d515da44   
   From: Omixochitl2002@yahoo.com   
      
   ghost  wrote in   
   news:trminlxGARBAGE-884A69.20341114112003@news-central.ash.giganews.com:   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  Omixochitl  wrote:   
   >   
   >> ghost  wrote in news:trminlxGARBAGE-   
   >> 8AA49A.09151614112003@news-central.ash.giganews.com:   
   >>   
   >> > True armor disappeared during the 18th century almost entirely as   
   >> > the musket could make short work of anyone in armor. But mostly   
   >> > because it was expensive, even in the middle ages the average   
   >> > fighter had little in the way of armor, plate mail was very   
   >> > expensive and not worn by your   
   >>   
   >> Hold on a second, aren't plate and mail mutually exclusive?  Or   
   >> rather, you can wear some plate and some mail in the same outfit but   
   >> a given piece of armor can't be plate and mail at the same time?   
   >   
   > Most plate had a mail portion, joints being the most common. But it   
   > also wasn't uncommon to wear a mail shirt underneath ... they learned   
      
   Yeah, that's what I meant by wearing some plate and some mail in the same   
   outfit.  I just thought "plate" referred to the flat pieces and "mail" to   
   the mesh-of-metal-rings pieces, hence no such thing as "plate mail."   
      
   > quickly that plate itself was ineffectual against arrows, crossbows   
   > and those damned English Longbowman. So a shirt of chain underneath   
   > helped. a little.   
      
   And don't forget braies.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)