| Author |
Message |
Bruno Giordan
|
 Posted: Mon 22 May, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Elling Polden wrote: | Goliath's greaves are specifically mentioned in the Good Book™. They are only there because of that.
Note that the artist does not know what greaves actually looks like; he's just drawing something on the top of his head.
Kind of like when they draw Charriots as haywagons  |
I'm not sure I'd fully discount the artist's rendering. Gutter-shaped iron/steel demi-greaves (greaves that covered basically just the shin and tied around the back of the calf)) were certainly used; we see them on effigies not too long after the Maciejowski Bible was first illustrated c. 1250. These would be about the least elegant pair I'd ever seen, of course, but they could have been exaggerated to better match the story.
That leaf, if I recall correctly, is among those penned by the most talented of the artists who worked on the Maciejowski Bible. He got a lot of things right; I'd be surprised if this was entirely off or entirely fictitious.
 |
I have read somewhere that the artist of the mac bible was likely a soldier himself, given the keen interest in military things apparent in the bible itself.
In any case the centrality and importance of soldiers in the Mac is striking
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Mon 22 May, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Bruno, or anyone for that matter,
Do you know the dating of that illumination, I don't believe I have seen it before. It has some nice details.
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 22 May, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | Hello Bruno, or anyone for that matter,
Do you know the dating of that illumination, I don't believe I have seen it before. It has some nice details.
Jeremy |
Which illumination? The one I posted that shows in Bruno's post, too? It's from the Maciejowski Bible. It was painted at the court of Louis of France (later St. Louis), in Paris, c. 1250. The latin inscriptions are Italian and date from about 50 years later.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 22 May, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The narrow gutter type greaves are probably best categorized as a subtype of Schynbald. What I have read (internet articles without high degree of references or author qualifications) on these stated that their use was mainly in transition, 13th century period. Like most other things, I suspect that there were early and late usage exceptions.
Since I am contemplating making some 1/2 or 3/4 harness type of leather / steel-strip splint armour for leg and arms, I would appreciate input from anyone who knows definate appropriate period use and examples (any 12th or 13th century?)
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Giordan
|
| Posted: Tue 23 May, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a couple more pics
 Attachment: 15.48 KB
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Giordan
|
| Posted: Tue 23 May, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and
Attachment: 11.36 KB
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have a question related to this subject. We know from experience that when a sword and shield are paired together, the legs are particularly vulnerable to attack since it can be difficult to maneuver a shield quickly to protect the legs, and doing so opens up your upper body to attacks. Likewise, sword and buckler teachings from the fechtbucher also indicate attacks were used to cause the opponent to defend, leaving their lower openings exposed to counterattacks; one such action can be found in Ringeck's manual, for instance. The bones found at the site of the Battle of Wisby also indicate that a large number of leg wounds occurred, and it is reasonable to surmise that this probably would have been the case earlier as well. So, given how common sword and buckler and sword and shield was in the early Middle Ages, why do mail chausses not seem to be particularly common, judging by period artwork? I'm sure that the responses will have something to do with the cost of mail, and the extra time involved in creating leg protection. Yet even still, given how vital it is to protect the legs, it seems strange that mail protection for the legs did not become more common until later in the 12th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with this,
We have to keep in mind that these illuminations are from the Maciejowski Bible which is c. 1250. The Bayeux tapastry shows no maile chausses, though I may be wrong. I don't know of evidence of chausses in the 12th century. This does seem odd in that the legs do seem a vulnerable point.
I am left to conclude that a kit for 1100-1150 should not include any specific leg protection other than wool bindings. Does anyone have any references of mail chausses to contradict this?
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | I agree with this,
We have to keep in mind that these illuminations are from the Maciejowski Bible which is c. 1250. The Bayeux tapastry shows no maile chausses, though I may be wrong. I don't know of evidence of chausses in the 12th century. This does seem odd in that the legs do seem a vulnerable point.
I am left to conclude that a kit for 1100-1150 should not include any specific leg protection other than wool bindings. Does anyone have any references of mail chausses to contradict this?
Jeremy |
"[In the 12th century] mail chausses became increasingly popular, though still occaisionally worn with shoes. Some chausses had a lace threaded through the links below the knee to help keep them in place." p. 85
There is also a photo in the book of a sketch made of the now lost effigy of William of Clito (d 1127) who is clearly depicted in mail chausses.
Gravett, Christopher and Nicolle, David. The Normans: Warrior Knights and their Castles. New York: Osprey Publishing, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
William is shown wearing chaussettes in The Bayeaux Tapestry which was made within ten years of the battle of Hastings so not after 1076. A few 12th century examples of chaussettes p. 25 of A&A of the Medieval Knight a carving of Roland from the Veron Cathedral (he has a chaussette on his left leg only), p.39 of A&A of the Medieval Knight a page from the Winchester Bible c.1170 depicting David and Goliath, Goliath as well as many troops in both armies have chaussettes on, p 363 of Arms and Armor of the Crusdaing Era 1050-1350 figure 19a from "The Story of Tristan" painted on a marriage chest c1150-70 is a mounted figure wearing chaussettes. Theres quite alot of sculptural and illustrated evidence from the 12c. century of chaussettes and while William is shown with them on in the tapestry doesn't prove that he had them it does indicate that not after 1076 they were a know piece of military equipment by thier inclusion in the Bayeaux Tapestry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah! thanks, now I know, thanks for doing the "leg" work guys!.
When we see chaussettes being worn over shoes how did this affect the mail. I guess the links are strong enough to be walked upon or is the bottom of the foot soled in some way?
Thanks again,
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | Ah! thanks, now I know, thanks for doing the "leg" work guys!.
When we see chaussettes being worn over shoes how did this affect the mail. I guess the links are strong enough to be walked upon or is the bottom of the foot soled in some way?
Thanks again,
Jeremy |
Based upon an illustration from the same book that I mentioned earlier I'd say that there's no links on the bottom of the shoes, just as there's no linkson the palm of the hand on the mail covered mittens. The text of the book also states "Once the whole hand was covered in mail a leather or cloth palm was necessary for the grip; since the sleeve and mitten were made in one, a slit in the palm enabled the hand to be freed as necessary" (p. 84). Presumably, the same feature would apply for the feet. Remember that medieval shoes aren't exactly thick in the way that our modern shoes are, so I imagine that stepping on mail constantly could prove very painful after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | [Presumably, the same feature would apply for the feet. Remember that medieval shoes aren't exactly thick in the way that our modern shoes are, so I imagine that stepping on mail constantly could prove very painful after a while. |
During this time period, the vast majority of warriors who wore mail were cavalry. So walking in armour isn't really an issue
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 29 May, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: | | [Presumably, the same feature would apply for the feet. Remember that medieval shoes aren't exactly thick in the way that our modern shoes are, so I imagine that stepping on mail constantly could prove very painful after a while. |
During this time period, the vast majority of warriors who wore mail were cavalry. So walking in armour isn't really an issue |
I don't know that I'd necessarily agree. This book I'm reading on the Normans cites plenty of instances when Norman knights deliberately fought dismounted. Apparently, at Bremule in 1119, Henry I dismounted all but 100 of his 500 knights. It also notes that during the civil war both King Stephen's and Maud's forces placed wings of horsemen on either side of a centre of infantry and dismounted knights (p 105). Given that some of these knights almost certainly had mail chausses and shoes, it seems improbable that the mail would completely cover the entire foot for the reasons I mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic