[Augusto Boer Bront]

Hi there.
I'm a 16 year old italian boy.
In my town (Cividale del Friuli) every August there is an hystorical reenactment of the early 14th century called "Palio di San Donato"
Next year I will participate with the following equipment: sugarloaf great helm, metal cannons and greaves, chainmail and chainmail hood, axe and wooden shield. I wanted to know if a friend of mine equipped with a pig-face bacinet and the subsequent armor (cuirass, vambrace harness, leg harness, ecc...) and me are philological together. In other worlds: are a pre-1350 heavy infantrymen (sugarloaf great helm) and a after-1350 heavy infantrymen (pig-face bacinet) compatible in the same time? Our reenactment goes from 1300 to 1350/1360.

Sorry for the sentences and the terrible english.

[JG Elmslie]

it sounds like your equipment is not too far off being right for the era, from the description, but photographs would be best determine if it's right or not... the devil is in the detail, as they say.

what I might suggest is, since these forums are mostly weapons, is to also talk about it on the Armour Archive:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/index.php

where there are a lot more people into armour and equipment. the majority are SCA members from the US, but there's plenty who know their stuff well, and are happy to put up photographs and samples to get you looking dead right.

and your english as far better than my italian

[Felix R.]

[quote="Augusto Boer Bront"]Hi there.
In other worlds: are a pre-1350 heavy infantrymen (sugarloaf great helm) and a after-1350 heavy infantrymen (pig-face bacinet) compatible in the same time? Our reenactment goes from 1300 to 1350/1360.
quote]

I would have doubts making this match. Especially as your pre 1350 is earlier and the post 1350 is much later in equipment. When could meet at say 1340 for the pre 1350 and 1360 for the post, still 20 years is a long time, but it would work with more generic gear. But the pigface is more 1370/1380 or later while the sugarloaf would be mor first quarter, so you get about 50 years (half a century) in between.

[Augusto Boer Bront]

This is the helmet http://www.armiantichesanmarino.com/fotogrand...p;cat=elmi
These are the cannons and the greaves http://www.outfit4events.com/set-cannons-and-...p-241.html
This is the axe http://www.outfit4events.com/bearded-axe-p-4710.html

Sorry if there aren't pics of the complete equipement, but there will be photos in 6th of Jenuary.

[Ed Toton]

Bearded axes of that type were common throughout the period, I believe, so no problem there. I have to agree that so far it sounds like the two armors are probably a good 20 years or more apart.

However, a lot of the dating of armors to specific decades is based on effigies and artwork, and there's a lot of "fuzziness" to this sort of approach. The effigies were sometimes based on the armor of the time in which the person died, rather than what they actually wore. Others were made in advance, based on their actual appearance. I suspect that the newer armor styles gradually took hold, and there would still be a lot of older armor in use, particularly as inherited items or battlefield looting. You can always say your pre-1350 kit was your father's, and you continue to use it even though you're living in 1360.

[Adam Bodorics]

In the pavise topic, there's a picture from 1475 if I remember well with the pointed version of the kastenbrust, while even in the 1459 Thott manuscript we already see the "standard" German gothic harnesses... and the 1467 Gothaer has a lot of kastenbrusts in it. It's usually said that they went out of fashion by 1450 and yet some still remain.

On a side note, compare the relativistic price of a car and a harness. I've seen 40 years old cars still running even as a new car is relatively much cheaper than a new harness was back then.

So I'd say that unless both of you portray someone on the extreme high end of society, 20-30 years difference isn't a huge problem.

[Anders Backlund]

[Jonathan Blair]

One thing to keep in mind is that armor was (and still is) expensive. A poorer man-at-arms might be using armor that his father or grandfather wore as long as it was still functional simply because that which you own is cheaper than new. A richer man-at-arms, however, could afford the newest and most fashionable armor. So it wouldn't be unheard of to have the two armour types on the battlefield.

[Augusto Boer Bront]

[Felix R.]

Well, considered your age. I would have been glad to have had that equipment back then. Soe wit a maile hauberk you are good to start with. Just browse a little bit more, especially when your knowledge is growing. The store you bought from is nice in terms of service but not so easy in customisation and sometimes a little bit pricey, the accuracy rough or also somewhat fantasy in some pieces. But it is a good start.

[Augusto Boer Bront]

Another qustion: can I wear a complete (back-breast) cuirass with this eqipment?

[Derek Estabrook]

Can you set a more specific time frame as early 14th century? There is actually a pretty good variance in pre1350 armor and within a ten to thirty year timeframe could help quite a bit to tell you what would likely have been worn. The pignose bascinet unfortunately is probably out as I've seen no evidence of its use before the late 14th century in pictoral, scultptural, or archaeological sources. The sugarloaf helm should be fine for dating so long as it is of correct form. If you're going early 14th century you probably want to keep your maille to a maximum and your plate armour to a minimum.
Personally I wouldn't have more plate than a pair of plates (varying pre-1350 from armoured surcoat variant with long skirts to that of the Wisby finds), helm, elbows, and knees (possibly, though early on I'd probably go as a hobelar until I got maille chausses). Early forms of gauntlets are a possibility for pre 1330 however you could just as easily have maille gauntlets either seperate or integral from your hauberk or no gauntlets at all is perfectly acceptable unless you need them for other purposes than display. Personally I'd leave off plate arm protection aside from the elbows unless I was doing post 1340. If you wish to use arm protection I would use the simple gutter shaped design and be careful of later developments. A breastplate shouldn't be worn for before 1360 and backplate is much later.

If you can provide a more narrow time frame and possibly a region portrayed I'd be happy to help you more.

[Michael K Wislon]

I found this effigie dated 1348, it seems the person is wearing a pig face type helm
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments/laure.../original/

It is English, I hope it helps.

[Felix R.]

That is not a pigface/hounskull. That is one of the rounded visor types with an elongated throat protection you find in several english effigies of that time. The thread starter was looking for italian infleunce I think.

[Michael K Wislon]

Felix,
My mistake on the the visor, I didn't look close enough. I realize it was English and not Italian, I was trying to point to the existance during the period. Over all fail on my part.

[Augusto Boer Bront]

Derek, the time is 1300-1355, and the place is North Italy, Friuli.

[Luka Borscak]

The period really is too long to cover it with one armor kit. Except if you are going with earlier kit and for later period playing a poor knight with old equipment.

[Brett H]

[Augusto Boer Bront]

Sorry, but for now I cant' remeber the equpment i had three years ago. Maybe I was referring to this one
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=131364...mp;theater
(the smurf with the oversized great helm).

Now it's completely different, http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/3922...23226.jpg/ (the smurf with the axe) and I plan to change my arm harness and I already bought a early visoret bascinet from Steel Mastery (waiting to receive it).
What do you want to know in particular?