| Author |
Message |
Tim Plourd
Location: Seattle Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
|
|
   |
 |
Greyson Brown
|
 Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Since the other thread has already been referenced (thanks Nathan), I don't really have to mention that I belong to the first camp.
That said, I would like to reiterate what several other people have already said by pointing out that things don't always fit into a nice little definition. There are swords that just refuse to conform to a certain typology, there are shields in shapes that they "shouldn't" be, and there is armour that could be one of a couple of things. In the other thread, I mentioned a couple of coats of plate from Wisby that might have been made from lamellar. In looking at the drawings of those pieces in David Edge and John Miles Paddock's Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight, they look very much more like brigandines than coats of plates. So which are they? The answer to that is highly subjective.
So I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of variety even within a given type of armour. This tends to lead to some confusion, but don't let that get to you. After all, variety is the spice of life, and variety tends to lead to confusion. Therefore, confusion has a tendancy to be the spice of life, right?
-Grey
All penguins are black and white. Some old movies are black and white. Therefore, all penguins are some old movies.
"So long as I can keep the path of honor I am well content."
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The White Company
|
|
|
|
|
Folkert van Wijk
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: Roman Brigantine?? |
|
|
Would this Brigantine (by any change) be suiteable for Roman times??
It lookes like it dow....
 Attachment: 41.1 KB
A good sword will only be sharp, in the hands of a wise man…
I am great fan of everything Celtic BC, including there weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Johnson
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| W. R. Reynolds wrote: |
I think a little clarification may be in order here. Jacks to the best of my knowledge were a padded armor and had no plates of any kind in them. Generally they were made of layers of linen (anywhere between 18 and 30) sewn together, probably with thinner areas at the armpits and elbows to faciltate movement. The layers were then quilted usually in longitudinal rows.
|
Exactly. There are 15th C. references to deerskin on jacks (presumably as a more durable outer shell) and "Jakke stuffed with mail" and "Jakke stuffed with horn", implying there may have been variants having mail or bits of horn sandwiched in the layers, but when the item had plates, it was called a "Paire of brigandines" (Spelling in quotations may vary).
| Quote: |
The tough part about proving this is that cloth armor does not have very good characteristics for surviving the ravages of time. |
Ya. I only know of one surviving item which MAY have been a jack. Its in a museum in Germany and dated 16th C. (can't find my pics at the moment.
(Moving personal discussion with Bill to PMs, so I don't bore people with my private life) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
There are a few late versions (16th century) of the jack with small roughly rectangular plates with the corners trimmed in the Tower collection one of which is shown in "Arms In Action" Maille and Plate Armour. They are in rough shape. The British museum has one (again 16th century ) thats in very good condition all things considered again of roughly rectangular plates with the corners trimmed in between two layers of canvas. Ffoulokes refers to one made in this method but with horn plates having belonged to Sir John Willoughby that at that time resided at Woolaton Hall but he stipulates that this one was also stuffed with two alyers of tow as well as the plates. Ffoulkes also sites the tower examples with metal plates and gives a weight of about 17lbs. Stone broadens the definition of "jack " to include coats made from layers of fabric quilted, fabric shells stuffed with tow and maille, tow and plates and also the eyelet coat wherein a garment is more or less made from button sticked holes. Both Mr.Stone and Mr. Ffoulkes do make a distinction between "jacks" and "brigandine" based on method of construction. The Tower jacks Ffoulkes mentions are sited as consisting of approx. 1164 plates and he later sites an account for the construction of two jack coats as well as a cap made in the same manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff Johnson wrote: |
You should always question every armor & weapon-maker's source. Far to often, their product is a loose interpretation. Always check the references yourself. Trust, but verify, etc..  |
Jeff;
This isn't particularly about Brigantines or Jacks, I think that you struck to the heart of the matter of purchasing any historical goods right here. Altogether too many people do their homework via catalogues, and too many vendors use "sales techniques" that are not exactly accurate. Some are good and honest, some horse hockey, but it is up to the buyer to check it out. I know some vendors who I trust implicitly, because I know that they've done their homework... because I did enough to be able to tell. Were it that others would do as much. Caveat Emptor, to be sure!
Good point, and thanks for making it. Back to the thread...
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
 |
|
Tim Plourd
Location: Seattle Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree Greyson. Also, I am going to steal your penguin line. 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stone knew very little about armour and relied on some dodgy Victorian scholarship. His definitions cannot be trusted. ffoulkes OTOH is very underrated as a source but should be used with caution.
Regarding the photo at the top of this page, it would not be suitable as Roman armour and cannot be classed as a brigandine. It resembles an armoured surcoat or the COP worn by St Maurice except that it appears to be made of leather, not fabric.
The so-called armour in Braveheart is bollocks and never existed. Brigandines, whether European or Oriental varieties, consist of overlapping plates riveted to the inside of a foundation garment. There is no liner. Sometimes a second cover is added to the top - often of expensive and decorated material.
Brigandines became so fashionable that tailors started to make civilian clothing to resemble them - they have the visible studs but not the plates underneath. They serve no functional purpose as armour and were purely a fashion item. They were common in the East but they existed in Europe also. I generally use the phrase "faux brigandine" to define this garment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Dan any thoughts on the existant(at least at that time) examples sighted by them of jacks?Are these originals or Victorian cobb jobs such as the Met brig mentioned earlier?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
They existed. There is primary documentation to support it. Jack of plates using either horn or metal. Seems like a cheap alternative to a tailored brigandine. Jacks were also "stuffed" with mail. These could probably be defined as jazerant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Johnson
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Brigandines, whether European or Oriental varieties, consist of overlapping plates riveted to the inside of a foundation garment. There is no liner. |
Avoiding absolotes where uncertainty exists: There is have been no liners found any of the few surviving Brigandines. There is some conjecture that some may have been lined, based on a liner's utility in modern re-creations of Brigs.
Experimental archeology at work...
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
There are literally thousands of extant examples, some more complete than others. Considering the amount of cloth that has survived on the front one would think that at least one example would still have evidence of something on the back. Bob mentioned that there are four examples in the Royal Armouries which have a small liner for the shoulder section, but the rest of the armour has no liner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Dellavalle
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Feb, 2005 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just happened to be wandering around another site that a link was posted for on another thread and I came across this picture. Figured I would throw it up here since it seems to be in pretty good shape. They say it is in the Royal Armouries and may be one of the suits that were referenced earlier although I'm not sure.
Does give a nice look at the inside though and if you ask me on the top left and right near the shoulders it does appear that some remnants of liner remain that would have been on the inside.
Heres a link to the site in case the image doesn't load properly
http://medievalreenactment.fotopic.net/p2198980.html
Attachment: 68.89 KB
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Feb, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I already indicated that the shoulders were sometimes lined. Also, on rare occasions each plate was wrapped in cloth before being added to the assembly. This is not the same as a lining though. Notice on the above pic that the lining seems to stop at the first overlap. You can't line a properly constructed brigandine because the action of the plates will tear it out very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Uhl
Location: Denver, Colo. Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Feb, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | You can't line a properly constructed brigandine because the action of the plates will tear it out very quickly. |
If that should be true, then surely anything beneath the plates will be torn up just as quickly: linen undershirt or bare chest (and chest-hair, ouch)? If the lining can be done more cheaply than an undershirt (poss. not), then it'd make sense to line, no?
|
|
  |
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Feb, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Uhl wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | You can't line a properly constructed brigandine because the action of the plates will tear it out very quickly. |
If that should be true, then surely anything beneath the plates will be torn up just as quickly: linen undershirt or bare chest (and chest-hair, ouch)? If the lining can be done more cheaply than an undershirt (poss. not), then it'd make sense to line, no? |
Well, it would PROBABLY have been worn over some sort of arming jack/coat in any event, and those were fairly cheaply made since they don't show (unless of course the owner wanted to be really ostentatious!) This would provide the necessary foundation for the plates to ride over while the wearer was moving about his normal business of the armour-wearing day. Most of the arming coats were of heavy linen shell, padded and then lined with a softer material for contact to the body. (Ffoulks claims that shirts were not normally worn under the arming coats, as they tend to "ruck up" under the conditions of extreme body movement, but that's the only source I've heard this from, so take it with caution.) Anyway, the arming jack/coat would have the arming points fixed to it for attaching the various pieces of plate armour, so would be worn whether or not the wearer was using brigandine or plate chest protection.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Feb, 2005 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Uhl wrote: | | If that should be true, then surely anything beneath the plates will be torn up just as quickly: linen undershirt or bare chest (and chest-hair, ouch)? If the lining can be done more cheaply than an undershirt (poss. not), then it'd make sense to line, no? |
If it made sense to line brigandines then one might expect the majority of surviving examples to be lined, no? I challenge you to find even one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Fulton
|
| Posted: Tue 22 Feb, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I'm guessing a gambeson would definitely be worn under brigandine both for padding and shock protection against impact, and for additional armor, just like under mail?
Having worn Kevlar, an undershirt below a gambeson-type vest would "ruck up" but not if properly tucked in or a long-tailed shirt.
|
|
|
|
|
Greyson Brown
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Feb, 2005 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| B. Fulton wrote: | | Having worn Kevlar, an undershirt below a gambeson-type vest would "ruck up" but not if properly tucked in or a long-tailed shirt. |
Not to disregard your comparisson, because it is relevant, but I would not use any of the modern body armor that I have seen for very much comparison. I made a coat of plates based on one found at Wisby. I also spent the last year wearing Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). I came to the conclusion that there is only a very very tenuous link between the two. But I'll try to save my gripes and complaints about the last year for their proper place.
My coat of plates, and I suspect that most brigandines as well, was more easily adjusted than the infernal Kevlar stuff. That is kind of ironic given that the Kevlar was intended to fit just about everyone. Either way, if I wanted a little more padding under my coat of plates, I just didn't buckle it as tight; with Kevlar, you have to engage in a one man rodeo/circus/cussing match in order to loosen or tighten things. So if I tried to wear it with a field jacket or other bulky garment underneath, the IBA did not fit at all right, and as you pointed out, my clothes did not stay put like they were supposed to. It is not as true with coats of plates, but most of the brigandines that I have seen have straps, and thus room for adjustment, at the shoulders. The IBA does not. That makes a big difference in how everything beneath it behaves!
Anyway, my point is that the IBA, and probably most Kevlar vests, are inferior pieces of semi-armor-like equipment that will cause problems that do not represent historical concerns. Nonetheless, thank you for your observation, because it was logical, and I appreciate getting a chance to complain.
-Grey
"So long as I can keep the path of honor I am well content."
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The White Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Johnson
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Feb, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| B. Fulton wrote: | So I'm guessing a gambeson would definitely be worn under brigandine both for padding and shock protection against impact, and for additional armor, just like under mail?
Having worn Kevlar, an undershirt below a gambeson-type vest would "ruck up" but not if properly tucked in or a long-tailed shirt. |
If we presume an arming doublet (proper term for a garment under armor in the 15th C.), then this isn't an issue, as the wearer's armor legs would have been pointed to the bottom ot the arming doublet and prevented it from riding up.
Alternatively, if there are no armor legs, then the bottom of the under-garment might have been pointed to the wearer's hosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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