Why was armor of the early 14th century covered with leather?

I'd guess a combination of corrosion protection, sound dampening and mostly aesthetics but who the hell knows.

>>1857560
>"mostly aesthetics"

Leather is better at absorbing impacts. Much better. It was also lighter and easier to take on and off. With the advent of gunpowder, full plate became dangerous and ineffective incase it got dented and pinned to the body, limiting movement

I'm sure if the old knights could have got away with their shiny steel you can bet they would have worn it

Also, temperature. Steel armor gets easily hot or cold depending on the season. Leather insulates it and makes wearing armor far more comfortable.

>>1858306
retard

>>1857526

The actual artefact in the bottom right is covered in fabric, not leather.

There are some brigandines that are covered in leather, but they're very late 15th or early 16th century examples. Fabric is the government to covering material for earlier plate, both in surviving examples and artistic depictions.

Leather is massively over represented in modern reconstructions for some reason. The modern eye thinking it looks cooler or been seen as stroner, maybe even because it's somewhat easier to work with than fabric?

>>1858670

Government? That should be go to.

>>1857526
The leather is what holds it all the plates in a coat of plates together, it's got little to do with what potection it provides. Most surviving examples of coats of plates and brigandines used canvas with another dyed textile on top for theouter layers which wouldn't have done much to protect you. Not to mention that leather has to be very thick and specially treated, ofthe by boiling it to make it effective as armour.

File: Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Leeds_(internal_view).jpg (628KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1600x1200px

>>1857526
That's not one big breastplate with leather over it.

File: 12_sm.jpg (28KB, 448x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 448x300px

>>1858835

That one actually is. It's a covered single piece breastplate with faulds and decorative rivets, not a brigandine.

>>1857526
Because making steel plates of big enough size and quality is difficult and expensive at the time, much simpler to make several small plates and then rivet them on a sturdy textile or leather carrier.

File: img_136.jpg (308KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 750x1000px

>>1858890
You're forgetting that it has a back.

>>1858923

That one doesn't. At least, not a surviving one. Any reconstructions of the back are entirely speculation.

File: tomalabreastplate3.jpg (103KB, 700x1050px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x1050px

>>1858670
well why were breastplates covered in anything in the first place? it wasn't to hold anything together since it's one solid breastplate/backplate and a fauld which is already held together by leather strips on the inside

>>1858785
that's not a coat of plates, that's just a breastplate, which fares just fine when not covered at all

>>1859190

To make it look fancy, basically. And to show off you can afford fancy fabric and risk it getting trashed by putting it on armour.

There's also armourer regulations regarding not covering faulty armour with paint or fabric to hide the faults, which suggests that was happening too.

>>1858306
that thing is a fucking full plate it's just covered with the leather you retard

Could it be just a remnant? Plate armour evolved from a coat-of-plates and brigandine (which are metal plates riveted to a leather or fabric) by simply plates getting bigger and bigger while the metallurgy techniques got more advanced. So, eventually it became just a single, solid metal plate we know as breastplate. Maybe blacksmiths just kept riveting the thing to something for some time because they had always done so.

>>1857526
Apparently it protects the metal from getting too hot when in the sun

>>1858306
>Leather is better at absorbing impacts. Much better.
No it isn't.

>>1857526
Because the plates underneath are riveted to it. Canvas and silk were also used.

For actual curiasses? Keeps the sun off. Metal armor exposed to direct sun for a few hours will burn your fucking hand when you try to take it off. Also helps with rust, AND prevents the armors shine from giving you away if you're moving through brush.

>>1860011
Actually yes. Concessions to fashion WERE made, even on battlefield armor. The barbute, for example, was a throwback to classical helmets, and you see "scale" sneak its way into harnesses purely for looks.

>>1858306
> full plate became dangerous and ineffective incase it got dented and pinned to the body, limiting movement
Uh, what? You do know, that metal isn't worn on the naked skin? You will have gambeson underneath. By your logic having boobs and wearing armor would be fatal for human, and that's not the thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et7l3Fjsjao
Skip to ~9min

>>1857526
Most likely because they didn't have yet the technology to make large enough plates.

During the 14th century metalwork wasn't yet advanced enough and they still had to piece their armour together from smaller parts. The pattern of the rivets indicates that we're not looking a single large breastplate but smaller ones.

The leather covering keeps the whole thing together.

>>1863582
please read the thread before posting

you have no excuse, it's only 19 posts

>>1863708
How about you kill yourself you worthless subhuman

>>1857526

to look cool m8

It was a gay thing.