Armor protection in Renaissance combat

[JeanryChandler]

When we train for fencing, in accordance with the fechtbuchs, we seem to train on the assumption of either wearing full harness, i.e. cap a pied plate armor, or unarmored, meaning no protection at all.

I have only a few fechtbuch translations to hand in my small but growing collection, but this seems to be the way the masters often broke it down, and it definately seems to be the trend in all the fencing schools.

My question is, what about the intermediate case? In judicial combat, in military combat, in duels, and in random street encounters it was not unusual for people to be wearing less than cap a pied but more than just clothing.

I recall reading here on the ARMA site a description of the famous battle of Jarnac, where the two antagonists in that judicial combat were wearing basically mail hauberks, gauntlets and helms. I have read about other judicial combats where helmet, gauntlets, and gambeson or shorter aketon were the norm. In Tallhoffer, all kinds of strange special costumes were worn for judicial combat, such as leather body suits. Many of these would qualify as some degree of light armor.

In the streets, I know for example in Italy it wasn't unusual for nobles and gentleman wore fine mail corselts under their clothing.

The type of armor known as Brigantine was so-named because Brigands wore it, as it was easy to conceal the fact that they were wearing armor. It wasn't unusual or particularly alarming to see someone armed, but someone wearing armor was a potential threat.

On the battlefield, in Renaissance military combat, a wide assortment of intermediate armor types were also prevalent.

My question is, we know the fairly vast differences between fighting in harness and fighting unarmored. But how should we train, or spar, if at all, for dealing with theoretical outfits of light and medium armor. For example, gauntlets and helmets seemed to be worn even when no other metal armor was.

Just interested in anyones thoughts on this.

J

[Casper Bradak]

It's a matter of where and how you or your target are protected, and what you can use as a weapon. There is plenty of intermediate technique for blossfechten/harnessfechten, and it's a judgement call depending on you and your opponent. If he's wearing a breastplate, helmet and gauntlets, you may choose to use primarily bloss techniques, simply avoiding his armour, however, if he's wearing enough to be an effective weapon if you get too close, that will also alter your technique depending on your own skill/armour. If he's wearing complete plate from the knees up, but unarmoured below that, you could choose to strike at his legs, or go all out harness fechten to kill him in his upper quarters.
The amount of protection you're wearing will dictate how safe you feel about closing with him beyond krieg, and other attacks it may make more effective for you.
In sparring, it's just a matter of throwing on some partial armour, and dealing with it. I think it is largely pointless other than to get in some fun variety. Or, if you have a student who prefers some target areas, armour them to work on his repertoir.
Keep in mind how effective a weapon armour can be though. If you are unarmoured and your opponent is even partially armoured, extra care will have to be taken in sparring, particularly when it comes to grappling. This is one main reason why it isn't mixed up very often. It is very dangerous for an unarmoured person to spar an armoured person with any speed, and realistically the armoured person, especially if cap a pied, will take full advantage of it, and crunch up his opponent like like an old piece of paper.