Main > The Armoury

16th Century Knight kit

(1/3) > >>

Sir Matthew:
So I've decided since I already do 16th/17th Century and most of the armor I already have will easily transfer over to a Knights kit, I would work on completing this before working on my barely even started mid 14th Century Kit. I wanted to run my idea by the members here to get their thoughts on it. I know Joshua Santana is working in the same period. I'm shooting for less of a full "Tournament" style and more of a field or "Half-Armour" presentation. I already have a Peascod Breast and Back with Tassets (from Illusion Armoury) and an Almaine Collar from Allan Senefelder. I'm planning to add Cased Vambraces, 16th Century Legs and Floating Greaves from Illusion Armoury. Under the armour I will get an Arming Doublet, possibly from Steel Mastery. I am undecided as to whether I want to add steel gauntlets of some type or just stick with the leather glove style gauntlets. I know late 16th Century Knights were ussually in command of troops on the field and when they fought were as likely to use firearms as anything else, which might make steel gauntlets unnescessary. I am also divided as to the type of helm to get. I am leaning toward a Burgonet, although I do not think I look good in them, but a Tudor Close helm is more commonly associated with a Knight. Perhaps I may even skip the helm in favor of just a hat, although it would be a much fancier one than any I currently wear in my 16th Century impressions. This will also require me to exchange my low shoes for proper riding boots, possibly bucket boots although I am unsure exactly how early bucket boots go.

Sir James A:
Close helms are a bit hard to find. MRL has the "Tudor Close helmet", which is really an armet. They're reasonably cheap at $195 (on sale from $225) and the quality is good, as compared with regular MRL stuff. I won't call them quite "battle ready", as they're 16 gauge, dent fairly easily, and as I recently found out from Allan Senefelder (MercTailor), it's made of.. 13 pieces, welded together.

If you wanted to do the style with the "black and white", you could go with the gauntlets with integral vambrace that goes to the elbow. I forget the name off the top of my head, but the cuirass and almain you have, with gauntlets and just cuisses, would make a nice late-period armor. I'm not 100% sure if you'd need the floating greaves.

Any particular pictures or ideas?

Sir Edward:

I look forward to seeing this come together. You might be able to skip the greaves and focus on the cuirass and arms. You're quite right, by that time, knights were more commanders than front-line fighters themselves. The role had shifted to a title of nobility rather than being strictly cavalry.

Allan Senefelder:
When in the 16th century is important to determine what gear is appropriate as armour changes rapidly in style and how much is worn over the 100 years. By the last quarter of the century the upper classes are begining to step away from command in the field in favor of a burgeoning proffessional officer class in the growing proto-national armies of paid/hired soldiers of which the century gives rise.

Sir Matthew:
I'm shooting for mid-late 16th Century, somewhere around 1560-1580, early Elizabethan. The Illusion Peascods do not have a very pronounced central ridge, so that fits them more in the early to mid 16th Century. I hadn't thought about doing a glove with integrated vambrace, that's an interesting idea. The difficulty with the close helm is why I lean toward the Burgonet a bit, if I choose to do a helm. Leaving off greaves isn't out of the question either, many of the period examples I've seen from the mid-late 16th Century on seem to omit greaves, I just like them and think they would help to distinguish this kit from my Pikeman impression.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page