What kind of man in the late 15th century could afford a full harness/suit of plate and offer his services as a man at...

What kind of man in the late 15th century could afford a full harness/suit of plate and offer his services as a man at arms? Are there instances of non-gentrymen, like burghers, somehow acquiring the capital to serve as fully armoured professional warriors alongside aristocracy?

How flexible were classes in terms of military service?

Other urls found in this thread:

wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/myth-of-the-longbow/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Well, there are instances of burghers / merchant, who attained aristocratic rank thanks to the wealth they attained through trade. Such was a case of de la Pole family in 14th century England

By the late 15th munition plate armor was starting to become common. These were mass produced sets designed to counter the rise of the personal firearm and could be purchased by the average landsknecht. You still saw more expensive tailor made armors for nobility, commanders, or men-at-arms (whom was usually drawn from nobility) but mass production was starting to make plate far cheaper for the average mercenary band, so you saw a lot more people in plate as opposed to mail by the late 1400s and into the 1500s.

So yes, you would expect to see common mercenary bands in plate of varying degrees of quality by this era. It was still expensive, perhaps a month's wages or more even for cheap shit, but certainly doable. By the 1500's munition armor prices would collapse and become cheaper than mail at the bottom end.

>Are there instances of non-gentrymen, like burghers, somehow acquiring the capital to serve as fully armoured professional warriors alongside aristocracy?
Most of the Swiss army and the Swiss mercs serving in foreign services. Albeit thei used mostly 3/4 suits of armor.
In the 15th century they where one of the dominant military forces of Europe and steamrolled pretty much everybody else.

There had always been mercenaries in Medieval Europe. They began to rise around that period back to prominence.

Yes, the answer to your question is yes. There were mercenaries. A relatively wealthy burgher could afford some armor. Prob not a full suit, but maybe a brigandine or breastplate and a helmet why not. Everyone could afford padded armor.

>Are there instances of non-gentrymen, like burghers, somehow acquiring the capital to serve as fully armoured professional warriors alongside aristocracy?
In the medieval ages, most cities- particularly in HRE Germany and in Italy- govern themselves via representative democracy instead of having a feudal lord. Consequently by not having feudal lords, they dont have the professional soldiers of the feudal lords to defend them, so as such, the citizens themselves do their own defending by raising militias and requiring citizens to serve a term performing military service (i.e. drills, patrolling & law enforcement, and so on).

Most of the common citizenry got their arms either by private purchase, or their guild/neighborhood pooled money to buy everyone armor and weapons. The rich citizenry and urban gentry would be able to afford full suits of armor.

Militias were understandably semi-pro- they were basically paramilitary- but there were times when they stood in the field and triumphed versus legit professional soldiers (Golden Spurs, Legnano), and some militias were good enough that they got mustered out along with the realm's professional soldiers in offensive campaigns.

By the 15th century, full plate was relatively common.

Common soldiers in Britain and France often had chainmail and brigandines, so I imagine a step or two up from them would often have plate.

There's a good explanation of the English military system in the 15th century here
wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/myth-of-the-longbow/

Tldr yes if you owned enough property you were automatically a man-at-arms

In fact, mass infantry formations where dominating the battlefield at the time and knights got their ass kicked left and right by militia type armies.

Which conflicts were those exactly?

The Hundred Years War where heavy French cav BTFO the english so hard they didn't leave their island for 300 years?

Or the Wars of the Roses where Henry won with French Merc Knights?

Or maybe the Hussite wars and Teutonic-Polish war where Teuton Knights did drivebys and dominated until being driven out and driving a Slav cock all the way to the baltic at the head of 7000 knights.

I think your getting the picture.

Depends on whether they saved up a lot of money to buy it, though you'd need a horse to and those are a bitch to maintain.

Generally we're looking at people earning four times the income of a yeoman or middle range master craftsman. Realistically you'd need to be a high income urban patrician before you'd be able to sell your services as a men-at-arms you need a sponsor.

A helmet and good upper body armor was well within the price range of what a craftsman could afford. Even as far back as the late 12th century civic militias could turn out with a significant group wearing a full mail hauberk and a coat of plates.

For example the Swiss Habsburg wars, or the Burgundian wars, several conflicts in northern Italy or Flanders.
Swiss militia soldiers annihilated the Burgundian army, all the nobles, Charles the bold himself and the entire Burgundy with him.
As mentioned, this won't show up on your radar if Europe is only England and France to you, because it was mainly a HRE thing.

Ok. Fuck the Burgundians first off. Taking heavy infantry and cavalry into the hills and mountains is a fucking retarded idea and they got what was coming to them.

Ok sure, masses of lighter infantry who were literally trained by the Templar in the Alps could defeat dudes in heavy armor who were probably winded just getting there. But thats not the norm.

>It doesn't count because I say so

Can you please quote the words "it doesn't count" in my post?

Or concede that you are incorrect in asserting that I assert that.

Ok I'll take your silence as a retraction.

It's not the norm of the period generally across Europe, but specifically confining your statement to the rocky and dangerous Alps your argument has merit.

Non of the Burgundian battles where fought in the alps, but all in the comparatively flat parts of the Swiss middle lands, plus one battle in Nancy.
You are one dicksucking, shit talking stupid nigger, and you definitely should not be allowed to post in this thread.
Now fuck off!

During the 14th and 15th centuries, the heavy infantry formations took over the battle field from the heavy knight cavalry. The 15th century was the heyday of the early pike formation and a massive transition happened on the field of battle that shifted power forever.

Only taking the burgundy wars as example cause muh alps even though none of the battles where fought on mountainous terrain.

However try and explain french knights getting wrekt in flanders by simple infantry militia. Which is litteraly low lands

>muh alps
just to say, pic related is the battlefield of Grandson, the most hilly battlefield of the entire Burgundian wars. Charles the Bold din't even came close to the alps, instead all battles where fought on flat or slightly hilly terrain around the big lakes of the Swiss middle country.
This guy here has no clue what he is talking about.

I know most of the battles of that war where on pretty flat lands. But you know the common american only thinks of alps when you say switserland

>he thinks French cavalry won the HYW
>he thinks that it was French mercenaries that won Bosworth, not Stanley switching sides

Still mad you got BTFO the continent 600 years later I see.

You seem far more mad you were btfo at