| Author |
Message |
|
Ryan S.
|
 Posted: Fri 14 Oct, 2022 2:27 am Post subject: Fantasy Armour or Real? |
 |
|
This is a depiction of the battle of Antioch as part of the first crusades made in the 15th century. Some of this armour looks relatively normal, while some of it looks fantastical, and some of it looks plausible but unusual. For example, no two shields are the same and have very unrealistic looking shapes. On the other hand, some helmets have disks on the side and the soldier in the reddish tunic has something covering his mouth and nose that looks like a type of Samurai mask. Are those real?
|
|
  |
 |
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Oct, 2022 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rondels on the back of an armet were not uncommon, and if you search "bascinet with rondels" you'll find a few depictions and repros. I've included a pic of an armet as well as a pic of a sculpture from 1425 depicting side mounted rondels.
The "Samurai" face covering is just a bevor. These were usually a separate piece of armor used to protect the chin and throat and used with helms that weren't fully enclosed (kettles, skulls, bascinets, and my personal favorite, the sallet). The helm paired with it may have its visor up (hard to tell from the pic if it has one at all). They could be fixed or articulated with a falling buffe.
You may note that the sculpture has rondels and an articulated visor pulled up. At first I thought it might have a bevor, but it appears to be an armet style (close fitting, fully enclosed style of helm).
As for shields, I don't see any style there I haven't seen depicted elsewhere.
One thing to keep in mind: foreign adversaries were often depicted and differentiated in the art of the time by applying a "fantastical" element, so sometimes archaic armors or exaggerations of certain aspects might be used. Not all Saracen swords were curved, for example, but they are almost always depicted as such in art.
What you often end up with is depictions of the past using "modern" depictions of arms, armor and shields for the "good guys", though that wouldn't necessarily have been what they were using at the time, and ancient, odd or caricatured versions of arms and armor to depict the "bad guys". In the illustration you provided, however, I'm not seeing anything that doesn't have a real European medieval equivalent - there just may be a little artistic license.
And, I don't know if you noticed, but center bottom, someone's calf got away. 
 Attachment: 103.44 KB
Attachment: 515.71 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Oct, 2022 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
On face shields, this link might help.
Rondels are used to protect the shoulders, armpits, elbows, knees, and ears until the early 16th century, especially on cheaper armour.
weekly writing ~ material culture
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Oct, 2022 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Victor R. wrote: |
One thing to keep in mind: foreign adversaries were often depicted and differentiated in the art of the time by applying a "fantastical" element, so sometimes archaic armors or exaggerations of certain aspects might be used. Not all Saracen swords were curved, for example, but they are almost always depicted as such in art.
What you often end up with is depictions of the past using "modern" depictions of arms, armor and shields for the "good guys", though that wouldn't necessarily have been what they were using at the time, and ancient, odd or caricatured versions of arms and armor to depict the "bad guys". In the illustration you provided, however, I'm not seeing anything that doesn't have a real European medieval equivalent - there just may be a little artistic license.
|
I am not sure about this. First, in the picture I posted, I can’t tell which side is which. Some people on the left have helmets that look vaguely eastern to me, but not all the people who are attacking from left to the right have these helmets, and both sides, as far as one can guess which side people are on, have curved swords as well as straight. In fact, there are two riders in the middle fighting each other and each have straight swords. Second, most medieval art I have seen depicting the crusades depicts both sides wearing similar gear. I thought the idea that Saracens used curved swords comes from the 19th century, or that it is at least post medieval.
I do wonder if the shields are the main archaic element, not from an artist trying to depict the bad guys as backward, like you suggest, but to depict a battle that happened in the past as backwards. Then the shields are copied from other art, and that is in part, why most of them are not really being used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2022 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are a number of conventions used in medieval art to depict "the other" in warfare, especially pagans of various sorts. Exotic weapons and armour is one. Pointed or "Phrygian" style hats and helmets for example. Turbans, though the cloth wraps on helmets becomes more mainstream in the 15th century. Curved swords are another popular one, along with exotic polearms. In this case, the artists hasn't really applied the full exotic for the melee. He has focussed it in the left bottom, where he can more clearly illustrate the otherness.
Whether the archaic forms bear any relationship to reality, more expert opinions are required. Certainly, Roman style armours are regularly shown in art.
Helmets with rondels are frequently shown in period art (the Swiss chronicles often show them, for example) but I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a surviving one.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2022 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | There are a number of conventions used in medieval art to depict "the other" in warfare, especially pagans of various sorts. Exotic weapons and armour is one. Pointed or "Phrygian" style hats and helmets for example. Turbans, though the cloth wraps on helmets becomes more mainstream in the 15th century. Curved swords are another popular one, along with exotic polearms. In this case, the artists hasn't really applied the full exotic for the melee. He has focussed it in the left bottom, where he can more clearly illustrate the otherness.
Whether the archaic forms bear any relationship to reality, more expert opinions are required. Certainly, Roman style armours are regularly shown in art.
Helmets with rondels are frequently shown in period art (the Swiss chronicles often show them, for example) but I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a surviving one. |
Interesting. The most exotic polearm in this picture is used by someone coming from the right. The face-shield does seem to be associated with the exotic, being used by giants, animals, and monsters but at least one other case by Saracens. It is hard to tell who is depicted in the miniatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2022 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The most exotic polearm in this picture is used by someone coming from the right. |
Looks like a clumsy attempt to depict a common-or-garden pollaxe. The odd thing is it is being wielded two-handed on horseback. Guessing from the axe man's fairly conventional arms and his position, I'd guess he's supposed to be in the Christian army. Though, I agree, working out who's who that melee is difficult.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2022 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | | Looks like a clumsy attempt to depict a common-or-garden pollaxe. The odd thing is it is being wielded two-handed on horseback. Guessing from the axe man's fairly conventional arms and his position, I'd guess he's supposed to be in the Christian army. Though, I agree, working out who's who that melee is difficult. |
I think the painter could not decide whether to show a pollaxe with a blade, or a pollaxe with a pronged hammer. Finding better photos of the original manuscript with tineye or another reverse image search engine would help!
Edit: and here it is! https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55006914c/f532.item.zoom
weekly writing ~ material culture
|
|
|
|
|
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2022 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Victor R. wrote: |
One thing to keep in mind: foreign adversaries were often depicted and differentiated in the art of the time by applying a "fantastical" element, so sometimes archaic armors or exaggerations of certain aspects might be used. Not all Saracen swords were curved, for example, but they are almost always depicted as such in art.
What you often end up with is depictions of the past using "modern" depictions of arms, armor and shields for the "good guys", though that wouldn't necessarily have been what they were using at the time, and ancient, odd or caricatured versions of arms and armor to depict the "bad guys". In the illustration you provided, however, I'm not seeing anything that doesn't have a real European medieval equivalent - there just may be a little artistic license.
|
I am not sure about this. First, in the picture I posted, I can’t tell which side is which. Some people on the left have helmets that look vaguely eastern to me, but not all the people who are attacking from left to the right have these helmets, and both sides, as far as one can guess which side people are on, have curved swords as well as straight. In fact, there are two riders in the middle fighting each other and each have straight swords. Second, most medieval art I have seen depicting the crusades depicts both sides wearing similar gear. I thought the idea that Saracens used curved swords comes from the 19th century, or that it is at least post medieval.
I do wonder if the shields are the main archaic element, not from an artist trying to depict the bad guys as backward, like you suggest, but to depict a battle that happened in the past as backwards. Then the shields are copied from other art, and that is in part, why most of them are not really being used. |
You're bringing a "left to right" element into a melee. Left to right broke down moments after the lines met.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Oct, 2022 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ryan S.,
| On Monday 17 October 2022, you wrote: | | I do wonder if the shields are the main archaic element, not from an artist trying to depict the bad guys as backward, like you suggest, but to depict a battle that happened in the past as backwards. Then the shields are copied from other art, and that is in part, why most of them are not really being used. |
The artist is not trying to depict anyone as backward either in technology or in fashion, nor in fact does Victor R. imply that. Indeed the opposite could be argued, given that one army is depicted with armor and weapons contemporary to the painter's own time. The point is to make the enemy army look exotic. The painter's devices for doing that were generally limited, as Victor R. says, to depicting
| Quote: | | ancient, odd or caricatured versions of arms and armor |
as opposed to showing contemporary gear of non-European people. Note, for example, that all of the single-edged swords in use are falchion styles well attested from Europe. Many of the combatants who appear to be enemy soldiers wear cloth-covered or painted breastplates, flowing tunics, bare legs, and high boots, which are all elements that existed in contemporary Europe, but would have been unusual in combination and in some cases no longer used--but certainly seen--by members of the social classes who would have had access to this illustration. For that matter, the armor here that evokes ancient styles has more in common with contemporary European imitations of and references to ancient armor than to actual ancient styles.
I hope this proves helpful.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Oct, 2022 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You're bringing a "left to right" element into a melee. Left to right broke down moments after the lines met. |
I am trying to make sense of the melee, as well as your comments. There are four figures on the left with cloth wrapped around their helmets like a turban. If you can identify another figure as a Saracen, then I would be interested how you came to that conclusion. I am open up to the possibility that the identity of the figures in the middle are ambiguous and are meant to be exciting, but not necessarily attacking each other.
| Quote: | | as opposed to showing contemporary gear of non-European people. Note, for example, that all of the single-edged swords in use are falchion styles well attested from Europe. Many of the combatants who appear to be enemy soldiers wear cloth-covered or painted breastplates, flowing tunics, bare legs, and high boots, which are all elements that existed in contemporary Europe, but would have been unusual in combination and in some cases no longer used--but certainly seen--by members of the social classes who would have had access to this illustration. For that matter, the armor here that evokes ancient styles has more in common with contemporary European imitations of and references to ancient armor than to actual ancient styles. |
Interesting, do you think there is a strong Crusader vs. Saracen distinction here, or that because it was painted over 400 years after the battle that both sides were depicted in old fashion armour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Oct, 2022 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am trying to make sense of the melee, as well as your comments. There are four figures on the left with cloth wrapped around their helmets like a turban. If you can identify another figure as a Saracen, then I would be interested how you came to that conclusion. I am open up to the possibility that the identity of the figures in the middle are ambiguous and are meant to be exciting, but not necessarily attacking each other. |
This comment of Mark's is significant. IMO
| Quote: | | Many of the combatants who appear to be enemy soldiers wear cloth-covered or painted breastplates, flowing tunics, bare legs, and high boots, which are all elements that existed in contemporary Europe, but would have been unusual in combination and in some cases no longer used |
The less complete leg armour, with floppy high boots, is important in this case. If you look at the image again and look at the men with this combo, and compare with those men who can be seen with full harness, you can form an impression of the full harness "Christian" army moving down from the top right to the bottom left. The "Saracens" are struggling - several men are down across the bottom of the picture, what is probably another (in green) is being tipped from the saddle towards the top and the man in white with the oddly coloured leg is facing three attackers. As has already been said, while the general flow is bottom and left against top and right, the painter has tried to show the confusion of the melee. Note the figure fighting the obvious "Saracen" with the bearded shield is moving left to right, with his opponent coming in from his flank or rear quarter.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Oct, 2022 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ryan S.,
| On Saturday 22 October 2022, you wrote: | | Interesting, do you think there is a strong Crusader vs. Saracen distinction here, or that because it was painted over 400 years after the battle that both sides were depicted in old fashion armour? |
There's generally a strong distinction between the opposing armies. A couple of the figures are ambiguous, but they fight against less-ambiguous ones so viewers can tell which army they belong to.
I don't see any old-fashioned armor in the painting. There's some contemporary armor that, if I read and recall the details correctly, would have been unfashionable among the highest ranks of Western European society; and there's contemporary armor in classicizing styles, like those which were beginning to be developed in Italy at the time.
There's also the question of the status of the combatants. Without knowing who the various figures represent, it's hard to be precise in analyzing the armor. Clearly the figure on the right in gold, blue, and red is meant to be very high-status, but is the fallen figure in the same colors left of center at the bottom of equally high status? What about the people in armor that has both black and gold elements, or that incorporates colored ones? To be sure, I think the overall black appearance of the army in the upper right is primarily because virtually all that's visible of most of its members are their helmets. Colored elements, on a second viewing, aren't lacking among its members who are visible in the foreground.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 01 Nov, 2022 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the responses, they helped a lot.
As far as colour goes, were there black swords?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Nov, 2022 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ryan S.,
According to the iconography, yes.
The catch, of course, is that as far as I'm aware no examples survive in their original state. The situation is similar to that of blackened fifteenth-century armor--there's lots of art that shows it, but very few, if any, examples have survived that display that kind of surface treatment. With armor, there are protected areas--where plates overlap, for example--that can and in some cases do retain traces of such finishes, but swords lack those. Any surviving swords that originally were blackened are overwhelmingly likely to have had the blackening polished away, whether deliberately or otherwise.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Fri 04 Nov, 2022 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | Thanks for the responses, they helped a lot.
As far as colour goes, were there black swords? |
You may note that the sword in my avatar isn't highly polished. It isn't blackened, but it is just natural, unpolished steel. It is perfectly good steel with a natural patina and it was a deliberate choice on my part - I have a rondel dagger made as its companion that has the same look. If you have any old high carbon steel knives, you'll see that this doesn't take very long to develop. It is likely that a sword carried in the field that was simply cleaned and honed regularly, but not religiously shined and polished, would appear dark in a depiction since, unlike "stainless" steels with higher levels of chromium, they will take on a patina faster.
Not everyone with a sword could also afford several retainers to keep everything all shiny and gleaming - nobles and upper echelon knights, probably, but a professional man at arms, maybe not so much. This is something that takes time, and on campaign, there are often better things to do with your time than doing a full polish yourself if you don't have enough squires and retainers to take care of it for you, or if you have better things to do with your money than pay a camp following artisan to do it for you.
As for actual bluing, you can often see blades of later sabers that have been blued, and bluing of hilt elements wouldn't have been unheard of in Medieval times - I just don't know how prevalent it was. I looked, for a late 15th/early 16th messer that I thought had a blued blade, but couldn't find the specific item I thought I remembered. If you want to see a couple of blades with a darker appearance, check out the swords of Maximilian I. These are late 15th, at the end of the "Medieval" era.
While the blades depicted may or may not have been blued, seeing a sword that wasn't "gleaming", but was dull and flat in color, doesn't surprise me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic