Medieval Armour: BRIGANDINE / COAT OF PLATES - Why Were the Plates on the INSIDE?

Brigandines, coats of plates and similar medieval armour sometimes featured fabric or leather over the top, with the iron plates underneath - why did they put the plates on the inside?
Brigandine by Aleksey Perebeynos - / aleksey.perebeynos
Support & extra content on Patreon: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/matt-ea...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/

[@ZacharyEvans]

A couple of extra reasons: Without power tools, getting a smooth, even, polished surface was extremely difficult and very expensive, with the finish of the armour sometimes doubling or tripling the cost of the harness. Riveting the plates on the inside completely cuts out the finishing stage and the ensuing cost. Brigandines were sometimes made of recycled plates. Covering the plates hides the tell-tale signs of previous use. There is a 16th century example that includes plates with a very 15th century trefoil pattern.

[@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338]

i was gonna say that theory would be stupid, since that would be sayig that they mainley made brigandines for the looks, but the more i think about it, they probably would do that since the armor that you wore would often dictate your status, so wearing ugly bits of unpolished metal on your chest wouldn't exactly make you look like a noble knight.

[@CassioT989Studios666]

@@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338 so . . . fashion souls was right all along???

[@nomi001]

In addition being able to appear nicer having the plates hidden also means that it would be much harder to identify any gaps or weaknesses that might appear before or during a battle. Opponents can't see any gaps or previous damage that may have occurred or in a worst case if a plate was missing entirely.

[@iDEATH]

I also think the patchwork nature of use, resulting in damaged plates, and repair would also make hiding the plates a nice aesthetic choice. Plus, changing the covering for fashion would also be much easier.

[@arx3516]

@@iDEATH yes, a replacing surcoat was easy and cheap, polishing all the plates not so much. Besides, a bright colored surcoat bearing a fancy emblem was far better looking than plain metal.

[@andrewholdaway813]

Putting the plates on the inside of the coat means that when it curves around the body the plates will tend to close up on each other; on the outside they would tend to open and create gaps... maybe? Oh, and on the outside they would present edges that weapons could snag and slide under?

[@morlath4767]

I think it's a combination of this (harder to get through the plates) and a means of allowing for fashion too. Seriously, don't discount some decisions being made for looks/appearances if it isn't a total detriment to protection. And even then there is always one...

[@andrewholdaway813]

@@morlath4767 Yes I don't dismiss any other reasons, just brainstorming further possibilities - here's another, arrows may be snagged by the fabric before being stopped by the plate and then 'flicked' away tail first rather than skittering away dangerously point first. (Bit of a stretch, I know).

[@morlath4767]

@@andrewholdaway813 Not too much of a stretch. I can't remember which channel I was watching (Matt, Shad, or Skal) and they were talking about another channel's test of arrows/bolts vs armour and that the points were capable of flying off at dangerous and unpredictable angles. But any type of fabric/material in front of the metal was able to limit this so you or the guy standing next to you wasn't going to get a flying arrowhead flying into your jaw. I think Matt's right in that there are a whole bunch of reasons that started the trend for different groups until it became a "just because it's always been done this way" thing.

[@Sk0lzky]

They do but it could be counteracted with proper profiling (see some lamellar and scale armour designs)

[@Sk0lzky]

@@morlath4767 South American Paramilitary/African Militia approach to helmets is a great example. Hell, I myself would probably sport A "spetsnaz sniper look" if I were to join one, with a bandana or shemagh on my head... At least outside of cities

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

The Chinese brigandine also placed the plates on the inside, and they didn't quite have the European institutional traditions of covering armor with cloth before developing the brigandine. So, if two "worlds" on opposite ends of the earth independently developed essentially the same thing, there must be a reason that plates on the inside are better. I think that it's because when you move, the plates flex towards each other instead of away from each other, so no major gaps are created. When the plates are inside of the fabric, it also does not display any possible gaps for your enemy to exploit. It also just looks cool; Chinese officers and guardsmen loved to decorate and embroider their brigandines with elaborate patterns. There's a particularly nice example of a Qing palace guard that's a deep blue with golden dragons embroidered on it.

[@hamboner4386]

it would also protect the plates as well from snagging and stuff on branches.

[@Julius_Caesar69420]

I think it just looks cool

[@Robert399]

Also the fact that the much more common and older lamellar had the plates as the outer layer further suggests that coat of plates/brigandine changed that for a reason.

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

@Rob M Historical documents show that the concept of a brigandine was invented in the 8th century as a parade uniform, and at the 13th century people thought, "wait a minute, we can actually use this." A quick google search will give you this info

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

@Rob M ...you claimed that the Chinese stole that idea, and I told you about how it was developed independently.

[@OptimalOwl]

"Iron wasn't seen as a glamorous surface to have." I was just going to say. The brigandine looks seriously stylish. I much prefer it to the look of exposed plate. Mightn't it also help with wear and tear? Not just reducing wear, but also concealing damage to the armour. If your plates are stuck on the outside, then anyone you're fighting (or just trying to impress) can see where your plates are damaged or missing.

[@_malprivate2543]

You could just as easily (if not even more so) tell what part of the cloth covering is damaged.

[@ilari90]

@@_malprivate2543 but you couldn't see the missing plates under the cloth that easily.

[@ilari90]

You are on to something, I think. Think if the plates are on the outside: opponent can just go and push a dagger between those plates more easily. Also I think it helps with strapping it a bit. Also the plates might get stuck to your other garbs when moving if they were outside, and maybe rip your precious shirt. Also it would aid the opponent to grab to the plates by hand or hook them with something. With cloth on top, you don't have that many points to grab onto when it goes to fist and dagger fight.

[@_malprivate2543]

@@ilari90 Yeah, that is also an aspect and Matt touches upon that when he talks about cloth against cloth and metal against metal. I don't think that a missing plate (at least not such a small one as on a brigandine) was that common, you would most likely get it repaired as quickly as possible. Personally I think that one of the main reasons is one of the things Matt mentioned; maintenance and protection from the elements. Especially in the colder and wetter climate in northern Europe you could really gain from not having to clean it as often. That might also explain why some of the coat of plates found after the battle of Wisby had leather coverings. Leather can be more resistant to dampness than other materials.

[@riproar11]

"Iron wasn't seen as a glamorous surface to have." I am not a history expert but have learned enough from experts that armor at some point mimicked fashion of the times. Maximilian fluted armor was high status from the 1490s to 1550, but after that one was laughed at akin to wearing bell-bottomed pants after 1978. The armor of the wealthiest noblemen WAS hammer mark-free, planished and polished "white" iron with acid-etched and embossed artwork and was high-maintenance to remove rust and battle/tournament dents. It is possible to conclude that brigandine armor was effective and fashionable (similar to tricked-out Honda Civics/older used BMWs with aftermarket engine modifications, mufflers, rims, suspensions and paintjobs) but of low status just as the helmet you see in this video is hammer-marked (painted to hide it), irregular-shaped, low-cost mercenary man-at-arms armor that was quick to produce. In many Medieval artworks, "chain"maille and plate armor is a charcoal gray color because it had burned oil on the surface to form a protective barrier from rusting from weather, humidity, and sweat.

[@robcampion9917]

Nice arming sweater.

[@shawn6860]

He needs to sell arming sweaters with a certain amount of context.

[@ufc990]

Thought you were trying to make fun of the brigandine for a minute before I saw it, good one aha

[@futurerandomness1620]

Being British I believe Matt would refer to that as an arming jumper instead of an arming sweater.

[@robcampion9917]

@@futurerandomness1620 I'm British too but I couldn't decide between the two, so I flipped a coin and sweater won.

[@peterclarke7240]

@@futurerandomness1620 it's an arming woolly pully 😂

[@markseal6685]

Fabric deforms when loaded with weight. With the plates on the outside, the plates would be attempting to tear from the fabric. With the plates in the inside, the plates cannot deform the fabric as much, therefore it should be more durable.

[@IanSumallo]

Whenever you touch the brigandine, the squeaking noise is giving me Chernobyl flashbacks.

[@nickw2876]

Heat transference in the hot hot sun...leave a plate of steel in 90s sun...vs covered might be functional too.

[@Kingdomkey123678]

That’s really only relevant in the near East and North Africa (when talking about medieval Europe)

[@marcinkielczyk]

That's exactly what came to my mind. Covered steel does not absorb as much heat when in direct sunlight, but also extra layer of fabric prevents steel from giving heat away in winter. So yeah, aestethics and thermal regulation.

[@nickw2876]

@@Kingdomkey123678 relevant in all of the Mediterranean.

[@nevisysbryd7450]

@@Kingdomkey123678 Not accurate. Between the Medieval Warm Period and the warming of coastal and insular northwestern Europe by oceanic currents, the warmer months were plenty hot. We have records of men in armor suffering heat strokes due to activity in armor in the sun from medieval England. Thermal regulation was very much a factor.

[@Tubespoet]

@@Kingdomkey123678 even in 20 degree C (common April to September in northern Europe) in direct sun metal would heat rapidly to uncomfortable levels. If you have ever tried working with a tin roof in the sunshine you'll understand.

[@RyuFireheart]

Maybe it would be "easier" to stab the opponent chest with a dagger in grappling range if the plates were exposed? The atacker could see where a possible gap exists or identify previously damaged areas that otherwise could pretty much be hidden by the fabric.

[@natehammar7353]

Exactly my thought.

[@Bluebuthappy182]

That was the first thing i though of.

[@arc0006]

Yeah I though of that too. Seems like there are many many reasons for it being on the inside. Wonder how long it took them to figure that out?

[@benjaminodonnell258]

Exactly. And while in grappling you might be able to feel the gaps through the fabric, that would still slow you down. And at normal melee range, the fabric would make it nearly impossible to pick the gaps, though the placement of the rivets would be a clue.

[@boydgrandy5769]

Yes. I think a great deal of the motivation behind the construction of a coat of plates involved hiding the iron or steel plates from an opponent. Look how many people now think that brigandine armor is made of studded leather, just based on the outward appearance. The other consideration also included improved resistance to impact force from swords or maces; the plates will spread the impact energy over a wider area than flexible maile, and perhaps same the wearer from the broken ribs or other direct trauma he would have otherwise suffered wearing only maile.

[@evilwelshman]

I agree with the notion that protecting the iron from rust was probably a contributing factor to why coat-of-plates and brigandines were typically made with the plates under the fabric. Aside from providing a physical barrier between the plates and weather, applying beeswax (or other waxes and/or oils) onto fabric to waterproof was probably much easier to do and likelier to last longer than applying it onto the plates.

[@joemacleod-iredale2888]

Seems a pretty compelling reason from a British perspective!

[@RiderOftheNorth1968]

I see a problem with how to get the coat-of-plate/brigandine dry after it, finally, gets wet. Especially if you still have to wear it.... One can feel the rust starting to eat away on the precious steel....

[@Gabrong]

@@RiderOftheNorth1968 I believe, they oiled, greased, waxed the hell out of everything they could. The outer fabric was probably thickly waxed and the plates, since hidden, they could be ugly without the judging eyes of a prick, could be greased with any kind of fat. So the fabric would have been difficult to get soaking wet and the plates would not have been affected too much if it happens.

[@RiderOftheNorth1968]

@@Gabrong True! But the rubbing between the ringmail and the plates will remove the protective coating. Add to that the salty sweat that comes from wearer during use....

[@ZacharyEvans]

The plates themselves were often tinned, which protected them against rust, but if your casing is wool (very common) it contains lanolin which is naturally water repellant.

[@septegram]

If there's a gap between your plates, why put it outside for your foe to aim at?

[@Xaiff]

Hmmm, that's a bit too obvious for me to not think of. And to be honest, I didn't think of that. Thanks. :D

[@evilwelshman]

Perhaps so that the more attention the enemy spends aiming for that tiny gap in your armour, the less attention they might spend on the sword/spear/mace you're about to stab them in the face with? It could make for a cunning strategy if ever there was one! 😁😁

[@TheAsj97]

Incredibly unlikely that that was one of the reasons. Because, first of all, there's still mail and gambeson below the plates, also because you cannot stab directly into the chest, you would need to aim your dagger at a very extreme angle to slip into the plates (and that's IF your dagger is even thinner than the gap) meaning there's absolutely no way in hell you could have a chance of then penetrating both the mail and the gambeson below. It's infinitely easier to just go for the big exposed areas like the armits. Yes, there would still be mail and gambeson, but would could at least still thrust perpendicularly instead of at the almost parallel angle it would require to slip into the plates. This is all not even considering the huge amount of time you'd take fiddling around the gaps in the plates, which would leave you completely exposed to anyone.

[@bluelionsage99]

@@TheAsj97 Yes but I doubt all armor was made and designed by people that actually used it often or fought in battles often. The obvious visual logic of "hide the gaps" would be appealing to a designer just as it pops out at a modern thinker. In total though, I suspect that like many things in life there really wasn't one reason but many for the plates inside approach and in later years when an apprentice asked why it was done that way the master didn't say "I don't know, it's just done that way" but instead started coming up with reasons.

[@SandraOrtmann1976]

Could it be possible that in general blank steel was considered much less desirable than we think today? That covering armour in more or less fancy fabric and painting it if you were a bit poorer was the "IT" thing during the medieval times?

[@MrCougarjo]

Next video : Brigandine ASMR!

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

Why is everyone suddenly doing videos on brigandines? Something off here! I suspect *Big Armour™* has infiltrated all the KZbinrs.

[@spyrofrost9158]

Because they're all secretly planning to gather together for mass banditry. Guard your wives!

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

@@spyrofrost9158 to arms,comrades,they are going to take our wives.🤴

[@felixalbrecht9111]

Because I want to build a coat of plates in the near future and payed them all to do the research for me ;-)

[@kleinjahr]

Maximiliano Moreira Take my wife... Please?

[@nosferatu5]

They’re the tools of secret medieval society that influences people to learn about medieval times. KZbinrs are in their pockets! Open your eyes sheeple!

[@albertpolak786]

Few more advantages come to mind; With them on the outside things could snag and get caught up on the plate edges and that might be annoying. Having a smooth fabric surface would be more convenient I think. Also a steel surface is not as nice to touch, can be cold or hot, covering it makes it more like an actual item of clothing. And less noise of steel on steel if you have other bits of armor as well.

[@crowhaveninc.2103]

Tbf, it is one of the more beautiful armour types out there. Looks quite stylish

[@peyj7977]

Ikr. I could even see people walking around in these in a few years as a fashion statement or something

[@KristinkaAranova]

@@peyj7977 look stylish while being protected from being stabbed

[@rikib3652]

@@peyj7977 I'd wear it now if it was more affordable.

[@crowhaveninc.2103]

Yeah guys, I was also thinking about just rocking something like this and swinging about with the attitude of "If you don't like it, just stab me!". . But alas, real life requires us to pay for stuff. Maybe if we meme about it hard enough some galaxy-brained fashion guru will be able to make something that's both affordable AND protective

[@rikib3652]

@@crowhaveninc.2103 I like the way you think. hahaha that should be written across the chest in metal studs: If you don't like it, just stab me!

[@999wilf999]

I think you hit it spot on when you said that the fabric is easier to make in bight colours and to decorate, from what I understand the medieval mindset did not appreciate a minimalist approach!

[@theophrastusbombastus8019]

I always thought that they put the plates on the inside to make it more difficult to jam a point underneat them: on a scaled armor I can see which direction the scales overlap and I can see if my point has gone underneath them, on a brigandine the fabric keeps the plates tightly together and hidden, if my point pierces the outer fabric I would imagine it would be more difficult to "find" your way between the metal.

[@Leo.23232]

I think it would be impossible anyway.

[@channingb2577]

Just what I've noticed from wearing brigandine quite often for armored combat, but the plates are overlapping inside the brig. It would be much easier to get them caught on things and flipped out of their desired position, as well as for an opponent to intentionally slide their weapon between the plates if the plates were on the outside. They would need to be affixed in a very different and probably more complicated and expensive way if that were the case.

[@dwaneanderson8039]

My guesses: 1. It would be easier to try to slip a blade between the plates if they were visible on the outside. 2. A point hitting a plate will tend to slide to the edge and possibly between the plates. The fabric prevents the point from sliding across the plate. 3. The rivets project out of the plate on the side with the fabric. If the rivets were on the inside, a hard impact could potentially drive a rivet into your body. It's safer to have the flat side of the plate against your body. 4. It muffles any clattering of the plates. It may not matter tactically, but the noise is rather undignified. Of course the reasons in the video are good too.

[@animistchannel2983]

Thanks for including #4 clattering. People have already covered about everything else, but one of my thoughts was exactly that. Who wants to walk or ride all day hearing "ching clang clank rattle scrape screek" in their ears? Or imagine a whole unit marching, or a lot of warriors or even guards at a social gathering or party... "Dammit, man, muffle that kit! I can't even hear the band!" :)

[@riosasin3086]

5. Blood, dirt, mud, and sand stuck in gaps of those plates where with anti-rust oil are a nightmare to clean ,in the armory may be easier but in campaign nope

[@seraaron]

I've been asking this for YEARS, every time you posted a video about brigandine! thank you for finally making a video about it :D

[@aginorchuain77]

Probably it was also about heat. When the sun shines directly on metal it gets very hot, which makes touching it unpleasant.

[@nevisysbryd7450]

It makes wearing it unpleasant. Heat stroke levels of unpleasant.

[@aginorchuain77]

@@nevisysbryd7450 yeah, that too. Although that is true for all other metal armor.

[@khublaklonk4480]

I recall reading in a book by Pottinger that surcoats were first introduced into western Europe from the East during the crusades, as protection from the elements. I always concluded that the biggest element issue would be the sun, especially as most of us have leaned against a car on a sunny day at some point! Then, when they proved so very useful for heraldic purposes, they took off in the West and the idea became ingrained, even after the climate began to decline at the end if the 13th century. Is that why "whyte" armour became popular in England later, I wonder? The sun problem just wasn't so much of a problem any more?

[@spyrofrost9158]

4:09 "What did I say about the back talk, young man?"

[@ShagadelicBY]

"Aye, boomer"

[@salavat294]

The brigandine seems to have an interesting similarity of concept as earlier lorica segmentata, only in reverse construction. Where the plates of the lorica segmentata were interconnected on the inside, the plates of the brigandine have their interconnections on the exterior. One of the often noted drawbacks of scale armour is a potential sword glancing up and under the scales. The outer fabric base of the brigandine seems to solve this shortcoming, by forming a fairly uniform smooth surface facing incoming weapon blows.

[@Bob_Lennart]

Imagine a modern soldier strapping his armour plate to the outside of his plate carrier

[@Nos2113]

@Pub Thumpin Even the plate inserts themselves are often wrapped in fabric or, in the case of steel "armor," coated in rubberized plastic.

[@ziweiwang1704]

i believe this is mainly due to the nature of modern ballistic armor being a "pouched" piece of metal, which is a different reason to the medival plates. otherwise, they would have always had fabric covering the outside of full plate armor, which they didn't always do. but I agree that modern armor with their design would certainly not be placed outside of the fabric.

[@cruelfish4824]

The absolute first thing I thought of when this question came to mind was that it would allow for less pretty plates to be used and they wouldn't have to be the same color or even the exact same shape, you would still get a great looking and functional piece of armor.

[@cargo_vroom9729]

I was one of those who asked. So, yay!

[@irradix213]

it also held it in proper orientation, not a bunch of sharp scraps flappin

[@FraterMerovius]

Exposed metal heats up in the sun quite rapidly. Covering it with fabric, especially a brighter, more reflective colored fabric, could mitigate this phenomenon.

[@BNRmatt]

I'm loving all the focus on brigandines lately across several different channels. Cheers!

[@1337pede]

I recall Tod doing a video on jupons and he found that it offered remarkable additional protection against sliding, glancing and arrow shrapnel. Might be an additional benefit. Also, upward glances on brigandines aren't going to stick between the plates and rip them as you see with lamellar.

[@QuentinStephens]

A follow-on topic for you: why was brigandine not developed earlier? All the technology was there, back to the Roman era, maybe earlier.

[@steyn1775]

that's actually a good question although I think mail was good enough for the threats faced at that time when full mail soldiers were more common until more blunt focused weapons made soldiers want to have more protection?

[@JustGrowingUp84]

You have mail, which was used throughout the Roman Empire, even when they had segmentata. And you have scale and lamellar in the Easter Roman Empire, and still they also used mail. The "barbarians" north of the empire also used mail and scale, though fewer would have access to armor. So they could make rings, and small plates, but they stopped making large plates like the segmentata uses - why? Indeed, it stopped being used even before the Western Empire fell. It cannot be access to iron, since a mail shirt uses a similar amount of metal as a scale one, or a segmented one. And the knowledge to make metal helmets remained, so making curved plates of metal couldn't have been too difficult. Maybe it has to do with comfort - mail is easier to wear, it's better at ventilating heat (and in the cold, you can use winter clothing with it easier than with plate). Mail can also cover more - it's much easier to make a mail hauberk that's knee length, and with long sleeves, then covering the same body parts with segmented plate. They obviously felt it was adequate enough, in combination with a shield, as this lasted well into the Crusades. Mail still is quite heavy, so adding even more weight wouldn't be interesting for anyone - and if you give up the mail, you lose your arm and groin+upper thigh protection... So the question is, why start using plates again, in the first place? Matt gave some reasons, there might be others, I don't know...

[@razor1uk610]

@@JustGrowingUp84 plates over mail offer additional protection & could add an 'intimidation' factor to the wearers apperance. Plus the soldierly aspect of 'cool/perceived-coolness' of having something more than their minimally required or generally usual load out(s) of war geat, rations & supplies etc....

[@lotoreo]

@@JustGrowingUp84 Yeah I agree, I think it has to do with increasingly more powerful ranged and pike/lance-type weapons that made the use of full plate coverage necessary, because mail doesn't project perfectly well against powerful stabs and penetration

[@chrisball3778]

The Byzantines had lamellar/ brigandine type armour whilst mail still predominated in western Europe, so the skills to make it never completely disappeared. The thing is that, as with all aspects of material culture, economics will have played a part. It would have been very expensive, and western Europe was comparatively poor and under-developed during the early medieval period. There may not have been enough infrastructure or demand for it to support a sufficient number of sufficiently skilled craftsmen to produce it. Mail hauberks offered a very good level of protection against the weapons of the time and could be easily repaired, so were probably good enough for most soldiers. Later in the medieval period, the majority of the good plate armour in the entirety of Western Europe came from just a few towns in Germany and Italy- good armour was a labour-intensive, premium product that was only viable to manufacture if you had a sufficiently large market for it.

[@jek__]

Interesting question answered thoroughly with good energy and presentation and no gimmicks, instant subscribe

[@niallevans2375]

A few ideas, though I know nothing about the subject: 1. Would it stop you "clanking" or "tinkling" as you move? 2. Does the outer fabric help hold the plates in place and close gaps? 3. Does it reduce solar gain (heat)? 4. Does it leave the enemy wondering whether or not you are wearing extra armour? 5. Does it require fewer rivets? 6. The studs look really cool compared with little platlets! 7. Modern team sport players wear any armour under their shirts! Great video, thanks.

[@salazar4810]

I´d go with two more points in addition: - fabric on outside makes it harder to slit the weapon in the gaps between plates. Mechanicaly also it makes sence, since it better transfer power of the blow since surface is in tension. (compared to the armor made of metal scales) - fassion developement. In sence, it is sorts of adopting "overcoat" that was worn on the outside of armor during early times, dropping that layer completely, reducing weight, while keeping the fancy. Yes, later in 15 centrury it was already common to have plain metal armor, but in my opinion in the early days when coat of plates was first made, there was transition from fabric covered mail, to the partial plate, when even in plate, people wore something over them, to keep the visage of the contemporary man at arms. (sorry for bad english)

[@commando552]

Two things that come to mind, first is that with the rivets you probably need a larger more pronounced head on the fabric side so it is better if that is on the outside. It is also an extra opportunity for decoration. Secondly, i imagine that with the plates on the inside if the brigandine becomes damaged the plates are more likely to stay in their roughly correct position as they are sandwiched between the outer covering and your body, as opposed to if they were on the outside they would be flapping around dangling. This way round probably also helps with weight distribution generally, putting less force on the rivets holding the plates to the fabric.

[@edwardlazell3157]

Thank you Matt, interesting as always.

[@andrewlonghofer9485]

I think another point you didn't mention is that from what I've seen, brigandine is segmented, similar to the Roman lorica segmentata, and placing those plates on the inside of fabric means that the enemy will not see any of the gaps in the plates. Same with coat of plates. In this case, if you are able to strike a weak point in the armor, it's more luck than it is precision.

[@thomaswilkinson3241]

Wonderful explanation. Makes sense to me.

[@scottn96]

Thanks for this explanation. I had no knowledge of how this type of armor was configured.

[@BlackJar72]

I was just thinking the other day, "I wonder if the idea for the 'studded leather' armor so popular in fantasy came from people seeing a brigandine and not realize what they were actually seeing."

[@JanHeldal]

Correct. Studded leather makes no sense, unless the studs are rivets hiding plates.

[@ericwilson265]

I really like your hypothesis, definitely makes a lot of sense.

[@zoukatron]

I've always been very tempted by the idea of brigandine. I'm becoming increasingly tempted by the idea of getting corduroy covered brigandine.

[@arbisinoimeri7477]

I love very much you commentary!!⭐⭐⭐ I am more on the idea of wether proofing and maintenance!

[@oneshotme]

Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@stanislavkuznetsov2486]

As part of a reason. In general, one had to wear some fabric outside as a 'clothing'. Not only for bright colours or demonstration of some heraldry, but for decency reasons as well. Metal is a material usd for carcass, it had to have 'beautiful' layer on top of it. While many people had their mail open on their arms, it was probably just for utility reasons, as making it was too intricate and it wore off pretty fast so needed to be replaced more often. Also, 14-15-16th century fashion knew the concept of sleeveless shirts. They were not considered luxurious by any means (at least those that I can remember), but still were used. In fact, this mindset on having inner and outer 'tidy' layers is still there in some form.

[@m.s.79]

I miss Ian's/knyght errant videos so much. Thanks for giving me a fix.

[@zherron42]

Something I've heard from reenactors, particularly ones who wear hauberks, is that a surcoat really helps with thermoregulation, so that exposed metal doesn't become blistering hot under direct sun exposure nor freezing cold in the winter. Having an outer fabric layer seems to keep metal armor much more comfortable.

[@gallardoguitar]

Another reason could be the heat (here, in Spain, for example, summer could be a nightmare for a full metal dressed man). If you were the plates under the fabric, they're going to be approximately your body temperature. If they are outside the fabric, exposed to the sun, they're going to burn, literally. Of course, wearing the plates in the inside also protects them for the rest of the elements.

[@cassandra8984]

Wow! The video was quite enlightening. I particularly did not realize that the armor may be made of recycled plates and hence would look terrible. The extra comments below have hugely added to the overall picture about brigandine. I always thought the primary purpose was to reverse the grain of the scales so that upwards thrusts would no longer work but now I see that feature appears to be only one possible reason among (or along with) many others.

[@steirqwe7956]

There are other interesting and often overlooked transitional type of armor- mirror armor, i would love to see a video about it!

[@thenikko8292]

i agree with the points made and been mostly in line with what i was personaly thinking why it was done that way.

[@Xoroxouselric]

I asked this question as well to the united league of armorers page on Facebook. The answer i got was that the plates on the inside of the fabric helped keep the gaps between the plates smaller. And the fabric being exposed allows you to do whatever fashionable choices with the fabric as you see fit.

[@Anti_Woke]

PLEASE never, ever, wear your microphone on there again while making the armour squeal. /teeth on edge/ Otherwise, of course, an excellent video as always :-)

[@brovold72]

I didn't hear it at all. #old

[@Saintphoenix86]

My god it hurt so much tryin to watch the vid

[@Saintphoenix86]

@@brovold72 Its not like its that high pitched, if you didnt hear it you might need to get your hearing checked mate

[@nauziraf]

@@brovold72 I cant hear above 14khz, but I did hear that "invisible dude rubbing Styrofoam in your face".

[@Anti_Woke]

@@nauziraf Excellent description of it :-)

[@jacobrigby3172]

the squeaky sounds when you grab the brigandine, it's like scraping a chalkboard

[@razor1uk610]

Clearly it has been a long time since you've heard the insanely annoying high-pitched screeching upon a chalk/black board then. That is a whole other much greater level of aurally triggered discomfort.

[@moocherdingo]

If the plates were on the outside, an enemy could try to aim for the seams between them. Even a glancing blow might slide on the smooth metal and get 'guided' into a crack. A layer of fabric on the outside would make it near impossible to tell where the edges of the plates are, and also catch a spear or sword tip and keep it from sliding laterally into an inbetween space.

[@avanskow9302]

Thank you for researching and sharing this. Could you do a video for the unique pattern riveting that were made?

[@diagorasofmelos4345]

Because that's where our feelings are, Matt.

[@harrykouwen1426]

I'd like to add that in combat, you allways look for the weak spots, gaps and less defended parts off a person. In this case, with armour plate on the inside, it is impossinble to guess where those gaps or weak spots are, so for a stabbing attack you have to look further. On many modern replicated brigandine, is's quite easy to spot the hanging plate, therefore can stab down in between plate with a rondell dagger or half swording. On old paintings, it is harder to spot the plate positions due to more conspicuous riveting. Like you mentioned the maintenance is another point, and having grease or oil on plate will protect it better inside greay cloth, and rain and wear won't wash it away that quick. Polishing small steel plates on the big wheels as are shown in artwork and manuscripts is relatively fast, and polished steel surface in oil, grease or wax will not rust as fast as many think. Therefore much easier then painting it, paint is not as durable for wear and tear on armour that gets beaten up from outside.

[@michaelkosinski7441]

when the plates are on the outside, the way they overlap, allows an upward thrust to raise the plates and pretty much bypass the armor entirely. When on the inside the overlap is opposite but because the plate is sandwiched tightly between the body and the fabric, it would be much more difficult for a downward thrust to separate the plates and bypass the armor, I would think.

[@HamsterPants522]

They used to cover maille with cloth to prevent the sun from heating their armor too much. I just always assumed the same was true for brigandine.

[@DavidisWarpd]

Plates on the inside for men on horseback could avoid pinching or hurting the horse. Especially with small plates there are many joints that could pinch if the horse isn't armoured. Also the inside plates can't catch on anything and an enemy can't hook them to pull you off your horse.

[@DeHerg]

With a brigantine (less so with the older coat of plates) there might be a concern of thrusts glancing into gabs. Fabric over any plates would not provide a gliding surface but snag any point in its fibers, thus preventing such a scenario. I think this might also be why brigantines don't have that V-shaped neck protector that breastplates usually incorporate. Mere speculation of course.

[@otakaito5252]

I've heard that having armor unprotected from the sun or cold is very uncomfortable. Imagine crusaders walking in the desert with armor hot from the sun. ........ They must have been thirsty early... I love your brigadier, which I wish to have someday too, thanks for the info. and my thumbs up for your work👍

[@madisondines7441]

It seems like a lot of the good ideas have already been proposed. It would be harder to attack between the overlapping plates on the inside, it's better for heat management, won't get entangled with things in the chaos of melee, the plates are physically immobilized by being between layers, there's a lot of good reasons. Plus leather is a lot cheaper to acquire and fix.

[@zakadams762]

exceptional

[@timberwolf1575]

With the plates inside I see a number of benefits. 1. Plate irregularities (quality of manufacture, reuse of older plates from damaged armor, etc.) are less of an issue cosmetically and functionally if the irregular edges/geometry are against your mail than against your outer clothing. Irregular edges catch everything, ripping your heraldric garments, causing hitches in motion as plates move past each other, and lift odd edges out of place, potentially opening a hole in the armor. 2. Interior placement allows additional cloth to be sewn/riveted on the back side. This adds to the resilience of the armor by holding plates in place when some rivets or plates fail. See US WWII flak jackets which held stacked plates in cloth channels as one potential extreme of the idea. 3. Fashion, as stated in the video 4. Concealment/deception. At even middling distance it would be hard to tell if the brigandine were "real". A cloth coat with rivets would look very similar to a coat of plates. So there would be a temptation to make fake coats to look more armored than you actually were. The reverse is also true with the option of completely concealing the plates and rivets to look like an unarmored garment. Gray areas between the two extremes also work. A coat could be made to look like it offered greater or lesser levels of protection (are there only plates over the breast, or do they extend over the guts?).

[@cameronalexander5195]

additional point i have made with my own observations. the plates under the fabric, or sometimes leather, lay flatter giving less areas, by a large margin, for an weapon to catch on , or slide under a plate. it also allows you to lay plates in two different directions of overlap without worring about a weapon sliding under a plate.

[@crozraven]

comfortability & relative easy maintaince probably the biggest reasons imo. on that note, here some questions: + does brigandine armor even need constant polishing & oiling of its metals? + how to do oiling on brigandine armor properly? + are there a historical double fabrics-sandwich brigandine armors? (like both inside & outside layers are fabrics, so the metals completely envelops with fabrics)

[@user-ii1iy8fz1d]

Sweet as mere / path hanging on the wall mate.

[@shawn6860]

Plates under make sense for maintenance. To keep them from the elements and external water. And Matt hit on that point after I posted this. Also plates seen can likely targeted around by skilled archers and crossbowmen maybe.

[@sandervanduren2779]

You’re talking about at most 1” gaps. No way archers from any decent range in the middle of a hectic battle would be able to find, target, and hit a gap purposely, especially since the wearer of the armor isn’t just standing there. If there’s a chance of targeting gaps, it seems far more likely that it would be exploited during close fighting with blades

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

I was thinking almost the same thing. I'd add that you can slip a blade between the plates if you can see them but this way you're not entirely sure where the gaps are.

[@shawn6860]

@@sandervanduren2779 close quarters and half swording I over looked. Should have seen that. Ya it would be a tough shot for a bow. Though in this case size and plate pattern would be issues too. Regardless fair point. The likelyhood is small.

[@Sk0lzky]

The latter isn't really possible, they tend to overlap and at a safe distance for an archer you can't really see single plates, especially in the thick of combat. However the first point is great - I've asked a dude promoting/selling modern protective gear why we put plates on the inside (in modern vests ofc) instead of using molle or something. It never occured to him that RUSTING could be an issue (less so with synth but those degrade from sunlight) lol

[@Specter_1125]

Even a well trained archer would have some difficulty hitting a man sized target let alone smaller, in a battle. There’s a reason that archers were generally deployed in formation.

[@relivinghistory710]

A very point & well presented. Also if the plates were on the outside they would be accessible to an opponent, who could force a blade between them.

[@Mihalkoff]

Bright coloured fabric also protect metal from heating under the sun. If I remember correctly, first surcotes started to be used during 1st crusades, when man at arms arrived to middle east and started to suffer from overheating.

[@tehnemesis325guy]

Not an armorer or historian, but I made some quilted pillows once. With all those plates not being very flexible, having the stretchy/flexible material on the outside means movement doesn't create snag points or creases, as all the movement is inside the curve/surface. The actual deformation from movement gets averaged out over the smooth surface of your cloth material.

[@benstoyles1297]

I agree with all the points you've raised. Would add that putting the plates on the inside you've reduced the amount of surface area you need to cover, and posibbly increased the amount of ( or reliability of) the overlap.

[@nathanielmorton7459]

Tods workshop did a video on arrows piercing armour and the difference that having fabric over the top made was substantial.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

As we can see from the comments, putting the plates on the inside just makes so much more sense on every level. It forms the plates better, it hides weaknesses from the enemy, it prevents wear and tear and they didn't like metal showing as Matt pointed out, It hides wear and tear and rust easily, it protects against the weather somewhat, it allows you more options for fashionable design and I'll make a few more points I haven't seen in the comments: It makes you slicker and less likely to hang up on your accessories, the terrain or someone trying to grapple you, it allows you to move a little more quietly, not so much for stealth but just for your own sanity, It would be far more difficult so secure usable buckles and straps with the plates on the outside(without leaving dangerous holes), it reduces arrow deflection by grabbing arrows(as seen in Todd and Toby's videos). It's just without a doubt far superior in every way. In fact, I can't really think of a single advantage to having the plates on the outside other than ease of manufacturing.

[@thegeneral123]

Hide the overlapping angles, to increase protection, give some limited protection from blood, water etc damage perhaps? To hide the level of surface finishing on the plates as well I'd guess. Plus having the fabric covering will allow some decorative markings.

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

I want to ask if other people have heard this. Agincourt, the English were described as being brown due to the rust, due the pursuit. When in doubt when it comes to this stuff, I have to say we can't forget a practical element here. People tend to do things for a reason. Not only do they tend to do things for a reason, they actually have a pretty good logic for it. The longer it lasts, often the better the perceived logic. In terms of riveting on the outside, to a fabric base, well, there must be advantages to that, as mentioned in the video being my suggestions. I would also suggest that there's a definite element in improving protection here. That would be something I would look at. These guys knew combat, almost definitely better than we do. If we follow the development to the full harness, the idea of the curved plate to deflect the incoming strike, that had to come from somewhere. Someone had to go 'you guys, hey, I think this is pretty good, can we do it better?' I'd suggest that we're starting to see the idea of deflecting the strike, redirecting the force. If you have any sort of obstruction, anything to catch the blade defeats that objective. It actually catches the force and directs it into you. We're seeing a change in the philosophy of protection here. Before armour would stop the wounding effect of the edge, but not the force of impact. Now in the 1400's, 1500's we're seeing the idea of deflecting, redirecting the force as well as protecting against the edge. Protection grew to include pure impact force, to say it another way. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, were some brigandines lined on both sides of the plate? I believe some were. I also think this is getting confusing, as we look at the improvements in metallurgy and the like. The rise of armour is as much technology as it is design. So we have people who are asking 'can we do this?' and trying stuff out. It's not just a development of combat, it's also technological improvement. So the time was fairly dynamic. Also, not helping, see the video. Surcoats do not make studying the progression easy to study. I think if we just want to talk about the armour, we need to look to the metallurgy, as well as the combat of the time. We're seeing in this period as armour developed, the sword became more thrust orientated. We're seeing the rise of weapons like the pollax, pollhammer. We're seeing swords like the long sword get improvised into war hammers. Techniques like halfswording and murder strokes appearing. There's a definite arms race going on and trying to unpack that, could take some time.

[@bronco5334]

Before I hear what Matt has to say (so I may be repeating him): primary reason seems to me to prevent a point from skipping up the plates into gaps. If the cloth/ leather is on the outside, it captures the point of a thrust and keeps it from sliding up into the gap between plates. If the plates are on the outside, the point skips along the bare metal into a gap, at which point the cloth offers basically no resistance to perforation.

[@hartfartpoptart]

Brigandines were also used frequently in non-combat settings as a comfortable form of protection that could be worn under clothing.

[@torbjornkallstrom2316]

Didn't expect brigandine ASMR

[@sirteddyIII]

I imagine identification would've been a determining factor, being able to see and recognize a noble house or particular army by it's tabard/surcoat would help with recognizing friend from foe, which in the confusion of a battle would be very helpful.

[@TwanHendriks21]

I wonder whether it makes much of a difference on what side the coat of plates was put in respect to rain and rust issues. Armour was generally heavy and hot. People would sweat a lot wearing it. So having the plates on the inside of non ventilating clothes would also bring it more into contact with salty sweat. It may even have rusted more then when exposed to just rain.

[@BNRmatt]

I don't know what it is or why, but that creaking noise when you pull on the fabric drives me batty.

[@shawn6860]

I heard something too.

[@griffdaddy5579]

He had the mic connected to the middle of his chest on the buckle of the armor so that is the creaking sound of the plates on the plates when he would put his thumbs in the arm holes and flex it out.

[@shawn6860]

@@griffdaddy5579 it was a plastic like sound.

[@griffdaddy5579]

@@shawn6860 go back and watch the video, it happens when he stretches the armor and the mic is against the center of his chest where the armor overlaps and buckles. You can see it clipped to the buckle. I think the plates are coated and are not naked steel plates, either way that is where the sound is coming from. If you notice it is overpowering his voice because it is next to the mic.

[@shawn6860]

@@griffdaddy5579 ya it is the only way the sound fits. Lol! He needs an armor mic.

[@gattagoblin]

If you put the plates on the outside, you add a lot of open bits and bobs that you could potentially get stuck on during a swing for example. Also after some time and damage, some of them could become quite sharp, damaging cloths and you mentioned but also wearer. Also enemy could identify type/angle of plating and easily identify its weakness.

[@JeffHays]

Smoldering good looks like your's Matt kept scorching the fabric inside the armor, so it was moved.

[@BeowulfandCoffee]

Matt, Looking forward to the coat of plates video. Where can we find your thesis?

[@dogmaticpyrrhonist543]

Like many have suggested and you touched on, I lean towards the appearance reasoning. The Iron to iron and fabric against fabric thing has merit as well of course. Although there's less reason to keep that up once you're not wearing maille under it. But the look and the way you can control the look, is a strong draw card IMHO.

