[George Hill]

I was telling a friend about armor recently, a completel newcomer to the topic, and I may have over extended my knowledge. As I would hate to create one of those damned rumors that seem to make sence but are abjectly false, (Like the ones about 'blood groves') I thought I would place this before the group, and see what they had to say.

In short, I've noticed that historical harness have two primary designs between the breastplate and the legs. (If anyone knows of more please speak up.)

The two styles are as follows. One relies on a great many faulds, and covers the wearer to significantly below the groin,
Such as in this image of Saint George. http://forum.milua.org/files/ukrainian_knights2_70.jpg (Sorry, I'm having trouble finding images of this, appearently less popular style.)

Here is what I beleive is a modern reproduction of this style.
http://p7.hostingprod.com/@illusionarmoring.com/14th.html

and the other has fewer faulds, significant tassets (Articulated tassets or not,) and more or less exposes the groin.

Something like this.
http://p7.hostingprod.com/@illusionarmoring.com/bgsuit.htm

Now, I have always thought that the first style, where the faulds come down further, is intended primary for use on foot, as it seems it would be harder to sit the horse with these faulds, though of course I imagine they could be adjusted to telescope or some such, whereas the second style was intended more for the horseman, as it would be somewhat less protective, (though one would certainly add a skirt of mail to help it out.)


Now, does my understanding hold water, or am I overlooking something vital? For all I know both work fine on horseback, are merely stylistic differences, and I lack some peice of information.

[George Hill]

Oh, please note I do NOT refer to the 'tonlet' harness, such as the one shown here, (bottom of page)
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_ana_charlesv.html as it is (Or so I understand) strictly tourniment armor. That said, the idea seems to be quite similar.

[Hugh Knight]

Hi George,

I know that looks like a reasonable assumption, but it just doesn't hold up. Take for example the harness made by Robert MacPherson for Tobias Capwell in the attached picture: I assure you the fauld extends *way* down like the first example you gave. As it happens, I was in Mac's shop several times while he was building this harness and we discussed it quite a bit. Toby intended to use this harness for jousting (in fact, Mac made him a saddle at the same time and Toby used both for jousting), so he had to be able to ride in it. The culet (back fauld) seems like an even worse fit for the saddle, actually. In practice, however, Toby could ride in it with no difficulty: Mac says the lames of the fauld just scrunch up a little bit (remember, in that kind of a saddle you're more standing than sitting anyway). So you can ride perfectly well in this harness.

Note, too, that in the example you gave of the long fauld the fauld is cut away in the middle: This is to make it fit over the saddle better. So this harness is *definitely* intended for mounted as well as foot combat (note the saint's destrier behind him).

I think what it comes down to is that the English simply liked this kind of harness. Yes, they had more of a habit of fighting afoot than other cultures, but frankly all of them fought on foot a lot, too (much more than most people, who see men at arms as primarily cavalry, realize), just as all of them including the English did things on horseback (e.g., jousting).

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I apologize for any amature like questions, I just don't know.

[Hugh Knight]

[Elling Polden]

It wold seem that having faulds that extended to mid thigh was quite common even for mounted knights in the late 14th c, though these where covered by surcotes. However. the fact that they have their sword belts tightened around the tighs indicate that there is plate underneath...

[George Hill]

So with all those faulds over one's posterior, how does one achieve a proper weld between the rider's buttocks, and the rear shelf of the saddle?

[Kelly Powell]

Mr. VaugnStrever: Hey man, you do not need to apologize for asking a question.....Your's was definatley NOT stupid.....You were using the empiracal method....you observed and made a hypothesis based on your observations and the knowledge you have aquired.......And your questions have caused commentary and discussion....Good job
I would imagine that the faulds would fold up and "fan in" a smidge.......I do not believe you would be sitting on them...they would ride up someand maybe be uncomfortable nesting between the small of your back and the back of the high saddle......But if you were not in battle a lot of guys would wear scaled down armor(I hope I'm right about that, would not want to reinforce a urban myth!) for less strenuous ramblings.
Here is a question about foot man vs horsemen armor....1: Was or was not the leg articulation reversed for a horseman vs a footman? wasn't a cav guys articulation going upwards to keep a foot guys spears and such from going in between the lames?
2: did not they have the equivilent of a cup as added groin protection? Either boiled leather or metal......Something stouter then the average "cod piece".

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Kelly Powell]

I was thinking of when not actually going to battle they would wear lighter armor.Ie mail or cop for everday protection....much like the differance in a cop wearin his kevlar vest for daily routine vs his ceramic chest plate and all the limb protection.....
As for the footman vs cav armor.....1: there are some troops that will be in the saddle for longer then others.....mounted infantry vs say the winged hussars.....trying to clarify my question....I know I got a lot of bad info in my head and some of that is to be blamed on armor manufacturers, that's where I got the info on "horsemens legs"....It's not that it would be ineffective if they dismounted, but running the articulation thre way theydo would prevent point from going beneath the lames......But just cuz it makes sense does not make it right, either.

[Elling Polden]

[Lafayette C Curtis]