I'm defining "Composite" armour as a complete suit made up of parts from one or more different suits, or from individual parts, rather than made as a single unified set.

Re-enactors seem to do it a great deal, mostly because they can't usually afford to pay for a whole harness at once, or because some armourers have a good reputation for helmets, others for limbs, but how authentic is it, and how high up the social scale are we likely to see it?

Now, I'm sure at the top of the scale, people like Richard Beauchamp could (and did) have suits made to measure and regularly replaced complete suits simply because they wanted something in the latest fashion or with different decoration.

Equally, at the bottom of the scale, John the billman is going to regard any protective gear he's got from his uncle or can scavenge from a battlefeild as a bonus, whether it matches or not, provided it more-or-less fits.

However, what about the people in the middle?
They might be able to afford a full harness as a one-off purchase, but armour is to an extent a consumable under feild conditions - horse sweat particularly corrodes it like nobody's business, combat damage and so forth.

Hell, people could even outgrow their armour - how many falstaffs might have needed new and tubbier breastplates, while the arms, legs and helm still fit?

I'd have thought a single broken piece would almost certainly be replaced, probably even a complete pair of arms or legs. More than that?

If you were lucky, you could get the same craftsman who made the original harness to do the replacement, and get a quite close match. But on campaign, or with an imported suit?

What about the "poorer" (in relative terms)man-at-arms who has to watch his cash, and might get a second-hand suit that mostly fit, but needed new legs because its original owner was shorter, or who (like many a re-enactor) has to buy the basic kit, then upgrade as and when he can?

Come to think of it, given how much of this stuff was being made in Milan or Nuremburg to be sold to english or burgundian gentlemen, were suits at the lower end of the price range being made up from a series of "stock" pieces in a range of sizes, rather than being made as suits at all?

I'm not aware of much in the sources that talks about this sort of thing - the best you get is that Sir john paston or wherever went to bruges to buy a suit of milanese plate or whatever, but it doesn't really tell us whether the suit he bough was new or "battlefeild salvage", or whether he had it made to measure or made up from parts.

Any thoughts?

Well, unfortunately you will get glimpses rather than clear cut answers on this. In point of fact, looking to household inventories, you will find even the Dukes of Burgundy buying individual pieces as well as entire suits for personal consumption - never mind what they bought in quantity for their household troops. I have several inventiories listed in Gaiers works that detail purchases of items such as vambraces and sallets individualy.

John Paston went inquring after individual helmets, and Fastolfs inventories mention over a dozen 'white harness - worn out in service', alongside individual pieces. Also keep, in mind looking for evidence in legal proceedings (guildhall records), and laws passed (such as the early 15th century English act forbidding the covering of armours in cloth, as it lead to selling of shoddy and old goods as new). Looking to items such as the Bridgenorth Muster Roll, you will see individuals mentioned with more equipment than they can use themselves - further evidence of the practise lower down the social scale, and encouraged by various laws passed enforcing the maintenence of military equipment based on personal worth.

Frankly, in looking at evidence such as the Paston or Stonor Letters, and even in Household inventories such as The Howard Household accounts, the evidence exists for the purchase of both entir harness, and individual items as needed - armour was and is an expendable item that wears out with use (painful though that may be to 21st century wallets)
- an incredibly difficult concept to get across to some people in the States, who insist on wearing upwards of 100 pounds of stainless steel (including 12 guage helmets wich equate to a small anvil in weight) on their persons, as they don't want the armour to be damaged in use, nor do they want to expend effort to maintain it, but they wish to use the armour 3 or 4 times, and hard, a week.

In contrast, I have gone for what I believe to have been the historical method as laid out in clues in household accounts - I accumulate it as it wears, or as differing tools for differing use. As an end result, I have a harness and a half (my good one, and my older 'beater' harness), a light set of arms, a brigandine, and several helmets for differing uses. In the end, I'm going to have about 4 different sets of arms - only one redundant (my old arms) - each for a different purpose. All in all, it works out to be something like a 16th century 'garniture', except it was accumulated at different time, but all designed to be worn and used together (for the most part), in different combinations for differnet purposes. I believe I see the same patterns when I look at household inventories up to the middleing level of the peerage. Please note that this practise is conjecture based on my reading of the evidence.

Armour was repaired as often as replaced - as born witness by many of the bits of armours recovered from Rhodes, and presented in Richardson and Karcheski's "The Medieval Armour from Rhodes".

--------------------

Steve - I'm quite in agreement that there's plenty of perfectly good kit for the winning side to loot after battle. What I'm not so sure about is how high up the social scale suuch recovered kit gets used. A billman will certainly swipe anything shinier than what he's already got.

But what about a knight, wearing a full harness already? Is he as likely to pick the closest fit he can find to replace a damaged component, or have one made to match his exsting suit. Hard to know.

Chef - I've seen references in the household accounts of the type you refer to, but the problem is, if I see (say) the purchase of a single vambrace, do I interpret that as a replacement part for a suit in the same style from the same craftsman, or a completely unrelated piece that just happens to be the right size?

I'm prone to think that the armour from Rhodes is a bit of a "special case" - it's the armoury of a military organisation, and if my modern experience is anything to go by, armoury sergeants never throw ANYTHING away, no matter how worn out it is!

A corporate entity like the knights would also probably have an "older" collection than average, simply because it avoids the risk of breakup on death that a single individuals' collection suffers.

Incidentally, I'm very clear that armour does "wear out in service" - especially if you're using it on horseback - but you're right, most of the public and too many other re-enactors don't seem to grasp that it doesn't last for ever. I usually try using the analogy of a car to get it across to them, which often seems to work.

I think when we see individual items bought by the second estate, the assumption can safely be made that these are new purchases. We should also bear in mind the use of terminology - in the instance I mention, the vambrace is an entire arm defence, not an individual constituant part.

Also bear in mind the your example of 'John the billman' - assuming he is a retainer or tennant of a lord, to a degree will be outfitted by the lord in question - hence the de Vere's keeping 100 'peres' of brigandines, and mail sleeves and standards for them in their 'armour house'.

--------------------

Several points I meant to make last night, but did not have the time to do so. I think it is important to bear in mind the more complete the defence is, the more fitted it has to be. How great an inconveinience for a gentleman to provide his armourer with a well tailored doublet to use as a pattern? I think the answer is 'not very inconveinient' - not even inconveinient for a better off middle class person who is contemplating military service at some future point.

Consider length of actual military campaign in the venue of England - not very long, and with only usualy a single decisive battle (sometimes two), nor a horde of skirmishes or sieges during the course of likely military service in short term. It isn't people with money you will find scrounging items of equipment - it is craftsmen and labourers. If you had a reasonable harness, would you tinker about with ill-fitting parts to adapt someone elses to you? Bear in mind the sort of service expected, and the willingness of the average soldier to carry weight on the march. It is more than pure economics that keeps soldiers on foot principly in 'jack & sallet clean' - look at Dominic Mancinies descriptions of Northern levies entrance into London during the 'usurpation' of Richard III. You don't have bowmen and the elusive 'billman' ladening themselves downm with complete harness on service - unless the bowmen in question are bodyguards of royalty or the great.

--------------------