I Edward tX'jl* ingham, from Brttunnu-jf Virtmu tmm» .Oxford,
1644) quoted in Young, P.dgthH, p. 196 1 Atkvro. K. Tht I 'mJiattum ef Richird Atkvnt t 16A91; tee Aikvm. K & Uw-ylt. J Tht Enthih CnnJ War ol Young. P. & Tutker, N. London. l9A7)p.9 J Cnao, p JI
4 A Brit/ TriMUf ttj IT'jr in iktymref aw rtJtmpni>n 1649, MSS by tt.T,', quoted by (Irme
6 Quoted Adair. J CkrtiLm. 1644 j Kineton, 1973) p. 141
s See Milne, S.M Sun.UrJi jw Colvvri of ihr Army i66t-t$Xi be misleading. For example, it appears that two portraits of Monck by Michael Wright, two of Charles II by Samuel Cooper, and one of the Karl of Manchester, probably all depict the same, very distinctive, armour, w hich was perhaps an artistic "prop*. Probably the most common use of cuirassier armour was in detaching the breast- and hack plates for use with a buff-coat and light helmet, which may explain why some extant suits lack these pieces; most who wore such armour were officers or gentlemen-troopers.
Cuirassier armour was extremely heavy; as James 1 remarked, armour was an excellent invention for it saved the life of the wearer and prevented him hurting anyone else! '['he weight probably contributed to the defeat at Roundway Down of one of the two units known to have worn it, Hasclrig's "lobsters', who could not face an incoming attack in time due to their cumbersome equipage. Edmund Ludlow of Essex's Lifeguard, the other cuirassier unit, noted that when unhorsed '1 could not without great difficulty recover on horse-back
Was this article helpful?