Coat of plates discussion

[Mooncabbage]

The whole coat of plates/plated surcoat thing really is a bit confusing, however I think there is enough evidence that there is more to seperate them than just terminology, which justifies having two seperate items in the game. I think. I'm right, right?

 

[Amundr]

The whole coat of plates/plated surcoat thing really is a bit confusing, however I think there is enough evidence that there is more to separate them than just terminology, which justifies having two seperate items in the game. I think. I'm right, right?

Do i agree that there's more than cosmetic things to separate them? No.
Do i agree that there's a clear progression from a armoured surcoat to a coat of plate? no
Do i agree that a coat of plate is somehow more advanced than an armoured surcoat? no.
Do i agree that we should have two models? Yes(exactly because the differences is cosmetic).

Thordemann for instance (of visby fame) in his book about the visby find uses the terms interchangeable.
The only clear difference is that some has flaps and some do not.
The amount of plates and such have no bearing on it as you have some clear examples of armoured surcoats having more plates than some coat of plates.

[quote author=othr]
I read  the english translation of it and it seems to say that the plate should  be worn on top of the arming coat, under the mail.  Which is what  'plated mail' in the mod is.  But then again I only looked for the part  where I thought this item was described.
[/quote]
You are quite right and that is the place, but the general consensus is that that is a coat of plate.
Aule should probably be part of this discussion but i guess he is too busy with the map

 

[Mooncabbage]

There seems to be a degree of confusion regarding language. So while coat of plates and armoured surcoat might be interchangeable in scandanavia, and apparently lithuania too, they are distinct in the west.

If the progression was clear between the armoured surcoat and coat of plates, it wouldn't be a progression. Technology doesnt switch over at the flick of a switch.

The more than cosmetic things seperating them would be that the Coat of Plates has a leather backing/fronting, whatever, where the Armoured Surcoat, as far as I am aware does not. So obviously the Coat of Plates is going to be sturdier.

All that said, I originally thought that coat of plates and armoured surcoats were the same thing, and I'm back to not being sure again. There is very little concrete evidence to support the Armoured Surcoat as distinct from the Coat of Plates, atleast that I have seen.

I am so confused 

 

[Amundr]

If the progression was clear between the armoured surcoat and coat of plates, it wouldn't be a progression. Technology doesnt switch over at the flick of a switch.

I agree, what i mean with a clear progression is - starting with an armoured surcoat and ending up with a coat of plates with the intermediate using mostly armoured surcoats at the start and mostly coat of plates at the end with some of both in the middle.
Instead it seems theres some surcoats here and there and some coat of plates here and there.

The more than cosmetic things seperating them would be that the Coat of Plates has a leather backing/fronting, whatever, where the Armoured Surcoat, as far as I am aware does not. So obviously the Coat of Plates is going to be sturdier.

Do you have any examples of a armoured surcoat that doesnt use leather ?
Cause i haven't and i would be interested to see that.

 

[Amundr]

My posts ran away.

 

[Mooncabbage]

eep.