Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Spiryt]

I'm not really sure what's this discussion about, to be honest.

Save from naked and generally stylized stuff, and very formal, duels, manuals tend to depict clothes we can easily identify as common, everyday period garments.

So while it's certainly 5 times better to have some glove or even gauntlets while fighting with swords, people still obviously weren't going around armored whole time... Especially if they weren't actual knighted, military active nobles.

[Brother Oni]

I've found the link but have belatedly realised that I probably can't link to this sort of thing here.

From a post on the thread regarding the pictures:

These images refer to an infamous and singular event that happened in August, 1892, between a two female members of the aristocracy (Princess Pauline Metternich, and the Countess Kielmannsegg) in Lichtenstein, apparently over a disagreement about floral arrangements. Since everyone involved in the duel, including the duelists, the seconds, and the presiding referee, were women, the referee decided that for the practical reasons (allowing even the smallest wounds to be seen more clearly, and preventing potential wounds from getting infected by bits of clothing being introduced into them), it was best if the participants stripped to the waist. When word got out about what happened, it became a meme of sorts, and was represented by artists as you've seen, in more or less titillating versions.

In the end, the Princess Pauline drew the first blood and "won," but both women received injury during the duel.

[Rhynn]

I know there was a period photograph doing the rounds a month or so ago, depicting two Victorian-era ladies, stripped down to the waist, preparing to fence each other over a duel of honour.

I suppose a reference might help. We're not talking naked to the waist, we're talking dangling genitals (concealed by thighs).

[Galloglaich]

...hardly a ringing endorsement of not wearing protection

You missed my point. I wasn't advocating fighting without armor - I was pointing out that soldiers did not get to chose whether they wore armor or not (and in fact, it was pretty rare for a lot of soldiers for far longer than 200 years) and that historically, it was clear that even people who did have the choice often fought without armor, wisely or not. In other words people didn't always follow the 'safest' practices as you originally asserted.

That's what I thought of immediately, too. Is there any reason to assume that the depiction of lightly dressed (often skin-tight?) fighters with no gloves is supposed to be an accurate depiction, and not just a convention or artistic decision, or done in order to show the body (wrists, etc.) better? I certainly don't imagine anyone was supposed to fence naked, no matter what the illustrations in manuals show.

It varies by manual, but the skin-tight outfits shown in Talhoffer are judicial combat outfits which we know are real and were in fact specified by law. Some of the statutes allowed light gloves, quite often they mandated wearing nothing on the hands (this is partly to prevent people from wearing armor in judicial combats and also to stop them from concealing amulets which were considered illegal and / or cheating).

We also know that people routinely got into duels with swords (in fact, with swords more than any other weapon including sticks or stones) in the German, Scandinavian and Slavic towns for several centuries, and that in these towns it was normal to carry a sword but extraordinary to wear armor except when performing guard or militia duty. I.e. there were thousands of sword fights every year in unarmored circumstances.

It is also true however than in a civilian context people sometimes wore armor - some of the Italian manuals advise you to hug a potential rival to ascertain if they are wearing mail under their clothing and Italian men also carried mail-lined gloves specifically for grabbing other peoples weapons.


The bottom line though is that when it comes to medieval fencing manuals, something like 80% of the images and text cover unarmored fencing which is totally different in terms of techniques from armored fencing.

G

[Galloglaich]

I suppose a reference might help. We're not talking naked to the waist, we're talking dangling genitals (concealed by thighs).

Yes but these late -Renaissance Italian masters, Gigante, Capo Ferro, Fabris etc. are totally different context from the Medieval manuals, which generally depict how people were fighting either in armor or in civilian clothes, and are quite clear about the distinction.

G

[Mike_G]

You missed my point. I wasn't advocating fighting without armor - I was pointing out that soldiers did not get to chose whether they wore armor or not (and in fact, it was pretty rare for a lot of soldiers for far longer than 200 years) and that historically, it was clear that even people who did have the choice often fought without armor, wisely or not. In other words people didn't always follow the 'safest' practices as you originally asserted.

I agree not everyone uses safest practices. I remember watching hockey when I was a kid and plenty of players didn't wear helmets. In EMS, we call that "job security." In the Marines, that kind of thing enraged me. You don't want to wear your body armor because it's too hot? Well, I don't want to carry your corpse out under fire and then stand your watches because the squad is short when you get your silly ass killed.

In general, people who expect hazards will try to minimize them. And gloves are a minor inconvenience. They're not exhausting like full armor. People would be surprised just how much incidental damage your gloves protect your from. I fenced for years and even with the edgeless sporting weapons, you'd see a lot of tears, nicks and gouges in your glove that would have been in your hand. Your dominant, swordfighting hand. So I think you'd be asking for a short career if you made a habit of swordfighting barehanded.

I am skeptical of relying too closely on manuals, simply because we don't know how much is artistic license. There are a lot of fencing nudes, which I am sure was to illustrate anatomy and form, down to the position of fingers, and angle of the foot, etc that would have been obscured in a clothed figure.

As far as getting in a fight while carrying a sword, how many of those impromptu fights would be with the longsword, as opposed to a rapier or sidesword? The kind of blades with nice, protective hilts? I may be wrong, but i kind of figured a longsword was something you carried to battle or to a pre arranged duel.

[warty goblin]

As far as getting in a fight while carrying a sword, how many of those impromptu fights would be with the longsword, as opposed to a rapier or sidesword? The kind of blades with nice, protective hilts? I may be wrong, but i kind of figured a longsword was something you carried to battle or to a pre arranged duel.

Didn't the longsword predate the rapier by a century or two? My shaky chronology is that two handed war swords appeared in the twelve hundreds, and by the thirteen hundreds what we think of as longswords really began to be a popular thing. Rapiers, and swords with complex hilts in general I think of as coming later, in the fifteen and sixteen hundreds.

And in terms of a weapon for immediate defense, I'd think a longsword would be in a lot of ways a superior choice. It allows the off hand to be put to immediate use, while still being functional when wielded in one hand.

[Galloglaich]

I agree not everyone uses safest practices. I remember watching hockey when I was a kid and plenty of players didn't wear helmets. In EMS, we call that "job security." In the Marines, that kind of thing enraged me. You don't want to wear your body armor because it's too hot? Well, I don't want to carry your corpse out under fire and then stand your watches because the squad is short when you get your silly ass killed.

And yet people do. I was in the military as well, and I can promise you most of the people in my unit would have quit wearing helmets and vests if they weren't under orders to wear them - at least until combat experience had taught them otherwise the hard way. The military then as in the past is not 100% comprised of geniuses. Anyway as I was trying to point out, it's really a different thing from a medieval or even Early-Modern context.

In general, people who expect hazards will try to minimize them. And gloves are a minor inconvenience. They're not exhausting like full armor. People would be surprised just how much incidental damage your gloves protect your from. I fenced for years and even with the edgeless sporting weapons, you'd see a lot of tears, nicks and gouges in your glove that would have been in your hand. Your dominant, swordfighting hand. So I think you'd be asking for a short career if you made a habit of swordfighting barehanded.

While I concede all of this is logical and reasonable, and I personally don't fence with any real 'intent' without some very fancy, very strong gloves, (though I do actually do drill with experienced students which a lot of observers would probably find pretty risky looking using steel blunts or feders without any gloves at all) but this issue of gloves or no gloves in the context of fencing in the era 1300-1700, lets say, is a bit more complex than you probably realize.

I'm not personally very invested in the controversy or discussion around the issue but I know enough about it to say it's not something you can not quickly summarize or dismiss, there are coherent arguments on both sides. We even do have some evidence of sparring gloves (which look surprisingly like lacrosse gloves) used in a longsword fencing context in the 16th Century; on the other hand a lot of people really strongly believe fighting without gloves is better and even potentially safer and other than that one image we have very little written or pictorial evidence of hand protection being used for training.

The other even bigger issue is the use or lack thereof of helmets or face protection, and the (to us) crazy habit of settling presumably friendly fencing (schulefechten) matches by whoever drew blood or the 'highest bleeding wound' first.

I am skeptical of relying too closely on manuals, simply because we don't know how much is artistic license. There are a lot of fencing nudes, which I am sure was to illustrate anatomy and form, down to the position of fingers, and angle of the foot, etc. that would have been obscured in a clothed figure.

I tried to point out upthread, the late 16th and 17th Century Italian manuals which portray the nude form are really from a completely different context from the German medieval manuals. As Spyrit noted, the latter depict ordinary clothing and correspond with what we know about period dress. It's really not a mystery these manuals and their context are fairly well understood now.

As far as getting in a fight while carrying a sword, how many of those impromptu fights would be with the longsword, as opposed to a rapier or sidesword? The kind of blades with nice, protective hilts? I may be wrong, but i kind of figured a longsword was something you carried to battle or to a pre arranged duel.

People carried around longswords as sidearms pretty routinely through the mid 16th Century, though single-swords were also popular, and messers in the rural areas. Even on the battlefield, the longsword was a sidearm.

In Switzerland, even the bears carried longswords as sidearms...

Longswords definitely were worn into taverns and so on, for example in this famous Urs Graf sketch from around 1520:

Spoiler

Show

But, that said, when designed for civilian use, especially into the 16th Century, all kinds of swords including longswords and even messers often had complex hilt elements which protect the hand; siderings, thumbrings, finger rings, even knucklebows. Longswords or 'bastard swords' issued to town militia for use as sidearms frequently had such features.

Like the longsword on the far left in this image

Spoiler

Show

Earlier in the medieval period they were a little rarer but you see them as far back as the 14th C fairly frequently, it was largely a matter of individual taste.

G

[endoperez]

We were discussing Indian weapons a while ago. A friend just now linked me to an Indian martial artist and teacher, seemingly one of those living encyclopedias who have lots and lots of information and skill. There are lots of different things in there. In several videos, there's a table on the background filled with swords and weapons, from which the master takes one depending on what he's demonstrating. "This is one style, this is another style with different footing. If you're fighting in mud or in water I'd be in a different area, using this type of sword, and I'd fight like this..."

http://www.shastarvidiya.org/multimedia/index.html

[Galloglaich]

Neat, thanks for posting! Some people say that Shastar vidaya is the oldest martial art in the world... some really cool stuff there.


G

[Mike_G]

And yet people do. I was in the military as well, and I can promise you most of the people in my unit would have quit wearing helmets and vests if they weren't under orders to wear them - at least until combat experience had taught them otherwise the hard way. The military then as in the past is not 100% comprised of geniuses. Anyway as I was trying to point out, it's really a different thing from a medieval or even Early-Modern context.

Not really arguing all that much. I just think that experience tends to teach safety. Once you get hurt a bit, you realize how important it is, or once you see what happens to the guy who doesn't wear his gear.

While I concede all of this is logical and reasonable, and I personally don't fence with any real 'intent' without some very fancy, very strong gloves, (though I do actually do drill with experienced students which a lot of observers would probably find pretty risky looking using steel blunts or feders without any gloves at all) but this issue of gloves or no gloves in the context of fencing in the era 1300-1700, lets say, is a bit more complex than you probably realize.

I had no idea that there was a school of thought that people fenced barehanded. It seems crazy to me. You start with only ten fingers, and you never get any more, so why risk those?

I'm not personally very invested in the controversy or discussion around the issue but I know enough about it to say it's not something you can not quickly summarize or dismiss, there are coherent arguments on both sides. We even do have some evidence of sparring gloves (which look surprisingly like lacrosse gloves) used in a longsword fencing context in the 16th Century; on the other hand a lot of people really strongly believe fighting without gloves is better and even potentially safer and other than that one image we have very little written or pictorial evidence of hand protection being used for training.

In what universe could it be safer? Of course there are old school firefighters who think the new hoods are dangerous, because you don't get the early warning that it's too hot when your ears start to burn.

Those guys are head cases, though. And dead men in a flashover.

The other even bigger issue is the use or lack thereof of helmets or face protection, and the (to us) crazy habit of settling presumably friendly fencing (schulefechten) matches by whoever drew blood or the 'highest bleeding wound' first.

I tried to point out upthread, the late 16th and 17th Century Italian manuals which portray the nude form are really from a completely different context from the German medieval manuals. As Spyrit noted, the latter depict ordinary clothing and correspond with what we know about period dress. It's really not a mystery these manuals and their context are fairly well understood now.

I bow to your deeper knowledge on that. I'm much more familiar with the later manuals, and rapier fencing rather than longsword stuff.

I do tend to be skeptical of artwork, since I've seen know instances of inaccurate art. For example in the 1800s, where we know the uniforms, weapons etc were not what the contemporary artists depicted. And the medieval depictions of biblical scenes where ancient Israelities are dressed in Maximillian plate, or the scenes of swords biting through greathelms. Or the fact that the Egyptian Pharoas are shown twice the height of the regular soldiers. I just advocate taking period artwork with a grain of salt, and not as hard evidence. Interpreting art requires an understanding of the conventions of the time, and I really don't know much about medieval German art.

Individual manuals may very well be very accurate, and you may know better than I which ones.

People carried around longswords as sidearms pretty routinely through the mid 16th Century, though single-swords were also popular, and messers in the rural areas. Even on the battlefield, the longsword was a sidearm.

In Switzerland, even the bears carried longswords as sidearms...

Longswords definitely were worn into taverns and so on, for example in this famous Urs Graf sketch from around 1520:

Spoiler

Show

But, that said, when designed for civilian use, especially into the 16th Century, all kinds of swords including longswords and even messers often had complex hilt elements which protect the hand; siderings, thumbrings, finger rings, even knucklebows. Longswords or 'bastard swords' issued to town militia for use as sidearms frequently had such features.

Like the longsword on the far left in this image

Spoiler

Show

Earlier in the medieval period they were a little rarer but you see them as far back as the 14th C fairly frequently, it was largely a matter of individual taste.

G

Now, some of those swords are gorgeous.

I didn't really know longsword were worn with civilian dress. I assumed they were brought out for battle, and smaller weapons were for day to day. I did kn ow they were used as dueling weapons, but, again, something you could go get, not lug around all day.

[AgentPaper]

Not really arguing all that much. I just think that experience tends to teach safety. Once you get hurt a bit, you realize how important it is, or once you see what happens to the guy who doesn't wear his gear.

I had no idea that there was a school of thought that people fenced barehanded. It seems crazy to me. You start with only ten fingers, and you never get any more, so why risk those?

In what universe could it be safer? Of course there are old school firefighters who think the new hoods are dangerous, because you don't get the early warning that it's too hot when your ears start to burn.

Those guys are head cases, though. And dead men in a flashover.

Well, if you've ever worn gloves and used them to do stuff, you should know that gloves aren't as good at fine manipulation as your bare hands are. They also tend to be much smoother and less grippy, making it more likely for your hand to slide around.

Of course, well-crafted gloves can mitigate these issues, but they never go away. Personally I would want to use gloves if I was going to be manhandling a sword blade, but I could see an argument for doing it bare-handed if you were experienced enough that the extra control you get from bare hands became a significant factor. I suppose it comes down to "20% more likely to lose a finger" versus a "2% more likely to get stabbed in the face."

[Galloglaich]

Yeah I think that is basically it. There is no doubt it's easier to use the sword, especially with thumbed guards and so on, without gloves, especially without the heavy strong gloves we usually wear for fencing, but personally I wouldn't risk serious sparring match let alone a real fight without gloves because I'm just not good enough at protecting my hands. I know of some fencers who are much better than I am who seem to be able to pull it off at realistic levels of speed and intent.

Which brings up a related issue, it's interesting how with certain types of weapons you tend to get hit in certain areas. For me with longswords it's hands, forearms, front and top of the head, shoulders, throat, chest... it seems to be the same for most of the guys in my club.

Wile upper arms and lower legs, and back of the head, all pretty rare. Why I really don't know. But I don't even wear pads on those areas normally when sparring with longsword. If I go to sword and buckler or saber, I put on elbow guards because I start getting hit there.

G

[Mike_G]

Well, if you've ever worn gloves and used them to do stuff, you should know that gloves aren't as good at fine manipulation as your bare hands are. They also tend to be much smoother and less grippy, making it more likely for your hand to slide around.

Of course, well-crafted gloves can mitigate these issues, but they never go away. Personally I would want to use gloves if I was going to be manhandling a sword blade, but I could see an argument for doing it bare-handed if you were experienced enough that the extra control you get from bare hands became a significant factor. I suppose it comes down to "20% more likely to lose a finger" versus a "2% more likely to get stabbed in the face."

I've worn gloves to do a lot of things, and yeah, you lose a bit of fine motor co-ordination. But you get good gloves and you train with them on. Hitting a body with a three foot sword blade isn't hitting the vein on small child with an IV needle, but we do that with gloves on. Because hepatitis sucks.

