to produce. You can imagine how limiting that must be if a king were to pay for his soldiers to be suited up in plate armor and the like, and feudalism was essentially gone at that time too, so the economy from the lands being worked by the commoner is no longer theirs and instead it is the commoner's place of land which they will earn money from. That and guns were outdoing plate armor, except the cuirass. The cuirass and the helmet were still quite essential to protecting the main vitals of the body. There are so many factors to be honest that I don't think I can list them all.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah now that you mention I suppose the resources in Europe by the 1600's did become more rare; thus the price had to raised and economy was pretty shot back in those days.
Overall if weapons were becoming more and more efficient, I would think that despite all the cannons and the first use of guns, some heavy armor would still be recommended. Unless the French army figure they could win most of their wars without much armor and more tactics, then I'm very impressed because most regions in the old world (besides Africa and Australia) wore full armor by 1610 or at least the 1600's. So it is very much interesting.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I suppose so. I'm not that knowledgeable on the economics of that timeline, so thanks for telling me that.
The 1600 armor looks a little confusing but there were heavy armor that were still in use like half armor. Here's an example:Β en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Savβ¦
Yeah it is interesting. But warfare was changing, and so armies and the like had to change I suppose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah me neither, but I figure I could look it up considering the hunch.
Oh yeah I remember that type of armor...I think normally that was worn in royal guards, in the kingdoms back then as of that point (maybe).
But it is still seems pretty risky, I bet a lot of foreign battalions laughed see the French with that kind of armor...but like they always say "To each their own" in order to survive you gotta improve things to make your life "easier" I guess.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm gonna favorite this. It's a good reference for armor
π: 0 β©: 0
More like a DEvolution at the end.
It's so sad that there is no today's equivalent to the old full body Plate Armour in terms of being combat-worthy...
π: 0 β©: 0
As soon as guns appeared...armour just went out the window
π: 0 β©: 1
Not exactly. In the 16th century, the amount of armor was reduced, but what was left was made thicker to better resist bullets. In fact, the term "bulletproof" comes from the practice of firing a pistol or an arquebus at a cuirass to prove its strength to the customer.
Also, firearms were available in Europe as early as the 14th century.
π: 0 β©: 1
In fact, plate armor was made to be bulletproof. And then the pikes came, and it began being "Pike magnet".
π: 0 β©: 1
and it was also in part due to economics. good armor let alone a set that could stop a matchlock bullet was incredibly expensive. only the top brass could afford a bulletproof cuirass and still be able to afford everything else
π: 0 β©: 0
I really love this post you did on the evolution of Knightly armour.
Actually, I need to thank you for this sheet since it was one of the results I found on google when I was searching for a chart of different armors for each century when I was developing one of my characters a while back. I also wanted to to give you credit for the inspiration by this for one of my posts.
π: 0 β©: 0
I was thinking the 1250 knight would have a larger shield if anything, to stop clubs and sling stones.Β Because chainmail doesn't really protect against impacts.Β He might also have looked fatter if he had a thick gambeson underneath.
According to wiki the kite shield was 'completely phased out by 1300' due to the fact that leg armor got good enough.Β My guess is that throughout 13th century, there would have been pavisses and such, leading to a reduction in the popularity of kite shields (the main consumer being troop formations).Β Any particularly brazen knights fighting out in the open probably still used them until that cutting off point (1300 AD).
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool! 
π: 0 β©: 1
To be fair, the brightly colored uniforms were necessary to differentiate between different armies because it was extremely difficult to see through the smoke on the battlefield created by volley after volley of musket fire. This is what the term "fog of war" comes from.
Also, I never found breeches to be uncomfortable.
π: 0 β©: 0
ΠΡΠΈΠ²Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π½ΡΠ°Π²ΡΡΡΡ Π΄ΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ»Π°ΡΡΡΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌ?
π: 0 β©: 0
this is such an informative and educational work of art. it would be cool to see versions for say, cavalry, archers, pikemen, and the like
π: 0 β©: 0
Dropping the steel helmet from the 1650s to WWI was probably not a good idea.
π: 0 β©: 2
In the 17th century, many cavalrymen actually privately purchased metal helmets shaped like cavalier hats and covered in felt or leather.
π: 0 β©: 0
Indeed! Three pointed hats, shakos and kepis offered no protectionΒ for the head; even the original pickelhaube was only made of leather.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not only that, but WW1 era steel helmets were actually based on late medieval to early modern designs.
The British "tin hat" was based on the eisenhut/ chapel de fer.
The French Adrian helmet was based on a morion or cabasset.
The German M16 Stahlhelm was based on the German sallet.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>