Talk:Brigandine

message: is this the same kind of armour that some people call a coat-of-plates?
I have heard this term used in reinatcment groups and on there webpages. I was wondering it they were they same. If so it should be noted here.
Could be... might have to Google 'Coat-of-plates' to see if it and brigandine are the same thing.
Mytwocents 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat-of-plates 

message: That looks like a White Rose Armoury Brig, do we have rights to use that picture?  Where did it come from?
The picture comes from a students personal page at Columbia University
http://www.columbia.edu/~ns189/armour/armoury_page.htm 
He describes how he made the brigadine himself.  I changed the rights tag to {:PD-US}
*Why is it in the public domain? Did he specifically say that it's in the public domain? If not, then it is copyrighted. --BRIAN0918 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture rights? 

message: Did the name come from the word brigand, which is another word for a bandit and outlaw? AllStarZ 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, the original brigands were spearmen and both the name for a bandit and a type of armour derive from this. I will try to find a reference. Gaius Cornelius 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have it. See here Gaius Cornelius 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brigandine

message: The page on mail ("chain mail") says that mail was more expensive than plate.  
This page says that plate was more expensive than mail.
69.95.253.248 18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Statements about Cost 

message: The advantage a brigandine had over a plate cuirass was that it allowed greater flexibility of movement. Some men-at-arms seem to have considered the greater flexibility offered by the brigandine outweighed the lower level of protection it afforded.Urselius (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantage 

message: The first sentence isn't just dubious. It's flat out wrong. for reference, the article claims:
"Brigandines have been used by armies from earliest recorded history [Jeremiah 46:4 KJV].[dubious – discuss]"
Assuming that the reference is the King James Version, the only thing that particular translation of that particular verse can be used, in relation to the article is to say that brigandines existed sometime before 1611. Why? The translation was completed in 1611, and it was only began in 1604.  That is certainly not a citation 'from the earliest record'
Being a document which was (essentially) written in the 17th century, it is a very, very poor source to indicate what sort of armor was being worn in the time the Book of Jeremiah was being written (Jeremiah lived in the late 7th to early 6th century, BC. I forget when the book was actually written). It might be somewhat interesting to see why the translators choose 'brigandine' over other options of words. I suspect, however, it has more to do with style than being a literal choice, but that choice doesn't mean it was being worn in the 6th century, and then, most likely, it won't be of interest to the article.
For reference, most translations seem to translate the source-word as being either 'coat of mail' or simply as 'armor'. (translations as found here) the attendant commentaries all appear to be discussing the KJV, but generally state that they meant some type of mail, noting that 'brigandine' is 'the armor worn by brigands', and explaining that 'brigand' was originally meaning 'soldier'. I'm going to have to pull out a concordance and lexicon to get to the original word, but I doubt the original author of Jeremiah meant a coat of leather or cloth coat, fitted with moderately sized plates on the inside (or outside, even). 
I think the easiest (and perhaps best) fix would simply be to delete the sentence. That the KJV mentions brigandines doesn't really matter much, in the scheme of things. I'll do this in a few days if I'm not mobbed with moderately good reasons not to. Thedanomyte (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check my re-wording; hopefully that resolves the issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the origins section 

message: Continued archaeological digs at the Jamestown site have unearthed "brigandine armor plates" in addition to the Jack already referenced in the article. Unsure if they are really brigandine armor plates or just another Jack? Perhaps someone better versed can make the addition? http://historicjamestowne.org/august-2016/ Level3Sentry ❯❯❯ Talk 11:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamestown findings 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brigandine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511235642/http://www.historicjamestowne.org/news/jack_plate.php to http://historicjamestowne.org/news/jack_plate.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified