What did Levies and common Infantrymen wear in the 14th century?

Mail and Brigandines. Were levies still a thing in 1300s? Dont know.

>>3331592
They were a thing up to the 100 years war.

>>3331592
Mail and Brigandine seems like a thing men at arms and even high end knights might wear. Do you have any sources? It doesn't have to be levies just common infantry.

>>3331602
High end knights would be wearing actual plate armour, cuirasses and all.

File: 1418917112878.jpg (480KB, 1367x1000px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1367x1000px

The question is always "when and where?"

If we say western, southern and northern Europe, here's a decent approximation:

First of all, there's the obvious padded garment. Gambesons, aketons whatever.
In the early 14th century, you also can guarantee various forms of mail armour. Coifs and shirts of various types primarily, leg armour and stuff is less likely.
There are also helmets, usually open-faced. The kettle hat is the pretty much archetypal grunt's helmet of the time, although it should be noted that the nobility also favoured that sort of helmet in certain contexts.
At some point in the 14th century, plate armour began to become rather commonplace on non-noble soldiers. The most notable thing here is probably the coat-of-plates. An interesting thing about them is that the commoners' versions seem to have been fastened at the front so you could take them on and off yourself, while knightly ones were fastened at the back for better protection.
I'm not actually fully sure about that though, I think even a commoner could probably easily use back-fastened one. If you needed to take them on and off, why not just ask a random buddy?

In terms of armament, there's a massive variety. Spears, shields, pikes, polearms and ranged weapons of various sorts. The go-to sidearm was an arming sword, messer of falchion, coupled with a buckler if you weren't already using a larger shield.

>>3331571
They wore studded leather armor, the knights all wore full plate. They're weapons are usually hammers and maces to combat armor with their side arms being shortswords.

File: IMG_5142.jpg (368KB, 1536x1734px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1536x1734px

>>3331610
>>3331602
Oh geeze, that's pretty heavily armoured in comparison to Byzantine and Far Eastern infantry.

I thought cloth armour would still be prevalent. How about in other countries in Eastern Europe?

>>3331610
>That picture
>Shield and two handed polearms
>multiple crossbows

>>3331623
Cloth armour was very relevant as it served both as an under-layer for other armour, and also served as the sole armour for some parts of the body depending on the coverage the rest of the armour provides.

I don't know shit about eastern Europe I'm afraid.
The Byzantines were probably struggling with the whole "getting torn apart from all sides" thing, although if that actually meant that the common soldier wore less armour there, I'm not sure.

Western European infantry in the middle ages in general had a much better track record than pop culture today would imply, even early on. (as in, the whole "borderline useless unarmoured peasants who were fodder for cavalry" thing).

File: anime salesman.jpg (131KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x768px

>>3331647
>Shield and two handed polearms
They don't have to be used in conjunction. Having one to help defend against projectiles makes sense. The really questionable thing is the presence of a shield boss in the 14th century
>multiple crossbows
sharing is caring

>>3331571
What they could afford.

File: Very hard.jpg (81KB, 469x922px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 469x922px

>>3331647
>multiple crossbows
Do you have any idea how hard it is to string one of those?
Even with a tool, it's hard, and on the battlefield, it's not desirable.

>>3331622
>the state of /his/
stop playing D&D anon