My Armor kit - Historical Fiction?

[Sir Douglas]

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.

[Ian]

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.

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

[Sir Edward]

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.

[Sir Martyn]

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?

[Ian]

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:






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.

[Mike W.]

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.

[Ian]

...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Famous last words in the Living History world

[Sir Wolf]

careful. you tread on heresy with them words. richard the 3 was in fact at a tacobell and not at bosworth field

[Sir Edward]

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.

[Sir Martyn]

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.

[Ian]

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. 

[Sir Martyn]

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?

[Ian]

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:


A real fauld on a 14th and early 15th century cuirass should look like this:

[Sir Martyn]

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...

[Sir James A]

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)