Armor?

[Abrams]

Well, after playing some Sid Meier's Pirates (not the most historically accurate game, of course) I was wondering -- was it common (or at least plausible) for pirates to wear metal armor?

I mean, a cuirass would surely help during a fight.

[Capt. Galvon St.Paul]

Well, after playing some Sid Meier's Pirates (not the most historically accurate game, of course) I was wondering -- was it common (or at least plausible) for pirates to wear metal armor?

I mean, a cuirass would surely help during a fight.

I've never seen any record for it. Wouldn't really make sense anyway.

It would proect your chest against a sword, but thats about it. Melee weapons weren't primary, rifles and other small arms were, and even a small firearm would pierce steel plate, which is why plate armour pretty much ceased to be with the proliferation of guns. Once the matchlock was adopted for military use, metal armour became almost useless overnight. No sense spending all that money on something that no longer protected you against the main technological threat.

In the 1600's, during the English Civil War for instance, many soldiers opted for a heavy leather buff-coat, though at that point, segmented steel-plate pieces were still occasionally used for upper arm and thigh protection.

Anyway, a piece of steel armour would be quite a pain in the ass to keep maintained on board a ship. Salt air is murder.

Not to mention the piece being hot as hell in the sun. Though armour isn't nearly as heavy, cumbersome, or constricting as some believe it to be, wearing a cuirass would hinder one slightly on a ship. Finding an individual with actual sword training would've been difficult enough, but someone who could fight well armoured? Changes things a little more than one might believe.

[HarborMaster]

Just a thought here ...,? It may not have any relevence but has anyone here ever tried swimming in armor ?

I scuba dive alot ..,i would sure hate to have on my weight belt .., and not be allowed a BCD and a Tank.

If you want to go boating in armor.....,go ahead...,I pass.

[Maggie Crowe]

I'm certainly not an expert, but I would think wearing armor would be unwieldy when you're up in the rigging.

Beyond that, my understanding is that many sailors didn't know how to swim, partly because they were assured a quick death if their ship went down. Armor would certainly help that along, if that be the case.

[Tartan Jack]

Beyond that, my understanding is that many sailors didn't know how to swim, partly because they were assured a quick death if their ship went down. Armor would certainly help that along, if that be the case.

DING! DING! DING!

And We have a WINNER!!!

(I was longing on make that point . . .)

Oddly, most sailors couldn't swim. Now, HOW ODD is that??

[Capt. Galvon St.Paul]

Oddly, most sailors couldn't swim. Now, HOW ODD is that??

I can think of stranger things. I mean, a good sailor need never touch the waters!

[Skull pyrate Carter]

Wouldn't really make sense anyway.

It would proect your chest against a sword, but thats about it. Melee weapons weren't primary, rifles and other small arms were,

really?

they usually only had one shot. Granted the Pirates used the cannons more than anything, but once on deck you had about one shot (hence Blackbeards' many guns). I think if the ship they were attacking decided to put up a fight, then it was all swords after one shot, because it took a bit of time/effort to reload a shot.

[Capt. Galvon St.Paul]

they usually only had one shot. Granted the Pirates used the cannons more than anything, but once on deck you had about one shot (hence Blackbeards' many guns). I think if the ship they were attacking decided to put up a fight, then it was all swords after one shot, because it took a bit of time/effort to reload a shot.

Once on deck, yes, the only had one shot per pistol, then out comes the trusty cutlass, cuttoe, hanger, boarding-axe, club, pistol-butt, dagger, belaying pin, or maybe even a sock full of shot.

But after the cannonfire, and before boarding, any available long-rifles were used from possible vantage points. Getting a good shot off may have been difficult, but certainly possible. And worth it.

It's just basic warfare. Use all available projectiles to thin the enemy ranks, prior to melee engagement.

Your main weapon is the one you prefer, and any sensible pirate(or person in general) would prefer to take out an enemy from as much a distance as possible.

[Patrick Hand]

any available long-rifles

I spent all last weekend at the Northern California Pyrate Festival, explaining that my doglock musket is NOT a rifle....

Rifeling Did exist during the GAoP..... but the common long arms used are going to be smoothbore......

<mini rant over.... back to the discussion.....>

[Skull pyrate Carter]

Patrick is correct.

[Jib]

Spanish soldiers are often shown in illustrations wearing breast plates and helms during land battles pre-GAOP. Might there be historical data that involves pirates in armor during a shore raid?

[Capt. Galvon St.Paul]

any available long-rifles

Rifeling Did exist during the GAoP..... but the common long arms used are going to be smoothbore......

<mini rant over.... back to the discussion.....>

True. I use "rifle" to refer to any long gun. It's a bad habit, I know. ::slaps self in wrist::

---------------------------------------------------

During shore raids, it may have been sensible to have armour. My main question would be about availability.

Plate armour has always been pricey. At the point of the GAoP, even military forces weren't using armour. Closest to it was the gorgets, which were more decorative then functional.

Without being used by military personel, and not really being made, access to functional armour would've been minimal, if at all possible. Can't steal something if your target doesn't have it.

And even if you managed to find a piece that fit, it still wouldn't protect against a musket ball. You'd probably be better off without weighing yourself down.

Like I said above, proper armour isn't as heavy as people believe it to be, but if it isn't going to help then it's just a waste of energy to have around.

[Patrick Hand]

proper armour isn't as heavy as people believe it to be

And it's not the weight that gets you..... it's the heat..... armour and the padding (if any) get really hot......

[Skull pyrate Carter]

I didn't even think about the conquestadors. However, I'd imagine on a rocking ship, I don't know if i'd want to deal with the added burden of the armor. Heck in the army we couldn't stand wearing the vests, but we had more bullets to contend with than a pirate.

[capnwilliam]

Armour of any sort - save for the (ornamental anyway) gorget. and the heavy cavalrayman's cuirass - was passe by the GAOP.

And as others have pointed out: armour is heavy, restricts yer movements, is hot, would drag ye down to Davey Jones' locker if you fell overboard while wearin' it, and wouldn't provide much protection against bullets.

Capt. William

[Coastie04]

I just finished reading a book about Magellan's voyage (almost) around the world called "Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe" by Laurence Bergreen. Now, I know it's far earlier than the GAOP (early 1500's), but I feel it would be fitting here. Now, this book is an interesting read, and definitely enlightened me to some of the cruelty of the period that I just usually didn't connect with maritime history. However, I'm also convinced that the author knows nothing about actually going to sea. Nonetheless, it seems like a fairly well researched book. It mentions that "the fleet carried one hundred sets of armor...consisting of corselets, cuirasses, helmets, breastplates, and visors. Magellan brought his own deluxe armor, which included a coat of mail, body armor, and six swords. His helmet was topped withb right plumage." (pp 147-8). However, the only time that the book ever mentions them using this armor, is to demonstrate power over the natives, or to fight on land. Sure, there might have been some chance to don armor when repelling borders, but the few times Magellan does, armor is never mentioned. Cannons and firearms are what 'saves the day'. Additionally, Magellan only carried 100 sets of armor for the original 260 sailors of the fleet. So, it seems that armor was already going out of style due to the firearm in the early 1500's. Give firearms 150 years of evolution, and armor was probably completely pointless.

Disclaimer: This is based on one secondary source about a different time period, from which I made assumptions. I realize that for the strict historian, this doesn't mean squat, but I felt that this particular book was fairly well researched (though the author might make a few incorrect assumptions, especially about life at sea, it's pretty clear where his opinions are inserted).

Coastie

[Patrick Hand]

Coastie04... ain't picking on you..... ....(pickin on the quote....)

corselets, cuirasses, helmets, breastplates, and visors

(corselets, cuirasses,breastplates) are all basicaly the same thing... upper body armour.......the rest are head covernings.........

Depending on the time period yer into.... Buccaneer Period... the Spanish are still wearing armour...... (not that it did them any good.... aaargh.....(sorry))

By the Golden Age..... yah... the only part of armour left over is the gorget......

[HarborMaster]

Coastie04 ..,Thanks for the tip on "Over the Edge of the World".

I just picked up a copy with a buy it now on eBay. I am looking forward to this., it was actually THEE ADVENTURE. And besides he was greased on my island for trying to take over ! ! !

Damn just imagine Patrick ..,someone wondering into your camp . and planting THEIR flag . Spain had some BIG ONES didnt they.

Here is Magellan and Lapu-Lapu in this painting depicting the battle between Cebu and Mactan.

[Coastie04]

Patrick,

Thanks for the info on the armor. I was just quoting the book, though I know very little about armor except that it's SUPPOSED to help you live and can look really cool. Personally, I depict post-GAOP, around 1750-1770 or so. Therefore, armor would just look silly.

Harbormaster,

Enjoy the book. It's definitely gruesome and goes into detail about some of the common torture techniques of the time. Until reading that, I didn't realize that Magellan had men drawn and quartered, both from his crew and natives alike. Also didn't realize that he dealt with a couple of mutinies as well. Definitely an eye-opener about the age of exploration.

Coastie

[SilasTalbot]

Though it's not something to which I've given a ton of thought, I'd have to agree regarding armor...trying to maintain it in decent condition on board a ship, the degree to which it can hamper movement, not being much help against a gun shot...it's hard to imagine that it would have been used much (if at all) by pirates.

(And wearing armor even in a theatrical environment is a pain in the arse. Had to wear a chain mail coif and shirt, gorget, and gauntlets for "Richard III" for a whopping 20 minutes and even that little amount of time was pretty awful).

Aside from the question of "did they/didn't they" ...if anyone in the New England region wants to check out artifacts relevant to this thread, the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA is opening a new exhibit on June 30 titled "Conquistadors to Patriots: Arms and Armor in Colonial America". Though I admit there is little in the Higgins collection having to do with the GAOP, if you love swords and other historical weapons, the Higgins is well worth a visit.