The recent discussion on Roman banded/segmented armour reminded me of Matthew Amt's notes on one of the earliest finds on that armour and the idea that it might have consisted only of the collar yoke (pectoral, upper-back, and connecting plates over the shoulders) plus the shoulder armour lames while the rest of the torso would have been covered with mail rather than the usual "tube" of torso lames.

It's an interesting notion since this kind of armour (a plate collar/yoke over the shoulders and mail over the rest of the torso) seems to be fairly common in "medieval" fantasy illustrations and motion-picture renditions today (particularly the BBC "Merlin" series, which ran from 2008 to 2012). At first glance this looks like a combination that could have existed in history, albeit at a much later date -- let's say a 16th-century Almain collar on top of a haubergeon -- but I don't think I've ever really seen this specific combination in actual historical illustrations, muster rolls, or inventory lists. The Almain collar seems to have been pretty consistently intended to be worn in conjunction with a cuirass, while the mail shirt was worn on its own or with a mail standard rather than a plate collar. Am I getting the correct picture here, or am I missing some pretty important examples?

I'd also certainly like to know about other kinds of "plate yoke" armour that existed in cultures outside Classical and medieval Europe, if any.

I haven't heard of yoke armour yet. But I'm not sure whether it had been worn by real-life knights in the past or not.

Lafayette, do you mean the Alba Iulia relief which shows mail shoulders and plate torso?

http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentarium/img...ata30b.jpg

No, it's exactly the other way around with plate on the shoulders and mail on the rest of the torso. I'm attaching a still from the BBC Merlin to show what I meant (and yes, it's a bit of an eyesore, but bear with me).

---

 Attachment: 70.76 KB

Just to clarify my own involvement in this, I was thinking of a discussion relayed to me by (I think!) Mike Bishop, possibly between him and Peter Connolly. Anyway, it was a couple of the Big Names of Roman Military Equipment in the UK.

The main point was the data and details of the Kalkriese lorica segmentata, the earliest type(s) that we can document. And the problem was that while we have very obvious girdle (torso) plates for the well-known Corbridge lorica, and obvious girdle plate lacing loops for the Kalkriese type B lorica, the finds for the Kalkriese type A are much more fragmentary, and include nothing that can be reasonably interpreted as a girdle plate or fittings from it. We only have shoulder and collar pieces, with straps or buckles hanging down to connect to whatever it below.

Add to the mix a hotly debated relief from Arles in France, that *seems* to show Roman cavalrymen with segmented/articulated shoulder guards on a mailshirt, and one Big Name said to the other Big Name, "What if there *aren't* any girdle plates? What if it was mail?" And the theory was born.

Add to that a couple chunks of Roman mail that have turned up with a buckle riveted on. Now, those those are *probably* for attaching a perfectly "normal" Roman-style shoulder doubling to its shirt, but possibly for attaching the shirt to segmented collar sections?

On the other hand, if the Kalkriese type A girdle plates fastened with straps and buckles, we've got tons of them, and the Phantom Girdle Plate problem disappears. Can't prove it until we find a big enough piece, though. There is some visual evidence for that idea, though, in the form of a relief showing captured armor including an apparent segmented cuirass with straps and buckles down the front. Not *Roman* armor, though... OR maybe some of the Kalkriese B fittings we have are actually Kalkriese A...

Bottom line, at the moment, the idea of Roman plate shoulders on a mail body is not much more than a theory.

Matthew

The pauldron and gorget aren't really that bad in their own right, especially if seen in the correct historical context as part of a late 16th-/early 17th-century cuirassier armour like this (to borrow Daniel Staberg's photograph):



And you can see that the pauldron itself is articulated over its upper half, which helps enormously with arm and shoulder mobility. What makes the combination ugly is that the late-Renaissance pauldron and gorget are matched with a hauberk in the 11th-century style and a surcoat in a 13th-century style on a character who's supposed to have lived at some point between the 4th and 8th centuries -- not to mention a 21st century hairstyle. But, given some modifications to make the armour look more temporally consistent (say, using a 16th-century Almain collar and arm defences with a contemporary haubergeon), I can see how it can be made to look much better from a historical viewpoint. I just don't know whether the combination of plate on the shoulders of upper arms and mail on the torso can be supported with verifiable historical sources.

Trust me, it's articulated.

[ Linked Image ]

No matter how low your opinion of film costume directors might be, I don't think they're stupid enough to saddle their actors with an unarticulated pauldron of that size -- that'd prevent the actor from doing any action scenes at all.


Anyway, to return to the original subject of whether such plate collars/yokes existed in history, I'm adding an example from a late 15th-century edition of Le Livre des Cleres et Nobles Femmes, which in itself is a French translation of Boccacio's De Mulieribus Claris. The image is meant to show Laodice or Berenice of Cappadocia, a Classical figure that the artist could not have possibly met in person, so it's pretty safe to assume that this illustration is the medieval version of historical fantasy and can't be taken at face value as evidence that such armour existed; all the same, it's interesting to know that the idea was known (albeit only in a fantastic context) at the time.

---

 Attachment: 45.22 KB

I don't know the historical accuracy of it in later ages but it seems to be popular in Hollywood. Below is a pic of unattached pauldrons and gorget. I also remember in this and other movies where foot soldiers wore the gorget and pauldrons simply over a quilted/padded garment...

I will answer this in 3 ways-

1. But its a film/tv production.
2. But its a film/tv production.
3. But its a film tv production.

So discussing the finer, or even not so finer, points of accuracy of anything is pretty moot. It wil always be altered reality, based on that the production/costume designer wants. Ironic that poor old Joan has turned up, she's wearing a load of crud when compared to some of the other stuff that actually had some care and attention taken over it. Not that anyone in the general public audience would know or care. As long as nothing jarrs terribly ther producers will be happy.

I work on lots of productions, often biting my tongue but also there are little moments when I am able to smile when I am able to get something right. So there is some 'real' armour in the BBC Wolf Hall. But there is some wtf? stuff as well. I spent a day unloading all my knowledge about early 16th cent jousting to the prod company most of which they chose to discard. But thats the same in many industries. I give my advice, they dont have to follow it and I get paid either way. But its nice when they do....

Yep. And too much nitpicking takes the discussion too far away from the main question I raised, which is: has anyone seen any historical evidence for the actual use of this kind of combination with plate (or banded/segmented) armour on the shoulders and mail or soft armour on the rest of the torso?

Just to reinforce how prevalent it is today in fantasy armour designs, here's one more example of a LARP version, presumably by Epic Armoury (because that's where I first saw this exact model):

[ Linked Image ]

And since I keep coming up with more and more modern examples but still no luck with ancient, medieval, or Renaissance originals (except for one illustration that's arguably a fantasy design too), maybe I have to start asking the question of why this kind of armour seems to be particularly popular today. Is there something in the modern sense of aesthetics that makes it look particularly attractive, or is there some reason why it seems to make more mechanical/sartorial sense to modern wearers that it apparently did back then in the ancient and medieval period?

I'm not sure it is relevant, but I browsed through the Albums here at myArmoury.com and in the album Armory in Castel Sant'Angelo, Vatican City in the section Museum Photographs are the follwing photos:

[ Linked Image ] [ Linked Image ] [ Linked Image ] [ Linked Image ]

Hope it is helpful

J.B.

That's very interesting, and thanks for pointing that out since I haven't delved into more than a small fraction of what's available in the albums. Too bad there's no information on the provenance of the armour, though (especially with regards to how old/genuine it is and whether this is/was its original configuration).

Maybe you can find out more by searching the museum's website (I didn't check if they even have one)?

Generally speaking, I can say that the Vatican has many enormously valuable collections. For example they have piles of mint conditionTerra Sigilata plates and bowls stacked up like you would do with your everyday plates in your cupboard. In just about every other museum, just one of those plates in such a condition would be displayed as a prime attraction.

As such, I expect the armor to be genuine and in its original configuration. Mostly because I cannot imagine why they would put something on display that is non-original given the collection they have.

edit
A quick search reveals that the album's title is somewhat misleading: Castel Sant'Angelo is close by, but not in Vatican City. So my above reasoning isn't really valid in this case.

J.B.