ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Armoury => Topic started by: Sir Martyn on 2014-02-11, 03:39:36
-
So as Ian suggested want to invite debate on whether/how much of my existing harness (made by Green Shield Armoury in Novi sad, Serbia) could be adapted for use in living history.
Originally I had only imagined using it in LARP, SCA and re-enactment but it would be great also to adapt it for DoK use.
Strikes me the helmet is perhaps one of the more problematic aspects and the form/function of the cuirass and faulds are unusual, but I was hopeful after looking over some of arms & armor books most if not all could be adapted for central Europe, late 1400s to mid-1500s.
Welcome discussion and suggestions on that, will post more pictures soon.
-
Disclaimer: I’m by no means well informed on your chosen period.
That said, two things jump out at me in the photo of you seated. The helm seems to be a bit too much on the fantasy side and the footwear needs to be replaced with something more period.
-
wow i really like your armour. i really do man. it's perfectly put together and it all matches
very cool
but, that being said. it's not historical. armour styles came mainly out of 2 places, italy and germany. the flemish and english did have a style but they weren't as influential as the others
the helemt is off like you said. the breastplate is not the 2 peice as you see in most pictures were the plackart is over the breast. the tassats are designed (pretty cool) but not in any fashion that i have seen. the alms and legs look like they move great, but the fans on the elbows and knees don't follow the fashion.
please don't let that stop you liking or wearing your armour. i think its 100% awesomeness. just not what one could wear to DOK
-
wow i really like your armour. i really do man. it's perfectly put together and it all matches
very cool
but, that being said. it's not historical. armour styles came mainly out of 2 places, italy and germany. the flemish and english did have a style but they weren't as influential as the others
the helemt is off like you said. the breastplate is not the 2 peice as you see in most pictures were the plackart is over the breast. the tassats are designed (pretty cool) but not in any fashion that i have seen. the alms and legs look like they move great, but the fans on the elbows and knees don't follow the fashion.
please don't let that stop you liking or wearing your armour. i think its 100% awesomeness. just not what one could wear to DOK
Exactly my sentiments.
If you really want to go to DoK, I would recommend going the soft kit route unless you want to re-invest in historical armor.
But as Sir Wolf said, that is a sharp kit you've got there!
-
WOW! That is a really fantastic harness! Truly a pity it isn’t suitable for all your interests but it is an excellent harness for a majority of your interests and yet it not being entirely compatible for LH it does leave you an opportunity to expand your armor collection and represent another time period! :)
-
It really is a beautiful kit. I love it to death.
I would classify it as "historically-inspired fiction", personally. It looks very well designed, and well articulated, but as Wolf pointed out, it's mainly the style and fashion of the period that is not represented.
As everyone else pointed out, don't take that as a bad thing at all. It's a great harness!
But this is a great example of why I aimed to go more "simple" when I went to DoK. The harness I put together in preparation for that, was my circa-1250 Teutonic kit:
(http://ed.toton.org/photos/2012/dok-teutonic/b3627.jpg) (http://ed.toton.org/photos/2012/dok-teutonic/b3627b.jpg)
I've attached some images of various plate armors from the 15th/16th century time-frame. I hose these pretty much at random, but as some examples of period fashion trends.
-
WOW! That is a really fantastic harness! Truly a pity it isn’t suitable for all your interests but it is an excellent harness for a majority of your interests and yet it not being entirely compatible for LH it does leave you an opportunity to expand your armor collection and represent another time period! :)
Perhaps no shock, but I'll echo that "two sets of armor" idea. 8)
As Sir Wolf said, the main thing with the cuirass is it is "inverted", under/over instead of over/under. I would call it "historically influenced". The arms are close, the elbow cops are close except should "flare out" towards the elbow in more of a "V". The knee cops don't strike me as historical though they may be based off of an uncommon example. There are lots of other odds and ends that put it "historically based" rather than "historical reproduction". I would say don't try to adapt it to Living History.
You'd essentially be looking at replacement of most plate parts. Spread it out over time, and it isn't too bad. If you are planning for Days of Knights, do "soft kit" this year and plan for "hard kit" in 2015. Buy something every 4 months; cuirass, arms, legs, helmet, gauntlets... that's 20 months and falls right about Oct next year, in time for DoK, if that is a reasonable timeframe for your budget.
And I say two harnesses because it is a great harness already. It is suitable for many purposes, and you would be essentially ruining a perfectly good harness to try to "convert" it to Living History - beyond that, it may be almost as expensive, or more, to do so, and you end up with only one harness still. You already have the requisite arming clothes and sword.
-
Gareyth, you cut a fine figure in that harness, my friend. I love the look.
-
It might not be historical, but I really like that harness. I don't see too many "fictional" harnesses that I can say that about. It's something I could imagine the knights of Dol Amroth from LotR wearing. I'm going to go the classic "Sir James route" and say work on a separate, historical kit if you can. ;) It would probably be just about as expensive to convert that one, and it would be a shame to try to convert it and end up with something that's neither historical nor looks as nice as it does now.
But yes, definitely hold on to that one, because it's just so darn cool!
-
But yes, definitely hold on to that one, because it's just so darn cool!
Absolutely. I think it's downright gorgeous.
-
It might not be historical, but I really like that harness. I don't see too many "fictional" harnesses that I can say that about. It's something I could imagine the knights of Dol Amroth from LotR wearing. I'm going to go the classic "Sir James route" and say work on a separate, historical kit if you can. ;) It would probably be just about as expensive to convert that one, and it would be a shame to try to convert it and end up with something that's neither historical nor looks as nice as it does now.
But yes, definitely hold on to that one, because it's just so darn cool!
LOL
It really is 'his' route isn't it? It isn't like I can ignore him, he's my Brother and he's a really nice guy so it sounds all good when he says 'oh yea, split that off and create a new harness, you'll just need this and this and...' - but beware, good gentles. ;)
-
Thanks for all the great feedback, folks.
Just keeping the discussion friendly, I did have a few photos from my Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight: An illustrated history of weaponry in the Middle Ages (DAVID & JOHN PADDOCK EDGE) that I thought could have made the argument for historical consideration of some of the harness pieces' inclusion, but am not going to fall on my sword about it :)
Outside of LH, I take it this harness would still be welcome at Order functions/outings?
Looks like a second harness may be in order - but who's going to explain that to my wife? :)
A 13th century maile kit may be the easiest to procure my then. Where did y'all procure your rings?
-
Thanks for all the great feedback, folks.
Just keeping the discussion friendly, I did have a few photos from my Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight: An illustrated history of weaponry in the Middle Ages (DAVID & JOHN PADDOCK EDGE) that I thought could have made the argument for historical consideration of some of the harness pieces' inclusion, but am not going to fall on my sword about it :)
Which pages? I'll take a look, you have me curious.
Outside of LH, I take it this harness would still be welcome at Order functions/outings?
Of course!
Looks like a second harness may be in order - but who's going to explain that to my wife? :)
I think the person best suited to have that conversation would be you. :)
A 13th century maile kit may be the easiest to procure my then. Where did y'all procure your rings?
IceFalcon and GDFB / Kult of Athena. Both tend to have at least some things in stock, both are in the US, and both ship quickly.
IceFalcon is having a 10% off anything in stock sale: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=168743 (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=168743)
-
muahahhaha one of us, one of us. dude, next to your kit i would feel like a hobo lol i think it's awesome. i really do. not 100% historical fashion for DOK but 100% welcome in the order!!
-
Outside of LH, I take it this harness would still be welcome at Order functions/outings?
Of course!
Most definitely! It is magnificent! :)
Looks like a second harness may be in order - but who's going to explain that to my wife? :)
Yes well we do guard each other’s backs against all foreign enemies, however the ‘Domestic’ ones each brother must fight on their own!
;D ;D *Thumbs up* sign! ;D ;D
– Lord help that poor man! ;)
-
I always try real hard not to be an armor snob, though the years of obsession with historical accuracy get in my way sometimes. I must say it's refreshing to see so many like minds here.
About your harness, I have to say it looks so functional and elegant that it could be forklifted directly into Game of Thrones with no changes at all. It may not be historical, but there are plenty of "historical" harnesses that don't look half as good.
If you really want to be historical, and would rather do armor than civilian, join the late 14th century. The journey of learning that I experienced in such far flung aspects as finger loop braids, milk glue and how feudalism evolved into late medieval politics and the impact that had on warfare and thus armor while making a historical 14th century harness was so rewarding that my life will never be the same.
Plus, it would be a crying shame to split up that harness. It's totally obvious that a lot of care, sweat and money went into it.
Scott
-
muahahhaha one of us, one of us. dude, next to your kit i would feel like a hobo lol i think it's awesome. i really do. not 100% historical fashion for DOK but 100% welcome in the order!!!
100% agreed.
-
Thanks, all - and appreciate the hint, Scott.
I was leaning toward late 14th or early 15th cent. in any case.
-
So, just to continue after a pause of reflection/research and after so much great input (thanks all), wanted to come back to get more views.
Agreed that late 14th century to early or mid-15th century is looking the most attractive. Interested most in armor with either great helm or a visored bascinet if earlier, but also really like the armet from the later period, given that seems to be more 15th century.
Perhaps just getting older and maybe this is an impossible hidgepodge of periods, but the idea of a slightly less heavy harness, perhaps transitional, splinted armor laced to arming points and with maile at the exposed joints, is appealing. Hoping to avoid chain chauses and prefer fingered gauntet to "mitten" if at all possible.
Want to hear other opinions, but I find myself drawn to the 14th centry clothing (more hoods and tunics) more than 15th centuey (i.e., doublets) - but you could get away with a hood or cotehardie in early 15th, right? Were surcoats still worn at all by the 15th?
Also, what about blackened armor? Historically accurate? I was thinking I had read that blueing with oil was done in the period.
In the end, want to first and foremost be accurate but also hoping to nail down a time period/location that could give me some flexibility on style (i.e., France employed Italian blacksmiths, Czechs producing armor for Holy Roman Empire, etc). Thanks all.
-
Agreed that late 14th century to early or mid-15th century is looking the most attractive. Interested most in armor with either great helm or a visored bascinet if earlier, but also really like the armet from the later period, given that seems to be more 15th century.
Generic Helm Guidelines:
Great Helm
- Early 14th, worn over cervelliere
- Mid 14th - worn over rounded open-faced bascinet with aventail, probably not worn during foot combat
Bascinet
- open faced varieties appropriate through the entire 14th century
- klappvisor - mid 14th into later 14th with flat or hundsgugel shaped visor (note klappvisor refers to the hinge mechanism, not the visor style), popular in Holy Roman Empire (German)
- houndksull side pivoting visor - Later 14th century into 15th century
Armet - Mid to late 15th century
Perhaps just getting older and maybe this is an impossible hidgepodge of periods, but the idea of a slightly less heavy harness, perhaps transitional, splinted armor laced to arming points and with maile at the exposed joints, is appealing. Hoping to avoid chain chauses and prefer fingered gauntet to "mitten" if at all possible.
If you wear greaves, with plate knees and splinted cuisses, then a coat of plates, and splinted arms, you could easily pull off mid 14th century. You also can go for plate arms with splinted cuisses (thighs) as was very common. Style of arm harness will have a lot to do with locale.
gauntlets at this point in time would be "Wisby Style" finger gauntlets
later in the 14th you'd transition to hourglass style finger gauntlets
No mittens in the 14th, these would go with an armet in the 15th century.
Want to hear other opinions, but I find myself drawn to the 14th centry clothing (more hoods and tunics) more than 15th centuey (i.e., doublets) - but you could get away with a hood or cotehardie in early 15th, right? Were surcoats still worn at all by the 15th?
tight cotehardie generally mid 14th
gives way to doublets and gowns in the later 14th
cotehardie out of fashion by 15th
surcoats over armor go out of fashion around Agincourt (1415) but I'm willing to bet older knights still wore them
Also, what about blackened armor? Historically accurate? I was thinking I had read that blueing with oil was done in the period.
dunno
In the end, want to first and foremost be accurate but also hoping to nail down a time period/location that could give me some flexibility on style (i.e., France employed Italian blacksmiths, Czechs producing armor for Holy Roman Empire, etc). Thanks all.
Understand that knights were very driven by fashion, and as such wouldn't likely vary wildly in style from one knight to another within a specific region, within reason. Sounds like most of your preferences lead to the mid 14th century, please see this and let me know what most appeals to you:
http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,3207.0.html (http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,3207.0.html)
-
A lot to digest here - thanks for your feedback & tips, Sir Ian. Doubtless I will have follow-up queries :)
-
Ian covered it very well.
For practical/comfort reasons, I'll definitely be the first to discourage people from getting mail chausses, unless they specifically want to do 13th century, and do it right. It takes me 20 minutes to put them on, and they take a bit of work to make "comfortable" (in quotes, because that's a relative scale). While I came up with my own way of attaching them, the historical information we have seems to indicate that they were likely bound at the waist, and did not use any sort of pourpoint or other suspension, so I'm not far off in how I'm doing it, I don't think.
Mitten gauntlets started to disappear at the beginning of the 14th, along with the otherwise full-mail harness.
The mid 14th gives you a lot of flexibility with splinted armor, coats of plates, Wisby-style gauntlets, and a rapidly growing widespread use of plate armor.
-
Blackened armor I know was period for some of the later era "almain rivet" armor - cheap munitions gear made to fit a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with no real finishing, and left "black from the forge".. not cleaned or polished.
The Black Prince's armor in paintings is subject to debate, something about pigment changing colors from silver to black, and some other things I didn't understand.
They had the knowledge and ability to make blackened armor, but I don't know of much extant that is verified as blackened in period. There's a painted sallet that I'm not sure of provenance on, and also a black/gold early style helmet that has maille hanging from the lower edge that isn't thought to be period, so the whole thing is suspect to me.
It looks awesome though!
-
I know the Mac bible has some evidence of blackened maille.
-
I know the Mac bible has some evidence of blackened maille.
...armor in paintings is subject to debate, something about pigment changing colors from silver to black.
A lot of medieval manuscripts used silver leafing to depict armor/swords... over time as the silver tarnishes it turns black.
-
Coming in this a bit late but all I have to say is, Fantastic Kit!
-
I know the Mac bible has some evidence of blackened maille.
...armor in paintings is subject to debate, something about pigment changing colors from silver to black.
A lot of medieval manuscripts used silver leafing to depict armor/swords... over time as the silver tarnishes it turns black.
Sounds like exactly what I was thinking of, thanks!
-
Right but if not blackened, armor was painted - even then, right?
I have the William Marshall helmet (like visored barbute from Robin Hood film), think Sir William has the same one - was thinking about painting it.
If to paint, does re-enactment require paints available to the period be used?
-
Gareyth, I don't know that I could call that helm 'historically' accurate, at least not for the time period shown in the film (start of the 13th) but if you were wanting to paint it with historical accuracy in mind, you'd probably go with milk-based paints. Sir Wolf has done it before I think- he's the first to come to mind but likely not the only one of us to have done so already.
-
Gareyth, I don't know that I could call that helm 'historically' accurate, at least not for the time period shown in the film (start of the 13th) but if you were wanting to paint it with historical accuracy in mind, you'd probably go with milk-based paints. Sir Wolf has done it before I think- he's the first to come to mind but likely not the only one of us to have done so already.
Correct on all accounts. A lot of the armor in the Robin Hood movie is 15th century armor that has magically gone back in time to early 13th century England. IIRC there's sallets and barbutes etc in that movie, which are 250 years before their time.
Armor was definitely painted from time to time, and milk paint is probably the right thing to use if you want it to be historical paint.
As far as rules regarding paint, "reenactment" or 'living history' are far too broad of terms to worry about specific standards since every group has different levels of authenticity. An event like Days of Knights will certainly not hold you to period paints or pigments. It's important to note that Days of Knights is not a Living History Group... it's just an event where lots of different living history groups and individuals get together to put on one big event. DoK does have a set of standards specific to that event that each group must abide by as much as practicable, but the individual groups and people that participate in DoK have wildly varying standards. Some are very strict, some barely meet the minimum DoK standards.
-
So milk paint will stick to metal? At least, well enough that it won't come off if you just look at it too hard.
I guess that’s a dumb question...it must if that’s what they used in-period. :P
-
So milk paint will stick to metal? At least, well enough that it won't come off if you just look at it too hard.
I guess that’s a dumb question...it must if that’s what they used in-period. :P
Not a dumb question. I don't know if it will stick. Maybe apply gesso first as a primer?
**edit**
not satisfied with my guess of an answer, here's a discussion on myArmoury regarding painting armor:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=16462 (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=16462)
-
Something I've done, which isn't at a living-history standard, but will look fine for renfaires and the like, is to use spray paint that has a "flat" or "matte" finish. It's still slightly too glossy, but looks pretty good.
-
Thanks for the additional effort. I had no idea bout the gesso/milk paint thing.
I certainly understand folks would not want obvious spraypainting, etc. but I was thinking of using hand applied acrylic over a flat, matte primer.
Ian, have you had any experience re: how strict re-enactment folks are on what kinds of paints are used, or is this going to be a subjective, varies by group kind of issue?
-
Thanks for the additional effort. I had no idea bout the gesso/milk paint thing.
Ian, have you had any experience re: how strict re-enactment folks are on what kinds of paints are used, or is this going to be a subjective, varies by group kind of issue?
More research on this... There are exceedingly few extant examples of painted armor. Most notable are the painted sallets of the late 15th / early 16th century. They're known as black sallets because the metalwork was left rough from the hammer. To cover up the less than beautiful finish they were painted. The rough surfaces of these pieces provided the necessary medium on which paint could actually stick. There's no real evidence of priming, and these are not milk paint. They are painted with a linseed oil based paint. So it's really oil paint.
The only other evidence for painted armor is iconographical evidence from the crusader era (like the Maciejowski Bible). However, none of it exists so it's really only speculation. Here are some extant painted sallets:
(http://www.wallacecollection.org/files/treasures/monthlytreasure_102_mainimagepath__A82-3-4-(2).jpg)
(http://pics.myarmoury.com/blacksallet1490v2_s.jpg)
Now all that being said, here's the deal with reenacting. Like you alluded to it's going to be purely subjective by group. The absolute most strict group on the planet would probably only allow the painting of a rough from the hammer sallet of the late 15th century. A slightly less strict crusader era group may allow painted crusader helmets because they allow things based purely on iconographical evidence. An even less strict group may allow painting of helmets that have no proof of decoration like a late 15th century barbute, because it coexisted with painted sallets, but there's no documentary evidence for it so you're pushing the limits here. You see where I'm going with this. The safe rule of thumb is if there's no direct evidence then it should not really be done if you're goal is historical accuracy. You're mileage may vary by group authenticity standards. Some groups will certainly allow painted armor even though there's no direct evidence, but they are conceding the historicity of the decoration.
Now as far as what you paint it with, even strict groups will probably allow a modern paint if under examination it LOOKS like the historical paint. For example, in La Belle Compagnie, we can have machine sewn clothing on seams that are not visible. Any visible seam must be hand-finished so that even under examination, short of dismantling a garment, it appears hand-sewn. It must also be dyed in a color that was available to the appropriate time period and class of the person you're depicting (i.e., no scarlet red for a commons). But we don't have to use actual period dyes, as long as the dye color is correct. I suspect other strict Living History groups may allow non-period paint, as long as the colors and appearance of the finished product looks historical and is appropriate.
-
In regards to painted great helms and spangenhelms, there may be no surviving examples, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I tend to accept the theory that a few helms were painted. The Mac bible seems to be fairly detailed in many other aspects, so I'm inclined to believe it is not artistic interpretation. Additionally, painted helms serve the practical purpose of preventing rust and aiding in identification. Though, I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say it was the norm, but I do believe it constituted a significant minority. Then again, I'm more of a 19th ce historian than a medievalist, so I am no expert on the topic.
-
...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
Famous last words in the Living History world :)
-
careful. you tread on heresy with them words. richard the 3 was in fact at a tacobell and not at bosworth field
-
There are also references from around the 13th century to colored armor (such as a particular knight having "red armor", etc). Since most of the armor was mail, there are only a few possible explanations, including painted helms, or the possibility of it being a reference to the surcoat, or both.
One of the problems we run into is that there is very little that survived from this period. Not many great helms survived at all, and practically none from the middle of the 13th, around the time of the Mac bible. Most of the helms and many of the weapons depicted simply have no surviving examples at all.
-
To me seems quite plausible they would have used paint (when where available of course) for decorative reasons as well as to help ID people - given how crazy things got on the field in a fight, every bit would help - as well as for additional protection from rust.
-
To me seems quite plausible they would have used paint (when where available of course) for decorative reasons as well as to help ID people - given how crazy things got on the field in a fight, every bit would help - as well as for additional protection from rust.
Maybe so, but plausibility is not justification or documentation in most LH groups. That's why I said your mileage may vary from group to group. Some will certainly accept the Mac Bible as a reason to paint crusader helms. Others may not. But no LH group, no matter how strict can argue with extant painted late 15th c sallets. That's why if at all possible you want something documented. Not necessarily a surviving example, but artwork supported by an inventory describing the same object may be good enough... it really is all subjective. But I promise you that 'plausible' is rarely accepted in most serious LH groups. That's also why Chuck and I kinda poked a bit of fun at the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' because that phrase is used generally by people trying to justify something that has no proof of being appropriate.
-
To me seems quite plausible they would have used paint (when where available of course) for decorative reasons as well as to help ID people - given how crazy things got on the field in a fight, every bit would help - as well as for additional protection from rust.
Maybe so, but plausibility is not justification or documentation in most LH groups. That's why I said your mileage may vary from group to group. Some will certainly accept the Mac Bible as a reason to paint crusader helms. Others may not. But no LH group, no matter how strict can argue with extant painted late 15th c sallets. That's why if at all possible you want something documented. Not necessarily a surviving example, but artwork supported by an inventory describing the same object may be good enough... it really is all subjective. But I promise you that 'plausible' is rarely accepted in most serious LH groups. That's also why Chuck and I kinda poked a bit of fun at the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' because that phrase is used generally by people trying to justify something that has no proof of being appropriate.
Understood. I can see where plausability could become a slippery slope. I'm doing some reasearch on iconography of knights/armor from north Moravia (around Olmouc) in mid 14th century. Meanwhile I've heard back from my Serb friends who are proposing something like this for the armor, but with small amounts of chain in the arm pits and the splinted segments would be closer to the black examples in the other pic. It would have a with small, early cervelliere/bascinet which could be fitted with a flat visor of its own or have a great helm over it.
Opinions?
-
Until the 15th century, the overwhelming evidence for maille underneath the torso protection is a full haubergeon (think a hauberk that's about mid-thigh, 3/4 sleeves or so). There are some inventories that refer to 'sleeves' of maille, but no one really knows what these are exactly.
The thing to be careful of with splint is sometimes the armorer cheats and only puts in 50% of the splints because it still gives the right visual on the outside. Any splinted armor should have 100% steel coverage of overlapping splints with no gaps on the inside otherwise it will not function as armor properly. Unless of course you're willing to take the risk of someone stabbing through the leather where it's gapped on the opposite side :)
Other details you can't see in those photos are things like the fans on the elbows and knees. Certain sizes and shapes are appropriate for different time periods, so you have to be careful with the little details. Even things like rivet heads matter. In the 14th century rivet heads tended to be countersunk and sat flush to the armor's surface to prevent blades from catching. Later on in the 15th century rivet heads sat proud and became more decorative... you can go crazy trying to get all the details right. But the key is research, research, research...
That cuirass is ok, with the exception of the faulds. They made the fatal mistake of copying a reproduction and not an original piece. No fauld exists or is depicted anywhere with vertically oriented lames hanging down over the hips. All extant and depicted faulds are horizontally overlapping lames. This is because you need to be able to sit down, especially on a horse. The fauld in your linked photo cannot collapse when you sit.
They copied the fauld from the Bashford Dean harness in the Met on this cuirass. Bashford Dean was the curator of the Met Arms and Armor collection and took liberties with that piece because there was no fauld with it and he designed it himself. It's a notorious piece of armor, and you can immediately tell when someone copied it because it's the only piece like it. Note how on the linked effigy the fauld is horizontally oriented and thus collapses on itself when you sit down unlike the one you linked.
Here's the photo of the piece from the Met:
(http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_29.154.3.jpg)
A real fauld on a 14th and early 15th century cuirass should look like this:
(http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/an_earl_of_warwick_s196_r4730_large.jpg)
-
Yargh! Good points, all. Ian.
I have shared your feeback with my friends in Novi Sad. I'm trying to focus 1340-1365, or thereabouts, I think. Getting exact native iconography from that period is proving a challenge - not least because much was destroyed 50 years later in the Hussite wars.
Clear on the arms, but seems like from some images the maille sleeve could also be on the outside of the arms (see pics).
Maybe anbother option is jsut to go all steel arms and legs and secure by points? I was hoping for going a bit lighter with my transitional harness, though...
-
Italians wore their mail sleeves over top of the plate, and theoretically two different sets of mail at once (or a haubergeon & early fauld / voiders)
-
Yes, Italians did were known to where maille on the outside of their arm harness and skip spaulders. It varied by region, that's why geographical location matters so much.
I wear full plate arms, but still have to wear maille under them. You can't escape maille in the 14th century.
-
Thanks for the maille feedback.
As I said, the proposed focus is Bohemia/Moravia in mid-14th century or so (post-Premysl dynasty and beofre Hussites). I recently got a couple of good sources - including one, "Medieval Armor and Weapons" by Drobna, Wagner and Durdik, to help my research. It has a lot of good reproduction drawings and more importantly, citation of sources. If I must do maille, at least hoping the haubergeon will work ;)
OK, I've now sufficiently recovered from the last lesson to field another question :)
Given the gap between my current "paladin" helm and floating gorget, it was felt I would be safer at the VARF harnesfechten demo fighting in Sir Brian's bascinet (thanks for the loan and sorry for any new dents, Sir Brian!).
For my kit -- which I'm hoping will be useable across interest groups -- would it make more sense to get a stand alone avential, or would it be better to have one that attaches to the bascinet which in turn would fit under a great helm?
I'm leaning towards the stand-alone so it would be removeable/wearable for different uses, but understand the attached is probably safer and I'm not certain which would be truer to the period. Keep in mind that the bascinet I'm planning on would have its own removable pivoting/pinned visor. Appreciate the feedback!
-
You'll be hard pressed to find any bascinet in the 14th century of any style that did not have an aventail attached to it. That being said, you could certainly wear a maille pisan in addition to the aventail (see Squire Jason's thread).
It's a stand alone maille collar (which I think is what you're getting at). An aventail is by definition attached to a helmet. A 'standard' is a 15th century maille collar. A 'pisan' is the same thing, just in the 14th century (just a terminology difference).
-
Well if you are concerned with the safety factor for harnischfechten, then you could always wear a brigandine style gorget under the aventail. There are some that hypostasize the possibility that they were worn beneath an aventail which cannot be neither proven nor disproven from period art or effigies but is prudently plausible given how easily and deeply an acutely sharp blade can penetrate maille alone.
-
There exist pisans in inventories all over the 14th century but no evidence specifically for rigid neck defense. This is why, although no artwork exists to confirm or deny, it is thought to be unlikely that rigid gorgets existed prior to Great Bascinets. Inventories are very detailed and heavily relied upon sources for the existence of certain pieces of equipment. A double layer of maille, each with its own layer of padding, as would exist with a pisan and aventail combination would provide pretty good protection, even from a thrust. You have to consider that most extant aventails are small rings, much smaller than the modern standard 9mm maille. So very small riveted rings, layer of padding, another layer of riveted rings, another layer of padding... that's good protection.