[@thomaskrieger6280]

what about clancing blows? having the plates on the inside seems to prevent a lucky foe getting a blade or hook etc. between the plates when they really deserve to miss. I took a brief glance down the comments to avoid redundancy, and I don't see anyone mentioning it being a safety issue. someone got close talking about snagging on branches etc. strong fabric or leather would let a scrape off as a scrape and nothing more, but snag on the edge of an exposed plate and that blade or point could be invited in for a sip of something warm to drink and maybe stay a while 😉 one of my other favorite KZbinrs sometimes discusses Tanks as well as arms and armour in his videos. occasionally he sights 'missile-traps' as a designe flaw in some tanks, and I think that is the same idea here. no need to give free points to the opposing team. I otherwise agree with all of what Mat says. I never consciously realized the point about wear-and-tear of the uniform; now I find it very compelling. "metal against metal and cloth against cloth" well put! 👍

[@razor1uk610]

Clancey Brown on the brain?? Or a phone itical sounding typo..?? *glancing* with a *G*

[@cdarklock]

Whenever you have plates, the weakest spot on your armour is the gaps and seams and joints between the plates. If the plates are on the outside, the enemy can see where they are, and aim for the weak spots. With plates on the inside, your enemy doesn't know for sure what exact size and shape the plates are, so where are the weak spots? They don't know; they'll have to guess. Of course, idk whether this is something mediaeval armourers really thought about, but it's smart whether they did it on purpose or not. And I do agree with all your points, so I think it's really kind of all four things: longer wear, weather protection, heraldic prominence, AND martial safety. I suspect all of these things occurred to someone at some time and just became the way things are done.

[@1FatLittleMonkey]

Also, if the plates were on the outside, then when you twist or bend -- such as, when in close, grappling with daggers, or when you missed and overswung, when you're off balance and correcting -- the gaps between the plates would open up precisely when your opponent would be trying for a nice upward thrust. With the plates under fabric, when you twist/bend is when the fabric pulls tightest, squeezing the plates against the mail and thus holding the gaps closed when you are at your most vulnerable.

[@MrTotalAhole]

As a old time table top gamer, Ive read the descriptions of armor but could never visualize it very well. As an American armor (or armour) is really a generic term for plate. Or, if it actually gets specific its either pate or mail. And even though I knew from the title it was brigandine, it really did look like leather armor with a badass rivet pattern. I understand why you like it. Hell, I think its stylish enough I'd wear it out on a first date. Although I'd oil it first, it squeaks a little too much. All joking aside, I really do appreciate channels like this (long time subscriber) educating and informing me on things Ive always wondered about before the digital age. Now all it takes is a Google or KZbin search, which is a good thing. Thank you! Edit* Do you think it was on the inside not only for style but maybe during that era, if it was on the outside, it was a sign of being less than manly (cowardliness), afraid of taking a hit?

[@pentultimatearsehole9190]

Thoughts from practicing in brigandine: the plates were on the inside to make it harder to slip a blade through. When you don't know where the plates interlocke it's more difficult to slip a point through.

[@Gunnar120]

I had always thought that (as it developed into munitions-grade armor) if worn without a sircoat, it would hide the gaps between plates, and could even obscure if a plate is damaged or missing. For those fighting against soldiers with swords, spears, or daggers, that outer covering would make it much harder to not only see the gap, but would prevent the point from moving much as it would be restrained by the cloth.

[@shaidrim]

WoW I’ve read so many interesting points! Just a small hypothesis I would like to add: could that be also ‘cos with the fabric on the outside is less easy for adversaries to spot weak points or damaged plates...

[@Plastikdoom]

Agree overall, think also for tiny amount of times it would matter, but more so cause of the belief, they can’t see which way they layered and overlapped. So lowers their chance of defeating it, which is one of the reasons of covering and painting wooden shields if I remember correctly, can’t tell the direction of planks then and the best way to possibly defeat it. Seems minor and weird, but think that was another reason to cover them in material and river them how they generally did.

[@ziweiwang1704]

my girlfriend bought a pair of suede shoes years ago, which had loose metal bits on the toes. The metal would freely swing and hit the shoe as she walked. after a few months, the suede has visible damage from the metal constantly hitting and rubbing on it. I think the material rubbing against each other is a solid reason for putting the metal on the inside.

[@domingoocho4374]

I am thinking of getting a brigandine cuirass some time in the future. While searching for some, something came to my mind. Imagine brigandine armor, but with slightly thicker/wider plates, and instead of being connected by normal fabric, it's a slightly thicker sheet of Kevlar. Kevlar brigandine could be more effective compared to just a steel plate, or just a chest piece of Kevlar. It could also protect much more of the torso. I wonder how effective it would actually be in practice.

[@kevinshepardson1628]

Again and again, answers to questions and corrections to misconceptions arise when one looks beyond just the immediate function of a weapon or armor in a fight. A steel-on-the-outside brig might deflect blows somewhat more effectively, but that wouldn't help much if it was falling apart or rusted to uselessness by the time you got to the battlefield.

[@phoeben9764]

From a practical point of view, having fabric outside means the fabric is absorbing some of the damage first, and thus 'protecting' the metal underneath. It costs less to replace or patch up the fabric every now and then, than replacing the metal plates, so one would try to preserve the plates for as long as possible. Also protected the metal from heating up under the sun. That may explain why lamellar armour in Asia had the plates outside. Their plates were made of cheaper / less scarce materials (lacquered wood) so they could replace when needed and did not need to worry about heat.

[@Hunter30394]

So many interesting points in the comments. My thought (probably already mentioned) is the 'slide' factor. Metal bladed weapons or arrow heads when hitting curved metal directly are very likely to glance off unpredictably. Having an arrow or blade slide on your armour up into your neck would be a big no no. The fabric on the outside would absorb some of the blow but also 'catch' any bladed hits forcing the hit to be on the armour and not slide to a vulnerable point. Just a theory.