The photo attached is from The Bayerisches Nationalmuseum. It shows many wonderful things including a few unusual items. Take note of the sword to the left with the circular finger ring and its scabbard to the right with what appears to be a place for by-knives and a cut-out for the finger-ring. Speaking the sword, it's a wondeful example of form similar to Oakeshott's later blade types with the two short fullers. The axe/polearm behind the sword hilt is also interesting as is the shield.

But what I am really curious about is the armour. It appears to be covered in fabric and I was hoping to get a discussion going about it. I'm especially eager to read thoughts as to exactly what it is thought to be.

Thank you.

---

 Attachment: 78.65 KB

Objects from The Bayerisches Nationalmuseum

 Attachment: 44.13 KB

From The Bayerisches Nationalmuseum (close-up)

I am not much of an expert, but it seems to me that many period illustrations lack "white" armour on the torso, and instead have either covered breastplates or brigandines. For example, this one looks like a mix of brigs and covered breastplates to me:


Also included is another actual example of a 14th century Italian velvet covered breastplate I found in a quick search. (pic from http://houseasgard.com/fighting.php )

Gordon

---

 Attachment: 34.37 KB



 Attachment: 47.08 KB

I was of the impression that these covered breast plates were typical of the early 15th cent., often being of two or more parts. I can't recall a source for any of this but the the globose nature of the the breast was standard in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. The Axe/polearm you mentioned I don't think is a polearm at all but rather a hurlbat. That is a small, all metal throwing axe with multiple points. The deep relief on the shield makes me suspect built up plaster on the underlying wood though i've never before heard of such and don't know what such plaster might weigh. I do expect the wood to be ply and believe that it would delaminate with such deep carving but lack any practical experience on the subject.

Nathan,

Fabric covered breastplates are very common in the 14th to 15th. I assume it evolved with the Coat of Plates (or 'plates') and as the plates grew to just be one breastplate the farbic remained. In part this may be that it made the faulds connection easy still. I have some pictures of some in museums. There is also the corrazza in the MET that is a few large plates combined all fabric covered. In part art work is tricky as you have fabirc armour as well as items of fabric worn over armour and you have fabric covered armour to deal with to figure out which one they wear. I assume that they likely were easier and cheaper so likely continued on parallel to full suits for lesser gentry and MAA.

RPM

The description says "breastplate covered with velvet, second part of the 15th century". Seems to be not too uncommon for that time. Hope this helps a bit :)

Aren't those pics of the same breastplate? I mean look at the "holes" in the covering on the left. They're identical on both breastplates.

Thanks for posting that Nathan.

I really like the baselard-sword.
Have not seen that one.
I was only aware of the type from one item at Herman Historica, but that one lacked grip scales.
really good to see a complete example.

I just have to make one of those some time. Next year solingen project perhaps?

---

 Attachment: 7.46 KB



 Attachment: 18.91 KB

Did anyone notice the relative size of the two? The breastplate seems like it was made for a toddler!!! OK, so thats an exageration, but none-the-less... Or, is that sword a three-hander?

This is a pretty piece of armour. I remember seeing a color photograph of it once. . . I want to say it is in the Wisby book, but mine is currently on loan, so I can't check. Red velvet with brass (gold plated?) rivets if memory serves. . .

Don't know if this helps but Valentine armouries makes a velvet covered breast plate and maybe they could tell us about any sources they used as inspiration.

http://www.varmouries.com/tran_06.html

Oh, that sword looks interesting and I agree it is either very large or the breast plate is very small.

The only other possibility is a perspective visual illusion caused by the sword being closer to the camera or the breast plate further away than initially assumed.

I wonder if the date placed on it is accurate and has not changed. I have abook with an identical breastplate and it is late 14th. Usually by the late 15th the faulds are attached to themselves whether covered or not. In this it is clearly attached to the fabric. Also looks like the pics are at least sixty to seventy years old so I guess alot has happened since then.

RPM

globose breastplates stop shortly after teh rib cage area. thats tehy way they were made. this is a good representation of a late 14thc breastplate. its not late 15th cause the style is wrong. almost all bb were 2 piece by then. also in 15thc there are laws about covereing armour with fabric to hide shotty workmanship. the bb at the met is sorta a reconstruction and its made wrong at that. the faulds are done incorrectly. this one (nathan's picture) is how theyshould look. they move very nicely

also as to the size of armour. a lot of what we have left is childrens armour. of nobles, princes etc. this is due to adult armour being used and abused and reused in the next decades.