Breastplate for comments

[Victrix]

Just some additional interesting pics I found on the subject.

Seems most pikemen’s breast plates were not shot proof marked. Presumably they were mainly for protection from enemy pikes and therefore perhaps need not be as thick as other breast plates. 4kg does not sound excessive for a pikeman’s breastplate. I have a shot proof marked Swedish 1680s cavalry breast plate that weighs about double that.

[M ELEY]

I love this breastplate, Fernando! As armor isn't my forte, I'll just say that if I collected such, this is exactly the type of piece I'd seek; munitions-grade worn by the troops in the field and not an officer.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I love this breastplate, Fernando! As armor isn't my forte, I'll just say that if I collected such, this is exactly the type of piece I'd seek; munitions-grade worn by the troops in the field and not an officer.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Victrix

Just some additional interesting pics I found on the subject.

Seems most pikemen’s breast plates were not shot proof marked. Presumably they were mainly for protection from enemy pikes and therefore perhaps need not be as thick as other breast plates. 4kg does not sound excessive for a pikeman’s breastplate. I have a shot proof marked Swedish 1680s cavalry breast plate that weighs about double that.

My deepest apologies, Victrix; due to being influenced by service in the (ex-colonies) army i though you were referring to 'modern' sappers digging 'modern' landmines.
Concerning weight and shot proof tests, considerations would be; In the texts produced by the Barcarena Museum, breastplates made over there were subject to such tests, although i don't notice such shot in my example but, given the benefit of doubt, tests may take place as checked by the inspector, and not show the shot mark ... whether this was performed with a lighter musket or a lighter load. Curiously the other example exhibited at the museum is one made in Switzerland (Zurich arsenal) to export to Sweden, which ended up in Portugal in 1642 when Queen Cristina got rid of a lot of equipment after the years war. This is a more 'sophisticated' version,with signs that it has been lined, and also with strap fastenings... but no shot proof mark either.
Curiously it is recorded has (also) weighing circa 4 kilos.
Obviously your example weighing about the double served a different purpose; notwithstanding all that weight may not only be about thickness but also about (higher) measurements, to fit a men's in another manner.


.

[kronckew]

I was talking more about English pikers. The Spanish/Portugese ones favoured the cup hilt swords, English, not so much. I note in Victrix's entry above the sword hilts do show a couple cup hilts, the rest were more open styles.

I read that the 17c english armies went with infantry about 1/3 pikemen, just under 2/3 musketeeers with a few miscellaneous other types. The drawing I posted would seem to indicate the officer is the armoured one with the sword, and the unarmoured ones were the cannon fodder. but i suspect the armoured ones in front were being bossed about by the unarmoured older dandy hiding in the second rank pointing forward and the armoured ones were just lucky to have accumulated expensive armour. Alexander's sarissa pikemen probably were not quite so uniformly accoutored either. (They must have acquired the elephant along the way to India )

I'd found a nice modern photo from the same perspective as the macedonian photo of a group of english re-enactor pike persons from the sealed knot, all in buff leather coats and morions, but the two most prominent were rather excessively heavy looking and even more obviously female. Didn't think they were quite representative for here. Mean looking tho. They were their own shield wall.

[fernando]

You did well Wayne .
Better than previously useful modern & charming re-enactment photos, certainly period paintings would have us traveling close(r) to reality. A not so easy task, though .

[kronckew]

Thanks, Fernando.

One faux pas by re-enactors is there apparent insistence on uniformity, us in everybody must be uniformed the same. A fairly modern concept in armies. The re-enactors above are all dressed in red, Roman re-enactors pretty much all have the same kit, the same shields, and the same paintings on them, with only limited variation. It started somewhere in the late renaissance - 18c, I suspect as firearms were more prevalent, as a fairly intelligent method of camouflage. The Officers of course wore more flamboyant markings of rank, but they knew the convention was that no one was supposed to give undue attention to shooting officers. That kinda went away in the late 18c - early 19c, especially after more accurate rifles made sniping and killing the officers a good tactic, as us gol-durn Americans found out to our benefit. Another reason swords went out of fashion, if you see a man with a sword, shoot him first. Worked enormously well in 1815 at New Orleans. A Scots regiment attacking the American line lost their officers, and with no one to order them to fight back, stood in place, arms shouldered as they were massacred to a man, obeying the last order they had received in true British fashion.

Ώ ξειν', ἀγγέλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ότι τήδε κείμεθα, τοις κοίνων ρήμασι πειθόμενοι

‘dic hospes, Spartae, nos te hic vidisse iacentes,
dum sanctis patriae legibus obsequimur.’

stranger, go tell the Spartans that here,
obedient to our law we lie.

It's the same method that flocks of birds, herds of zebra, antelope, etc. use. If everyone looks the same, a predator has trouble singling out and aiming for an individual. If you all wear the same colour, and the same hats, and it's different than your enemy. It helps prevent the blue on blue mistakes we make nowadays with our more modern cammys that blend more into the background...Now-a-days if you stand out at all, you probably WILL get shot.

[midelburgo]

I believe the last real "push of pike" took place in 1544 at the battle of Ceresoles. It was mortiferous when the arquebusiers from both sides waited until pikes were contacting to shoot.

Afterward, pikes were used to form "shuttles" protecting the firepower inside from enemy cavalry. But if one of those formations would try to approach another for contact it will suffer too many casualties on the way. The arquebusiers inside a moving block of pike cannot shoot for obvious reasons. So they came outside to skirmish and entered the block again if cavalry was nearby. And they kneeled, fired prone or used cover. Something pikes could not do. Recharging was a really dangerous moment to do it outside the block and it could not be made on the move inside.

I have seen dozens of reports from battles from the second half of XVIth century to the end of TYW, and I do not see "push of pikes" anywhere. In spite of what re-enactment groups, movies and wargamers do.

The tendency to increase firepower and decrease pikes will just make it more difficult. The generalized exchange of soldiers quality (volunteers) for quantity (forced recruits), did the same. As did the more often use of field artillery and its rate of fire. If a block of pike decided to make a stand protecting a vital point it will be sooner targeted by guns than have another block of pike sent against them.

Again, the reports of wounded from hospitals have usually a lack of pike blemishes.

Of course, there were situations where firepower was scarce (lack of powder, or after heavy rain), so I imagine there could be some exceptions outside of the larger battles. I would like if somebody could give well-sustained examples.