Interesting video. It's always interesting to see people explore and experiment with such innovations that are almost entirely forgotten by now. Are you planning to make a video on the Natives' adaptation and use of firearms, as well as other European gear at some point?
Did colonists typically wear gambesons or buffcoats underneathe their armor? I imagine it could get quite hot during virginia summer and spring weather.
By the late-16th century mail armor had fallen out of use, and worn with mail, gambesons had fallen out of use as well. Buffcoats were very new in the early-17th century, not common, and had not yet reached the level of fashion and use that they have in the mid-century. Gambesons or buffcoats were probably not worn in Virginia. As for padding under the armor, the clothing would be sufficient. Men’s clothing of the early-17th century was built and structured to create a particular silhouette. This structuring used multiple layers of cloth and stiffeners and would have provided a level of padding. Arming doublets were a fashionable garment worn with armor. These arming doublets would have attaching point, extra padding, and mail gussets sewn into armpits and elbows. The garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and a predecessor to the buffcoat was the jerkin -- www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/leather-jerkin-well-examined fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/jerkin/ www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php
@@JYFMuseums Ah thanks for the info! I was also looking at the jamestown archaeological finds for breastplates and it looks like many of the remains only show the front breastplate. Do you know if the average musketeer wore frontplates only or did they also include backplates?
@justinchau70 Plate armor was made as a set - a breast and back -- that strapped together, for complete protection of the torso. For infantry armor, the breast was not made to be worn alone, and there was not a provision to wear the breast alone without the back. The breast plate will have the attaching points while the back will have the straps that hook onto those attaching points, or the belt, attached to the back, that wraps around the breast and buckles in the front. Check out the 16:43 mark in this this video link -- ua-cam.com/video/4jt55W0MIF0/v-deo.html -- and watch Brian put on the armor. The breast and back must go together. Archaeologically it is rare to come across complete sets of armor, they are usually found as parts and pieces. Iron sheet that has been in the ground near a rivers for hundreds of years are often in poor condition when recovered. Excavated armor pieces are covered with such thick layers of corrosion that they are almost unrecognizable, and very little of the original iron may be present under the layers of corrosion.
Hi Vivian, thank you for the question. Fred finds that in making the modification to a set of reproduction armor, it allows the shooter to pull the musket in and secure it against the shoulder, while the added plate creates a nice cradle for the butt of the musket. That musket is not going to move nor slip, despite the wearing of armor and the armor other wise being a poor surface to try and brace the butt of a musket against. The same ability to secure the musket into the shoulder probably would not be achieved with a piece of cloth.
This is the type of videos i love, its such a niche intrest that there isnt much out there.
Interesting video. It's always interesting to see people explore and experiment with such innovations that are almost entirely forgotten by now.
Are you planning to make a video on the Natives' adaptation and use of firearms, as well as other European gear at some point?
SUPER DUPER Pard !
Did colonists typically wear gambesons or buffcoats underneathe their armor? I imagine it could get quite hot during virginia summer and spring weather.
By the late-16th century mail armor had fallen out of use, and worn with mail, gambesons had fallen out of use as well. Buffcoats were very new in the early-17th century, not common, and had not yet reached the level of fashion and use that they have in the mid-century.
Gambesons or buffcoats were probably not worn in Virginia. As for padding under the armor, the clothing would be sufficient. Men’s clothing of the early-17th century was built and structured to create a particular silhouette. This structuring used multiple layers of cloth and stiffeners and would have provided a level of padding. Arming doublets were a fashionable garment worn with armor. These arming doublets would have attaching point, extra padding, and mail gussets sewn into armpits and elbows. The garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and a predecessor to the buffcoat was the jerkin -- www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/leather-jerkin-well-examined
fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/jerkin/
www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php
@@JYFMuseums Ah thanks for the info! I was also looking at the jamestown archaeological finds for breastplates and it looks like many of the remains only show the front breastplate. Do you know if the average musketeer wore frontplates only or did they also include backplates?
@justinchau70 Plate armor was made as a set - a breast and back -- that strapped together, for complete protection of the torso. For infantry armor, the breast was not made to be worn alone, and there was not a provision to wear the breast alone without the back. The breast plate will have the attaching points while the back will have the straps that hook onto those attaching points, or the belt, attached to the back, that wraps around the breast and buckles in the front.
Check out the 16:43 mark in this this video link -- ua-cam.com/video/4jt55W0MIF0/v-deo.html -- and watch Brian put on the armor. The breast and back must go together.
Archaeologically it is rare to come across complete sets of armor, they are usually found as parts and pieces. Iron sheet that has been in the ground near a rivers for hundreds of years are often in poor condition when recovered. Excavated armor pieces are covered with such thick layers of corrosion that they are almost unrecognizable, and very little of the original iron may be present under the layers of corrosion.
Wow! I cant imagine finding original armor in the woods today! I would LOVE it! I visited JamesTown about 6 yrs ago, never saw any armor?
It reminds me very much of the rubber pads that the British added to American body armor in Northern Ireland in the 1970's.
It also gives a consistent place to shoulder a rifle.
This make sense.
I wonder if putting a cloth over the same are would do a similar job?
Hi Vivian, thank you for the question. Fred finds that in making the modification to a set of reproduction armor, it allows the shooter to pull the musket in and secure it against the shoulder, while the added plate creates a nice cradle for the butt of the musket. That musket is not going to move nor slip, despite the wearing of armor and the armor other wise being a poor surface to try and brace the butt of a musket against. The same ability to secure the musket into the shoulder probably would not be achieved with a piece of cloth.