Breastplate with no Back

Martin Hodges · Post by **Martin Hodges** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:53 am

How frequently were breastplates worn with no backplates? Was it common for an infantryman to wear a breastplate that was just strapped on over mail and a gambeson? Or was it one of those cases that if you could afford a nice breastplate, you probably shelled out the extra cash for a full cuirass (and possibly, full harness)? In terms of time period, I'm not talking about any specific time period, just any time in 14th-16th centuries when plate armour was common. I apologize if this is too vague or broad a question.

thanks,
M. Hodges

Josh W · Post by **Josh W** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:25 am

Unfortunately, this was indeed a common practice.

Jason Grimes · Post by **Jason Grimes** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:38 am

Your question is a little vague.

I think you can assume that breastplates were worn with out backplates from when they were first used to well in to the 17th century and probably beyond. In general this was limited to the infantry, but I have seen examples of mounted men wearing breastplates without backplates too. The popularity of this configuration waxed and wained through out the centuries. If you are able to narrow your time frame a bit we could give you a better information about how popular it was.

Or was it one of those cases that if you could afford a nice breastplate, you probably shelled out the extra cash for a full cuirass (and possibly, full harness)?

Don't be pulled into this kind of logic,as it is not nessessarily true. It might work ok for the 14th and 15th centuries, but by the 16th even very wealthy solders would wear just the breastplate. Of course they would have been of better quality then the regular munition armour of the times. But the choice of configuration was more dependent on what battlefield role they were doing then how much money they had. I suspect that this was a condition for the earlier centuries too, but this is not my area of interest so i'm not sure.

RandallMoffett · Post by **RandallMoffett** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:06 am

I do not think it possible to say one was more common than the other. Equipment of any sort is very difficult to place. Now if artwork is any indictor then you could look there. Many show men in backplates in the 15th as well as some without. From artwork it would seem that backplates would have been worn very often, in my opinion more than without. But there are still a good number of men without so I doubt it would be seen as uncommon, and it depends on the artist as well. This brings us to is artwork accurate and have I looked at enough artwork. I don't know.

I agree with Jason. That reasoning should not be just on economics but I think it still had to have played a part. Some other factors could also be what was the persons preference. Even into modern times people in combat change their equipment to suit tastes (even if against the rules). What about ventilation as well? I personally think it could go either ways. In some inventories of the city of York and London from the 15th many non-knight own breastplates and backplates, (I guess from some of their other items Lances, spurs etc. they were men at arms, but that is not sure either). I rarely come across breastplates without indication they had backplates from what I have seen. now 14th I am still unsure about as many of the inventories are so unclear.

RPM

RPM

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:18 pm

In infantry, this sort of thing was fifteenth and sixteenth century. The rise of the arquebus and musket in the early seventeenth obsolesced the infantry use of breastplate, as this otherwise attractive defense of the vitals got in the musketeers' way. Then add the difficulty of shooting accurately with a military longarm at any range over forty yards anyway, and absent the explosive artillery shell except for special occasions when they got the mortars up -- well, running around without any heavy hard stuff on worked better than we of the era of "hit the dirt!" might imagine.

The infantry arm with an effective range of first 450 yards, then a thousand, then back to 450 when some smart guy noticed you can't even see a reasonably intelligent enemy infantryman at a thousand yards -- shot all the dumb ones by then :wink:

-- and the flying fragments and rocks showering the general battlefield when practically every artillery projectile is supposed to explode have been what made brain protection a commonplace, and now protection of the vitals is coming back, with a semi-flexible body armor making its demand on the mud-foot's sixty-five pound combat load.

Martin Hodges · Post by **Martin Hodges** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:44 am

Thanks guys. That answers my question, or at least in terms of a "yes, maybe, sometimes depending on the time period, battle conditions, type of soldier, class of soldier, personal preference and/or comfort level." And that was basically all I wanted: reinforcement of what I already expected. The only reason I asked in the first place was because most of what I read and see focuses on the knight with his nice shiny full harness, not the common foot soldier that might have scraped the cash together to buy a BP (or steal it off a dead soldier after a battle). Thanks again.

M. Hodges

P.S. For those of you in the SCA or any other fighting groups, I have another question. Do any of you use only a BP because of a comfort issue or because a backplate hinders range of movement? Or do you consider the restrictions that a backplate might have worth the added protection? This might be opening up a whole other can of worms.

Josh W · Post by **Josh W** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:47 am

I don't think a well-made back is any more hindering than a breastplate. Maybe even a little bit less. My cuirass is the least troublesome component of my harness.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:29 pm

The Pistoia? Altar shows bp over mail, with no back plates. c1376?

Mike England · Post by **Mike England** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:01 am

In the SCA you probably need more protection against wrap shots than historical and with just a breast plate you would still need some additional protection for the kidney area. Also a backplate will help counterbalance the weight of a breastplate.