[Alan Williams]

Hi there,
Having just returned from a road trip to the battlefields of France I am very interested in the French and English knight transitional armour of the 100 years war, particularly the Crecy, Poitiers Agincourt period 1346-1415.
The breast plate of this period seems to be a bit of a mystery as it is usually covered. Was the Churburg type 18 and type 13 style of body armour in use throughout this period?
The museum in Agincourt has displays of both.type of breast plate. There is a full size display of Guillaume de Martelle on a horse wearing what looks like a 2 piece type 18 chest armour with fauld strips.This is covered in his loose fitting 3 hammers coat of arms.
The Black Prince and Henry V appear to have both worn a type of embroidered brigadine of plates or would they also have had the larger lung covering plate armour and would a chainmail hauberk have been worn beneath this?
I am also interested in obtaining an authentic as possible replica suit of armour, pig face bascinet etc for this period and would appreciate any links to possible suppliers.
So many questions…………Hope you can help

[Hugh Knight]

Hello Alan,

The period you describe is huge--1337 to 1453 for the entire war--but I gather from the breastplate questions you ask you're primarily interested in the 1380-1415 years. Unfortunately, most of the breastplates until the very end of that period were covered with armorial garments which went a long way toward hiding what they were.

You asked about the Churburg #13 breastplate: There is far too much emphasis on that breastplate among folks interewsted in armor. It was almost unique, with only a few things in pictures even hinting at something similar; and while many breastplates were covered, as I said, it makes little sense to make something so elaborate then cover it. The real breastplate to look at for this period is the Churburg #14, which was, from all the records and iconography, far more common. Leave the Churburg #13 alone as the oddball curiousity it is

You also asked about the Churburg #18: That breastplate, while not far out of date (and certainly within the actual HYW) doesn't appear to have been the norm during the HYW among the French and English who were the primary combatants. The iconography of the beginnings of the "alwhyte" (meaning uncovered plate) period are pretty clear in showing smooth breastplates of the Churburg #14 style with no plackarts (although they did have faulds, as we would expect).

I think, however, that the far more common form of body armor during the period just prior to the alwhyte period (say 1375-1400) was the globose-breasted coat of plates (often called a "corrazina" by folks on the internet for no good reason) of the type depicted in the velvet-covered harness from c. 1390 at the Met in NYC (although that piece is a horrible shambles of a miscontruction--see the related thread on here about that) or the one at the Bayerisches Museum in Germany. While we can't be certain of this, there's strong evidence for it in that a number of plates from similar pieces that have survived. Additionally, if you look at certain effigies of the period, e.g., the Black Prince, from the side the shape of the body sugggests this type of defense to me.

As to whether the Black Prince harness would have been worn over a full haubergeon (don't use the word "chainmail"--there is no such thing) of mail, no one can be certain, but the evidence suggests they were. It's also possible, however, that they were worn with "voiders" of mail: smaller pieces of mail stitched directly to the arming doublet which merely covered gaps in the armor. I have seen evidence for that as early as 1400, and there's no reason it couldn't have been done earlier.

If I've misunderstood you and you're actually interested in the entire Crecy-Agincourt period then you should understand that armor changed drastically during that period. At the beginning the body armor was likely to have been a Wisby or Kussnach-style coat of plates; tubular and relatively unshaped with more and more shape added as the Transitional Period developed.

As for acquiring a harness from that period, how much are you willing to spend? And the specific style of harness you're interested in makes a difference, too: There are a number of armorers who can manage to turn out a rough approximation of Crecy-era armor, but only a scant handful I would even *consider* thinking about for an Agincourt-era harness.

The very best armorer I can suggest is Robert MacPherson; he is simply one of the best in the entire world, especially when it comes to making working armor (i.e., not just to put on a stand, but to be worn and used), something many other top armorers don't pay enough attention to:
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/armory.html

If you can't afford him or can't interest him in your project (he can pick and choose what he wants to work on), you may consider some of these folks:
http://www.thadenarmory.com/
http://www.bestarmour.com/index.htm
http://www.historicenterprises.com/cart.php?m...&c=103
http://www.medievalrepro.com/index.html
http://sl-armours.com/eng/main/main.html
http://www.wassonartistry.com/

But understand that most of these folks are artisans, not businessmen. Buying something like a complete harness is no easy or simple task; you don't just go up to a catalog and buy items off the shelf. The places where you can do that usually sell objects you shouldn't allow in your home, never mind on your body (although one of the armorers above, Jeff Hedgecock, sometimes has stock that can be ordered directly and which is very nice).

[Randall Moffett]

Just to add a little as Hugh basically hit everything.

The coat of plates by 1320 is one of the main bits of armour. This holds on all the way to around 1400 I suspect going throught changes to bigger plates and more form fitted until it is one solid breastplate. I think an everage knight would be in one of these until around 1400ish.

By 1340 solid one piece breastplates appear. By 1350 they are listed in inventories of the upper tiers of society as common war gear. I figure people that are barons etc very likely would be in a breastplate or coat of plates with few plates by this time. The closer to 1400 more likely a average knight would have one as they became more common. Think churburg 14 like hugh said.

Who knows when the back plate on one piece came in but they do not appear in inventories until the first decade of the 15th. Blair thinks they were developed in the 4th quarter of the 14th.

By the early 15th the head to toe suit has arrived but it is likely not all men at arms by agincourt in such a suit. Until 1430's or so one piece breastplates with or without faulds were the most popular. There after two piece ones like churburg 18 appear.

RPM

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Hugh,

I once thought it was true as well - that the segmented construction of the #14 was unique - but I've seen others since. In particular, the Vienna 'Gladiatoria' codex, as well as the Yale copy, have a number of them, and this is even at the late date of c. 1425-30.

That of course doesn't make them 'usual' for France or England, given that the Churburg collection is Italian and German armour, and the above manuscripts are South German.

All the best,

Christian

[Hugh Knight]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Agreed...even though I own one.

C

[Hugh Knight]

[Jared Smith]

I have posted this link before, but think it worth re-posting regarding transition of armour in the 14th century. The attached page takes a few minutes to load in, but gives several examples of "titled Knights" thoughout each decade of the late 12th through the first years of the 15th century. http://www.themcs.org/armour/14th%20century%20armour.htm As most of these are fairly priviledged cases, and the appearance of obvious breast plate is not "the norm" even then, it seems like more complete plate harness with breast plate is more of a 15th century phenomena.

I interpret the effigy of Edward Cerne, died 1393, as a solid metal breast plate, but not of a globose Churburg style. Otherwise, until you reach things depicting beginning 15th century, surcoats (I would assume over mail) appear to be depicted for the vast majority of effigies.

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Jared Smith]

Hugh,

I am not too proud or stubborn on this issue. Many of the prone effigies just appear to have soft textured cloth that is gently draping over the body. The particular one I singled out is very smooth and does not conform to the body, so I interpreted it to be polished metal. Some of the 2-D plate type depictions "looked" debatable to me.

A detectable pinch at the waist line is not absent from the effigy of St. Maurice that is accepted as wearing a coat of plates (maybe is more exaggerated in many of these effigies as you "possibly suggest" and indicative of plate) such that I can not tell for sure that these are not coats of plates or just surcoates. When discussing "Churburg" styles, I expect to see an obvious bulge and thickness at the belly. I could be very mistaken in this expectation, but regardless it seems absent from prone figures where the bulge would be very obvious if it did exist.

I would genuinely be happy to hear your interpretation on what you see. I don't get to see much reproduction harness or factual discussion of how it was actually interpreted in effigies in cases where we know exactly what the depicted harness actually was.

[Hugh Knight]

[Jared Smith]

I admit that I do see similarities between Bob's photo and aspects of the effigies. I probably am looking for the "9 months pregnant woman look" when that is not how it actually appears with jupon. I wonder about the "dogged" edges at waist lines and such as possibly indicating "coats of plates." To me, the more likely breast plate cases are in the last decade of the 14th century.

I swear I don't have a "dog in the fight." It's not my period of interest. I am just trying to see it visually and correlate it. I suppose we could drag in art that was irrefutably created in the 14th century and see how many obvious examples of breast plates there were. In terms of inventories, I have not catalogued them but remember being surprised how numbers of "pairs of plate" would be orders of magnitude smaller than mail, arrows (often in quarter million quarrels, etc.) on the English side.

[Greg Mele]

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Hugh,

Oh, I don't feel bad...actually, I was one of the earlier guys to have a full harness, including full greaves, structured around the #13. So, yeah, it's been overdone, but it's ok being one of the trendsetters.

Now if people would stop appropriating those photos of me in that rig!

I have the #14 in spring from HE as well, although vexingly mine is without the stop rib, something I'd like to remedy soon.

All the best,

Christian

[Alan Williams]

[Randall Moffett]

Jared,

This is the difficulty of using art alone to follow armour progression. I might have mis understood you when you said onyl mail was under the surcoat which would be close to impossible for a knight that late. By the 1320's and 1330's the king is requiring all men at arms, even the commoners serving as them to own coat of plates. I might just have misunderstood your statement if so I am sorry. Inventories, statues and other written sources indicate that during the 2nd half of the 14th the solid one piece breastplate was coming into its own. My guess is the lowest strata of knights might still be in a COP late in the 14th but they become fairly common, The Earl of Dunbar owning almost a dozen for him and his men in the 1370's.

Christian,

You just need to find a person who makes custom fences and ask for a simple bend put into it like a 'V' and have the ends hammered down. At least here in the mother country (well kind of) their are still custom fence makers. It is actualyl something I use to make stakes for armouring!

RPM