I fenced at the national level for years, and the thought of putting my favorite hand out there with nothing to protect it horrifies me. And these are blunt, very light weapons. I saw a guy get his thumb broken by a sabre blow, and he had a glove on. Hands get hit. Usually glancing, incidental contact you hardly notice with the glove, but you'd get significantly cut without it.

Now, with sharp, heavy swords, and given a lack of antibiotics or tetanus shots in the Renaissance, why would you want to risk lockjaw, infection, gangrene, or loss of your FAVORITE HAND?

There's a word for people who eschew basic protective gear. Casualties

[warty goblin]

But short of actual metallic gauntlets, would a glove do all that much to protect against a blow from a sharp longsword? I have no evidence one way or the other, but just on the face of it, I really doubt it. Three feet of rapidly moving, sharp metal tends to be pretty good at cutting stuff, and leather flexible enough to make into a glove seems unlikely to slow it down all that much.

[Stephen_E]

I can see two things.

1) The quality of Gloves was probably lower for most people, so more hampering.

2) I'm very hard to amaze these days when it comes to what crazy things people can believe that simply don't aren't real. Things that the beliefs seriously endanger yourself or your children. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself.

[Stephen_E]

But short of actual metallic gauntlets, would a glove do all that much to protect against a blow from a sharp longsword? I have no evidence one way or the other, but just on the face of it, I really doubt it. Three feet of rapidly moving, sharp metal tends to be pretty good at cutting stuff, and leather flexible enough to make into a glove seems unlikely to slow it down all that much.

Glancing blows, and Swords generally weren't razor sharp.
Sure a Solid blow they probably won't make a lot of difference, but that leaves an awful lot of likely hits. :-)

[Mike_G]

But short of actual metallic gauntlets, would a glove do all that much to protect against a blow from a sharp longsword? I have no evidence one way or the other, but just on the face of it, I really doubt it. Three feet of rapidly moving, sharp metal tends to be pretty good at cutting stuff, and leather flexible enough to make into a glove seems unlikely to slow it down all that much.

A direct blow, no, leather gloves won't stop a sword cut. But there's an awful lot of incidental contact as you parry. Look a a fencing glove that's seen a season of use. And if we're taking about half swording, a good leather glove will probably keep you from getting cut if the blade gets jostled while you're holding it.

It's also pretty common to make a glove with the inside surface being much thinner and softer so you can grip better, and the outside (back of the hand) side thicker and tougher, to protect you from cuts that may not be full, hacking, skull splitting blows, but certainly would sever your tendons and the muscles of your fingers. Maybe get into the joint capsule or break the light bones in your hand.

[AgentPaper]

...And if we're taking about half swording, a good leather glove will probably keep you from getting cut if the blade gets jostled while you're holding it.

It's also pretty common to make a glove with the inside surface being much thinner and softer so you can grip better, and the outside (back of the hand) side thicker and tougher...

But, if you make the inside surface much thinner and softer to give better control, then it isn't doing much to protect your hand when you're holding the blade.

[Mr. Mask]

Not much is better than nothing. Leather doesn't seem very tough when compared to armours, but it's a reasonable improvement over skin, even with a thin layer of it (not sure how thick skin is on the hands and fingers by comparison).

[Mike_G]

But, if you make the inside surface much thinner and softer to give better control, then it isn't doing much to protect your hand when you're holding the blade.

The difference between a piece of supple leather between me and a sharp edge and NOTHING between me and that edge...

If you're holding the blade, it won't be a vicious cut. Maybe a "the blade slid an inch" kinda thing, which will cut a bare hand pretty deep, maybe enough to cripple it, but will be stopped or lessened by a not very heavy glove.

A "I parried the thrust away from my chest, but the edge scraped across the back of my hand on the way past" kinda cut would be worse, and thus, the more likely target of the back of your hand, gets thicker leather.

This isn't rocket science, guys. Look at hockey gloves, or --gasp-- fencing gloves to see where they use different thicknesses on the surfaces that need to move and grip but are against the stick/grip of the weapon, etc, and the ones that don't but are more likely to take the brunt of the beating.

[warty goblin]

Not much is better than nothing. Leather doesn't seem very tough when compared to armours, but it's a reasonable improvement over skin, even with a thin layer of it (not sure how thick skin is on the hands and fingers by comparison).

That depends enormously on what you do with your hands. If they're subjected to a lot of minor abuse, they get pretty tough. But first there's the fun part where you get blisters and scrapes and burns and the bones ache.

[Mr. Mask]

Life is filled with so much "fun". Like Nethack.

The mechanics and variants of skin, along with the mechanics and variants of leather gloves, make this a difficult thought to be specific with. I'm assuming, still, that leather will be relatively tougher than even toughened skin?

[Galloglaich]

ordinary clothing can protect surprisingly well and on the other hand, sometimes thick textiles and / or leather almost have zero affect on a sword cut.

But generally a glove helps protect alot against incidental contact and so on ... and also things like cold metal touching your hands when it's say 20 degrees out which is not that unusual in Europe.

And yet in spite of all that I don't think everyone always wore it. Just playing devils advocate here because like I said, I prefer gloves myself.

An analogy: A lot of US tank crews in WW II preferred the open topped tank destroyers (some of which like the M 18 had almost no armor) to the much better protected (though still largely insufficient) M4 sherman, because the open turret just gave them much better situational awareness.

It seems to defy logic, the open top leaves you vulnerable to mortars, grenades, HE shells from enemy tanks and assault guns, even rifle and machine fire if the enemy is above you. And yet, from what I've read the M18, the least protected (but also fastest) TD in Europe, had the lowest loss rate.

G

[warty goblin]

Life is filled with so much "fun". Like Nethack.

The mechanics and variants of skin, along with the mechanics and variants of leather gloves, make this a difficult thought to be specific with. I'm assuming, still, that leather will be relatively tougher than even toughened skin?

Unless you use stupid leather, I'd go with yes. Whether the increase in protection for the palm while performing one particular sort of attack is worth the loss of dexterity from the glove is a different question. Personally, when handling something innately destructive to my skin, like a splintery log or rough concrete block, I prefer gloves. But those aren't precision tasks, and since nobody's trying to kill me, the slight loss of dexterity for protection against frequent minor damage is absolutely worth it. On the other hand, I don't wear gloves when doing precision tasks, even when those involve sharp tools. My feeling is that gloves increase the chance I make a mistake, and although they protect from minor accidents, increase the odds that I slip and cause a major one.

But personally? When grabbing a blade, I'd want a glove. Not a heavy one, but a bit of light leather provides some nice cushioning.

[Galloglaich]

or another maybe more relevant analogy, a lot of people fighting in armor fought with "open face" helmets or with visors up when in melee, and only used the great helm or the visor-down when charging on horseback or when under missile fire.

In spite of the obvious risk.

G

[AgentPaper]

Also, very few people in medieval Europe had access to specialized, custom-fitted high quality leather gloves with two different types of leather. I wouldn't be surprised if such things cost as much as or more than the very swords you would use them with.

[Galloglaich]

I kind of wonder about that actually - they had very nice clothes, and there were specialists who made gloves, (and hats, and girdles, and shoes and hose and so on and so forth) a middle class persons possessions in general was probably higher quality than most of what people have today since it was all what would be consider today hand made and usually of very good materials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400-1500_in_fashion

G

[AgentPaper]

I kind of wonder about that actually - they had very nice clothes, and there were specialists who made gloves, (and hats, and girdles, and shoes and hose and so on and so forth) a middle class persons possessions in general was probably higher quality than most of what people have today since it was all what would be consider today hand made and usually of very good materials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400-1500_in_fashion

G

Well, sure, but "middle class" was also a much smaller portion of society compared to today. That essentially equates to rich merchants/entrepreneurs who didn't own land, right? So of course they could get the good stuff.

[Galloglaich]

No, this is another common misconception. Those people would be 'upper class'. Merchants could be far richer than any Kings or Princes. Jacob Fugger left over 2,000,000 guilders to his nephew ... something like $40 billion in todays money. Another merchant family the Welsers (from the same town, Augsburg) took what is today Venezuela from the King of Spain as collateral for a loan in the 16th Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Venedig

just to cite two examples among many.

The middle classes would include the rather large urban craft artisan class who made up the bulk of the citizens in the towns, and the wealther peasants (boors, or gbur in Poland) as well as the lower ranks of the nobility or gentry.

From statistics I've seen the middle class in your plate armor / longsword era (say 1350-1550) was fairly broad, though it varied a great deal from one area to the next. In a rich, highly urbanzied zone like Northern Italy or Flanders it might be as much as 30-40% of the population. In a poorer area like Wales or Romania it might be more like 2 or 3%.

G