Main > The Armoury
Kits on a budget
Sir Robert:
Thanks Sir Edward, I agree as well and am not trying to distract from anyone in any kit. Steel is traditional, stainless looks good with less work, but is also not period, but many use it and it’s very nice. So for anyone who has a kit- no offense intended noble Sirs and Dames.
Here is an interesting fact though- Armor was made by royal decree by members of an Armorer Guild, in fact each piece is tamped with the “seal” of the actual maker. Now as part of the forging process, Armorers always sought to make armor thinner (to reduce weight) but yet more resistant to ballistics and armor piercing weapons (war hammers). To do this they would create intricate angled surfaces to deflect blows and add fluting for rigidity. Ok we all know that, but they were also trying to create spring steel through the addition of other metals into the liquid iron and carbon, creating the first alloys.
They also realized that the forging process- the actual hammering of the metal would create a “skin” where the metal would be more dense than the inner material, this would lead to what is know known as case hardening (today we dip metals into powders such as Barium Carbonate to produce this). If you removed this surface layer, the underlying metal would not be as hard or resistant to blows. It also resulted in a metal “sandwich” where both outer sides of the metal would be harder than the internal material- this would result in “spring” as if the material was hardened all the way through- essentially the harder it is the more brittle, it would certainly resist “pointed” impacts but a concussive blow would shatter the metal- usually at the rivet or connection points.
So it was so that Armorers developed this technique over time- including baking forged components in ovens while covered in charcoal powder (an early equal to Barium Carbonate) to produce tougher armor.
Thanks for the history lesson- now what’s the point? Well Sir Walter Raleigh was actually jailed once for wearing armor to court, why? It was a polished breastplate. It happens that in order to maintain this spring steel process, a closely guarded guild secret only taught to journeymen before they became Master Armorers, you could not sand off the resulting finish to make it shiny. In fact any armor that was shiny was a tell-tail sign that it was not made by a Armorer, as it was against their guild practice and illegal. What? Yes, during the medieval period, guilds were supported by nobility and churches, many lesser nobles would send their children into guilds to become masters. They also paid huge taxes to the crown, and as such had many laws that protected them.
This all worked out for Sir Walter Raleigh, as a queens favorite. The point is that Armor made by armorers was not polished- it was a dull grey (the carbonizing also protected from rust, or even black (Black Prince), or painted with various materials. The resemblance of this was very close to….aluminum, but of course it was not, it was an early spring steel.
So, shiny armor was either very early armor made by armores maybe between 1000 and 1250, or it was made by blacksmiths (or in the case of royalty, finished by silver smiths). Most museums that gained pieces, weather in an effort to preserve them or represent the myth of a “Knight in Shining Armor” polished pieces. The making of armor spanned several guilds, and some ceremonial armor was “polished” but usually as a result of adornment through etching, gold gilding, or other artistic hands usually from silver smiths, or gold smiths commissioned by the crown. It was also more common once firearms became a prevalent battle weapon as plate armor was mostly ceremonial or a mark of command.
So actually polished armor was actually illegal and not at all what combat armor would have looked like- but it may have been seen on nobility as high Gothic armor (like the Queen’s) or possibly in ceremonies and events like a Joust.
So the looks of aluminum- although not combat functional (well maybe if warn under plate maile) does actually look more period (but new), blackened chain such as I have seen good Sir Brian wear is actually even more period. No offense to anyone in brilliant polished kits- they are the very ideal people have of Knights- but there are many misconceptions around Knighthood that people hold as truth- and that’s ok with me, each person is more than entitled to their beliefs.
Das Bill:
Hi Stormdelver,
Do you know where this information came from? Some of it sounds a little suspect to me, particularly given the wide range of time period and regions in which armor was worn. Now, I will point out that I know a lot more about arms than I do about armor, but there are some things that don't ring quite right in what you're saying to me.
--- Quote from: Stormdelver on 2009-12-17, 14:08:06 ---Here is an interesting fact though- Armor was made by royal decree by members of an Armorer Guild, in fact each piece is tamped with the “seal” of the actual maker.
