Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Debunking Meyrick's Nomenclature . . . Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 3:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here is Wes' pic. It is a good example of an eyelet doublet but doesn't help in regards to this subject. We need an eyelet doublet with rings incorporated into its internal construction, not layered over a separate mail shirt. Does anyone actually know of an eyelet doublet that uses metal rings? All the examples I've seen so far are just a fancy variant of a padded jack.


 Attachment: 175.06 KB
sheisjoppe -  velizariy kiev_s.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Re: banded armour         Reply with quote

Weston R Ash wrote:
if there's anything close to an "Armour" that could be construed as "Banded," it would most likely be the armour found at the Wisby site

I would classify this as "banded mail"



 Attachment: 70.83 KB
mailwleather.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would classify this as "banded armour" or "segmented armour". I agree that a coat of plates can be treated as another variant of segmented armour.


 Attachment: 7.65 KB
segmentata-recon.jpg



Last edited by Dan Howard on Sat 27 Oct, 2012 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Re: This discussion should be called "Debunking Meyrick         Reply with quote

Weston R Ash wrote:

DIDN'T EXIST!!
- Trellised (and Riveted); most likely just a Riveted Brigandine Gambeson's "Quilting" thought to be made entirely from Leather.
- Rustred (Imbricated & Riveted Small Metal Lozenge Plates); again, another mistake in thinking that a Riveted Brigandine Gambeson's "Quilting" is made entirely from Metal.
- Macled (Imbricated Small Metal Lozenge Plates w/out Rivets); another Cloth Gambeson's "Quilting" incorrectly identified as being completely made from Metal.


What do you mean when you say "riveted brigandine gambeson"? Brigandines and gambesons are completely different armours. They don't belong in the same classification.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: you need to magnify         Reply with quote

you need to look closer, magnify, and stop looking and the maille underneath! the rings are there and not interlaced!
I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Wes. Guys, here is a section that Wes highlighted. It looks like a metal ring to me. There seem to be more exposed rings just to the left of the highlighted section.


 Attachment: 81.5 KB
sheisjoppe-crop.JPG



Last edited by Dan Howard on Sat 27 Oct, 2012 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: highlighted rings         Reply with quote

take a look at all 4 photos, magnify them (scroll), there is a ring for each star pattern. the rings are almost of the same color as the dark blank spaces of shadow within the center of each star stitching. some of the ring stand-out as cresent shaped lines, but when you magnify its very clear that they "are" rings!


 Attachment: 123.27 KB
[ Download ]

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: when i add Jack or Gambeson to a label . . .         Reply with quote

when i add Jack or Gambeson to a label, it's because i find that many types of armour use a backing or foundation similar to that of a Jack, Gambeson, Jerkin, etc.. a small version of Brigandine is commonly called a Jack-of-plates (emphasis on "Jack"). a larger type of Brigandine used a backing similar to that of a Gambeson. it's like saying Doublet or Coat. although many types of armour used padded cloth garments as backing, some also used leather.


Dan;

"I agree that a Coat-of-plates can be treated as another variant of Segmented Armour."

thx Dan,

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Here is Wes' pic. It is a good example of an eyelet doublet but doesn't help in regards to this subject. We need an eyelet doublet with rings incorporated into its internal construction, not layered over a separate mail shirt. Does anyone actually know of an eyelet doublet that uses metal rings? All the examples I've seen so far are just a fancy variant of a padded jack.


That picture is of the same armor as the magnification? If so, it certainly seems like it matches your description, and is something I'll say I've never seen before... Very cool looking.

-Gregory
View user's profile Send private message
Joshua McGee





Joined: 14 Jun 2011

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 6:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

What the heck is this??


Knight of 12th century / Рицар от 12 век by mitko_denev, on Flickr


Here is something similar:

View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 7:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It is an attempt to construct one of the types of armour that Meyrick made up. It isn't historical.
View user's profile Send private message
Joshua McGee





Joined: 14 Jun 2011

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Mon 29 Oct, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
It is an attempt to construct one of the types of armour that Meyrick made up. It isn't historical.


Is it supposed to be banded mail? Is it functional? Anyone know much about who, when, how, or why these things were made?
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Is it just me, or have they been discussed in a previous thread? I recall seeing multiple images like these (of a whole series of armours, not just this one) explained in a thread somewhere, though possibly not here. They're all hilariously wrong 19th- or early 20th-century reconstructions based upon the state of knowledge in that era.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Is it just me, or have they been discussed in a previous thread? I recall seeing multiple images like these (of a whole series of armours, not just this one) explained in a thread somewhere, though possibly not here. They're all hilariously wrong 19th- or early 20th-century reconstructions based upon the state of knowledge in that era.

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...p;t=150031
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Debunking Meyrick's Nomenclature . . .
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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