That notion of a levy is wrong for a start- we are talking mainly about people with cash who are legally required to buy/provide arms and armour in proportion to their possession of property and/or as part the confirmation of their status in life. The idea of a "poor knight" or "ragtag archer/mercenary" as portrayed by many as an excuse to be wearing nowt or crap is pure fantasy.Carl / Sir Geoffrey wrote:that one of the things that makes our battles inauthentic is the unrealistic proportion of clankies to un armoured levy.
While there may be too many fully armoured people wearing top to toe tin then everyone on the field (with exceptions of gunners, some light horse etc) would be armoured in some way- likely textile defences or some sort of metal over the major areas- through history it has been head first, then torso, then arms, legs being commonly reserved for those on horse.
You're going to have to be more specific since this forum covers 400 years but a jack is not being unarmoured. It's the folk that appear wearing nowt more than a shirt, and they do appear, on the field that I am on about.Serious question:
What proportion of bill men would have more than a padded jack?
It may have changed markedly in the couple of years I have been away form massed combat- the last of this happening to me was Kelmarsh verss the Vike a couple of summers ago.