--- End quote ---
I don't believe that's completely true across the board, particularly when we see many of the black sallets of the 15th century worn by mercenaries. It was certainly true in many cases, but I think there are a lot of exceptions.
--- Quote ---Now as part of the forging process, Armorers always sought to make armor thinner (to reduce weight) but yet more resistant to ballistics and armor piercing weapons (war hammers). To do this they would create intricate angled surfaces to deflect blows and add fluting for rigidity. Ok we all know that, but they were also trying to create spring steel through the addition of other metals into the liquid iron and carbon, creating the first alloys.
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. The Germans were certainly looking to try to make spring hardened steel for armor by the late 15th century, but before that they didn't. Spring hardened armor was non-existent in the 14th century (even though they had the technology, as they were doing it for weapons, so they clearly had a reason for choosing to do it this way) And the Italians seemed to favor unhardened armor despite the Germans. I believe the English also tended to prefer unhardened, but I'm not totally sure. So, again, it depended on the context.
--- Quote ---They also realized that the forging process- the actual hammering of the metal would create a “skin” where the metal would be more dense than the inner material, this would lead to what is know known as case hardening (today we dip metals into powders such as Barium Carbonate to produce this). If you removed this surface layer, the underlying metal would not be as hard or resistant to blows. It also resulted in a metal “sandwich” where both outer sides of the metal would be harder than the internal material- this would result in “spring” as if the material was hardened all the way through- essentially the harder it is the more brittle, it would certainly resist “pointed” impacts but a concussive blow would shatter the metal- usually at the rivet or connection points.
--- End quote ---
Again, I don't think this was true all the way across the board. It would depend a great deal on region and time period as to whether case hardening was preferred... many did not use this method.
--- Quote ---
Thanks for the history lesson- now what’s the point? Well Sir Walter Raleigh was actually jailed once for wearing armor to court, why? It was a polished breastplate. It happens that in order to maintain this spring steel process, a closely guarded guild secret only taught to journeymen before they became Master Armorers, you could not sand off the resulting finish to make it shiny. In fact any armor that was shiny was a tell-tail sign that it was not made by a Armorer, as it was against their guild practice and illegal. What? Yes, during the medieval period, guilds were supported by nobility and churches, many lesser nobles would send their children into guilds to become masters. They also paid huge taxes to the crown, and as such had many laws that protected them.
--- End quote ---
I'm unaware of this tail, though I'm not writing it off, either. There were a number of ordinances put on armor throughout time. For example, in the 15th century there were areas where selling a painted helmet (a style very popular throughout much of Europe in the 15th c.) was highly illegal because it could hide an armorer's flaws. However, I do suspect there's more to this story than simply he was arrested for polishing his harness. By the 16th century, highly polished armors were very prized, so there has to be more to this than that.
--- Quote ---The point is that Armor made by armorers was not polished- it was a dull grey (the carbonizing also protected from rust, or even black (Black Prince), or painted with various materials. The resemblance of this was very close to….aluminum, but of course it was not, it was an early spring steel.
--- End quote ---
There are too many quotes from period literature about the brightness and shininess of armor for me to believe that this was common. I'm not necessarily disputing that it was never the case, just that the 15th century clearly had examples where it was encouraged to shine the armour to its brightest.
--- Quote ---So, shiny armor was either very early armor made by armores maybe between 1000 and 1250,
--- End quote ---
Well, unless if you're talking about helmets, plate wasn't worn during this time. But what you say about museums is true: Some pieces have been pver polished by over-zealous curators, unfortunately. Not in every case, but certainly in some.
--- Quote ---or possibly in ceremonies and events like a Joust.
--- End quote ---
Hmmm. That doesn't seem right. Jousting armor was typically the same as field armour with additional pieces added to it (such as a heavier duty helmet). If the armor wasn't allowed to be polished outside of the joust, then it wouldn't make sense that it was allowed during the joust.
--- Quote ---blackened chain such as I have seen good Sir Brian wear is actually even more period.
--- End quote ---
Actually, black mail is very much a modern concept. Mail will naturally "polish" itself when one does a lot of movement in it (running, climbing, marching, fighting, etc), and the black will just disappear. Since most of us in modern times don't use our mail as athletically as our forefathers did, our mail will likely stay black (and for that matter, requires more work to clean when it rusts).
Sir Matthew:
If I may weigh in for a minute on this most interesting topic, I conducted a bit of research while assembling my Elizabethan soldier kit. Most of the information I found seems to support both of you in the coloration of the armor. Now most of my research was geared toward armor worn by common soldiers, not knights, so it is possible that can alter things a bit. I found that most armor was stored in vats of oil, in some cases olive or other vegetable oil was used (most commonly in Italy and the mediteranean region where this was common), but mostly oil that had bubbled to the surface was collected and used. This oil was mixed with dirt, making a mud and it seems an early oil based paint. Over time the armor would take on the color of the oil it was stored in. This seems to be most common with chain armor, and yes when it was taken out to be used the armor was wiped down, removing most of the color, but not all and also leaving the armor dull, not shiny. The main problem with shiny armor, as I can personally attest, is that the steel tends to begin to corrode very quickly because the protective oil has been removed. My mild steel kettle helm will actully begin to show corroded fingerprints by the end of a faire day if I leave it totally wiped clean and handle it without gloves. It seems that by the introduction of true plate armors in the 1400's, the armor was being protected by painting the metal, most plate armor in this period was made specifically for a certain person. After it was forged and at various points during forging the buyer would often inspect the work to make sure it was up to their standards. Rember armor is a huge investment and your life may literally someday depend upon the craftsman's work. To this end, before completion of the sale, they armor was inspected while still unpainted. As I stated before though, unfinished steel tends to corrode and rust very quickly, so it was certainly oiled. After meeting the buyers approval, it would have been painted. Now Plate breast and back that would have been made one size fits most for the common soldier was not so rigorously inspected and the manufacturing process, especially by they 1500's was more like factory output. Quantity mattered more than quality. Individual soldiers would be responsible for it's care and although it was often painted in the color of the lord or country the soldiers served, it still needed to be oiled. Last, although there certainly was an armorer's guild, I have little information on it. I do know that in England, most armor made for the common soldier in the 1400 and 1500's came from the Royaly Armorers. By the late 1500's heavy steel armor was being hightly discouraged for common soldiers throughout Europe, Plate breast and back for Pike being about the only heavey armor left, and even that was starting to fade away as most of it was too inferior to stop a musket ball at moderate range. Most armorers, as most master craftsmen, had a seal they put on their armor, this was to serve as an advertisement and a copyright as each individual had subtle unique differences to their armor. By no means does this mean that everyone who made armor was a guild member. Only masters at their crafts were admited into guilds and their skills made them highly sought out and expensive, poor people made due with whoever they could afford to buy from. Also, although they may have been able to make simple metal armor, blacksmiths are not armorers and the intracacies of making plate armor would have been beyond them, at least without alot of time and material to experiment with. Most blacksmiths would not have had this luxury, they would have been busy tending to horses and making or fixing tools and other more commonly needed items like door hinges, etc. I did uncover referenced to polished armor, but mostly this seemed to indicate armor that was meant for show or ceremonial use, not combat. It also seemed to me that this armor was polished up for that purpose but not stored polished. Every reference to this though was for a person of very high standing who would have had retainers to do this sort of work for them, not something that even most knights could claim by the 16th century.
I'm not sure how much this helps, but if anyone is interested, I could try to dig out the references I was scouring through when I was doing my armor research. It has been about 3 years so I don't know if I have all the information or not, but I could try to look for it.
Sir Edward:
I've found that the general rule of thumb when discussion anything pertaining to history is that time and place matters greatly. A difference of a few miles or a few years can make a significant impact on the "truths" that we read about. There are very few blanket statements that can be made about the medieval period as a whole, except for the most general of concepts, such as "they wore helmets made of metal" :)
Das Bill:
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2009-12-18, 14:46:18 ---such as "they wore helmets made of metal" :)
--- End quote ---
The funny part is that even that wasn't always true! :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version