arm and leg armour
Is there a name for the armour that protects the arm? I know each piece has it's own name (vambrace, rerebrace, etc) but is there a name used for all the pieces together? Also, is there a name for the armour that protects the leg? Sorry if this is confusing but it's kind of difficult to describe what I'm looking for.


Last edited by Michael Edwards on Mon 18 Jun, 2007 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Michael,

Most scholars don't use the terms the way you list them. Typically the entire arm harness is called a "vambrace", which consists of a lower cannon, a couter and an upper cannon. The shoulder is then protected by a pauldron.

The leg harness (which Blair and others use as a single word: "legharness") consists of the cuisse to protect the thigh, the poleyn to protect the knee, the greave to protect the lower leg and the sabaton to protect the foot. There are other terms that apply in some sources, such as "jamber" for greave ("jamber" comes from the French "jambe", meaning leg), but these are pretty common terms.

If you have any specific questions about these things I'd be happy to try to help.
Hugh Knight wrote:
Michael,

Most scholars don't use the terms the way you list them. Typically the entire arm harness is called a "vambrace", which consists of a lower cannon, a couter and an upper cannon. The shoulder is then protected by a pauldron.



Hmm. Interesting - I've only ever heard of the term vambrace in reference to the lower arm or cannon. It's derived from the French "avant bras," which when bastardised, comes out "vambrace." I looked it up, and it seems rather universal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vambrace
http://www.answers.com/topic/vambrace
http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Vambrace

From Webster's unabridged dictionary:
http://dict.die.net/vambrace/

Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861733577/vambrace.html

And finally, Chronique:
http://www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/g...m#vambrace

Perhaps modern usage has changed it somewhat, or rather we use it as a diminutive, instead of going for the more ubiquitous term "arm harness" which is boring and not quite so exotic-sounding! :)

Cheers,
Jason
Jason G. Smith wrote:


Hmm. Interesting - I've only ever heard of the term vambrace in reference to the lower arm or cannon. It's derived from the French "avant bras," which when bastardised, comes out "vambrace." I looked it up, and it seems rather universal:

<snip>

Perhaps modern usage has changed it somewhat, or rather we use it as a diminutive, instead of going for the more ubiquitous term "arm harness" which is boring and not quite so exotic-sounding! :)


The internet is full of sloppy information. The term "vambrace" is often used to refer to the lower cannon when a full arm harness isn't worn, but most serious works I've read are careful to use the lexicology I listed. For example, on p. 80 of Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight by Edge & Paddock, Paddock writes:
"Italian arm harness, as represented by the armor preserved at Churburg, consisted of a short gutter-shaped upper cannon riveted to laminated couters and lower cannons of a tulip form."

Blair uses the same lexicology:
"The construction of the vambraces changed very little throughout the greater part of the 15th century. By c. 1430 the short, open upper cannons had become longer and their upper halves had been extended round until they almost completely enclosed the arms. At the same time the side wing on the right couter was enlarged and drawn out in a truncated point of V section halfway over the inside of the elbow joint so as to guard the tendon. ... The subsequent development of the 15th-century vambrace calls for little comment. After c. 1450 the lower cannons gradually became less 'tulip'-shaped and at the same time tended to lose the stop-ribs attached below the couters." (Blair, C., European Armor, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1972, p.83)

There is a great deal of confusion about armor lexicology even among professionals. 'Vambrace' is still used for forearm armor when it stands alone, but the way the term is used by reenactors seems clearly to be at odds with professional armor scholars. Many other terms suffer from the same misapplication; for example, the commonly-used term 'demi-greave' used to refer to the bottom lame of an articulated poleyn is not used by scholars, and that term comes closest to the term 'half greave' used to refer to front greaves of the early 14th century and earlier, and the term 'schynbalde' which refers to a simpler gutter-shaped form of half greave, is another confusing term.
Actually vambrace is used in both ways in medieval texts. It can denote full harness, even the shoulder at times, and it can just be the lower cannon. York Inventories use the term vambrace for both as I believe the happens in a few inventories in London but I could not verify it for both at this time. Rerebrace is actually a fairly common term for just the upper arm. Check out the Nesle inventory for one of the earliest uses, 1302. (check out nesle's inventory for demi-greaves as well which Huge noted is a half greave that covers the front alone not the large plate on the poleyn's bottom, this might have evolved from the 16th/17th century where legs ditch the greaves, I think I remember the term demigreave to mean greave-less leg harness but cannot find an example to use).

From what I can tell cannons is a modern term used for clarification. I have never seen cannon used in medieval text. It likely is used as the medieval term is not definite whereas upper and lower cannon are fairly clear in english.

Let me just clarify scholarship. It is either trying to define medieval terms to make them clearer or making their own terms to do the same for Modern Audiences. Blair does both and often in his articles and books. Usually he will define how it will be used by him and give ways in which historically it was used for comparison, the aketon/ gambeson being a clear example. SO you could use vambrace as the lower part of an arm harness, rerebrace as the upper and couter as the elbow covering legitimately. I would recommend for clarity, explaining it to a person or writing something to be clear how you intend to use the term if it will be used often. There are all sorts of terms that mean similar things Jamber, Schynbald demi-greave and in many cases could be the same item just named different by a different person or at times even the same person in medieval text so a straight across use of the term at times is confusing at best.

RPM[/i]
Randall Moffett wrote:
Actually vambrace is used in both ways in medieval texts. It can denote full harness, even the shoulder at times, and it can just be the lower cannon. York Inventories use the term vambrace for both as I believe the happens in a few inventories in London but I could not verify it for both at this time. Rerebrace is actually a fairly common term for just the upper arm. Check out the Nesle inventory for one of the earliest uses, 1302. (check out nesle's inventory for demi-greaves as well which Huge noted is a half greave that covers the front alone not the large plate on the poleyn's bottom, this might have evolved from the 16th/17th century where legs ditch the greaves, I think I remember the term demigreave to mean greave-less leg harness but cannot find an example to use).

From what I can tell cannons is a modern term used for clarification. I have never seen cannon used in medieval text. It likely is used as the medieval term is not definite whereas upper and lower cannon are fairly clear in english.


The problem with working hard to use terms from the medieval period is that they are often vague, contradictory or insufficiently precise; for example, the correct term for a bascinet with a flat-faced-style visor and one with a pointy visor during the middle ages was simple 'bascinet with visor or visored bascinet'. That's too vague for us, looking back. So the upper and lower cannons with couter terminology are modern terms, true, but they're more useful, and, I think, more widely used.

Quote:
Let me just clarify scholarship. It is either trying to define medieval terms to make them clearer or making their own terms to do the same for Modern Audiences. Blair does both and often in his articles and books. Usually he will define how it will be used by him and give ways in which historically it was used for comparison, the aketon/ gambeson being a clear example. SO you could use vambrace as the lower part of an arm harness, rerebrace as the upper and couter as the elbow covering legitimately. I would recommend for clarity, explaining it to a person or writing something to be clear how you intend to use the term if it will be used often. There are all sorts of terms that mean similar things Jamber, Schynbald demi-greave and in many cases could be the same item just named different by a different person or at times even the same person in medieval text so a straight across use of the term at times is confusing at best.


I think you'll find that the majority of sources use the terms vambrace and rerebrace only when referring to disconnected pieces, not to complete arm harnesses. Paddock uses lower cannon and couter even when referring to the Chartres arm harness that belonged to Charles VI--and that piece isn't even articulated (see Edge & Paddock p. 81).
Hugh,

I completely agree that medieval terms are often confusing or muddled in what they are. That was my entire point. The issue is that we should not discount terms that were in use.

It is I would say more common in some places in modern scholarship for sure. As I said before it seems cannon to be a modern term used for clarity by people who wish to use it but by no means universal in modern academic circles. If one needs to have such a rigid term for it to properly understand it that is fine but in my experience does not help in the least in doing research on them so. I have colleagues in a number of museums and have never had a problem using the term rerebrace or vambrace in this way. If one finds it helpful to them that is fine but I do not think one term usage should be seen as correct over another.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
I completely agree that medieval terms are often confusing or muddled in what they are. That was my entire point. The issue is that we should not discount terms that were in use.


I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just trying to amplify what you said. At the same time, I do think more precision is called for and I know that a number of scholars prefer historical terms for things even at the expense of clarity.

Quote:
It is I would say more common in some places in modern scholarship for sure. As I said before it seems cannon to be a modern term used for clarity by people who wish to use it but by no means universal in modern academic circles. If one needs to have such a rigid term for it to properly understand it that is fine but in my experience does not help in the least in doing research on them so. I have colleagues in a number of museums and have never had a problem using the term rerebrace or vambrace in this way. If one finds it helpful to them that is fine but I do not think one term usage should be seen as correct over another.


You probably have more such contacts than I, so I'll stand corrected if those terms are used as you say by your museum collegues. I can only say that I have been corrected (more than once) by professionals, including by Bob Carrol when he was the armorer at the Met, for using the terms separately. Moreover, all of the academic books (by which I mean those not written by folks in the reenactment community) I've read use Vambrace to refer to the entire arm harness. The list includes the two sources I've already cited, plus Toby Capwell in his new book on the Glasgow collection called The Real Fighting Stuff (p. 38), and Oakeshott in The Archeology of Weapons where he says: "At first the plates for the forearm were called Vambraces (Avant Bras) and those for the upper arm Rerebraces, but very soon we find the whole harness for the arm is being called a Vambrace." (p. 285). Likewise, in the 1984 edition of the Wallace Collection Catalog (vol. 1 Armour) by Sir James Mann we read of item A64, a pauldron and right arm which is described as: "The vambrace consists of upper cannon, elbow with heart-shaped wing, and lower cannon closed by a hinge and pin." (p. 86). Another source would be Boccia in his article Ancient Italian Pieces in the Kienbusch Collection published in Studies in European Arms and Armor (The Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1992); on p. 54 he says: "The right vambrace has a tapered upper-arm cannon ... The elbow guard (OK, so he doesn't say "couter") is formed from four plates ... The lower-arm cannon turns inside the elbow guard..."

And that's just the books I happened to have in immediate reach.
Hugh,

That is the issue though. Is it wrong or right to discount the terms used by the men in period for those chosen by men who are out of the era in question? I am familiar with the sources you cited and others. So what (I mean this in a rethorical way)? It really does not matter what terms we apply now to them or their equipment. They used the terms then and that is how it is. Reading the primary sources to get a feel for how the terms are used to me being the better teacher. That is how Mann, Maeryk, Blair and others gained (I suppose) their understanding. I never disputed vambrace often is used both now and historically as a full harness nor that cannons is a common term in academia. My issue is that vambrace is not as rigid a term as you were alluding and second that cannon is a ahistoric word made modernly to define an artifact part. It could have been named anything- top tube and bottom tube if the writer wished. The scholars you addressed in their books NEVER state that rerebrace and vambrace should not be used for those items why should we?

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
That is the issue though. Is it wrong or right to discount the terms used by the men in period for those chosen by men who are out of the era in question? I am familiar with the sources you cited and others. So what (I mean this in a rethorical way)? It really does not matter what terms we apply now to them or their equipment. They used the terms then and that is how it is. Reading the primary sources to get a feel for how the terms are used to me being the better teacher. That is how Mann, Maeryk, Blair and others gained (I suppose) their understanding. I never disputed vambrace often is used both now and historically as a full harness nor that cannons is a common term in academia. My issue is that vambrace is not as rigid a term as you were alluding and second that cannon is a ahistoric word made modernly to define an artifact part. It could have been named anything- top tube and bottom tube if the writer wished. The scholars you addressed in their books NEVER state that rerebrace and vambrace should not be used for those items why should we?


Hi Randall,

You make good points. As to the medieval terminology, I see value in using it if and only if it is sufficiently clear and precise to allow us to avoid mistakes. Thus, while Blair tells us that the word 'gambeson' was sometimes used in period for the padded garment worn under a hauberk, I submit that this usage is confusing and unhelpful to a modern scholar and that the more widely-used word 'aketon' is a better term for that garment and that 'gambeson' should be used for a garment worn over the hauberk (as it seems *mostly* to have been) just as Blair himself does. Likewise, in period many knights would call their protective headgear a 'helm', and yet we need to be able to distinguish between a wide variety of helmets with a more precise lexicology. In this case, using vambrace and rerebrace separately to refer to disconnected pieces of limb armor and vambrace to refer to a complete arm harness simply makes more sense to me and is, as my citations demonstrated, more in keeping with current academic usage. That last point isn't meant to imply any special value inherent in common academic usage, it simply indicates the potential for more widespread understanding of what you're saying.

Some people might call swords "sharp pointy things", I suppose, or even "choppers", and if they write detailed explanations of what they mean they will probably be understood. For my part, however, to avoid confusion, I call them swords.

Do any of the authors I cited tell us *not* to use the separate terms? I believe that's the implication of what Oakeshott wrote, but in general, no; nor do they tell us not to call a couter a poleyn, but I think the importance of not doing so should be obvious. We have to assume they used terminology they felt was accurate and we would do well, I think, to emulate them. The original poster didn't ask "what could we call those parts", he asked if there was a name for the arm and leg harnesses, and all I can give him is what the top scholars in the field use.
Hugh,

That basically is my point. Scholars will define how they use a term. I did the same thing when speaking of men at arms, hobelars, armed men and archers. You dredge up all you can on each, present the best estimate you can on them and state how YOU will define them. It then becomes your own definition. You of course then go into previous uses by other scholars but you can do as you will. (Harder types of soliders are horsemen which mostly seem to be Men at arms but seem to be other troops at times as well.) I had to do it when I spoke on all sorts of odd historic terms like carlisle axe. It is not an exact science but the best one can do.

Michael can use these terms. He legitimately can and should if he so pleases. They are correct and none of the top scholars could dispute it, nor from those I know would. That is why they do not state (or imply in my opinion) you should avoid their use. The top scholars only use their choices out of simplicity and complacency with them. That is what we all do. Historically couter never means poleyn or vise versa so there is reason to use it so. For rerebrace and vambrace it was used so.

I would have to reread Oakeshott but I do not think what he said is specific enough to avoid using rerebrace in general in our time. He might be speaking of trends in usage that it might decline but so does vambrace for plates after 1500 which 100's of years before was not an arm harness but a COP. Even in the late 15th you can find rerebrace/vambrace used, example a german (I almost used gothic but that might not be true) part of an arm harness. I do not think people using rerebrace or vambrace would cause any confusion at all. Exactly like Blair's clarification with aketon/gambeson. Define how you use it and you're golden.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
Hugh,

That basically is my point. Scholars will define how they use a term. I did the same thing when speaking of men at arms, hobelars, armed men and archers. You dredge up all you can on each, present the best estimate you can on them and state how YOU will define them. It then becomes your own definition. You of course then go into previous uses by other scholars but you can do as you will. (Harder types of soliders are horsemen which mostly seem to be Men at arms but seem to be other troops at times as well.) I had to do it when I spoke on all sorts of odd historic terms like carlisle axe. It is not an exact science but the best one can do.

Michael can use these terms. He legitimately can and should if he so pleases. They are correct and none of the top scholars could dispute it, nor from those I know would. That is why they do not state (or imply in my opinion) you should avoid their use. The top scholars only use their choices out of simplicity and complacency with them. That is what we all do. Historically couter never means poleyn or vise versa so there is reason to use it so. For rerebrace and vambrace it was used so.

I would have to reread Oakeshott but I do not think what he said is specific enough to avoid using rerebrace in general in our time. He might be speaking of trends in usage that it might decline but so does vambrace for plates after 1500 which 100's of years before was not an arm harness but a COP. Even in the late 15th you can find rerebrace/vambrace used, example a german (I almost used gothic but that might not be true) part of an arm harness. I do not think people using rerebrace or vambrace would cause any confusion at all. Exactly like Blair's clarification with aketon/gambeson. Define how you use it and you're golden.


Hi Randall,

I understand what you're saying, I just see more value in a standardized lexicology, and to me it makes sense to use the terms in wide use by the top scholars in the field (not that their terminology has *inherently* more value, it's just a useful standard to go by). We'll just have to agree to disagree about how important that is, and you're certainly right that many things have no such clearly-defined agreement as I've cited in this case.

Page 1 of 1

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum