| Author |
Message |
|
Jojo Zerach
|
|
  |
 |
Roberto Banfi
|
 Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Pershore Abbey Knight is well known to me, but unfortunately you can only guess what is worn under the textile surcoat, which is a pity because in my project I would have preferred fastening on the side instead on the back
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
In some instances, where the armour fastens can be an indicator of status. If it fastens at the back then you need servants to help put it on. If it fastens at the front or sides then you can don the armour without help.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
in my case side fastening was a mere practical reenactment consideration for speeding up things, but I guess this is a good story to persuade someone help me with it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with Roberto on this one with regards to overlapping. With very few bits of evidence of 13c reinforced armour, and one clearly showing non-overlapping plates - I think he's correct to base it on the evidence at hand.
Just look at how much plate armour developed in the first half of the fourteenth century and it should be clear that 1360s evidence should not be applied to a 13c reconstruction.
Interested to see how it works out.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think there is more to this. I think the rivets on the St. Maurice and the Sleeping guard prove it is not the same set up with both. With non-overlapping plates the rivets would go to the corners as the sleeping guard. With overlapping you have to put them away from the sides in the center. St. Maurice is clearly not side by side or you'd have plates vertical of 6" plus across which seems highly unlikely with vertical plates. My feeling is both set ups were used by side by side plates end up being a dead end because of the issue with penetration between the gaps. That said the next earliest pictrues of pairs of plates from the start of the 14th show overlap so side by side likely was a development point that did happen.
I'd say do what you like on this one.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | I think there is more to this. I think the rivets on the St. Maurice and the Sleeping guard prove it is not the same set up with both. With non-overlapping plates the rivets would go to the corners as the sleeping guard. With overlapping you have to put them away from the sides in the center. St. Maurice is clearly not side by side or you'd have plates vertical of 6" plus across which seems highly unlikely with vertical plates. My feeling is both set ups were used by side by side plates end up being a dead end because of the issue with penetration between the gaps. That said the next earliest pictrues of pairs of plates from the start of the 14th show overlap so side by side likely was a development point that did happen.
I'd say do what you like on this one.
RPM |
I agree with almost all of this. But the problem with St Maurice is that the size/shape of the plates and overlap simply isn't known. It may be the same as some of the Wisby finds, but there's no way of knowing that. However, we can quite clearly see the layout in the sleeping guard.
I just think it would be more accurate to make the reconstructon based on the sleeping guard as opposed to the assumption that St Maurice used a Wisby layout (contrary to some of the earlier views in the thread).
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: | | I just think it would be more accurate to make the reconstructon based on the sleeping guard as opposed to the assumption that St Maurice used a Wisby layout (contrary to some of the earlier views in the thread). |
this one 
Sleeping Guard plate "setup" is at least one depiction, the Wisby style is sure another yet undocumented in 13th C. and I think it would be far too distant for a St Maurice reproduction
BTW while my girlfriend did the stitching I prepared the straps for the lacing, according with the design
I'm going to put the last four plates and the straps at their place
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian,
Perhaps true but I think we can be safe toward 80% maybe a bit more with St. Maurice as it is very detailed. We can easily rule out enough and see enough to know what the general make up is. Likely plates that run around sternum to navel and about 3'-3.5" wide The back two plates at the end appear to have four rivets over two. With such a detailed sculpture I do not see much wiggle room or speculation needed. The only thing I wonder is if the top had plates.
I really do not see a way that the St. Maurice is a wisby type as the set up for the plates is the same throughout it and we can be sure the back plates are vertical.. .
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Side by side plates are still a good improvement in protection from cutting blows and a sword point to get between the plates would be hard to do on purpose but must have happened occasionally just due to bad luck on the receiving side.
If a surcoat was worn over a COP with side by side plates it would be hard to impossible to know where to aim a trust to get in between the plates.
Another factor to consider is that there is a maille hauberk or shirt under the COP so that someone focussing their efforts at trying to find the gaps would probably get killed even if they managed to find a gap as the maille behind would probably stop most thrusts with a sword at least.
Now overlapping plates are a superior design but the early COP seem to use a smaller number of much larger plates so the linear length of vulnerable gaps would be less than if a large number of side by side and small plates where used.
Not going so much on historical sources here but just speculation about the design strength and weaknesses of side by side plates.
It probably took some time to develop patterns of overlapping plates that would both optimize protection and be somewhat flexible and comfortable to wear ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2012 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
That leads me on to an interesting bit of speculation - when was the first use of large overlapping plates for the purpose of allowing movement in medieval western europe? My area of interest generally stops at the advent of plate armour - but it seems to me that where overlapping, floating lames (correct term?) were common in the full white harness, earlier it seems that either a single piece was used or multiple, smaller side-by-side pieces.
When did that new tech appear?
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2012 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW thanks everybody for this most interesting debate 
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Jul, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
all 19 plates in place! and rear view with back straps
 
side stitching - inside and outside
 
shoulder stitching - inside and outside, hard to catch but there's a double stitching inside
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic
