How much plate?

[JeremyDillon]

Jeremy,

if you're looking for primary sources, especially ones available on the Net, you can get a great deal out of such sites as the ORB ( http://the-orb.net ) and De Re Militari ( http://www.deremilitari.org ). There's also an extensive and acessible translation of Philippe de Commynes' memoirs here : http://www.r3.org/bookcase/de_commynes/decom_1.html -- it contains extensive first-hand descriptions of warfare and battles in the late 15th century, often including the armors worn by the participants.

Wow, fastinating sites, I'm going to enjoy reading these, thanks a million.

[s_taillebois]

Might also look up the book about the dead at Towton. Like Wisby, one of the more researched battle sites with attendant burials.
Another factor limiting the use of armour, was the issues of transport. Movies not withstanding, medieval armies didn't wear full harness when in transit. Usually the kit was back in the wains, and those were often provided by the villiens under the control of that knight, or lord. And these wagons also often had to transport forage, food, shelter and etc. Those who lacked that kind of affluence, had to carry it all on the horse (if they had one or two), or even use shared stock. (Especially in Spain, knights with shared horses weren't uncommon) And armour as such didn't weigh that much, but when combined with rations, blanket, flint&steel and etc, it was a concern. So they were both limited by the means to buy it, and the means to transport. One of the reasons it wasn't uncommon for sqaubbling over trophy armour...relates to this problem. Getting the choice equipage one could transport, or your lord would let you keep.
It's one of the reasons raids on the train were so sought after. In addition to obviously forcing the enemy back for supplies...hitting a train prior to the army kitting up to fight...meant that expensive equipment (sometimes well above the attackers station) could be obtained. That's one of the reasons the Basques hit Charlemagne's train so hard at Ronscenvalles (sp), and also one of reason the Franks fought so hard to keep it.
And until much later, states didn't keep national stores as such...if one lost his kit...it could be a lose of status. Sometimes permanently...and getting (and keeping) captured armour could be a ticket to the upper classes.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Medieval total war II (and I) represents foot soldier in full harness because the English nobility usually fought on foot.

Although I would definitely take issue with their representation this way because the men-at-arms on foot were in fact dismounted men-at-arms, not dedicated foot. So there shouldn't have been units like the "Feudal/Chivalric Men-at-arms" in M:TW or "Armored Swordsmen" in M2:TW. Even though as a matter of fact they preferred to fight on foot, they were still "dismounted" men and not "foot." It's the same way that "mounted infantry" were considered a different type of unit from plain "infantry" in the 19th century--they had different capabilities.