This appears in my "Color Treasury of Arms and Armour" by Crescent Books. It's labeled simply as "English armour of the early seventeenth century." It looks, to me, like a composite of two different armours: the helmet and arm defences of a cuirassier's harness, and the breastplate and tassets of a pikeman's harness.

Does that seem reasonable? It's either that, or the most complete pikeman's armour I have ever seen.

[ Linked Image ]

Another possibility I would consider is that the armour has exchange pieces and has been configured in an unusual combination. Perhaps there once were partial legs that could be attached in place of the tassets.

But then, you know way more about exchange armour than I do!

I'd assume it's a Victorian addition of pikeman's tassets to an incomplete cuirassier harness. Considering there are virtually no other surviving examples of such pieces of exchange for infantry use, and the fact hat these harnesses were often made with very heavy plate that would be ill-suited for infantry interests, it seems unreasonable to assume this sort of composite mix was done in period...

-Gregory

The cuirass and tassets seem to be part of a set. They are decorated with the same chevronny design, as indeed many Greenwich pikeman's armours are.

The pauldrons and helmet do seem to aesthetically match the rest. They were probably made by the same armourer. Could they possibly have been made for the same person? Was it unheard of for one officer to serve in both infantry and cavalry positions?

Some cuirassier's armours had detachable lower tassets for the reasons mentioned above. So the upper thighs (containing vulnerable arteries) would still be protected. From what I have read, soldiers ditching certain parts of their armor mid-battle or en route to battle was common in the 17th century.

It doesn't make sense for someone wearing 3/4 plate with laminated tassets to take off the tassets during a battle and put on pikeman's tassets for fighting on foot. What I meant when I said they may have been made for the same person was that maybe the wearer fought on horseback in some battles and perhaps on foot in others. It's not totally out of the realm of possibility that someone could have had a garniture for combat made for him in the 17th century.

The simplest and most likely explanation was that it is just a composite of two different armours (though probably of the same manufacture). But it certainly looks interesting.

I do think the cuirass and tassets are original, not repro.

I'd just edited my last post. See the last couple of sentences, Adam. My main argument is that this should not reasonably be classified as a homogeneous harness as shown in that photograph. The idea that it could be a reproduction is mainly targeting that... If you allow it to be part of a garniture, which is rare by this time but as you said, not unheard of, it seems much more reasonable.

-Gregory

The breastplate gives the impression of being cut and shaped totaly wrong for riding, which spoils the garniture theory. It's possible that the fauld from which the tassets hang can be detached but I can't tell from this image.

The possiblities are

1) Part of the set is fake, made to match existing pieces

2) Someone very carefully hunted down pieces that match from the same Armourer's workshop.

Both are common 19th Century collector habits

It's not out of the question that the same person owned all the armour pieces - possibly a wealthy individual who served alternately as a pike officer and in some mounted capacity. I think it's safe to assume that a run of the mill pikeman would have worn a munitions grade armour and not a highly decorated one such as depicted; therefore the owner was a man of considerable means.

Fighting on horseback may have been the idealized position for a gentleman, but nobles fought on foot as well.

One of my considerations was the use of straps over the shoulders to secure back to breast plate. I can not think of any cuirassier set that does that.

http://www.nigelcarren.co.uk/englishcivilwar-...armour.htm is a reproducation set by Nigel Carren. A crackingly good armourer.

Harquebusier is strapped over the shoulder, but has a different line at the botton of the breastplate

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...uguesa.JPG

Pike armour is cut almost straight across at the bottom. See here

http://www.royalarmouries.org/learning/online...se/pikeman

Enlarge the bottom picture and see how similar it is to this picture

If it was a garniture set, similar to Greenwich examples from the late 16th century I'd expect a breastplate made for sitting on Horses, with bits added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_armour for a rough details

Pikemen wore similar plate arm defenses in the sixteenth century and possibly into the seventeenth. In one of his military manuals, Sir John Smythe specifically allowed halberdiers to replace the pikemen's arm armor with sleeves of mail.

Yep. English armed men, that is to say those with pike, halbard or target were supposed to be armoured with tassets, vambraces, pauldrons and burgonet. By and large they loathed the extra weight and threw it away. By 1592 County officals are requesting permission NOT to buy any armour other than curat, gorget and morrion for levied troops.

he Trained Band orders for the equipment for pike armed men from1605 and onwards order back and breast, gorget, tassets and morrion only.

With that said (and Smythe was a believer in the old school - he also argued for the continued use of the longbow) if a square of pikemen were actually armored in harnesses like the one I have shown, and those made from light steel as opposed to musket-proof like cuirassiers wore, they would be practically unstoppable.

Interesting to see the standard issue of full arm harness as late as the 1590s. I'd assumed that ideal had passed among infantry some time before that. Perhaps I'm out of my element here to begin with, being largely interested in continental armor... These English are weird.

-Gregory

From the photos, there is no reason to think any of the armour is not real. There is also no reason to think that the cuirass belongs with the rest. Stibbert often did not assemble his armours with any real knowledge of what went with what. I recently cleaned a harness that combined heavy cav pauldrons with a very fine infantry cuirass c. 1540 (no lance rest and knee length tassets!).