Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > whats with this mismatched armour (13th C manuscript) Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,436

PostPosted: Mon 18 Jan, 2016 11:49 pm    Post subject: whats with this mismatched armour (13th C manuscript)         Reply with quote


https://www.pinterest.com/pin/358599189058751839/

i'm looking at this and trying to understand what i'm looking at here, we hace the pattern that looks like (((((((((((((( showing maille which we see EVERYWHERE in a lot of other psalters and this one, what baffles me ios the other armour that seems to be a flat surface with dots on it.. it's extremely confusing since in this picture it swaps back and forth the hood, cap and bib of the centre man is of identical cut to the man on the right but both are drawn differently, if it was all maille wouldnt it be the same texture i'm not sure what to make oif this being swapped about within the same image.. is the unknown armour type pading? is it maille sandwiched between textiles? it covers the arm of the guy on the right so it can't be plates...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,199

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 2:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I see an attempt to render several different types of mail using a limited palette while adhering to rigid artistic conventions.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Ballantyne





Joined: 19 Oct 2015

Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 3:32 am    Post subject: Maille Gauge         Reply with quote

Could it be an attempt to depict the different gauge of maille (size of rings) ?

I must admit, its an unusual club the chap second from left is swinging above his head.
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 3:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's clearly chain mail over top of banded mail. ;-)
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,436

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 4:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
I see an attempt to render several different types of mail using a limited palette while adhering to rigid artistic conventions.


the problem is that in one person iot's silver surface with dots on the neck and (((((((((((((((( on the body

and in another it's reversed.. hence my problem is that it isnt consistant from person to person.... how do we explain that?

if it was all one type on bibs and caps and coifs and another on the body... thats easy.. but why would it switch??
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,306

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 5:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, it's the Massacre of the Innocents, so those are meant to be either Roman or Herodian soldiers. All sorts of weird things were used to imply an archaic or Biblical setting.

Or it could just be different ways to portray mail!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 328

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 8:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It looks more like eyelet than mail to me.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,280

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 9:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
I see an attempt to render several different types of mail using a limited palette while adhering to rigid artistic conventions.


the problem is that in one person iot's silver surface with dots on the neck and (((((((((((((((( on the body

and in another it's reversed.. hence my problem is that it isnt consistant from person to person.... how do we explain that?

if it was all one type on bibs and caps and coifs and another on the body... thats easy.. but why would it switch??


I fully agree with Dan, that all of these are meant to depict mail.

Why should it be consistent? It's not like mail was always made of uniform sized rings or wire. Often, the ring sizes vary within a single haubergeon. Likewise, one maker might not use the same size ring or wire profile as another. By 1250 we have rings with round wire and rings with flattened wire as well. A number of miniatures even show the mail on a single figure being rendered in two colors of ink. In the Trinity Apocalypse, the color changes from man to man, and from item to item - coif vs. haubergeon.



 Attachment: 174.63 KB
Cambridge MS R.16.2 fo024r-coif.jpg


ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,199

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 12:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
A number of miniatures even show the mail on a single figure being rendered in two colors of ink. In the Trinity Apocalypse, the color changes from man to man, and from item to item - coif vs. haubergeon.

Everybody knows that brown means leather. It is obviously an attempt to depict leather mail. Cool

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 578

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 1:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
William P wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
I see an attempt to render several different types of mail using a limited palette while adhering to rigid artistic conventions.


the problem is that in one person iot's silver surface with dots on the neck and (((((((((((((((( on the body

and in another it's reversed.. hence my problem is that it isnt consistant from person to person.... how do we explain that?

if it was all one type on bibs and caps and coifs and another on the body... thats easy.. but why would it switch??


I fully agree with Dan, that all of these are meant to depict mail.

Why should it be consistent? It's not like mail was always made of uniform sized rings or wire. Often, the ring sizes vary within a single haubergeon. Likewise, one maker might not use the same size ring or wire profile as another. By 1250 we have rings with round wire and rings with flattened wire as well. A number of miniatures even show the mail on a single figure being rendered in two colors of ink. In the Trinity Apocalypse, the color changes from man to man, and from item to item - coif vs. haubergeon.


