Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
Not tremendously heavy, but heavy enough to be the real thing ... don't you agree, Filipe ?
|
Yes, Nando, it's definitely kosher... The weight alone is not a sole indicator of authenticity, recall that a good number of Victorian-era copies of earlier pieces were made of cast iron, or had parts produced in that way, so that they are excessively heavy compared to the real thing.
We should also consider that by ca. 1600, the improvements in firearms would have required heavy enough armor to reduce mobility and increase cost to unacceptable levels. Unless in the case of specialized units like siege troops who were expected to experience concentrated fire from larger-bore weapons like rampart rifles and falconets (as well as cannons) as they approached the walls of fortresses or cities. For most soldiers operating in the field, protection against secondary projectiles like shrapnel, and of course swords and other hand weapons, was considered sufficient. (keeping in mind, also, that for speed of fire, infantry muskets were typically loaded with unpatched balls so accuracy and velocity declined markedly after 50 m). Officers and others who could afford to purchase their own gear could of course opt for higher quality and more protection, hence the better-made and more substantial armors that we sometimes see.