Milanese>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gothic

They're from Osprey's Men at Arms books. They're good source of info if you're just getting into these stuff.

it's fucking ugly

just ordered a couple

thanks doods, good day today

Fuck you. You may not like it, but this is what peak aesthetics looks like.

if we allow 16th century shit then it's a whole different story. Medievalists can't compete with proper peak armour, aka 16th century armour.
Too bad nobody cares about the Italian Wars, it's very interesting.

t. woman

The pimp cape completes it
Not sure about the mittens tho

Osprey is the main source of historical drawings
We have a fetish for osprey because /twg/ is our dad and /gsg/ our mum, and /pol/ our retarded brother

>He doesnt like the distinct australian style in armour
pleb taste

Only a Milanese pleb would say such a thing.

*blocks your path*

I have seen those pictures before, what are they from

>I'll risk my life because I don't like the aesthetics of this protective feature of the armor.

How can 15th century fags ever compete with pic related?

Gothic armor is the best no questions about it.

Switch numbers 3 and 7 in and maybe it will be on par with gothic

The Men at Arms books have some misinterpretations and many armor drawings are based on composite armors like the gothic armor in your pic; it's the infamous A21 from the Wallace Collection. Or pic related; the guy wearing a backplate as breastplate was probably supposed to face the other way.
They're a good read and give you an idea how stuff could've looked back then but most are outdated by now.

Do you have any recomendations for similar books (especially about 15th,16th,17th centuries)? Outside of actually looking at the original source material.

Also what is wrong with A21 from Wallace?

When it comes to drawn sceneries I guess it doesn't get much better than the Osprey stuff.
There's a german book series called "Kleidung und Waffen der Spätgotik" which have some good drawings of mid-14th to late 15th century armor and fashion.
Tobias Capwell's works are also pretty good.
"The Real Fighting Stuff" lays focus on the armor collection from the Glasgow museum, "Armour of the English Knight 1400-1450" exclusively features english armor.

I don't know where to start...
Sallet:
Has a weird slit behind the visor; some say it used to have an integrated bevor. Neck guard had a strip of brass riveted on in an attempt to pimp it up a little; looks ugly as sin though.

Bevor:
Likely a 19th century piece.

Breast & backplate:
I have some doubts about the breastplate; the fluting seems a little odd compared to original 15th century pieces.
The backplate is original though.

Pauldrons:
A typical case of "too good to be true". I've read somewhere that they're 19th century work.

Arms:
Read somewhere that they're modern. When it was sold from castle Hohenaschau in germany, it had one of the arms it's displayed with today an the other arm was from a jousting armor, now replaced with a matching piece.

Gauntlets:
Modern. The thumb consists of a single plate which makes them too stiff for movement.

Legs:
When the suit came to the collection it didn't have legs so they made a copy of the pair of gothic legs from the DHM in Berlin and slapped a Landshut armourer's mark on them.

Horse armor:
The horse armor has a 16th century maximilian-style saddle because the original one went missing before it left castle Hohenaschau. At one point someone decided to attach strips of leopard fur to the lower edges of the crupper and peytrel thinking it would look good. They were eventually removed.

Those are things I definetly wouldn't notice. What is the best known, all original gothic piece that still exists today?
I read some stuff that a lot of original pieces were ruined in the 19th century, like the notorious visored barbute.

There isn't a single 100% complete "german" gothic armor.
The Helmschmied armors from the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer in Vienna are probably the best surviving pieces.
The armor on the left has a sallet which originally belonged to a different suit; the besagews went missing in the 19th century.
The armor on the right is missing the reinforcement plate for the left pauldron and a brass stripe on the backplate.
Both armors belonged to Archduke Maximilian I; the suit on the right was later gifted to Sigismund of Tyrol which is why many call it the Sigismund armor.
The incomplete suit in the back belonged to Sigismund iirc.

whats the fucking difference?

Those pics are both Milanese. Gothic was posted down below in the thread.
Very cool, thanks for the info

oh yeah, still no answer on what the rest of Europe was wearing though

>still no answer on what the rest of Europe was wearing though
Most wore italian export armor. So far I don't know of any armor workshops outside Italy, Germany, Austria and Flanders in the 15th century.
If you want to see what 15th century english, french, burgundian or spanish armor looked like you're better off looking at effigies or paintings from that time. They tend to give you a better idea what the armor looked like than the 15th century suits in museums which were more often than not thrown together from mismatching pieces for the sake of having a full suit on display.

Locally produced stuff and imports.

Pic related was a Franco-Burgundian armour IIRC. It's a mixture of styles really. Armour styles could really be something of a range rather than styles set in stone.

Plate armor production was very controlled, there was really only a few major centers of production and almost all armor came from them.

What about munitions grade plate, though?

It's possible that simple plate armor was produced locally but the bulk of munitions grade armor in the 15th century came from Italy. They were often left rough from the hammer to save cost and polished or painted by the customer's own craftsmen.

It looks like he's smoking a cigaret through the helmet