The Armour Archive

This may be an unusual question, but I've always wondered about the protection over the midriff. Most breastplates do not cover the whole belly leaving room for flexibility and better movement. However the belly is also one of the more vulnerable areas of the body as a sharp blow there could incapacitate or kill someone.

I guess it boils down to the old balance between protection and mobility. A well protected fighter won't fight well if he can't move well.

Any insights on this are appreciated.

chainmaille.

up to and including the 14th century, chainmail and in some cases a scale skirt were used.

Once plate became more prevelant, faulds were used. But usually in conjunction with chainmail to.

I would think a saddle would offer a decent amount of protection...

Chainmaille, yes but the other thing about chainmaille is that it protects against cuts, not blunt force. Meaning the energy of an attack would still be transferred to the body, resulting in damage.

You are talking about a time of transition from full maille to full plate; really there was nothing else there in those designs.

One thing to remember, though, is that the abdomen (at least the front and front flanks are effectively hollow, and take blunt trauma much easier than the thoracic cavity, which has some solid and more sensitive organs - spleen, liver, heart...

Nature's pretty smart about protecting things adequately... no ribs, good flexibility of the lumbar/abdomen region, nothing (ok, kidneys and spine, but those are in the back) terribly fragile.

Maille is pretty good protection, as is a padded garment like a gambeson, especially when used with the deadening maille over it.

The saddle burr plate of a war saddle.

They wore entire mail haubergorns under those lieelt breastplates - *possibly* two of them or more like a haubergorn, over a mail fauld, and then the breastplate.

Good point. I've always thought of the stomach being more vulnerable. Especially considering the way Houdini died.

Aaron Schnatterly wrote:One thing to remember, though, is that the abdomen (at least the front and front flanks are effectively hollow, and take blunt trauma much easier than the thoracic cavity, which has some solid and more sensitive organs - spleen, liver, heart...

Nature's pretty smart about protecting things adequately... no ribs, good flexibility of the lumbar/abdomen region, nothing (ok, kidneys and spine, but those are in the back) terribly fragile.

Maille is pretty good protection, as is a padded garment like a gambeson, especially when used with the deadening maille over it.

And while point out the obvious and nearly said....when seated, and up high, and with a saddle, the midriff is far less exposed.

True, but if you're an infantryman, that's a different story.

Charles Alexander wrote:True, but if you're an infantryman, that's a different story.

If you had more than a padded armor, maybe some maille, and helm as an "infantryman" then you are in damn good shape.

According to archive tradition, "virtue" provides excellent protection.

Charles Alexander wrote:True, but if you're an infantryman, that's a different story.

Nah, you just hunch down and compress your body more.
----
But there is some indirect truth there....if we look at the historical record....think about who is wearing a breastplate....and what they were up against.

The early globose cuirass was often accompanied by a shield of some sort. Or if worn amongst fellas with polearms or spears, they were often far enough removed from the thick of things....at least for some periods during actual battle.

Mail provides a degree of protection....and its likely some form of gambeson was worn underneath....so if we think it through its not as if a fella wearing a cuirass was naked below....he had likely had addiional protection and his possible shield, weapon and/or manner of fighting gave him additional protection.

This concept is not unlike a hoplite or roman infantryman in which bear thighs or "helpless groin region" seems insane to us. Bearing in mind the element of closely grouped fighting and the shield which was in effect mid-torso protection due to its size. Im sure the Greek or Roman fellas could chime in here (ahem, Matt...paging Matt Ampt) would more or less agree.

Now, bear in mind late medieval and renaissance soliders who donned cuirassed appear to have had a fauld/tassets more regularly...(ie, helmet, cuirass and gauntlets) partly because the hand held shield had largely disappeared.

This would protect your belly:

and many more.....

Some byzantine constructions are interesting- lamellar over mail, at times leaving just the abdomen free of plates. I'm guessing this is for increased movement. Anyone who has been caught in the corset like grip of a coat of plates could probably relate to that. I am also aware of some 11th and 12th c pieces from Poland that are meant to cover the abdomen specifically with a thick leather belt about 7 inches tall re-enforced with iron plates.

I've noted that as well. Primarilly on the Military Saints who are dipicted as dismounted cavalry, there is a trend of a less armoured (or un-armoured) oval gap at the lower abdomen. It makes sence that you would not be able to ride with the elongated curiass and that the horse provides protection to the "eviscerate-able" area.

Michal Janta-Polczynski wrote:Some byzantine constructions are interesting- lamellar over mail, at times leaving just the abdomen free of plates. I'm guessing this is for increased movement. Anyone who has been caught in the corset like grip of a coat of plates could probably relate to that.