Native studded leather, any historical equivalent?

正在查看此主题的用户

LCJr

Knight
To me "studded leather" is something out of D&D and really don't see what adding a few metal studs is going to do for protective value.  But the artwork on the Native version is damn nice and I'd like to use it in my mod.  So does anyone know of any historical armor types that resemble the Native version?  Preferably early 13th century or before?
 
It's a brigandine+mail as far as I can tell. Exactly the same as the "light mail and plate" by the way.
 
The practice originated from Egyptian craftsmen (at least that's as far back as I've seen it). Probably carried over into warfare from peasants who were used to doing it at work (or alternatively, were wearing their leather aprons to the battlefield...)
As for what it does, the metal studs will tend to stop a blade actually cutting open the leather. Not sure how effective it would be against someone trying to kill you, but when you're looking at an accidental slip of an axe, knife or similar it would cause the blade to bounce off, or at least stop it from slicing too far. You'd likely still suffer bruising (and in the case of an axe, broken bones), but you'd keep the limb, which at the time is pretty much the difference between a week or so off work, or being out of a trade altogether.

Not sure about historic examples. Leather rarely remains intact unless preserved in near ideal conditions, and of course hammering studs through it won't help. We do have bracers and the like, though I'm not aware of anything resembling actual armour.
 
An obvious way to get a quick and dirty armor would be to sew metal pieces to leather. Probably something like the studded leather, it would be poor armor, it would have spacing between the pieces so it would not protect much against trust and it would easy get broken, but far better than nothing. In Dies the fire this was one of the first improvised armors who were designed.
 
No such thing as studded leather in the time period we're dealing with. 
There are garments and armors that look like it, but the studs are solely there too hold the leather or cloth outer layer to the armor plates of steel, horn or leather underneath. 
 
I wish I could remember where I read it, but I read that Studded Leather was based on Victorian misconceptions of medieval art.  It is similar to how they came up with the erroneous idea of Ring Mail based on the way the monks depicted norman mail on the Bayeaux Tapestry and similar works.  I swear I can almost remember where I read that, but it's slipping my mind right now.
 
Oh, you could have read it anywhere.  You're exactly right.


The Victorians got a lot right, but just as much wrong it seems.  They saw pictures like this
-and thought that that the red studded suit that the Count of Blois is wearing (right side) was a doublet made protective by its studs, rather than being a breastplate covered in velvet which happened to be affixed by studs.  (...Actually that one has enough studs that it might be a brigandine, but it doesn't really matter. You get the picture)
 
Just read Viollet-le-Duc. He describes lots of stuffs you can't imagine.
He can be criticised about a lot if things, but not about what he saw. And he saw things which does not exist anymore. (Two major wars destroyed a lot of historical inheritage in continental Europe...)

Hey ! Destichado ! You got a picture from the BNF representing a French camp being attacked by the English during the HYW !
The "breastplate covered in velvet which happened to be affixed by studs" is a brigantine. The fact is that the artist couldn't represent all the studs, because the size of the picture.
 
And you know this how? 

Yes, I know that the picture is from Froissart's Chronicles, and that armor might be a brigandine -as I mentioned.  It's also possible that the upper half of the cuirass on the knight on the white horse is brigandined.  You can guess based on the pattern of the rivits.
You say the artist couldn't paint in all the rivets, I say the rivets aren't supposed to be there.  Who's guess has more validity?  You see?  With iconography it can't be any more than a guess.  Hopefully an educated guess, but still, a guess. 
 
Those pictures are small. They decorate a part of a book page.
And the fact is, in this History period, a lot of things were done. People tried to reach a compromise between armor weight and protection and suppleness.
The picture you gave the link was made during the XVth century, when the brigantine was used by almost every (rich) fighter (because of it's effectiveness and suppleness and price (it's cheaper than a plate armor)).
I've never heard or read that plates were covered with studded velvet before. IMO, it's useless. But if you have sources about, I'm curious...

I'd put a link to VlD's English version, but I can't find one. Looks like he never was translated...
 
You've never heard of a velveted breastplate??? 
tk2a-eyebrow.gif


Ooookay. 
Examples are in the Churburg collection, the Royal Armouries and the Wallace Museum, off the top of my head.  It serves decorative, not functional purpose.  Examples range from the late 14th century to the late 16th (where my interest cuts off) at least, at the very same time in which we see velvet-covered helmets.


I must dispute your assertion that brigandines were more common and less expensive than breastplates -one would think that logical, but purchase and guild records indicate the reverse is true.  Brigandines were individually fitted to the buyer's torso and the plates were cut, shaped and tinned by armorers who had more experience and higher pay than the platteners who made plate cuirasses. 
Now, obviously, once we start talking about exquisite harness like the Duke of Warwick's or the Archduke of Tyrol's that no longer holds true.  But nevertheless, a solder of the late 15th century who could not afford plate cap-a-pie would not pick a brigandine over a breastplate because of price.  If price were the issue, he would chose a padded jack -a multi-layer linen garment.
 
后退
顶部 底部