| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 8:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Chuck,
The Italian Mancini when in England states that layered jacks were more common in southern England when padded ones in the north. Not sure how gross an overstatement that is but he is writing in the late 15th so I figure jack, no matter its make is enough.
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Weston R Ash wrote: | | - Scale; Dan says; "examples of scale armour where the plates aren't imbricated," could some forms be considered to be "Tegulated?" |
It would be easiest to forget the Meyrick and Gygax terms altogether. They aren't needed.
| Quote: | | i consider a single "Scale" shaped plate to have a single lobe versus bi or tri-lobed, as in some examples of Brigandine, but i've also seen depictions of square shaped plates labeled "Tegulated." the shape and placement of individual plates seems vague, but i'll go along with "a garment with small over-lapping plates attached." |
Yup, if it's a bunch of overlapping little plates of whatever substance or shape attached to an organic backing, it's "scale".
| Quote: | | - Segmented; seems to me that COP and Segmented are almost the same, except time period, rivets & placement of padding. i tend to see both COP & Segmented as Bands of Plate or Banded Plate, especially for RPG purposes. |
I tend to think of "segmented" armor such as lorica segmentata as *plate* armor. So the plates are differently shaped and arranged than they are on a Gothic harness, so what? Unless you want to reclassify all the joints on a Gothic harness as "segmented", of course! And I would not restrict "cuirass" to rigid torso armor, since it is widely used for segmented plate and even materials such as mail and scale. If it's plate, just say plate, let "cuirass" refer to any torso section in general (like the Greek "thorax" and Latin "lorica"!).
| Quote: | | - Splint; always read that its called "Plated Mail or Splinted Mail." |
Nope, that's a Gygaxism. There is mail, and there are plates or splints. You can layer them, of course, but putting splints or plates over mail doesn't change the mail into something else. But there is armor made of plates JOINED by mail, and I'd agree that's different! Oh, there's going to be some confusion when you get into late medieval/early Renaissance munition armor, which often includes "a pair of splints", simply referring to arm defenses of plates.
| Quote: | | would like to see examples of "splinted armour was not attached to mail or even a backing." |
I believe the splints from Vendel/Valsgarde were interpreted as having been mounted on leather straps that simply buckled around the arm. So no actual backing. Hmm, do we count pieces that are basically splints connected along their full length by mail?
My contribution! Mostly I'm just Dan's parrot, as usual, though like any good parrot I'll sometimes throw in something unexpected.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think scale must be specified to be attached externally to a backing to keep it from being confused with brigandines/ pairs of plates.
Jack alone is difficult because there are some jacks composed of layers of textile, others with fluff in the middle, and some reinforced with plates. I would prefer some distinction among these: Padded jack, layered jack, reinforced jack.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael G.
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | The actual terms we use are completely irrelevant so long as we come to an agreement to use them consistently. That's the whole point of this thread. If everyone wants I hereby propose a completely new naming convention. Starting at the top and proceeding down the list we call them Howard Type I, Howard Type II, Howard Type III, and so on.  |
I'm all for it! 
Seriously though, the replies posted so far seem to be strengthening my convictions. Most of these terms come with some amount of "baggage" that affects our perception of them. A piece of armor made of small-ish metal plates attached to the inside of a textile covering will probably be called by most of us coat-of-plates (or pair-of-plates) if it is from 13th-14th century Europe, but we would probably call the same armor brigandine if it was from the 15th-16th century in Europe, or from Asia.
Or we might call it scale: | Matthew Amt wrote: |
Yup, if it's a bunch of overlapping little plates of whatever substance or shape attached to an organic backing, it's "scale".
|
Or not: | Mart Shearer wrote: | | I think scale must be specified to be attached externally to a backing to keep it from being confused with brigandines/ pairs of plates. |
I think a more boring and descriptive nomenclature might be more effective. For example, we could use a system that describes the materials and construction of different kinds of armor:
(material)(armor element)-(how they are connected)
So, for example:
textile layers-quilted (=quilted jack)
fiber padding-quilted (=gambeson/aketon)
metal plates-riveted inside garment (=brigandine or COP)
metal plates-sewn outside garment (=scale)
metal plates-laced together (=lamellar)
leather plates-laced together (=lamellar)
Additional info could be added or subtracted as we feel is necessary
small metal plates-riveted inside garment
small rectangular plates-riveted inside garment
small rectangular plates-riveted inside leather
Just a thought, and I can see where this would become cumbersome or produce its own problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | I think scale must be specified to be attached externally to a backing to keep it from being confused with brigandines/ pairs of plates. |
Agreed
| Quote: | | Jack alone is difficult because there are some jacks composed of layers of textile, others with fluff in the middle, and some reinforced with plates. I would prefer some distinction among these: Padded jack, layered jack, reinforced jack. |
I've changed the entry to simply Jack
Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 28 Oct, 2012 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael G. wrote: | | I think a more boring and descriptive nomenclature might be more effective. For example, we could use a system that describes the materials and construction of different kinds of armor:. |
I'm thinking that we need to try and clarify common armour terms so that everyone is on the same page when discussing them. In order to do this we need to incorporate those terms into the system. If we throw out terms like "scale" and "lamellar" then we will have double the problems. Some people will continue to use the common terms while others will adopt the ones you suggest above. For example, I can see merit in eliminating the term "scale" completely and classifying it as a subset of lamellar. But there is no way you can stop people using the word "scale" so may as well try and standardise its use.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 28 Oct, 2012 3:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael G. wrote: | | Even using more modern terms can be confusing. What does one make of armor of horizontally laced plates that does not require a backing, but is attached to one anyway? Is it lamellar or scale? Or what about Roman-style locking scale--is that scale, or lamellar, or maybe mail and plates? |
The above list is not a comprehensive glossary. It is a means of clarifying the most commonly-used terms. It doesn't matter whether a particular armour can't be neatly fitted into one of the categories. For example Roman "locking scale" can remain a separate item discussed on its own terms. So long as "scale" and "lamellar" are clearly defined there is no reason why you can't say that Roman locking scale could be classified as either.
Same with the char-ainé. The only thing that needs to be clarified is whether the char-ainé is a type of "cuirass". If it is then we need an alternative definition for cuirass in which case please give me a suggestion. If not then the char-ainé can continue to be considered its own type of armour.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 28 Oct, 2012 3:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | I tend to think of "segmented" armor such as lorica segmentata as *plate* armor. So the plates are differently shaped and arranged than they are on a Gothic harness, so what? Unless you want to reclassify all the joints on a Gothic harness as "segmented", of course! |
I would call this "articulated plate"
| Quote: | | And I would not restrict "cuirass" to rigid torso armor, since it is widely used for segmented plate and even materials such as mail and scale. If it's plate, just say plate, let "cuirass" refer to any torso section in general (like the Greek "thorax" and Latin "lorica"!). |
Cuirass: A generic term for torso armour. It usually refers to rigid constructions made from metal or hardened leather (cuir means "leather").
Corselet: A generic term for torso armour. It usually refers to more flexible constructions made from textile or small plates.
Harness: A generic term for a suit of articulated plate armour. One example is German Gothic plate.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 28 Oct, 2012 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Weston R Ash wrote: |
New to me;
- Bezanted; Kuyak? an armor made of metal plates (usually round) not connected to each other, but fixed, each separately, to the leather or cloth base. Bezanted = Byzantine?
- Lamellar; only seen examples of this type done in Leather, Wood, Bone, etc..
- Mail & Plates; essentially, small plates attached by small sections of mail? i've seen examples of such, but didn't know what it was called?
- Jazerant; knew it was Mail, didn't know it was placed within the garment?
define "eastern" or "oriental"?; sorry i should say eastern europe, russia, india, east and south-east asia. i've always thought that oriental was south-east asia and india, and that south central asia, asia minor, and the middle-east were all considered something different or removed from the orient?
would like to ask for some Timeline Dating on these types of Armour if possible? also, i have a list and photos of Russian Armour i'd like to bring to the fore. |
Forget everything you have read. Start over with Blair's European Armour. Then get Robinson's Oriental Armour. You might have to wait on the sidelines till the list at the top gets sorted out then start a new thread about your Russian armours.
There is no timeline. The same types of armour pop up all over the world in different periods starting from the Bronze Age. This will help explain the futility of an armour timeline.
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Bronze-Age-Mil...nt/p/3272/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A problem is that originally, these things weren't meant to fit specific definitions.
For example, armour like you see on the 14thC St. George statue in Prague would have probably originally been refereed to as as a coat-of-plates or pair-of-plates, although it is very different from what your average SCA person would think of as a coat-of-plates.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | A problem is that originally, these things weren't meant to fit specific definitions.
For example, armour like you see on the 14thC St. George statue in Prague would have probably originally been refereed to as as a coat-of-plates or pair-of-plates, although it is very different from what your average SCA person would think of as a coat-of-plates. |
Everyone here already knows this. If you read this thread you'll see that it is not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Why not simply call them "fibre/fibrous armour"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the same reason you might not want to call something "leather armor" instead of scale armor or lamellar armor made from leather? North American Indian armor is generally called "rod & slat" armor, not "wooden armor". Is the Greek linothorax a jack?
Do we accept cuirass, thorax, and lorica all as general terms for body armor differentiated by time/culture, or should we agree to only one term, such as "body armor"?
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking personally, I'd like to have a nomenclature that's "etic" or culture-independent -- an objective set of terms that can apply to any time or place. If that's the direction we pursue, we'd need to decide on what the organizing principle would be. But I think Mart is right to point out that classification by base material alone isn't enough, because it doesn't take into account some major differences in methods of construction.
http://ForensicFashion.com/CostumeStudies.html
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | For the same reason you might not want to call something "leather armor" instead of scale armor or lamellar armor made from leather? North American Indian armor is generally called "rod & slat" armor, not "wooden armor".
|
Good point
| Quote: | | Is the Greek linothorax a jack? |
Yep. In all likelihood it was quilted just like European linen armour. The glued linen theory is bollocks.
| Quote: | | Do we accept cuirass, thorax, and lorica all as general terms for body armor differentiated by time/culture, or should we agree to only one term, such as "body armor"? |
Don't really care. Ideally we should keep the most commonly-used modern English term when appropriate. That eliminates words like thorax and lorica. Cuirass and corselet are both reasonable contenders.
|
|
|
|
|
Romulus Stoica
Location: Hunedoara, Transylvania, Romania Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Oct, 2012 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The word "lorica" simply means "armor", not a specific type of armor. It was also used as generic word for armor in medieval latin texts. For example "loricati" means armored infantry, without specifying the kind of armor they have used, oposed to "clipeati", meaning unarmored (or light armored, probably only with stand alone gambesons) light infantry with shields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Nov, 2012 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that when this is "done" it will be a fantastic quick reference guide!
I think I'll start making an effort to use these when speaking.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | If everyone wants I hereby propose a completely new naming convention. Starting at the top and proceeding down the list we call them Howard Type I, Howard Type II, Howard Type III, and so on. |
You never know, it might just happen...
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Nov, 2012 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Romulus Stoica wrote: | | The word "lorica" simply means "armor", not a specific type of armor. It was also used as generic word for armor in medieval latin texts. For example "loricati" means armored infantry, without specifying the kind of armor they have used |
This is already noted earlier in the thread. An English equivalent would be cuirass and cuirassier.
| Quote: | | oposed to "clipeati", meaning unarmored (or light armored, probably only with stand alone gambesons) light infantry with shields. |
Clipeati doesn't mean unarmoured or light armoured. It might imply that but the actual word is derived from the name of their shield (clipeus). It was fairly common practice. Peltast is the most common example. The Greek hypaspist and Byzantine skoutatoi are others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic
