Equipment loadouts for early 15th century?

[aesir23]

According to the German fechtbuchen of the Lichtenaur tradition (who taught swordplay sometime in the late-14th/early 15th centuries), knights would have certainly carried a longsword on foot, and would have carried a lance (or spear), a one-handed sword (it's unclear if it's an arming sword (GURPS Thrusting Broadsword) or a short sword), and a dagger while mounted.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

IIRC there were some kinds of crude brigandine armor available -- each scale often cut from a piece of an old armor. While there aren't going to be a lot of plate armors available there will be cuirasses, arm pieces, thigh and shin armor, etc. to provide material.

Also the ever-popular "jack" armor (gambeson, etc.)

Let's not forget other items:

1.) A sturdy blanket used for warmth, ground cover, and a blanket-roll so you can carry your other clothes/supplies.

2.) Spare duds -- probably breeches and foot-coverings -- hose or hosen. Spare "points" or laces for shoes & clothes.

3.) Flint and steel

4.) A utility knife -- probably fairly short & sturdy -- for cutting meat, dressing game, eating, whittling, and any other needful action in the field.

5.) Some kind of belt pouch for cash -- not visible in most medieval art as it was worn under the outer clothes. Armies are full of cutpurses who might resume their old trade.

6.) Some kind of water container -- a clay jug (replace often) or a gourd with stopper.

7.) Whetstone for arms & tools

8.) A larger bag for bread & other rations

9.) A big hat for sun/rain protection. Make it of soft cloth so you can crumple it into a bag when you put the helmet on.

Armor notes -- archers will have at least a leather guard for their off-arm. I've been whacked in that arm by a loosed bowstring. You only do that once.

Also, given the geometry of the crossbow, lots of crossbowmen will have some kind of throat protection. If the cross-bow wire or one of the limbs breaks you're going to have a piece of sharp metal or torn wire whizzing towards your throat at beaucoup speed.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

IIRC there were some kinds of crude brigandine armor available -- each scale often cut from a piece of an old armor. While there aren't going to be a lot of plate armors available there will be cuirasses, arm pieces, thigh and shin armor, etc. to provide material.

You are actually thinking of the early to mid 14th century for the cruder versions of brigandine armor--which was called a coat of plates--and mostly the ones found at the battle of Wisby (fought in 1361). In this case the Gotland minor nobles and free commoners fought against the Danish and German forces under Valdemar IV. The Gotlanders, who were most of the casualties, were generally not very wealthy and therefore wearing armor that was decades out of date. This included many cruder examples of coats of plates that seem to have been made from other parts of armor reused to form the coat. However, there were also coats of plates that seem to have been made out of intentionally formed plates that were not of this improvised form. The Danish and German nobles and professional mercenaries were most likely wearing up to date armor, which was either textile covered breastplates and the more developed wasp waisted coats of plates that were current in the 1350s and later. This kind of armor was definitely not crude and was current at least half a century before the OP wants to run his campaign.

Brigandines are generally distinguished from coats of plates by having smaller plates and being front-closing instead of side or back closing (which makes brigandines much easier to don). While it is probably true that it was later in the 15th century that true, small plated brigandines came into there full development, there certainly were armors that can be called brigandine in the late 14th and early 15th century (though generally with larger plates).

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Armor notes -- archers will have at least a leather guard for their off-arm. I've been whacked in that arm by a loosed bowstring. You only do that once.

I have heard that there is very little evidence for arm guards on medieval archers, though I cannot remember where I heard that (though I have also looked over some medieval art and I don't ever see specific bracers on archers). They often held the bows differently than we do today--sometimes using a thumb grip with the arrow on the opposite side of the bow from the archer. That said, sometimes archers are depicted wearing mail armor with sleeves, which would definitely protect the arm.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by phayman53

You are actually thinking of the early to mid 14th century for the cruder versions of brigandine armor--which was called a coat of plates--and mostly the ones found at the battle of Wisby (fought in 1361).

There are extant 16th C jacks-of-plates that were made from old brigandines.
https://royalarmouries.org/about-us/...-of-re-cycling

I have heard that there is very little evidence for arm guards on medieval archers

Here are two that were found on the Mary Rose
https://leatherworkingreverend.files....jpg?w=1250&h=

Two more from the Mary Rose; one made from ivory, one made from leather.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...4d8d12958a.jpg

This was found on the Newport ship
https://www.peoplescollection.wales/items/19193

I think this one is in the Royal Armouries.
https://leatherworkingreverend.files.../dsc00598a.jpg

Relying on medieval illustrations to tell us what armour was worn is not a very good idea. They aren't photos - we never know whether the artist was interested or even capable of rendering the armour accurately. Plus, the widely varying drawing styles and limited colours mean that many illustrations can be interpreted in more than one way. Better to stick with archaeological evidence.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

There are extant 16th C jacks-of-plates that were made from old brigandines.
https://royalarmouries.org/about-us/...-of-re-cycling

Interesting about the 16th century jack of plates made from old brigandine, but that is a century later than the OP is concerned with. I was merely pointing out that what fredtheobviouspseudonym was referring too sounded a lot like some of the armor from Wisby since, as far as I know, we don't have any 15th century armor surviving of that type. It may be that they continued to use that kind of armor in later coats of plates/brigandines (and it is always possible that I simply am not aware of existing museum examples), but the preference over the course of the 15th century seems to have moved either towards smaller plates, like the brigandine, or to solid breastplates. That said, I know that there are exceptions and it is impossible to even give a firm answer as to whether every piece of armor was a brigandine or a coat of plates (and some brigandines incorporated both large and small plates).

That said, if I were GMing a game set in early 1400s Germany, I think I would have cheap brigandines and cheap coats of plates (which use segmented plate stats in GURPS LT, right? IDHMBWM) available to the players to represent armor made out of recycled parts. You are right, since they seem to have recycled armor in both the 14th and 16th century, it is very likely that they did in the 15th too.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Here are two that were found on the Mary Rose
https://leatherworkingreverend.files....jpg?w=1250&h=

Two more from the Mary Rose; one made from ivory, one made from leather.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...4d8d12958a.jpg

This was found on the Newport ship
https://www.peoplescollection.wales/items/19193

I think this one is in the Royal Armouries.
https://leatherworkingreverend.files.../dsc00598a.jpg

Relying on medieval illustrations to tell us what armour was worn is not a very good idea. They aren't photos - we never know whether the artist was interested or even capable of rendering the armour accurately. Plus, the widely varying drawing styles and limited colours mean that many illustrations can be interpreted in more than one way. Better to stick with archaeological evidence.

I was mostly going off something I had heard--though I cannot remember where--rather than the artwork. I merely looked over the artwork quickly just to see if I could find any counterexamples. Thanks for pointing out those archeological finds, I had not even considered they might have found some on the Mary Rose, etc. Mostly one hears about the bows and arrows, not other stuff they found on that ship.

I know you tend to be on the side of the spectrum that says it is best not to use medieval artwork to understand arms and armor from the period, but given the very spotty nature of archaeological evidence and that many depictions in the artwork seem to end-up conforming to finds (including details like rivet patterns on covered breastplates), I think ignoring the artwork takes away too much evidence. Is it conclusive? No, not like a surviving piece would be. And certainly it leaves out details (like archer's arm guards, as you just proved) and has other major drawbacks as well. But that does not mean that it is not helpful in filling in gaps in archeological evidence--especially when armor is depicted similarly by multiple artists in the same period. Yes, this does need to be with the understanding that artist depictions are not definitive and open to some interpretation, but archeological finds need this too as survivals do not necessarily represent the norm for the period (look at Wisby, most of those were outdated armor).

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

The Roman Republic had "pectorals" -- metal pieces covering the center of the chest. Cheap, light, and might save your life.

Haven't heard of same in Middle Ages but I'd be surprised if they were never available -- if you're headed for a battle and you find some scrap metal it might be a useful improvisation . . .