> No, Sir, you are not wrong. The buffcoat appears around 1615 or so but
> takes 20 years to become commonplace. Even the Swedes, who were
> known for
> their buffcoats did not seriously adopt them until 1635 or so.
> They were
> also primarily a cavary armour and a proper one would be
> somewhat unwealdy
> on foot.
> The buffcoat was of ox-hide, oil tanned, generally with fish oil, and in
> the neighborhood of 1/4 inch thick, sometimes more. Those large skirts
> would do an excellent job of protecting the thighs on horseback,
> but could
> fly out like unsecured tassets on the ground and draw you off
> balance. While a coat may have been more flexible than a breast
> and back,
> it may not have been that much lighter, depending on the armour. It was
> known for soaking up water like a sponge and then taking a week to dry
> out. Master Luke Knowlton can attest to that, having actually
> made one of
> period weight and tannage. Then we went to battle in the
> rain.......... Damn thing was three to four times it's weight when wet
> and had all the style and flexibility of a wet rag.
> The references in period seem to be more of leather jerkins or
> jacks made
> of leather. I have never seen the word 'buffcoat' used in a
> primary source
> prior to 1600.
As I suspected, for this I thank thee.
Thou dost me overmuche honour with thy comments, both in my confirmaytion,
and in thy addresse.
from what I have seen of such coates they seem onerous, indeed, and the
armes painfully inflexible. Should I have need, I shal stay with a coate of
maille, or a leather doublette.
Fortunately I am but a simple merchantman, and by Grace of God, have little
need of feats of armes. Which is moste mete, as I am growen fat handling
money, and as I accostom to balance my registers, I am less accostome to the
balance of mine rapier. This is a lacke I shall remedy, a little, perhaps,
but skill at armes is the result of a constante discipline, and I have not
the time for this dsicipline, for the bankers and venturerers are hungrier
for their returns than a Irish is for Aquavitae. I fearre that I shall never
be so greate a complimente to a regiment than our good Hawkins. Perhaps it
is enough that I benefit the realme by taking goode English wool and
worsteds to France, and bring back that whych is common there, and less so
Love is like a boomerang, It only comes back to you if you throw it really