Clermont, I can't give you any specific references to other theories, it is only something I recall having read somewhere.
Another theory is the rise of the English archer I believe.
Here are a couple of references I came across on this site;
http://www.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/plate_armor/indepth/biblio.htmlI have not read them, but they may be of interest.
Richardson, Thom. The Introduction of Plate Armour in Medieval Europe. Royal Armouries Yearbook vol. 2(1997): 40-45.
An exceptional article directly dealing with the beginnings of the transition from mail to plate.
Williams, Alan. "Slag Inclusions in Armour." Historical Metallurgy Vol 24, #2 (1990): 69-80.
Interesting comparison of sources of iron in various armors. Also contains information on the price of armor in the middle ages.
Back to your theory.
In the Ffoulkes book he lists some armour workshop prices, and I managed to find one which refers to both wire and plate in the same source. It is from 1544 and states the following costs of supply;
....wispe steel....at 4d./lb.
....wire...........at 4d./lb.
The amount of this wispe steel used in the workshop is small compared to the amount of ordinary steel, which is (as calculated by Ffoulkes)purchased at.......2.5d./lb.
This indicates the wire being not very expensive. Ofcource the main cost is still in the assemply of maille.
You state above that "Indian engineers move here(to the US) because they get paid much better in our tighter labor market". I don't know how you could possibly consider the higher pay rates in the US to be due to less unemployment. You live in a 'Western' affluent society with equivalent pay rates. India is a developing nation with a very poor population. The difference has little to do with the number of unemployed.
Back to the theory.
Are you saying that the plate, having been more expensive than maille, became cheaper than it, or just comparitively less expensive?
I have to ask, what is it about plate that could possibly make it much more expensive than maille when labour costs are low? The amount of raw material is not much different.
Also, one has to consider that iron armour was mostly a resource for the wealthy, and when plate was adopted it was almost always as an addition to the maille, not replacing it. So for a knight who wanted to upgrade his armour when prices had risen would pay extra for both maille and the plate, but the plate had not risen in price as much as maille, but over all it was more expensive and he couldn't just forego the maille in favour of plate, this didn't happen until very in the 14th century, in the meantime there had to be a driving force other than cost to get armour development to the stage where plate replaces maille.
You state that; "Colder regions, and those off the main trade routes weren't hit as hard by the plague, so places like Scandinavia, Scotland, and northern Germany had less financial incentive to adopt plate" Does that include Eastern Europe? Is see on illustrations from there that they were quite advanced in plate armour early on, especially leg and arm defences.
Building on what you said, if the wealthy of the countries less affected by labour price hikes needed armour, they could get it cheaper than those in the countries with higher labour costs. Thus, they should be able to afford better armour for their money, and better armour was plate. Correct? This, ofcourse, is in oppostion to your logic. Which is correct?
I think the incentive to adopt more plate over maille was not financial, as adding plate over maille saved you no money, no matter what the comparative costs of maille and plate. If you already have the maille, then adding plate armour is still not finacially better for those who can get it at higher prices, but comparatively cheaper to maille. Plate would only take off if it had become cheaper than before and this could not happen with increasing labour costs.
When the common soldier adopted metal armour, what was the first? A helm, followed by maille and then a CoP, then metal arm and leg protection. This trend seems to have continued into the 15th century. It also does not suggest a move to plate as a cheaper first option.
Erik
