"Armor in the ECW" Topic

According to history and tradition, by the end of the first civil war, armor was scarce. However, archeology (as reported in MW 268) does not, in fact, show a decline in armor. Similarly, the tradition that pikemen discarded the tassets from their cuirasses is not supported by field studies.

Do you prefer to depict your ECW troops with plentiful armor, or lacking armor?

Some of mine have armour, some don't. Variety is the spice of life!

Mainly first line troops in armour, although minus the tassets, then the occassional figure in the second rank wearing a breastplate and helmet. Certainly not uniformerly armoured in my wargame ECW armies.

I have a real mix some do some don't. I mix within units but if I ever get around to doing some London Trained bands units the pike will mostly have armour.

"Mainly first line troops in armour, although minus the tassets, then the occassional figure in the second rank wearing a breastplate and helmet. Certainly not uniformerly armoured in my wargame ECW armies."

Me too, although I have the occasional tasset encumbered front ranker, with diminishing protection in following ranks.

What does MW268 say about it Bill? Sounds interesting!

My NMA pike are armoured, that's what came in the army deal

I guess I'm with the herd here; I like to mix them up. Although I do have a few units with no armor at all.

So what are the supposed evidence for the use of armour? Which field studies are quoted, a quick search of the net does not turn up any significant finds of ECW armour at all due to battlefield archeology. Indeed battles leave little in the way of archeological finds since the soldiers, camp followers and local population would pick the field clean of anything usefull or valueable that had not been trodden into the dirt. What you find are small items such as broken of parts, buckles, hinges and so on.

Given that preserved records from other wars of the period show how troops were at times all to happy to throw away parts or even the whole of their cumbersome armour I see little reason to assume that that was not the case in the ECW as well.

Daniel,

"So what are the supposed evidence for the use of armour?"

I love reading your very informational posts. You have forgotten more about 17th Century warfare than I will ever know. So my criterion is that I like the way they look. No evidence, no position to defend except personal preference.

Bill.

I was actually asking the OP (The Editor) since he was refering to some conclusions/claims that sounded very interesting. A search of the net turned up nothing about the content of MW 268 or news of any significant armour finds on ECW battlefield digs.

As in the rest of Europe it would take an a ability to enforce a rigid discipline supported by lots of cash to keep the pikemen in armour. Cavalry was a diffrent matter since armour was actually usefull for the mounted troops.

Given that preserved records from other wars of the period show how troops were at times all to happy to throw away parts or even the whole of their cumbersome armour I see little reason to assume that that was not the case in the ECW as well

Perhaps that was the case in Europe where the Thirty Years War was reaching its climax and armour was more readily available.

In England, the English had not fought a major war since the War of the Roses (over 150 years earlier) and the quantity of available modern armour (breastplate, tassets, pot helmets, etc.) was therefore low, compared with what was available in Europe. Battles involving English troops abroad, IMHO, would not necessarily increase the amount of armour found thereafter on their return in England for use during the 1639-1651, and therefore would not be casually disgarded for the use of others or left to later be discovered by archaeologists.

Full infantry armour would be a scare commodity during the ECW, although I believe there are good collections found at the Tower of London armoury, and at Littlecote House in Wiltshire.

I have enough of a hard time arguing that my Irish brigade should have pikes at all, never mind back, breast, morion and tasset!

The article in MW was by Anthony Dawson, who describes himself as an archeologist with an interest in military history. He references the archeology at Sandal Castle, Pontefract Castle, and Helmsley.

Hi Bill. Do you have a quick link to the article, if it is on the web? I always love seeing contrasts between TYW and ECW. If there is evidence suggesting a sizable amount of armour, then it is news to me, but then again, archeology is ongoing.

Thanks,

ilodic

Windsor castle and hever castle have large collections of ecw armour also . On a school trip with my dtrs school to Hever , the guide showed us how each cuirass was tested before issued . Each cuirass was shot at to see if it was effective . Every single cuirass had a bullet hole dent in .I thought this was interesting as I had never heard this before .

But as for your ? , my ECW pikemen are mixed .. probably 1 armoured to 5 non armoured , mainly as it was easier to paint the non armoured .

Dwight- an interesting little addition to the bullet dents in breastplates was unscrupulous armourers, trying to save time on quality control, would make the dents with hammers and chisels rather than discharging a firearm at them. Good to know that defence contractors were just as ethical then as they are now!

I generally mix up the appearance of my troops, but have themed a couple of units to be either completely in armour, or completely without. I don't usually use this as a sign of troop quality though.

Leigh

What mag is MW 268? I would like to have a look see

Miniature Wargames issue 268. Not sure when published but in light of this I'd like to read it.

Thanks

Can someone point me to the wabpage for this mag, I can't seem to find it.

Failing that, is the article on line?

I'm never entirely convinced by arguments about people discarding armour. I know its a trade off between the weight and the protection, but I still tend to think that a lot of soldiers would have wanted at least the psychological security it offers – I've worn it in a modern day context for work and would rather have it than not (I realise thats not a cogent argument re the level of use in the ECW)

@ Smolders

link

thanks.

I'm not sure how this fits in here, but if armour was so ineffective, and soldiers were getting rid of it, why was it still in use over a hundred years later?

Cavalry armour is a diffrent thing altogether, I don't think any one has argued that ECW cavalry abandoned the use of armour. But there has a been a lot of debate regarding the use of armour by ECW pikemen.

A lack of armour in England was not a problem, across the channel you had the Dutch who were the largest arms traders in the world at the time. Provided you had the cash or credit you could easily outift an army or two with the help of the Dutch arms merchants. The city of Hamburg was another major source of arms & armour at the time. Untouched by 30YW it was experiencing a trade boom with arms being a important commodity.

According to David Blackmore (Arms & Armour of the English Civil Wars, published by the Royal Armouries) Essex foot was well equipped with armour thanks to deliveries from the Netherlands in 1642 & 1643. However that armour was lost in the Lostwithiel campaign and does not seem to have been replaced. The NMA was not issued armour in 1645 but in 1658 the troops serving in Flanders requested "corslets" for the pikemen and recived at least 500 sets from the Tower.

According to the last pre-war muster of the Trained Bands in 1638, they boasted 37,271 pikemen's corslets between them in England and Wales.

So there should have been a fair bit around, as to whether it was used, that's another question!

An idea I had (for which there is no evidence whatsoever!) was that garrison units might have kept their armour (ie better safe than sorry) and field army regiments discarded it (too cumbersome on hard marches). No idea really though!

Must say my wargames units are a right old mix

Armor in the collection of NYC Metropolitan Museum also has the bullet dents. I suspect a pistol with low charge was used rather than a fully charged musket. Or else the hammer and chisle as noted above.

We know that at one point the main Royalist Oxford army had a large number of commanded shot and thus a high proportion of fire arms to pike. One theory about this is that it enabled them to cover more miles a day. Wargamers tend to always focus on the tactical not the strategic and when you consider most of the soldiers life on campaign in the ECW is marching and not actually fighting then I can understand why armour could have been discarded. Imagine doing 15 miles a day in summer wearing pikeman's armour and trailing the pike…

Of course a counter argument to this it that it could be loaded into wagons as we know firearms were.

Do you have a quick link to the article, if it is on the web?

It's not online that I know of.

Daniel,

with all due respect I think the lack of armour found "abandoned" on battlefields by later archaeology is not a good indicator of non-use of armour, or it being abandoned.

We are talking here about large pieces of relatively good quality steel. Also, it would not be buried, hidden or washed away quickly. Therefore, I think that in a fairly short time after it was abandoned, it would be scavenged / recycled by the local population and turned into pots and pans, cutlery, farm tools or horse furniture. It would simply have been too good a material to just abandon to rust away in a field or hedgerow.

ANy armour dug up near Edgehill or Naseby is more than likeley the result of some very muddy re-enactments I participated in rather than original stuff.

Following a battlefield tour of Edgehill with me old Pals John Tincey Keith Roberts & Glenn Foard + accompanied by the Colonel in charge of the rather large munitions dump there we retired to the pub for a few pints. So I might not have been quite sober enough to now put hand on heart but I think I recall that some pewter was found during Glenn's meticuloius musket ball search- it was duly sent to OXford scientists – and came back dated 1970's. Keith response was along the line's that given the amount of mud he remembered he would not have been surprised if they found a Cortina!