That arming coat/tabard/medieval graphic t shirt looks quite stiff around the shoulders.
View user's profile Send private message
Ralph Grinly





Joined: 19 Jan 2011

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 4:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For my two cent's worth, it's all just artistic licence in showing off plain, ordinary mail. The artist is just trying to make the various parts stand out a bit from each other. No need to go inventing such things as "banded mail," " eyelet mail" or other flights of fancy with no basis in historical reality. I mean..for instance..folks look at the mail shown in the Bayeaux Tapestry and invent all sorts of "different mail" They say."Look..it's in the Tapestry..it must have existed" ..yet they totally ignore the horses that are shown with blue testicles. It's all simple artistic licence..not reality, We totally forget...these illustrations were NOT made to show US today what warriors of the time actually wore. They were made for audiences OF THE DAY to illustrate ( mainly) biblical stories. The audiences /readers THEN knew full well what the artist was showing.
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 328

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jan, 2016 11:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ralph Grinly wrote:
eyelet mail" or other flights of fancy with no basis in historical reality.


It existed in historical reality, the only thing that's at all unclear is when it was first developed.

Multiple conventions for depicting mail in artwork certainly were used but William is correct in observing that it's unusual to see more than one being used on any given figure. This image deals with a familiar theme that more clearly shows the use of two different conventions on one figure being used to depict two forms of armor being worn so it's a possibility worth considering in other cases. None of this has anything to do with Meyrick.



 Attachment: 13.93 KB
eyelet2.jpg


 Attachment: 102.06 KB
eyelet3.jpg


 Attachment: 157.06 KB
[ Download ]
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,280

PostPosted: Wed 20 Jan, 2016 7:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mike Ruhala wrote:
Multiple conventions for depicting mail in artwork certainly were used but William is correct in observing that it's unusual to see more than one being used on any given figure.


I agree it's more usual to show mail all the same on the same figure, though it's not uncommon to see different methods used on multiple soldiers in a single miniature. There are a number of figures where the method of showing mail is the same, but the color varies between chausses and haubergeon. The Goliath in the Parc Abbey Bible, BL Additional 14789 fo.10r, has both differing color and techniques used on the haubergeon and chausses, so it's not unique.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_14789_f010r



 Attachment: 92.77 KB
BL Additional 14789 fo010r.jpg


ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,436

PostPosted: Wed 20 Jan, 2016 8:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
William P wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
I see an attempt to render several different types of mail using a limited palette while adhering to rigid artistic conventions.


the problem is that in one person iot's silver surface with dots on the neck and (((((((((((((((( on the body

and in another it's reversed.. hence my problem is that it isnt consistant from person to person.... how do we explain that?

if it was all one type on bibs and caps and coifs and another on the body... thats easy.. but why would it switch??


I fully agree with Dan, that all of these are meant to depict mail.

Why should it be consistent? It's not like mail was always made of uniform sized rings or wire. Often, the ring sizes vary within a single haubergeon. Likewise, one maker might not use the same size ring or wire profile as another. By 1250 we have rings with round wire and rings with flattened wire as well. A number of miniatures even show the mail on a single figure being rendered in two colors of ink. In the Trinity Apocalypse, the color changes from man to man, and from item to item - coif vs. haubergeon.


actually the trinity is what i EXPECT depictions of maille to be aka the consistant series of (((( symbols showing the links...and theyre all drawn the same way on coif, body or leg... colour changes but then people wear differenct coloured pants to their tunic... (maybe it'spaint or even colouring via bluing and heat... so it could be anything...)

the trinity shows a cnsistant artistic convention from person to person...

i suppose it feels bizzare on part of the artist... why go to the effort of swapping when you can do all the bodies one tone and all the coifs another 'texture'(i say texture since i see it as trying to depict a texture of say, maille on a 2d surface)

using two different looks to differentiate coifs and one for haubergons makes sense

if it was between different manuscripts, or even different pages i figure yeah artistic liscence and artistic convention saying 'this is neck this is body'

its the fact the convention/ 'code' was switched around for different people on the same PAGE, is what makes my head spin....
maybe he got lazy and decided i cant be bothered drawing all these squiggles i'm gonna do dots now....