There's also a ton of artwork, specifically effigies that depict knights with no helmet on. Most French effigies are sans helmet (unlike English which almost always show the bascinet on the knight's head). The French effigies that do depict helmet-less knights either show no additional neck protection, or a maille pisan. So while there's is no smoking gun to say a rigid gorget didn't exist somewhere in the annals of the 14th century... it's extremely unlikely.
There's certainly nothing wrong with wearing rigid neck defense while doing combat sports for safety purposes. But it's unfair and a little bit disingenuous to try and call it 'historical' when nothing points to its existence. I would certainly consider wearing a rigid gorget for combat. I would just note that it is a safety compromise, and not try to claim its historicity for my chosen period. Remember, it's OK to do something ahistorical for safety purposes or for some other practical limitations, but don't try to 'force' something to be historical when there's no evidence that it was. That only serves to make the person wearing it feel better by saying it's historical, but it's not doing anyone any favors. So, there are two issues here. One is historicity, the other is safety. Don't try to force one in to the other if they don't already do that naturally, and always make note of that in a Living History demo if that particular item comes up in discussion. That being said, you could definitely get away with a steel gorget under an aventail. Especially something low profile like this (which is the one I would get if I were in the market):
(even though Erik is not doing custom work at the moment, I know he tries to keep these in stock)
http://www.wintertreecrafts.com/items/gorget.html (http://www.wintertreecrafts.com/items/gorget.html)
(http://www.wintertreecrafts.com/images/items/gorget1t.jpg)
-
Yeah, I wear a gorget under my avenaille. Concealed is concealed, if someone asks about it, I tell them it's safety gear. But if my neck is that exposed in a harnisfechten match anyway, something worse than my historicity is gong wrong.
If you really want to cheat, go German like me. Optional sabatos, jupons that cover the arms and the breastplate, padded aventailles, you can go nuts.
-
You have to consider that most extant aventails are small rings, much smaller than the modern standard 9mm maille. So very small riveted rings, layer of padding, another layer of riveted rings, another layer of padding... that's good protection.
This is a very important point, and something I specifically don't mention with our demos, as I don't want them to get too confusing. There are even extant mail shirts which have larger diameter rings on the body, and smaller diameter rings for the neck, but all built as a single shirt. The collar will literally stand up on it's own on some of them, because of the small size of the rings and density of the weave.
I might bring my 6mm mail standard this weekend just to show the size difference to the 9mm we are used to. I don't want to thrust at it or hack it up, but just to show difference up close in how much smaller it is. And when we see that... I've handled period mail that was 3.8 and 5.3mm! I believe it was 16th century, but the tech certainly existed in the 12th and 13th century for them to make the same.
-
Agreed. This discussion is now a bit ironic considering the need for better neck protection was proven clearly this past weekend :) My harness helm may look good, but the gap is just too wide for safe fighting.
I'll probably come down with a close-fitting bascinet with a good avential and optional visor (something along the lines of what Jorge found) and get some good neck protection to boot.
Meantime, in looking for possible great helms, I noticed Jeff Wasson has a mild steel, blackened great helm made of 14 ga mild steel available (http://wassonartistry.com/show.php?id=forsale (http://wassonartistry.com/show.php?id=forsale)).
I was thinking about picking it up in additon to the 14th century knees (1050 Spring steel) and shoulder cops (same) for my new kit. As I would want to use the helm for combat as well, re: durability, he said "The mild steel helm will get dented up over time depending on how often it is used."
Opinions?
-
What would the shoulder cops and knee cops be used for? Are you getting rid of the idea of plate or splint arms and legs? Cops like that are typically used over maille. They're not intended to be articulated to the rest of an arm or leg harness. They could be 'floated' to a cuisse by pointing, but articulation is much better if you're going to wind up with cuisses anyway.
Once I made the jump to spring steel, I would never go back to mild steel. But if still has that great helm available that's certainly a good price for it if you don't mind dealing with dents over time.
-
If you saw the dents in my helm, I bought it earlier this year, and it's 14 gauge mild. Handling dent removal on blackened armor is a very involved process, including re-coating of the blackening afterwards.
Second Sir Ian's question on floating cops.
-
My mistake on the knee cops as indeed I do still want to go with splinted or steel arms & legs, though I was thinking you could point the shoulder cops like roundels to the COP.
I don't have that big an issue with dents (I think - or at least when wearing Sir Brian's helm), so ir relatively durable should be OK I hope.
-
So, faire season has compelled me to dust off my quest for a good, authentic all around harness.
I was showing/discussing the Wasson great helm with Brian and Ed this past weekend and it looks like it's not big enough to really accommodate the bascinet/cervelliere underneath and with no way to secure it (no chin strap) would not be safe/suitable for fighting - so will carry the raven crest only I suppose :(
I came across these fellows at Age of Craft (noted Jorge had been checking them out at one time as well) and with WintertreeCrafts still shut down, looking like my best bet (http://ageofcraft.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=60_69&product_id=136) for splint arms and legs, along with the Chalkis type 1 CoP.
They propose to use wool (green and black) on the exterior surfaces (heavy canvas interior), which they say is historic, will wear better and show less fight marks than if using leather - thoughts on that?
-
They propose to use wool (green and black) on the exterior surfaces (heavy canvas interior), which they say is historic, will wear better and show less fight marks than if using leather - thoughts on that?
You're talking about just the CoP right? It's historical. The original Chalcis Type 2 was constructed with the plates attached to a double layer of canvas, not leather. I'm not sure if any of the attachment medium survived from the Type 1. Many other extant CoPs use textile instead of leather as a medium for the plate attachment.
From the Met:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/09/ee/5e/09ee5e03713dbe6bedf4234859ee076c.jpg)
And a backplate from a CoP:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/a7/2f/0ea72f78d6b19a2461d2c16a0685ea32.jpg)
You can plainly see the weave of the textile.
-
Mad Matt does splinted gear and coat of plates. Forge of Svan does as well. You could look into them for additional options / comparisons.
-
Thx James. I did look at Matt's and Svan. I'll probably get some shoulders from Svan but with their brigandine pieces it's hard to see if they have overlapping plates, etc. And I just really like the AoC look even if pricier
-
Your general armor shape seems accurate to heavy plate of id say 1400s +? I don't know but what I'm really going to say is the brass work just takes it away its too fancy,but on the other hand it still looks really cool
-
Martyn, I just bought a set of plates from Mad Matt in order to build my own brig/CoP - the plates do overlap, and he cuts them to fit. I needed a smaller set than what he normally bangs out so I had to wait a bit. Now, just a matter of figuring out how to go about it. I'd love it with a leather shell, but that doesn't seem to be the accurate way to go about it (textile based seems the way to go). I'm also pretty shite when it comes to building stuff so we'll see.
-
Anyone but me seen this website?
Wisby Suits of Armour from Hoas Hantverk (http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoas_rustningar/)
-
Thorsteinn, I've seen them before but would rather deal with folks I know, at least at the beginning.
-
Seen it but no experience with it, nor any idea on prices
-
I in no way want to assert myself as if I'm anywhere near an arms and armor expert like the above men but would just like to slip in here and state I saw you, Sir James, Sir Nathan, Sir Brian, and Sir Edward at the VARF clad in that harness and I was just in love. I'd venture to say none but the most serious of history buffs would fault you for wearing it! While DoK may not find it fitting, I think it was a great idea to allow it to be worn during Order functions just out of its coolness factor. That kind of thing can draw younger folks like myself into seeking to further learn and cultivate their own place in the reenactment societies. I noticed you borrowed a helm to use when you fought in bouts, was that for utilitarian reasons or to better reflect the period?
-
I in no way want to assert myself as if I'm anywhere near an arms and armor expert like the above men but would just like to slip in here and state I saw you, Sir James, Sir Nathan, Sir Brian, and Sir Edward at the VARF clad in that harness and I was just in love. I'd venture to say none but the most serious of history buffs would fault you for wearing it! While DoK may not find it fitting, I think it was a great idea to allow it to be worn during Order functions just out of its coolness factor. That kind of thing can draw younger folks like myself into seeking to further learn and cultivate their own place in the reenactment societies. I noticed you borrowed a helm to use when you fought in bouts, was that for utilitarian reasons or to better reflect the period?
Thanks very much and appreciate the feedback! I like wearing it when I can and it's fun to fight in. I try to make a point of explaining to folks that it is fantasy-inspired and not a historically accurate harness.
I borrowed Sir Brian's helmet for safety reasons - unfortunately, my helmet leaves too large a gap under the visor for anything but probably just LARP combat :(
-
Thanks very much and appreciate the feedback! I like wearing it when I can and it's fun to fight in. I try to make a point of explaining to folks that it is fantasy-inspired and not a historically accurate harness.
I borrowed Sir Brian's helmet for safety reasons - unfortunately, my helmet leaves too large a gap under the visor for anything but probably just LARP combat :(
I would call your helm safe if you added a bevor to your harness. I believe your visor will allow enough clearance for one. :)