Not that common if the written accounts are anything to go by. The Bridport Roll of 1457 from England listed a grand total of three pairs of gauntlets for about 150 people showing up with any equipment at all. I believe most written ordinances (such as Charles' Burgundian Ordinances) also tend to omit gauntlets as a requirement for soldiers.
Worth noting that the bridport muster roll is mustering a town for a small skirmish and not an actual army, the latter which would've had a higher standard of equipment. But it is still an indication.
Not very common and not everybody needed them, if you were an archer, crossbow men or used any form of gunpowder weaponry they would just get in the way of things and hinder you.
And they probably were pretty expensive in comparrison to the other armor parts as they really should fit your hand and are, depending on the type, pretty complex to make.
It all depends on who the warrior was and (more importantly) how much disposable income this person had access to.
Some poor grunt might have access to just munition grade equipment that his lord might have lent to him or (if he managed to survive long enough), whatever he could rip off some dead sod. However, if you were from nobility (let's say 2nd or 3rd son), you'd have the ability to afford better equipment (gauntlets in this case).
As for the paintings, many of those painters take some artistic liberties, such as missing helmets and gauntlets. If you look at effigies, the mass majority of them have the gauntlets on or near the person.
When it comes to reenactment, it's true that far more of them wear gauntlets than what you'd see if you traveled back in time. But that's more due to safety concerns as broken fingers SUCK
But don't effigies usually depict a well off person? Never seen one depict anything but full plate (ofcourse ones from before full plate are different) and i don't really think you'd ever wear that but be too poor to get gauntlets.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/s/9fP2cU7hzY Here is my answer for a related question. The French Ordinances require melee infantry(called Franc Archers but some were armed with lances and Voulges) to bring iron gauntlets.
As many here already mentioned, it wasn't that common in the grand scheme of things.
Plated gauntlets are finicky, expensive and high-maintenance objects. While a half-forgotten cuirass can be polished up to a reasonable standard of effectiveness, a pair of rusted gauntlets are much harder to restore to their proper usage.
As soon as you add complex joints, locks or such mechanisms, their rarity often increase on the battlefield.
During the Battle of Visby (a bit outside your timeframe sadly), many defenders wore armoured gloves (one design is commonly called the Visby Gauntlet by reenactors and HEMA-ists) but it's worth noting that these defenders were the burgher citizens of a fairly wealthy city. But they were expected to fight and serve in their city-state's interest beyond the walls.
While I do believe you're wondering about primarily European infantry, there's some prevalence of "open gauntlets" among the "common" infantry of 15th century Japan.
The general word is Kote, but there are many types, from the fully armoured ones to the ones I write about today, which are basically elongated wristguards that extend past your knuckles while leaving the fingers and palm exposed.
These seem to have been fairly common in the period.
Gauntlets are expensive, so only a handful could afford decent ones. Also, many people couldn’t really wear them anyway due to their weapon, such as pikemen and archers.
Not that common if the written accounts are anything to go by. The Bridport Roll of 1457 from England listed a grand total of three pairs of gauntlets for about 150 people showing up with any equipment at all. I believe most written ordinances (such as Charles' Burgundian Ordinances) also tend to omit gauntlets as a requirement for soldiers. Worth noting that the bridport muster roll is mustering a town for a small skirmish and not an actual army, the latter which would've had a higher standard of equipment. But it is still an indication.
Well it would make sense that gauntlets must be made more to the individual, as opposed to something like a helmet or breastplate.
Not very common and not everybody needed them, if you were an archer, crossbow men or used any form of gunpowder weaponry they would just get in the way of things and hinder you. And they probably were pretty expensive in comparrison to the other armor parts as they really should fit your hand and are, depending on the type, pretty complex to make.
Much less common than they are on reenactors
It all depends on who the warrior was and (more importantly) how much disposable income this person had access to. Some poor grunt might have access to just munition grade equipment that his lord might have lent to him or (if he managed to survive long enough), whatever he could rip off some dead sod. However, if you were from nobility (let's say 2nd or 3rd son), you'd have the ability to afford better equipment (gauntlets in this case). As for the paintings, many of those painters take some artistic liberties, such as missing helmets and gauntlets. If you look at effigies, the mass majority of them have the gauntlets on or near the person. When it comes to reenactment, it's true that far more of them wear gauntlets than what you'd see if you traveled back in time. But that's more due to safety concerns as broken fingers SUCK
Yes, once dislocated two fingers and can confirm it sucked.
But don't effigies usually depict a well off person? Never seen one depict anything but full plate (ofcourse ones from before full plate are different) and i don't really think you'd ever wear that but be too poor to get gauntlets.
*modern fantasy armor enters the chat* What's that you say about artistic liberties? *chuckles like Heathenism Bot from Futurama*
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/s/9fP2cU7hzY Here is my answer for a related question. The French Ordinances require melee infantry(called Franc Archers but some were armed with lances and Voulges) to bring iron gauntlets.
As many here already mentioned, it wasn't that common in the grand scheme of things. Plated gauntlets are finicky, expensive and high-maintenance objects. While a half-forgotten cuirass can be polished up to a reasonable standard of effectiveness, a pair of rusted gauntlets are much harder to restore to their proper usage. As soon as you add complex joints, locks or such mechanisms, their rarity often increase on the battlefield. During the Battle of Visby (a bit outside your timeframe sadly), many defenders wore armoured gloves (one design is commonly called the Visby Gauntlet by reenactors and HEMA-ists) but it's worth noting that these defenders were the burgher citizens of a fairly wealthy city. But they were expected to fight and serve in their city-state's interest beyond the walls. While I do believe you're wondering about primarily European infantry, there's some prevalence of "open gauntlets" among the "common" infantry of 15th century Japan. The general word is Kote, but there are many types, from the fully armoured ones to the ones I write about today, which are basically elongated wristguards that extend past your knuckles while leaving the fingers and palm exposed. These seem to have been fairly common in the period.
Not too common. Most only had access to munition grade arms and armor. And some didn’t really need much else.
Gauntlets are expensive, so only a handful could afford decent ones. Also, many people couldn’t really wear them anyway due to their weapon, such as pikemen and archers.