Main > The Armoury

Voiders, skirt and breastplate?

(1/3) > >>

Henrik Granlid:
So I recently read this one
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/1/Thom_Richardson_thesis_final.pdf

In which he lists a massive quantity of voiders and skirts as early as 1335, and that peaked my interest, since I have been looking for a good skirt for my upcoming globose breastplate and a full mail hauberk/haubergon would be expensive and time consuming. The problem is that my breastplate won't have a backplate for quite a while (if ever) and as such, my back would be left open if I wear a skirt and voiders.

As such, I wonder.

For the 1360's and later, without a backplate, would a chain skirt and voiders be acceptable coverage for a recreation or should one go the full nine yards and get that haubergon anyhow?

Ian:
So yeah, with the inventories of the Tower we're seeing that you can definitely use sleeves and paunces.  It's important to note that he's talking about sleeves of mail not voiders.  Modern use of the term voiders usually means something that is sewn to the garment that just covers the arm pits and under-arms.  Whereas a pair of sleeves are full coverage sleeves of maille.

So the inventories are probably showing THESE: 


or these:



Not necessarily these (true voiders):



So yeah, you can 100% document the use of sleeves and paunces (skirts) of mail to the 14th century which is awesome.  I believe Lord Rodney used these exact inventories to document his stuff. 

Now when it comes to what's appropriate to be worn with a breastplate and backplate we don't know for certain, but I would guess that if you were a knight or well equipped man at arms and you don't have a full cuirass (i.e. breast AND back) then you should still be wearing a shirt of mail to protect your back.  If you've got a full cuirass, then by all means go with sleeves and skirt.  They were presumed to have been made specifically because of the full cuirass rendering the full mail shirt redundant, so it would follow that if you've got a backplate, you can optionally just wear sleeves/skirt. 

Since I don't have a backplate on my personal kit, I will not be making any transition to sleeves and skirt as much as that pains me, because I hate wearing a haubergeon, but it makes no sense to leave my back unprotected.

Henrik Granlid:
Need to adjust my vocabulary for the fourteenth then :)

And yeah, I feel pretty much the same way, it would feel weird to have that square patch of open back. I do wonder if the sleeves are attached to paunces since the document does mention sleeves without paunces as well. But it could simply be that it's a common combination.

If only I could tell myself a covered breastplate with segmented back is as cool as a globose worn under a jupon or surcotte.

Ian:
Also I would say these would probably be called a pair of sleeves as well, and this setup is what I would use in a heartbeat for the 14th century if I had a backplate:



But unfortunately, the few images we do have of uncovered armor with no backplate shows a full shirt.  And this makes sense, you don't want a giant vulnerable point on your back with easy access to all of your major organs :)

Sir James A:
^ second to what Sir Ian said

In Japan, the earlier samurai armor skipped the central plate in the back. As a proper samurai should never turn his back on his opponent, the "se ita" (back plate) was considered a "cowardly" piece of armor (and is sometimes called the coward's plate, but I'm not sure if that is a modern or a translated term). I don't think that sort of thing concerned Europeans. :)

I believe that first image posted of them carrying the guy with the mail sleeves is Italian. The Italians had a strange habit of wearing what appears to be either a fauld AND a haubergeon, or a double fauld. They also had another odd habit of wearing the sleeves of their haubergeon over top of the rerebraces (upper arm plate). This might be important, since the sleeve length in that image is right about where I'd expect to see it for a pseudo-haubergeon, as well as sitting slightly baggy - possibly as if to fit over top of plate?

I just can't see someone choosing to leave their back as a wide open target. Once armor fully evolved, and later started to slowly fade away, the first pieces to go were the lower legs, then upper legs and/or arms, then gauntlets (for dexterity with firearms), with the last few pieces to go being helmet and cuirass. Keeping the head and torso protected are critical.

If the question is more of "recreation of a man at arms who scavenged equipment off the battlefield" or something similar... maybe. If the question is for a knightly / wealthy warrior, I don't think so - but just my opinion.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page