your thoughts about armour from a painting
The painting is by Anthony van Dyck and entitled Portrait of a Commander in Armour, with a Red Scarf. [ Linked Image ]

I wanted to know what armour this was, and if anyone would be kind enough to provided some sample pictures of this armour.

Also, do you have any sample pictures or info of the armor in this:
Henry IV of France by Frans Pourbus the younger
[ Linked Image ]
The top is 16th century, possibly looks like this?

http://www.guildofstmichael.org/groups/german/lkarmor1.html

or this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoog/1132080671...330606163/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoog/3454098673...330606163/


sorry that neither of those are exact matches

The bottom looks 17th century.
The sidearm, Sidesword??
The sword with jokerhead pommel and floating bear head guard is certainly intetresting. Is the Commander Dutch from Eighty Yrs war?
That first painting is really intriguing. The hairstyle of the subject and the name of the painter suggests a provenance from the early- to mid-17th century, but the armour appears to be a "Maximilian" suit from the early 16th. I'd certainly be interested in whatever information that comes up regarding the circumstances that led to this rather unlikely combination!
Because the title is "Portrait of a Commander in Armour" and not actually the name of a person, I think it may have been just the artistic license of the painter and not a representation of an actual commander of the time period. An official portrait of a real person from that time would have depicted him in the armour that was actually worn at the time.
The first does look very Maximilian.
The exhibit catalogue for 'The Art of Power' exhibit at the National Gallery from last years included a lot of notes about the usage of armour from the armoury by artists long after the armour was no longer in use. You see some of Charles V's/Carlos I's harness in a couple of Baroque paintings, and Carlos II was painted in Phillip II's armour.
Yes, when it comes to armour in paintings, all kinds of artistic liberties are taken. The famous "Lion Armour" at the Royal Armouries appears in portraits of many different men, including the Earl of Manchester, the Duke of Albemarle (George Monck) and coins of Charles I and Charles II. A gilded Dutch armour made for a young Charles I was worn in portraits by Charles II, James II, and William I (despite the fact that William in the portrait is an adult and the armour was clearly made for a child.) A Greenwich armour originally made for Christian, Duke of Brunswick appears in portraits of many future dukes of Brunswick and the helmet can even be seen sitting on a table in the background of a 1766 painting of Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbeuttel.

[ Linked Image ]
Adam D. Kent-Isaac wrote:
Because the title is "Portrait of a Commander in Armour" and not actually the name of a person, I think it may have been just the artistic license of the painter and not a representation of an actual commander of the time period. An official portrait of a real person from that time would have depicted him in the armour that was actually worn at the time.


Exactly. I've seen this practice quite often in depictions of 18th- and late 17th- century commanders in late 16th- or early 17th-century cuirassier armour, but the first painting in the thread is quite interesting because both the painting and the armour are both much earlier than the examples I'm familiar with. I'm wondering if it shows the early days of the trend.

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