I'm hoping to start another discussion about armour.

Attached are three different armours.

What can you tell me about them? How would you identify them? What are each called? What similar examples of each can you find in period art or surviving samples?

A close-up of the first one (on the left) is included with more detail.

Museum info is included under each one.

Thank you.

---

 Attachment: 98.88 KB

Three armours

 Attachment: 44.15 KB

Armour closeup

Nathan,

Number one looks to be wearing more or less full plate arms and legs except his greaves may be shynbalds and the rerebraces may only cover the outside of his arms. He likely is in a Coat of Plate but could be a solid breastplate undefined. He wears a bascinet.

Two is about the same but looks like he has fully encompassing armour for his limbs. His torso armour looks more defined than one but hard to tell.

Three is about the same but has a breastplate on, the medial ridge is fairly clear.

They all have at least one chain on there torso defence, all have what looks like hourglass gauntlets, some with fingers. Also all wear bascinets. They all seem to have mail skirts (perhaps not 3) but the 3rd has a coat of plate style skirt.

RPM

I had a chance to look at no 1.......he appears to be wearing a maille hauberk with an unusual shaped edge which is pointed in the middle. After blowing it up, I could see that to me he appears to have a solid fabric-covered breastplate which has three chains...one for the sword, one for the dagger and the third has a toggle on the end, which I assume, would have slipped through a ring on his shield. I know it was fabric covered because you can see the ornate and unusual dagged edge which continues and hangs just below the belt. He also appears ( after twinking the image-contrast and brightness) to have rather ornate Jack-Chains over the long sleeves ( easier to see on the right of the pic) The sleeves seem to suggest a padded Gambeson with vertical stripped padding-seams worn over the haberk. Under the maille coif hangs the edge of a matching dagged edge of a coif-lining. There also seems to be some sort of lower vambrace section near the gauntlets.
Its very late here right now, but I have done some close-ups if anyone wants to see them.
Tomorrow I'll check out the other two...........very interresting !

Cheers.

Thank you for the responses so far.

Here is another view of the first image.

---

 Attachment: 96.65 KB

The pointed hauberk/haubergeon on #1 is actually not that uncommon, especially on German brasses. Several effigies/brasses in this book ( http://www.myArmoury.com/books/item.php?ASIN=048643740X ) show them. I imagine they'd offer a little extra protection to sensitive places, especially when mounted.

The "jackchains" on #1 are really just rudimentary plate arm defenses, not really the later arms defenses we call "jack-chains." His vambraces look to be splinted.

To me, it looks like good olde transitional harnesses, with various stages of development. :) Cool stuff, for sure.

Very Interesting topic. Thought you may be Interested to see a Item I found some years ago when out metal detecting.
Doing some research I found an article about an area were said may have been used jousting, I searhed a very large area and over a couple of years found many hammered silved coinage from the 13th- 14th century but no Items of armour buckles etc but did find the enclosed picture of a mount I found. I took this to the Museum and after waiting was told It was a " Mount off a knights belt " ( compare with other pic`s ) I have a museum write up on It but at the moment cant find It, It was named The Litterbourne Belt Mount.
Difficult to see on the picture but there Is remains of enamel and gold guilding.
It is made of bronze, 2 inches diameter.
Thanks Tony.

---

 Attachment: 108.43 KB



 Attachment: 117.27 KB



 Attachment: 29.11 KB

Tony,

Thats pretty cool. It is always fun to find these connections with arch objects and contemporary accounts

RPM

Hello all!

Nathan,

I talked about some similar effigies in the thread on "studded and splinted' armour. If your asking what to call the strange limb protections, that's what I've always heard it called. Many of these effigies are depicted in line drawings in J.H. Hefner-Alteneck's Medieval Arms and Armor: A Pictorial Archive. Most historians believe that the "studded and splinted" or "splinted" armours were made with metal strips attached to a backing material, although there is a debate about whether or not there were strips on the inside as well.

I had also mentioned an effigy with the "rudimentary" plates laced on the limbs in that same thread.

Thanks for the photos! I have seen a couple of these in small photos, but some I've just seen in drawings. It's always nice to see larger photos; you can see the details better!

(You must have known I couldn't resist this thread!)

I found the thread about studded and splinted armour where I mentioned other German effigies with similar armour styles (sorry, no pictures). Here's the link:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8072

Stay safe!

