[Felix R.]

By the way, in regards to the close fitting arms, there were also examples of non slide riveted lower cannons, so ther must have been the possibility to turn the arms inside.

[Steven H]

If I may attempt to summarize Randall's description.

A lord would buy armour for himself and go to the expense and time of having it custom fitted. For his retainers he would buy "off-the-shelf" pieces. Some of these may be aftermarket modified to fit better, though this was not always the case.

Mercenaries probably bought off-the-shelf and may have it modified if they could afford it.

Depending on the number of retainers and mercenaries in a force we have a rather wide range of values for how much armour was custom fitted vs. modified vs. off-the-shelf.

If only the lords were buying custom then probably less than 25% of the harness worn was custom fitted, and perhaps as little as 3-5%.

Still up in the air is how much after market modification could be done, and how much was done.

I am still curious about how we know how well the armour is supposed to fit?

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Felix R.]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

I did not put the numbers up that Steve did but I can easily ducument the occurance I spoke of. I study equipment in towns and trade of said things so it is not a quick topic. You may have to buy the book so to speak though as it is a huge industry. The only people I have ever found any records of getting sized and fit armours are esquires and up, mostly their betters though. Might be the way documents tend to survive. This does not include all men at arms, which include men of various stations from kings, princes and dukes down to some wealthy bakers and merchants.

If I could give you a quick source to avoid a huge use of time I do not have I'd say look at the Howard House books. It shows at one point a chest of harnesses still not assigned to anyone. The same is true regarding all his men and retinue and the armour he lends out. The same men wear different armours each time as they are described in some detail so the lord makes sure to get them back by this ID. There are I think four or five sections in the book of this armour lending written down for your viewing satisfaction showing the unfitted nature of armour for commoners and retinue men.

My guess is like I said before, if you bought armour either you had the money to get them modified after they arrived in your local by a local armoury or it was not done at all. As far as I know no records for anyone below esquire exist for fitted armour. As they pass armour on in generation to generation as well in wills it would be hard to be one sized fits all.

If you have documentation that heat treating was the reason armour went for higher prices you should share them though as not even in Williams book was that stated. It can be inferred that the better masters in italy and late in the 15th germany could heat treat adaquate to make it useful but it goes with well fit as well. AS the italian masters were the only ones to show high levels of heat treated armour until the late 15th per Willaims book it seems heat treated armour was the domain of the very wealthy, which would not be all men at arms but likely the knightly class up, but likely more often higher. These men took commissions like good armourers today do and a million measurements. Not everyone, even men at arms, could clearly afford this and if they could did they.

Here is an excert from something I am working on. It is from 1470 Port Book of Southampton, October or November I think,

-Aungel Catan. 35 pairs white Harness, £93 , 6 s., 8 p. value.

He is entering the town to go and sell his wares in a market, nor does it have any destination of a noble or knightly family. If it were for a knight or lord it would indicate this as often they went toll free, which in this case he does not.

The fact some towns in italy and germany were churning out hundreds if not more suits in a few months indicated them unfitted. We have records here in the Port books of Southampton and other from London, Hull and York that indicate where some of these suits end up. Still not assigned to a person but open for sale to any. Clearly not made to fit anyone particular, which goes back to what I said before.

Hope that helps.

RPM

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

White harness usually means compete as in arms, legs, cuirass etc yet at times without helmet or greaves. I do not see how else it could be interpreted really as this is in english. On this case there is little chance that they are not more or less complete suits from what I can tell. The price shows the quality in my opinion, which is what I was/am hoping to show. The huge variety in the industry of armour and arms production. There are men who spend easily ten times this.

I agree that the fit makes a huge difference. That is not what I am discussing. My point is that there is no way that all armour was initially made to fit the person who would wear it. As I said before you then have the possibility it was fit by someone local or not at all. So I am not saying not fit at all, just not at the armours initial creation.

Henry VIII is ordering 10, 000's of almain rivets that have arms harnesses that are not the ones with sliding rivets. In fact even many later cheaper vambraces have no sliding rivets. Your arms simply turns inside the lower cannon. If you go to Wade Allens online gallery a few of these 'munitions' arm harnesses can be seen. I have restored and cleaned a number of these 16th and 17th century full, 3/4 and 1/2 suits. I have posted this picture before but will post it again just because I like it and have the excuse to. It is me in a 1600-1610 harness of the quality a man in a retinue would have worn. Not all 14th and 15th century vambraces have the sliding rivets either. One off the top of my head is in the army museum in Paris that possibly is late 14th. I am sure there are more but I'd have to spend time looking.

As far as Williams book. He looks at I think only one complete suit of the 15th and states that because the plates all vary from heat treated and unheat treated in not particular pattern regarding the point I made earlier.

I like having armour that fits me. It makes fighting easier. Can it be proven that everyone had fit armour... not from my studies.


RPM

[Steven H]

Hugh-

The numbers I gave were those that fit the information Randall has provided here and elsewhere, and well as being consistent with the info in "The Armourer and his Craft" by charles ffoulkes. They are obviously approximations (given an order of magnitude difference between top and bottom numbers ).

I, like the others in this thread, have no doubt at all that custom-fitted armour is preferable but I have not seen the evidence that it is the norm. However, I am interested the evidence and would love to know your sources (so I can read them instead of just ffoulkes ).


On the fit of vambraces: we know that the bazuband was clearly fitted to allow the wearer to rotate their arm inside since the piece can't rotate. These aren't Medieval European but they were made by professional armourers and bought by professional warriors in the same period. If the lower arm fit was that important we can expect it to show up in Eastern armour as well.

The evidence of the bazuband is consistent with my own experiences. The first vambraces I made did not fit so snug and my arm can rotate inside it. After months of use I have found no impairment to my fighting ability as a result. Is there a specific technique that makes such close fit important?

Thanks,
Steven

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Moffett]

Hugh,

You need to look into a lexicon of the terminology of the times. I have looked at a number of them before arriving at this conjecture. Luckily for us in the here and now people who have read through thousands of medieval accounts, usually in large groups make dictionaries of medieval words in almost any language used of the word use. They even give possible uses and the changes over time as well as the probability of each of them. White harness has but one alternative... White harness simply means a suit without cover. It specifically indicates a suit without cover. If it were a half suit it would say. If it was an arm harness it would say so. If it were a breast and back it would cal, it so. Their deifinitions for toll tax are codified by item to make them semi-uniform to avoid issue with taxation on goods so fairly firm definition. I have also looked at hundreds of accounts of the 14th and 15th backing this definition so unless you have some sources or experts opinions for what you are saying it is basically not useful. This price is not all that unusual either. You can find fairly low prices if you look for a complete suit.

I gave an example of 16th century munitions armour as a comparison to lower class armour and that likely existed in the 15th and likely 14th. It is a quality issue and not a new phenomena. I even referenced at least one 14th century vambrace that is basically round to link them. If you want to I can make a list of the ones without the sliding vambrace from the 14th, my guess is that most lack this feature from teh 14th and early 15th.

If you really want to believe all medieval armour was fit to everyone wearing it you can. It is clearly shown in the industry, trade and commerce going on that there are loads and loads of harnesses, perhaps less the helmet and a few other bits, not made for a specific client. I'd highly recommend you look at Brokage and Portbooks which clearly indicate finished and unfinished arms being moved in great numbers to markets, fairs, towns etc. indicating exactly what I said to start that the suits INITIALLY were not made for any one in particular.

RPM

[Randall Moffett]

Regarding the costs of the white harness- each being £2 13s. 2d. (638d.).As it is not relivant I will not put up more prices for the mid 15th to this topic but will places a few for the mid 14th pieces of armour of a suit whihc is closer to what we are looking at.

Bascinet- bascinet 43d.
leg harness (poleyns, greaves and cuisses)- 130d.
braces (arms harness of some type- perhaps the lower part)- 35d.
gauntlets 44d.
Coat of plates 157d.
sabatones 53d.

Even if incomplete one can see that the harnesses value greatly in price (about 430d.). I chose items that were not at the very bottom in most cases as well. It could be cheaper. As well as the variance in prices. Coat of plates go from 27d. to 320d. (2s. 3d. to 26s. 8p.) Bascinets are the same, 12d to 10s..

A good idea of the economy of war can be seen on Randall Storey's works on equipment of the tower where a great deal of these quick facts were found.

RPM

Edit
Here are a few more (yes the first is 1441 but it shows suits in the same order at different costs)
Milanese armor L8 6s 8d
Squire's armor L5- 16s 8d

1384- King of France purchasing harnesses for his retinue- 25 livre tournois each for a complete suit. These are upper class gear though. He places requirements of 25 pounds minimum on the harness and 4 pounds for the bascinet itself.

[Felix R.]

This discussion is, controversial, and that is good by any means. Without different points of view, we wouldn´t learn anything.

Just a funny thing to add. I have been at the Churburg armoury this year. Here is a picture of one of their late 14th cent arm harnesses, where you can see that the couter is attached to the lower lame by 2 rivets, which seem to be no sliding rivets, though, the lower cannon looks really well fitted.

On the other hand, if you look at our beloved arm harness S13, as from the pictures of the book "the churburg armoury", you can clearly see 3 rivets at the lower lame and in a side view on rivet head is protruding giving possible evidence for sliding rivets.

[Steven H]