[split] Phalanx warfare: use of the spear

[Paullus Scipio]

Paullus Scipio wrote:
“I'm afraid we are going to have to differ. Originally 'Breast-and-Backs' were worn over the buff coat, but once it was realised that the buff coat provided sufficient protection, 'breast-and-backs' were generally abandoned.”

Dan wrote:
Actually the opposite happened. The buff coat was abandoned, not the plate. By the end of the Civil War it was all but impossible to find them and, even at the start of the war, they were getting scarce.

I don’t believe that is correct. While never general equipment, the Buff coat was common, even the better equipped infantry regiments had them ( such as the London Trained Bands). The Buff coat first appeared some time before 1600,  according to my aging 1935 copy of Fortescue’s “History of the British army”. In 1662 the Earl of Orrery’s horse were recorded “all in Buff coats and caps.” In 1666 the Irish Life Guards all wore Buff coats and Sandford records the Life Guards wearing Buff coats at the Coronation of James II in 1685, but it was ‘officially’ abolished in 1686, despite which as late as 1696 it was still being worn by cavalry on active service. Buff coats dating from James II’s reign are still extant, and to be seen in Rochester cathedral.
Hardly ‘scarce’ then, though it is possible that due to high demand there were shortages toward the end of the Civil War.
 
Dan wrote:
This was written in 1640:

"For your buff coat I have looked after, and the price: they are exceedingly dear, not a good one to be gotten under ten pounds, a very poor one for five or six pounds."

A decade earlier a good buff coat cost 2-3 pounds, which was already a lot more than cavalry plate, which cost around 1.5 pounds.

Information on cost is not commonly found, but is there for those who look. You refer to the oft- quoted letter of John Turberville, which is something of an aberration. In 1638 a richly decorated (with Gold and Silver lace) Buff coat is recorded in the Verney papers as two pounds 14 shillings, ( as you suggest) though of course as demand rose during the Civil War so did cost. Nevertheless, in August 1642 Joseph Vaughan, a leather contractor provided 53 Buff coats to a Parliamentary Troop of Horse for a  cost of  one pound 18 shillings each, and in 1646 Lt Col Thorp purchased 3 quality Buff coats at a price of four pounds 10 shillings, or 1 pound 10 shillings each – and that is halfway through the English civil wars (1642-1651). From other evidence it is apparent that a Buff coat was within the means of the typical cavalry trooper.

In the last couple of pages, we seem to have digressed away from the subject of spear-fighting in a phalanx, onto the related subject of armour, and now onto the English civil wars!
Perhaps we should try and get back on-topic......

Dan wrote:
"You can interpret the texts any way you want but it doesn't alter the physical fact that in order to provide similar protection to bronze it needs to be significantly thicker and heavier."

Firstly, I am not 'interpreting texts', I have gone to some pains to quote them and allow them to speak for themselves, including the Greek at critical points where mis-translation might occur. Certainly I think everyone realises that leather needs to be much thicker to provide a similar level of protection, but not necessarily heavier, as both the calculated estimate of Crispianus, supported by Xenophon's account confirm. Arguably, Xenophon's cavalry cuirass was heavier because it was fairly thick, and provided better protection than a typical Tube-and-Yoke. But nevertheless the general point holds true; that the two were of broadly similar weight, allowing for individual differences, and metal muscled 'thorakes' could be significantly heavier.

 And once again, a curse on the current format which won't allow me to paste a quote from Dan's post into an 'edit', forcing me to type it in full ( difficult for me because my hands ar relatively crippled)