[Jörg B.]

Hallo Michael!

Die Vorstellung, Plattenzeug hätte sich vor allem als Schutz gegen immer stärkere Waffen entwickelt, ist so nicht wirklich haltbar.

Ich kopiere mal einen Beitrag von Dan Howard aus dem Antique Armour Forum

Why was plate armour developed? Most believe that plate armour was developed to counter weapons such as the couched lance, crossbow, and longbow - that it evolved because of an "arms race" between weapons and armour. This is a very modern viewpoint heavily biased because of the rapid development and counter development of military technology during the 20th century. This rapid technological advancement is unprecedented in history and although it can be applied to the Middle Ages, it does not seem to have been the main driving force for change. During these earlier times current scholarship suggests that warfare was driven by changes in society as much as technological advances. Some points to consider: * Smiths had been capable of manufacturing armour made from large plates of iron long before the emergence of plate armour in the 14th century. This is demonstrated by the existence of helmets that had been raised from single large plates of iron - not a simple task. The most famous example is the helm of St Wenceslaus dated to the 9th or 10th century. It would have been an easy matter to transfer these skills to the making of solid breastplates and it seems that it was done on rare occasions. One likely example is the "plate of worked iron" described by Guillaume le Breton and worn by Richard of Poitou (later King Richard I) under his hauberk during his joust with William de Barres. Some have proposed that plate armour was worn even earlier, during the Carolingian period. * The weapons that were considered capable of defeating mail (such as couched lances and composite crossbows) had been used on the battlefield at least a century before the advent of plate armour, so these weapons cannot have been the impetus for developing this armour. As mentioned above, even though armourers were capable of fashioning plate armour during this time, they continued to make mail. * Water-powered hammer mills are evident at the end of the 12th century. Once this industry was established, it enabled iron plate to be produced in relative bulk quantities at a cheaper price. When labour costs dramatically increased after the Black Death (14th century) it would have cost as much to produce mail (which was highly labour-intensive) as all but the finest of plate armour. If plate armour cost the same to produce and offered better protection than mail, one could argue that it would have become popular even if weapons such as crossbows and lances never existed. * Economic developments enabled the towns of Western and Central Europe to first become viable, and then, by the 13th century, powerful enough to rival and even challenge the power of their feudal overlords. These towns created a class of people who wished to break free of the feudal system. They had no desire to engage in warfare using the "old rules" to which the landed aristocracy adhered. These townsfolk fought to break the yoke of their feudal masters and had no qualms in regards to killing them. To this end they developed new battlefield tactics, and had the organisation and morale to effectively use them against the mounted knight. Examples include the famous Genoese crossbowmen and the Swiss and Flemish pikemen. * During the Middle Ages until the end of the 13th century, the primary goal when fighting a knight was to capture him for ransom. It was rare for the nobility to deliberately attempt to kill one another. It was only the lower classes that the knight felt no compunctions about killing. One argument about the lack of plate armour during this time is that "armour piercing" weapons were generally not needed because the only targets the knight intended to kill were largely unarmoured. If knightly weapons were not intended to deliberately kill fellow knights, and the infantry of the time offered no real threat, then there is no need for heavier armour. * The replacement of feudal levies with scutage ("shield money") as payment in lieu of service enabled commanders to make much greater use of mercenaries and professional soldiers, who were generally better armed and armoured than earlier peasant levies, were more experienced and better disciplined, and did not have to be home in time for the harvest. The "armour industry" expanded because more men were willing and able to pay for better armour and a higher percentage of any host was likely to be wearing decent armour on the battlefield. * Consider the change in sword types during this time - from mainly slashing blades to heavier cut and thrust varieties. Medieval swordsmiths have always been capable of fashioning these types of blades but rarely did so. Most assume that the impetus for this change was the development of plate, but the stout points on these swords also make them more effective at penetrating mail. So why did they not see widespread use earlier? Especially since the earlier slashing blades were ineffective against mail. It is possible that the change in sword design was caused by the change in attitudes towards warfare. There came to be a distinguishment between "good war" (capturing for ransom) and "bad war" (fighting to the death). As mentioned above, there was also a greater percentage of the lower classes wearing armour. A knight's sword would therefore be more often required to kill armoured men rather than the unarmoured levies of previous centuries - hence the new sword designs. There were many reasons for the development of plate armour during the time period in question. It is evident that the so called "arms race" between weaponsmith and armourer was unlikely to have been the dominant reason and to say that it was the only one is simplistic at best. It is unclear which of the above-mentioned factors had the most influence and the researcher needs to keep the context as a whole in mind when examining this subject.