Hello again!

This is what Hefner-Alteneck said about Gotfried, Count of Arensberg. Take the info with a grain of salt, since Hefner-Altenenck was a nineteenth-century historian, but I'm presenting this information as-is because something useful may be gleaned from it:

J.H. Hefner-Alteneck wrote:

Gottfried, Count of Arensberg d. 1370 Burial monument. The knight's leather surcoat shows the Arensberg coat of arms, an eagle. Iron strips have been added to reinforce the mail of the upper arm as well as the lower leg. On the upper arm, the strips are attached to the mail with small straps, which can be seen under B. Armour for the back of the legs is made of leather and can be seen at D, along with an iron poleyn that protects the knee. Arensberg's surcoat has three chains for attaching a great helm, dagger, and sword. C shows a portion of the belt with a sword strap wrapped around it. shows the manner in which the aventail is attached to the helmet. E and F show the right heel with spurs, pictured from both sides.

Sorry again about not being able to post the pictures (my scanner has annoying limitations), but this gives you the basics of how Hefner-Alteneck interpreted the armour. I think the artist just cut corners and didn't sculpt the mail on the backs of the leg, since the backs of the legs appear smooth. I don't think Hefner-alteneck's interpretation of leather on the backs of the legs is accurate. I also see no reason to suspect that the surcoat is leather, it was more likely cloth. The arms are attached with laces, or "points", not straps. Still, his drawing was very accurate (it matches the photo Nathan posted).

Hello again!

The effigy of Dieter von Hohenberg (d. 1381) from Burg Homberg, Bavaria, Germany, as seen in a photo in Vesey Norman's Arms and Armour, has armour similar to that in the effigy shown in the third photo (von Berlichingen ?) that Nathan posted. The armours are almost identical; the effigies may have been made by the same artist. Von Hohenberg has a medial ridge in the breast plate, although perhaps not as pronounced. Also, his helm is smaller, and the plaques on his belt are squre-shaped, not circular. Otherwise, the effigies are remarkably similar.

I hope this helps a little!

Stay safe!

Hello again!

I believe I mentioned the effigy of the Margrave Rudolph IV of Baden-Durlach in the thread about "studded and splinted armour", but I'll mention him again here since he is shown with rudimentary plates on his arms like those shown on the effigy of Gottfried, Count of Arensberg. The effigy of Margrave Rudolph IV is shown in a photo in Stephen Turnbull's Osprey book Campaign 122: Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights. Here is what the caption says:

Stephen Turnbull wrote:

Effigy of Margrave Rudolph IV of Baden-Durlach, who died in 1348, in Lichtental, Germany. His armour is contemporary with the period when the Lithuanian Crusade was at its height.

The effigy of Margrave Rudolph has small plates over the mail on the forearms as well as the upper arms, unlike that of the Count of Arsenberg, who has "studded and splinted" armour on the forearms. It's hard to determine how the plates were attached on the Margrave's hauberk sleeves, but they are attached to simple disk-shaped couters as well as a "shell-shaped" plate at the shoulders. Presumably they were laced or otherwise affixed to the mail. Each narrow plate, which only covers a bit of the outside of the arm, has a raised medial ridge. They weren't really "jack chains", but they are reminiscent of those humbler defences, and must have functioned in a similar fashion.

Unlike that of the Count of Arensberg, the Margrave's effigy shows no visible signs of plate over the shins, but the sharp ridge down the leg suggests that plates may have been worn under the mail chausses. Of course, it might just be "artistic license", but many of these effigies seem very realistic.

I hope this helped!

Stay safe!

Hello again!

Some Italian effigies display a similar style of 14th century "transitional" armour with "studded and splinted" elements. The Italian examples often show more decoration than their German counterparts, but there are similarities. Many of these knights were actually Germans in Italian service. The Italian effigies are also slightly earlier than many of the comparable German ones. It seems to have appeared in Italy first, then became popular in Germany during the second half of the 14th century.

Many of these are shown in drawings in David Nicolle's Arms & Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350 Western Europe and the Crusader States. Unfortunately the drawings lack detail, but some are seen in photos in other works.

One of the most decorative armours is seen on the effigy of Lorenzo Acciaioli, who died in 1353. Ewart Oakeshott's Sword in Hand has a nice photo of this effigy. Lorenzo's forearms are protected by "studded and splinted" armour similar to that seen on the von Arensberg effigy. On Lorenzo's effigy the rows of vertical "splints" are interspersed with rows of "studs" (or rivets, I don't want to enter into another debate about verbiage here, Charles Henry Ashdown called this armour "studded and splinted" armour, while David Nicolle calls it "splinted" armour, Oakeshott called them "splints", and Christopher Gravett calls this armour "stud-and-splint"). The sleeves of the haubergeon come down to just below the elbow, covering the end of the vambraces. Lorenzo's thighs are protected by either splinted cuisses (Nicolle's interpretation) or gamboised cuishes reinforced with splints (Oakeshott's interpretation). The knees are protected by poleyns in the shape of lion's heads, and the shins by elaborately carved, embossed, or tooled (depending upon the material depicted) greaves. (Oakeshott thought the greaves were metal, while Nicolle interpreted them as tooled leather; they could be either one.)

The tomb slabs of Filippo dei Desideri, of circa 1315, both show some features in common with the later German effigies. This knight obviously wears an earlier style of armour, but does show traces of the rivets of splinted vambraces on his forearms. In this case it is worn with three-quarter length haubergeon sleeves. This knight's greaves may be leather, since they seem to show traces of laces.

The effigy of Burkhard von Steinberg, who died in 1397, shows "studded and splinted" vambraces worn with couters with a small fan. Von Steinberg wears greaves made of separate plates attached together with straps, and a breastplate of beaten metal (not quite a "muscle cuirass") with a medial ridge. A laminated fauld hangs down from the front of the breastplate. Unusually, the knight is depicted wearing a cloak over the armour, a rare feature. This is seen in a photo in Christopher Gravett's Men-at-Arms 166: German Medieval Armies 1300-1500. (In the caption, the author states that the "forearms are guarded by stud and splint armour of metal strips attached to leather and reinforced with rivets, which was very popular in Germany and was presumably cheap to produce".)

On the other end of the spectrum, the effigy of Kunz von Haberkorn of 1421 shows a later example of rerebraces laced to an undergarment, this time apparently to a robe or tunic with flowing sleeves worn over the mail haubergeon. The rerebraces cover more of the arm than the rudimentary plates on the von Arsenberg effigy, but they attach in a similar way. The von Haberkorn effigy shows some other interesting and unusual features, including a scale skirt worn over the skirt of the haubergeon. A photo of this effigy can be seen in Vesey Norman's Arms and Armour.

I hope these effigies weren't too far off topic; they aren't exactly the same, but seem to show the "evolution" of this style of armour. It seems to be predominately a German style, but can be seen on a few English brasses (although in a somewhat different form - some English brasses show armour pieces made in a similar "splinted" fashion).

Stay safe!

Merv, I've seen the Arensberg effigy and the mail sleeves are not quite at the same level as the lower cannons. It looked to me like the artist wanted to show the sleeves as tight but pulled over the cannons. Hefner-Altenek might have thought the 'coat of arms' needed to be leather to help explain the trefoil ornaments around the edges. I too think it most likely was textile, but something is certainly going on there.

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that is all appears to be "transition era" armour. I suspect all of them have mail underneath partial plate and are early 14th century. The rounded great helm fits this era as well. Without color, the photographs are pretty hard to judge.

Hello all!

I don't know if this will help much with interpreting the effigies, but there is at least one figure in the Romance of Alexander in the Bodleian Library with splint cuisses that are colored grey, apparently in a attempt to represent metal. I think it's a reasonable assumption to consider the splints to be metal, probably iron or steel. There are also a couple of Hungarian manuscript images that show greaves coloured brown with gold dots, possibly leather with gilt rivets or "studs". (Or, alternatively, fabric, or, perhaps just a way to differentiate the main subject of the picture from the others. Again, the "fun" of interpreting period art!) Here's the link from the previous "Cuir Bouilli Quandary" thread where I posted the Hungarian manuscript images:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8011

Fabric was often cut into elaborate dags on civilian clothing in the 14th century, the same period as von Arensberg's "jupon". This could sometimes be found on military garments as well. I believe it was a sign of wealth. Hefner-Alteneck described too much as leather; he saw leather in many garments. I don't always accept his interpretations, but his drawings were very good. However, I do believe leather was a likely component in "splinted armour", perhaps as the main protective material, which was merely reinforced with strips of metal (similar to the concept of the rudimentary plates on von Arensburg's arms - see the previous thread about "studded and splinted" armour for more information). Leather alone was considered an adequate defence for the limbs earlier, so there could be a sort of progression from "cuir bouilli" or "leather" greaves or vambraces to "splinted"greaves or vambraces.

Richard,

I have heard studded and splinted or stud and splint, I just call them splinted as the studs just keep the splints there in place

I had never heard the debate there were not splints inside the clearly rivetted outside pieces of armour before. I can only assume that if there are rivets outside there are splints inside, just like Coat of plates, brigandines and other armour of this type. I would think if someone is assuming there is not plated inside due to the fact they cannot see it (as it is inside)or something that is not very valid considering the previously mentioned items are known too have had metal underneath but in all art they are unseen. Our ancestors would not have wasted hundreds of rivets just to do so. Even the solid fabric covered breastplates with rivet designs need those rivets to hold the fabric in place.

On Lorenzo Acciaioli's armour I assumed they had a double layered defence. I made one before and it worked quite well. I made the inside splints a tad bigger than the outside ones. They are amazingly absorbitive to impacts as well though I used leather backing. Careful with Nicolle everything he thinks is decorative is tooled leather. It si not that hard to see it could be lattenwork on much of these items which as we can see from much existant 14th century armour was not uncommon.

Margrave Rudolph's effigy does seem to indicate somethign worn under chausses as well. Let me see if I can dig up a picture.

As far as leather being used as the main supporting covering. You are totally right!!! In London in the first half of the 14th many times laws were enacted to make sure the leather was quality 'Or with little use it would not suppport the plates'. It is listed in the London Letter Books if you would like a better read. The original is anglo-norman though. They also make laws prohibiting the use of foreign leather as it appears they considered it weaker.

Good information being brought up!

RPM.

Hello all!

Randall Moffett wrote:

Our ancestors would not have wasted hundreds of rivets just to do so. Even the solid fabric covered breastplates with rivet designs need those rivets to hold the fabric in place.

Randall,

I strongly disagree with this statement about what our ancestors may or may not have done. The knightly effigies are extravagant displays by wealthy individuals who wished to have a monument to themselves for all time. Medieval aristocrats flaunted their position, and their clothing and armour served as a very visible display of their wealth. The use of metal for decorative purposes was one way they displayed their wealth and position.

I have seen many, many period images of studded belts. These were obviously leather girdles decorated with metal rivets, studs, disks, bars, or various other metallic additions. Sometimes, as with the bars, the metallic pieces served a functional purpose as stiffeners, but many times the "studs" seem to have been purely decorative. If our ancestors wasted so much metallic material in decorating their leather belts, why not their armour as well?

I can list a few instances of "studded belts" worn with armour from period art that appear in drawings in Medieval Costume, Armour, and Weapons by Eduard Wagner, Zoroslav Drobna, and Jan Durdik. I know they are "artist's interpretations", but they are based right off the manuscript and period art images, and it's a convenient source for me to use at the moment. Here's the list:

-St. Wenceslas, from the Mulhouse altar-piece 1385. The belt sports a central row of round studs or disks, and a row of smaller spots on the edges.

-Youth with a banner, fol. 53 from Libri XX de anatomia. The youth wears a girdle around his waist with a single central row of round spots, and holts a sheathed sword with a sword belt wrapped around it in a similar fashion.

-A mercenary soldier from the Rajhrad altar piece about 1420. The soldiers belt sports flower-shaped disks interspersed with smaller lozenges.

-A sheathed sword with the belt wrapped about it (no source given). The belt is decorated in the same fashion as that shown on the figure of the youth with a banner.

-Two German knights from the early 15th century Zeischrift fur historische Waffenkunde. Their sword belts are also decorated with a single row of round disks or spots.

-The knight from the tomb of Du Guesclin (1360-1410). What may be the shield's guige strap sports what appear to be round disks rivetted on, in a single row.

There are also some civilian belts decorated in similar fashion from the same source:

-On the plate with a figure from a tympanum in the Tyn Church in Prague, there are shown details from civilian girdles. One is decorated with a series of small studs or rivets arranged in almost an "arrow-head" or sideways chevron design. Other girdles show rosette or trefoil plaques interspersed with pairs of "studs" or small spots.

None of these are the "belt of plaques" so popular in the late 14th century; there are many "belts of plaques" depicted in figures in the same source, and they are obviously made up of plaques. They are clearly different from the "studded belts". Furthermore, must we assume that, since the belts show studs or rivets (sometimes large, sometimes small) that the rivets must have held plates to the back of the belt because they must have done that? Of course not, that's ridiculous!

The fact that there were "nail decorated" garments that may or may not have been considered armour in use in Asia is further proof that men of means could indeed use metallic elements for decoration and not purely function. Many of these garments are highly decorated with nails, but the nails don't hold plates beneath the fabric. The most the nails might function as is to hold the layers of fabric together. I made the argument in a previous thread that roughly similar garments may have been in use in early 14th century England based on a possible interpretation of some of the knightly brasses of that period. Our ancestors did indeed "waste" hundreds of rivets in such a fashion.

I also made the argument previously that the majority of the "splinted" armours (that seen on many of the German effigies as well as a couple English brasses) show no signs of "plates beneath". There appears to be no concrete evidence that the majority of these armours had "splints" beneath as well as above; no trace of rivets or other signs of attachment. Therefore, so I argued already, I see no real reason to speculate that the rivets shown on a minority of these armours are necessarily holding anything beneath the backing material. I further argued that in at least one case, that of von Scharzberg, the "studs" are actually more like disks, that just about touch each other and the adjacent splints (back to the analogy of the decorated belts). I feel that further metal beneath is unnecessary.

I have stated many times before that I have read volumes about this stuff. I am not really reaching my own conclusions, I am just restating the conclusions reached by several authors that have written works in the field of arms and armour. Personally, I find no reason to outright reject their conclusions. Yes, David Nicolle does tend to overdo the "tooled leather" interpretation, but did you ever stop to think he may be doing this because there is at least one existing example of tooled leather armour (a rerebrace) that appears similar to what is shown in period art? Have you ever considered that he has read, and mentioned in several of his books, that leather armour was indeed used as limb protection in the 14th century? (There is an armorial treatise from the early 14th century, now in the British Library, that mentions plates of stell or cuir bouilli used to protect the thighs, calves, and knees, and I previously posted a few images from manuscripts that probably show leather greaves in use.) However, Nicolle is not alone in his interpretation of "studded and splinted" armour; Christopher Gravett interprets it the same way, as did earlier authors such as Charles Henry Ashdown and J.H. Hefner-Alteneck.

I have also argued that I believe that the leather was the primary defensive material in these "studded and splinted" armours, and that the splints were just secondary reinforcements. There are a few instances in period art (such as the effigy of Duke Christopher of Denmark, died 1363, as shown in a photo in Men-at-Arms 399: Medieval Scandinavian Armies (2) 1300-1500 by David Lindholm and David Nicolle, and one of the "Sleeping Guards at the Holy Sepulchre" in Musee de l'Ouvre Notre Dame, Strasbourg, shown in a photo in David Nicolle's Osprey book Crecy 1346) where the splints are very narrow and few and far between, making them less than an ideal defense by themselves. This tells me that the backing material, most likely leather, was the primary defense. There seems to be no need for a plethora of splints as suggested here!

Now, you can attack my sources (which has been done in the past), and you can reach your own conclusions. The only thing I ask for is evidence that clearly shows that splints or plates must be held beneath the backing material in those few examples of "studded and splinted" armour that show rows of studs interspersed with rows of splints. Specualtion is fine, and is necessary in many instances of interpreting this stuff, but let's admit that it is purely speculation. (Yes, my statements are not much more than specualtion; it must be until an exant example of this armour turns up somewhere.) The only place I have ever read a declaration that the rivets must be holding interior plates is here on this forum!

I was told on another thread that I seemed to be looking for "lip service"; let me point out that I will not give "lip service" to the current popular on-line trend in thought regarding certain armour. I will not blindly agree with a blanket statement until I'm shown something positive to persuade me. I welcome an intelligent discussion backed by facts.

I hope this helped to clarify my thoughts on the matter. I have said much of this before on the "studded and splinted armour" thread.

Stay safe!