interestingly manuscriptminiatures website has a tag for 'maille coif' and one for 'mail coif - dotted'

my personal favorite convention of drawing maille is in japan for kusari with a cross hatch pattern, which, is meant to show maille but is why directors show ninja with fishnet clothing under their kimono


Last edited by William P on Wed 20 Jan, 2016 8:46 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 328

PostPosted: Wed 20 Jan, 2016 8:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm aware of images like that but the trick is we don't have a way to know for sure if they're trying to represent something other than mail or not. I've seen the little circles as in the image you just posted before and I agree that probably is meant to be mail, the construction of the chausses suggests it but by the same token there's no reason you couldn't fasten eyelet chausses in the same manner and odds are if they were used they'd follow the same basic pattern as mail chausses would. As far as color goes as I've mentioned before 3227.a contains a recipe for case hardening mail that would result in in a blackened appearance, even multi-colored depending on how it was done. In any case early eyelet is unproven and may be impossible to prove but my gut tells me most of the conventions we see are mail including the little circles as with the chausses here but the dots *may* be eyelet or something similar.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,280

PostPosted: Wed 20 Jan, 2016 8:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here's another, where the dots on the red chausses of the left-of-center figure doesn't match the rows of commas on the hauberk.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4864/11909/

Some figures with a banded method for the hauberks and cross hatching or rows of commas for the chausses:
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4653/12310/

This one changes drawing method and ink color:
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4688/12038/

et cetera:
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4526/11341/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3924/10768/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4902/14532/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4136/8514/

Here's a fine example from that same manuscript of 3 different techniques being used within the same miniature to help distinguish the men. Even though the technique doesn't change on any given individual, none are wearing separate chausses or hoods.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3924/10767/

Examples where the difference is noted in color, rather than technique.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/3946/9785/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4016/11398/

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Gill





Joined: 19 Feb 2015

Posts: 98

PostPosted: Thu 21 Jan, 2016 12:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A question: how certain can we be that a specific illustration in a manuscript was produced by only one artist? I know that by the renaissance, most of the famous artists sketched out the main design and perhaps did the "fiddly bits" and final finishing, but had groups of apprentices who would do most of the actual painting. I can easily imagine a similar division of labour being applied to the more laborious details of an illustration in a manuscript (ie the master illustrator draws the outlines, and his apprentices have to draw in the mail, and each chooses a different approach), but is there any actual evidence for this?
Of course, a single illustrator could varied the pattern to make the picture more interesting, as others have suggested, or he could have been under time pressure and chosen a simpler pattern, or maybe he just got bored.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,199

PostPosted: Thu 21 Jan, 2016 1:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Exactly. It is impossible to use the various illustrations to pick out differences in armour characteristics without first proving that they were all done by the same artist.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Alan E




Location: UK
Joined: 21 Jan 2016

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 21 Jan, 2016 3:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Somewhere, someone said these pictures were not produced to guide us as to what was worn and how it was made. They were produced as interesting illustrations, sometimes related to the subject matter, or else just interesting marginalia.

They were produced according to conventions yes, but the conventions gave the illustrators choices about what to use to illustrate mail, metal etc. Choosing which convention to use on what was subject to constraints: Not of consistently showing the same thing the same way (as we might for a catalog for example), but of making the picture interesting. Not only is the potential boredom of the artist to be considered, but his (usually) desire to make the picture interesting for his patron(s). Add to that the potential desire to make Herod's child-slayers uncouth with mis-matched gear (even if it is all mail) and there is no need to reach further for why each figure has different 'textures' to their figures.... Say Wink is that a chain-mail helmet on the central figure? It has a brim (single, not bands) but the same texture as the aventail/coif! Laughing Out Loud

Member of Exiles Medieval Martial Arts.
Currently teaching Fiore's art in Ceredigion
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > whats with this mismatched armour (13th C manuscript)
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum