[Michael Edwards]

Is there a name for the armour that protects the arm? I know each piece has it's own name (vambrace, rerebrace, etc) but is there a name used for all the pieces together? Also, is there a name for the armour that protects the leg? Sorry if this is confusing but it's kind of difficult to describe what I'm looking for.

[Hugh Knight]

Michael,

Most scholars don't use the terms the way you list them. Typically the entire arm harness is called a "vambrace", which consists of a lower cannon, a couter and an upper cannon. The shoulder is then protected by a pauldron.

The leg harness (which Blair and others use as a single word: "legharness") consists of the cuisse to protect the thigh, the poleyn to protect the knee, the greave to protect the lower leg and the sabaton to protect the foot. There are other terms that apply in some sources, such as "jamber" for greave ("jamber" comes from the French "jambe", meaning leg), but these are pretty common terms.

If you have any specific questions about these things I'd be happy to try to help.

[Jason G. Smith]

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Actually vambrace is used in both ways in medieval texts. It can denote full harness, even the shoulder at times, and it can just be the lower cannon. York Inventories use the term vambrace for both as I believe the happens in a few inventories in London but I could not verify it for both at this time. Rerebrace is actually a fairly common term for just the upper arm. Check out the Nesle inventory for one of the earliest uses, 1302. (check out nesle's inventory for demi-greaves as well which Huge noted is a half greave that covers the front alone not the large plate on the poleyn's bottom, this might have evolved from the 16th/17th century where legs ditch the greaves, I think I remember the term demigreave to mean greave-less leg harness but cannot find an example to use).

From what I can tell cannons is a modern term used for clarification. I have never seen cannon used in medieval text. It likely is used as the medieval term is not definite whereas upper and lower cannon are fairly clear in english.

Let me just clarify scholarship. It is either trying to define medieval terms to make them clearer or making their own terms to do the same for Modern Audiences. Blair does both and often in his articles and books. Usually he will define how it will be used by him and give ways in which historically it was used for comparison, the aketon/ gambeson being a clear example. SO you could use vambrace as the lower part of an arm harness, rerebrace as the upper and couter as the elbow covering legitimately. I would recommend for clarity, explaining it to a person or writing something to be clear how you intend to use the term if it will be used often. There are all sorts of terms that mean similar things Jamber, Schynbald demi-greave and in many cases could be the same item just named different by a different person or at times even the same person in medieval text so a straight across use of the term at times is confusing at best.

RPM[/i]

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

I completely agree that medieval terms are often confusing or muddled in what they are. That was my entire point. The issue is that we should not discount terms that were in use.

It is I would say more common in some places in modern scholarship for sure. As I said before it seems cannon to be a modern term used for clarity by people who wish to use it but by no means universal in modern academic circles. If one needs to have such a rigid term for it to properly understand it that is fine but in my experience does not help in the least in doing research on them so. I have colleagues in a number of museums and have never had a problem using the term rerebrace or vambrace in this way. If one finds it helpful to them that is fine but I do not think one term usage should be seen as correct over another.

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

That is the issue though. Is it wrong or right to discount the terms used by the men in period for those chosen by men who are out of the era in question? I am familiar with the sources you cited and others. So what (I mean this in a rethorical way)? It really does not matter what terms we apply now to them or their equipment. They used the terms then and that is how it is. Reading the primary sources to get a feel for how the terms are used to me being the better teacher. That is how Mann, Maeryk, Blair and others gained (I suppose) their understanding. I never disputed vambrace often is used both now and historically as a full harness nor that cannons is a common term in academia. My issue is that vambrace is not as rigid a term as you were alluding and second that cannon is a ahistoric word made modernly to define an artifact part. It could have been named anything- top tube and bottom tube if the writer wished. The scholars you addressed in their books NEVER state that rerebrace and vambrace should not be used for those items why should we?

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

That basically is my point. Scholars will define how they use a term. I did the same thing when speaking of men at arms, hobelars, armed men and archers. You dredge up all you can on each, present the best estimate you can on them and state how YOU will define them. It then becomes your own definition. You of course then go into previous uses by other scholars but you can do as you will. (Harder types of soliders are horsemen which mostly seem to be Men at arms but seem to be other troops at times as well.) I had to do it when I spoke on all sorts of odd historic terms like carlisle axe. It is not an exact science but the best one can do.

Michael can use these terms. He legitimately can and should if he so pleases. They are correct and none of the top scholars could dispute it, nor from those I know would. That is why they do not state (or imply in my opinion) you should avoid their use. The top scholars only use their choices out of simplicity and complacency with them. That is what we all do. Historically couter never means poleyn or vise versa so there is reason to use it so. For rerebrace and vambrace it was used so.

I would have to reread Oakeshott but I do not think what he said is specific enough to avoid using rerebrace in general in our time. He might be speaking of trends in usage that it might decline but so does vambrace for plates after 1500 which 100's of years before was not an arm harness but a COP. Even in the late 15th you can find rerebrace/vambrace used, example a german (I almost used gothic but that might not be true) part of an arm harness. I do not think people using rerebrace or vambrace would cause any confusion at all. Exactly like Blair's clarification with aketon/gambeson. Define how you use it and you're golden.

RPM

[Hugh Knight]