[Bill Grandy]

I was recently told that the legs of a plate harness should be pointed to the arming doublet from the side, and not in the front. The reasoning was that in the front, the leg rises and falls, so the distance does not stay even at all times, causing the plates to shift awkwardly.

I was curious if this is true in historical examples, or is it a modern convention? While I've seen a lot of antique armour parts, I've never seen any with the point attachments still on them.

[Al Muckart]

I do both. If you point them just at the sides they have a tendency to rotate inwards on your legs.

[Jonathon Janusz]

There is a point at the hollow of the hips/pelvis that is at front, partially out to the side, that is a more-or-less stationary rotation point. Pointed there, the cuisse doesn't shift around enough to worry about it. Take a look at an earlier period pair of hose to get the idea.

One other big note about difficulties in pointing leg harness is the greave. Leg harness without greaves hangs from the torso, with most of the weight of the armour being held by the straps/points at the top, and a little carried by the straps along the leg/knee if they are pulled tight. A fitted, cased greave will hold its place on the leg mostly by virtue of its shape and that of the leg, and the rest of the leg harness is connected to it (often by a pin) so that the weight of the harness is really carried on the leg itself - now the support is coming from the greave, with the straps and points really there to just even the load and keep the upper leg from sliding around.

[Bill Grandy]

Thanks for the responses, guys. But I'm really concerned with whether or not historical methods were done this way. I understand why many people today do it this way today, and it makes sense... but there are many things modern people have done which "make sense", or at least make sense to us as modern people, which aren't historical.

[Randall Moffett]

Bill,

As far as I know there are no clear indications of how these hisotrically were pointed. The Hastings MS has been the default for a long time for reenactors and WMA in regards to what to wear under armour (with varying interpretations at times) but in reality it likely is just one of many ways to get something done historically. That said there are lacing inside the Charles de Blois for pointing. My guess is for the clothing chausses not armour but many people assume these to be for armour or that it would be done the same way which.... would be hard to prove either way. There are also poirpoint vests that show lower tie holes but likely also are for the pointing of the hose.

It is as far as I know impossible to firmly prove how it was done. That said Tobias Capwell's set up from the fighting stuff looks pretty good and he uses his harness quite a bit.

Sorry I cannot be of anymore help.

RPM

[Ed Toton]

I have a suspicion that it depends on the period. It may have changed over time. But what I wonder is if there are surviving examples of cuisses that still have the arming points on them?

My harness has leather straps with buckles attached to the front... but I'd be the last person to hold up my kit as an shining example of historical authenticity.

[Jonathon Janusz]

I'm with the others that you're going to be hard pressed to find absolute answers on this one. . . darn medievals didn't bother to document their unmentionables. . .

Your best bet go get a reasonably accurate conclusion is probably going to be examining the holes at the ends of the armour pieces and the shape of the armour itself. The holes will provide as accurate an assessment of the location of mounting points (whether that be straps, points, or something else entirely is another matter. . . but not important to your original question as posted), and the shape of the leg harness will show you the position of the attachment - front, side, or rear. We are lucky in that much of the well documented surviving armour we have was commissioned by folks with money enough to pay for well shaped, well fitted equipment. The shape of the plates themselves make it easy - because of the shape, the armour can only fit on the body comfortably one way.

If you're looking for something to read or some pictures to follow , check out AAoMK:

Page 83 shows some c14th armour. The Churburg uppers at the top of the page have rivet holes at the bottom of the demi greave - no greaves attached to determine the purpose, but there are a pair of holes at the top of each cuisse to either side of the crease that could suggest an attachment of some kind - follow the shape of the cuisse and compare it to your leg and you should get in the ball park of the attachment point - also note no additional holes in the sides (at the sides/ outer hips of the wearer) suggesting more than one point of attachment.

Page 126 has a good shot of the cover photo (c15th German, on the horse), the left demi greave has a rivet/pin dead center that lines up on the top of the greave, showing the attachment.

The harness on the next page shows sliding rivets used in the same way - either to lock the greave or allow it to turn, not sure which.

Now to possibly toss out entirely the idea that the cuisse was pointed/strapped to a doublet or foundation garment at all at the wearer's option, check out the photo of the leg on page 181. Here we see another sliding rivet holding the knee joint and the front of the greave together, no lace holes or supporting hardware whatsoever on the top of the cuisse (suggesting it wasnt attached to anything at all), and only a strap and buckle on the upper part of the cuisse to keep it in place (making a counter to the point made in your original post in that this also suggests that the cuisse was intended to move). What is also interesting here is that there is no strap at or near the back of the knee cop - is the greave and strap at the cuisse enough to keep the knee from flopping around, or is that empty slot in the second lame up from the greave meant to carry a missing strap - can't see enough detail of the other side to be sure.

[Chuck Russell]

why, all the way across the top here are a few pictures of 2 of the man guys in armour in lord greys. forget jeff in his red arming doublet, it was soon replaced with a better one after this event. steve's legs were refitted and perfected by robert macpherson and jeffs legs were either made my macpherson or jeff hedgecock.

http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...G_0338.jpg
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...G_0336.jpg
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...G_0339.jpg
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...G_0340.jpg

http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...mage55.jpg
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...mage56.jpg

[Bill Grandy]

I just received the book The Churburg Armoury. There are a set of legs that have at least four places to point to the arming doublet (i.e. at least eight visible holes). The points are all along both the front and the side.

[Jeffrey Hedgecock]

Heya,

I made Jeff Johnson's leg harness....(and his vambraces too).

I would recommend at least two points for each cuisse, usually one near the front and one near the side. You have to do what works for you. There are several Italian cuisses with surviving arming tabs and the all have a series of holes along them to point appropriately to the doublet. As far as I am aware there is no Italian source stating how cuisses of this type were expected to be pointed, but there are only a couple of ways to do it effectively. Having greaves to partially support the cuisses is definitely a factor in this system working correctly.

I personally use two points per cuisse, one in front, one on the side, maybe slightly toward the front. I don't suggest only using one single point, as the force is too much on only one single point. Two points or more spreads the force between several so the force on each individual point is realistic given the strength of stitched eyelet arming points. I use three points on my vambraces for the same reason.

[Chuck Russell]

cool jeff, i couldnt remember which parts were which anymore. i used to have it down pat

[Ed Toton]

[Bill Grandy]

[Ed Toton]