Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Identification Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Richard Fay




Location: Upstate New York
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Reading list: 256 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello again!

One more point.

I, too, have experimented with making armour similar to "studded and splinted" armour. I made hardened leather greaves (wax hardened - but I will do it differently if I ever do it again) and rivetted three metal strips down each shin. Having a bunch of round spots around, I then mounted rows of spots between the strips to make them look roughly like von Schwarzberg's greaves. I have found that the "splints" actually seem to act like stiffeners; keeping the leather in shape. I would suggest that, in many instances of "splinted" armour where there is a fair amount of distance between the splints, that the splints may act more like stiffeners on a belt than armour reinforcements. It would be similar to vambraces described and illustrated in Rene D'Anjou's tournament treatise.

A picture of my greaves (not quite living history quality, but functional) can be seen on the previous "studded and splinted armour" thread.

"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
View user's profile
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard,

The facts of the studs not having plates behind them is a dead end of speculation as it is impossible to know what was behind them I totally agree on.
I have never heard other academics make this case and you did not list one who did. There are hundreds if not thousands of plates in existance indication this armour was fairly widespread and common. Trying to say you need to find evidence it would seem likely there were plates behind the covering is totally dependant on how realistic an artist or craftsman wished to be which varies and therefore of very limited value. The fact that there are so many remains of plated armour of this type indicates otherwise.
Also alighnment of the lines of rivets indicates the support of somethign underneath often. For decoration striaght lines is fairly low of a decoration of the many possiblities of decoartion possible with rivet designs as well.
I have actually handled pieces of medieval leather armour and know it existed but think Nicolle has strange fetishes to leather armour, the east as the source of every western armour and arms and gunpowdered weapons (some sarcasm). You can claim that those items were not supporting plates and you are probably right but none of them is armour. All you evidence is supplementary to a knights gear and armour and is not armour. We may just have to disagree because I think there is little to think it more than a Dungeon and Dragonish trend that sadly lived on past the game books (no offense to any who do D and D or such).

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard,

Sorry to not answer your question. There is not proof that behind all studs there are plates.
There are plenty of arch evidence in plate remains with textiles etc. that we know it was done, there is artwork, there are many written accounts such as the occassion mentioned before with specifically was regarding limb armour and poor leather backing, but nothing to say all was so.

I totally argee that it is something that cannot be stated 100 percent. The same can be said about alot of issues in history though, backplates, pre 1400 using artwork and such, What was worn under mail pre 1100, were the men at hastings really naked under their mail, etc. the nature of the game I am afraid. No we cannot be sure but to me the evidence as well as academics I have followed on this topic, Gravett, Bennet, etc. seem to indicate under the rivets are splints.

likewise I think you have apoint and you could be right. I just do not think it makes sense given how I have soaked in the info I have,

cheeeeerrrrrsss,

RPM
sorry, I reread the last post and it was a bit strong the last line, it was supposed to be funny and reflect the fact I never heard it from anyone but D and Der's.
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Fay




Location: Upstate New York
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Reading list: 256 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 11:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello again!

Randall,

I think you are misinterpreting what I am trying to say. I definitely agree that the majority of armours shown in period art that appear with "studs" or "rivets" attached to a backing material are some sort of brigandine, coat-of-plate, or otherwise covered plate. This is undoubtedly the case in the majority of period images. Yes, there are many examples of plates recovered in an archaeological context, and supposed brigandine plates nailed to the door of Tewkebury Abbey. I never said scholars are advocating the historical existence of Dungeons and Dragons style "studded leather armour" as a torso defense.

I am focused primarily on specifically "studded and splinted" armour as seen on the limbs of some of the German effigies (and a few earlier Italian ones and a handful of English brasses and effigies). My argument is that there is no need for plates beneath the leather (hardened or formed) backing material, that the leather alone was seen as ample defense. Leather was considered a decent defense earlier in the 14th century, and I argue that the "splints" were just reinforcements to the primary defence of leather. I already quoted Christopher Gravett's interpretation of these "studded and splinted armours" among others. Here is what he said in the caption to the photo of the effigy of Burhard von Steinberg:
Christopher Gravett wrote:

His forearms are guarded by "stud-and-splint" armour of metal strips attached to leather and reinforced with rivets, which was very popular in Germany and was presumably cheap to produce

Gravett made no mention of splints beneath the backing; he mentions that is was reinforced with rivets. Maybe reinforce is improper, maybe it's more properly "decorated" with rivets.

Here's what David Nicolle said about the effigy of Gunther von Schwarzberg:
David Nicolle wrote:

This time his arm defences are all worn over the mail of the hauberk, the rerebraces and vambraces being of splinted and rivetted construction. Since German armourers were clearly quite capable of making sophisticated plate armour, the most logical reason for such splinted and rivetted construction, which is also seen on his greaves, is for lightness or cheapness. Such armour for the limbs was probably leather reinforced with iron splints.

Nicolle is not clearly suggesting "reinforced with rivets" like Gravett, but his suggestion of the reasons for it's use (lightness and cheapness) seem valid, especially when full-metal greaves were indeed available. Again, if they were used for such reasons (purely speculative, mind you), then splint on both inside and outside would seem to defeat the purpose for its use!

Here's Christopher Rothero's interpretation of the armour on the limbs of the von Schwarzberg effigy:
Christopher Rothero wrote:

The protection given to von Schwarzberg's limbs consists of rivets placed between longitudinal strips, presumably of metal.

Again, no mention that the rivets must be holding splints beneath the backing!

Here's Niels M. Saxtorph's interpretation of von Schwarzberg's limb protection:
Niels M. Saxtorph wrote:

In this case the arms and legs are covered by cuir bouilli which has been grained and painted into the bargain. It is possible that the pattern was made with metal rivets that served as reinforcement.

Saxtorph concentrates on the leather construction of the armour, and only hints at the metal components.

Here's a slightly different interpretation from an older source, this time from Charles Henry Ashdown:
Charles Henry Ashdown wrote:

Studded pourpoint or studded mail, as it was occasionally called, consisted of metal disks or roundels, generally of steel, secured by rivets to the padded garment, or to leather or cuir bouilli. These roundels were made very similar to the modern stud, but with a short neck; where large roundels are seen...the smaller head is buried in the pourpoint, or boiled leather, and the larger back, as we term it, is visible. This is generally reversed in the case of other defenses...

Ashdown suggests that the "studs'" affixed roundels, not splints. It actually sounds similar to what is seen between the splints on the von Schwarzberg effigy.

There is also an interesting example of a Tibetan arm guard of leather strapped with iron shown in a photo in George Cameron Stone's glossary. I mentioned this previously as well. I know it's Asian, but it bears an uncanny reseblance to European "splinted armour". I don't think we should negelct the study of armour from other regions, because humans in different areas often come up with similar solutions to similar problems. If it worked for the Tibetans, why not the Germans as well? (I'm not saying there is a direct link between German "splinted armour" and the Tibetan arm guard, but I am saying that it can help us interpret the possible construction of medieval European "splinted" armour.)

There are many variations in the basic "splinted armour" design; some have closely-spaced or abutted splints, while others have splints spread fairly widely apart. A few show rivets between the splints (or more properly disks in the case of von Schwarzberg), but it seems that the majority I have seen (the effigies of Dieter von hohenberg, Heinrich of Seinsheim, Conrad of Seinsheim, Huglin of Schoeneck, William de Kerdiston, and the brasses of Miles de Stapleton and Thomas Cheyne) do not. I think the best interpretation of this "splinted armour" is that it is leather reinforced (or stiffened) with metal. There is no need to make it into a complicated construction of plates on the outside and inside.

I discussed civilian and military belts because you made the suggestion that rivets or studs would not be used in a decorative fashion by our ancestors. They clearly were in civilian and military belts. Armour functioned as protection, but it also followed certain trends in fashion. Gilding or trimming edges in gilt latten, or embossing, or engraving, or encrusting with jewels, or covering in rich fabrics such as silk or velvet were done, in part (and, in some instances, primarily) for fashion. These were the CEOs and high-ranking politicians of their day; they were wealthy men who flaunted their wealth whenever and wherever they could. A plain leather vambrace doesn't have the "bling" factor that one peppered with rows of bright, shiny gilded rivets does!

(By the way, Hefner-Alteneck shows a detail of a small belt or strap depicted suspended from the "belt of plaques" on the Count of Arensberg's effigy. The belt is peppered with very small rivets or studs, but it is clearly flexible enough to loop around the girdle - further proof that our ancestors did indeed use a plethora of rivets or studs for decorative purposes. Yes, it's military gear and not technically armour, but it's splitting hairs separating the style of the two, and saying that they could do something with clothing, but never did it with armour. Can you see my train of thought here?)

I hope this further clarified my position. I don't know what else to say. Maybe I'm suffering yet again from the hardships of communication via this particular venue. Does any of this make sense to anyone?

Oh, I thought of one more point. I think many enthusiasts get hooked up on the "functionality" of armour, and lose sight of the fact that there was indeed a fashion component to the style of armour. My point when introducing the "studded belts" (one example where decorative metallic elements were used extensively) was to point out that metallic studs, rivets, or spots could be used for fashion purposes. I thought it was a logical step to suggest that such fashion trends might be used, even if only rarely, in armour. There are some attributes of some of the German effigies that seem to be there for fashion alone; how practical are the large hanging sleeves of the undergarments shown on the effigies of Ludwig of Hutten and Kunz Haberkorn? They could have functioned for warmth, but they might just as easily be there just as a fashion statement. It certainly didn't help the "functionailty" of jupons or coat armours to be cut into elaborate dags, it was a fashion statement. I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of things appearing on armour for fashion reasons because it doesn't fit our concept of functionality.

"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar


Last edited by Richard Fay on Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile
Richard Fay




Location: Upstate New York
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Reading list: 256 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello again!
Randall Moffet wrote:

sorry, I reread the last post and it was a bit strong the last line, it was supposed to be funny and reflect the fact I never heard it from anyone but D and Der's.


Randall,

You can't possibly come off as strong as I tend to! Wink
I try to keep from sounding too strong, but I guess it's in my nature to sound gruff. Worried

I hope my last post, lengthy as strong as it may have been, helped to clear things up a bit. "Studded Leather Armour" as a body defense as portrayed in Dungeons and Dragons is purely fantasy, but "studded padded armour" may have been used historically (the studs may have acted to hold layers together, or just as decoration) in Europe and was certainly used historically in Asia (although it's debatable how much protection such garments would truly give). "Splinted" or "Studded and Splinted" armour, used mostly for protection for the limbs, was a armour with splints (probably metal) attached to a backing material (most likely leather) definitely in use in Germany as well as England and Italy. Sometimes there were rows of splints alone (sometimes attached with visible rivets, but not always) and sometimes rows of splints alternated with rows of rivets or studs.

Again, a lot of this was discussed before on other threads.

Stay safe!

"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
View user's profile
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Tue 28 Nov, 2006 11:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard,

I think I understant what you are saying. Like I said I know there was leather armour but I am not sure that your quotes actually make sense to me (at least at the moment):

Christopher Gravett wrote:

His forearms are guarded by "stud-and-splint" armour of metal strips attached to leather and reinforced with rivets, which was very popular in Germany and was presumably cheap to produce

Gravett made no mention of splints beneath the backing; he mentions that is was reinforced with rivets. Maybe reinforce is improper, maybe it's more properly "decorated" with rivets.

(the metal strips would be the splints, and Gravett seems to think from this that the rivets (studs) are to hold the metal strips (splints) on).

David Nicolle wrote:

This time his arm defences are all worn over the mail of the hauberk, the rerebraces and vambraces being of splinted and rivetted construction. Since German armourers were clearly quite capable of making sophisticated plate armour, the most logical reason for such splinted and rivetted construction, which is also seen on his greaves, is for lightness or cheapness. Such armour for the limbs was probably leather reinforced with iron splints.

Nicolle is not clearly suggesting "reinforced with rivets" like Gravett, but his suggestion of the reasons for it's use (lightness and cheapness) seem valid, especially when full-metal greaves were indeed available. Again, if they were used for such reasons (purely speculative, mind you), then splint on both inside and outside would seem to defeat the purpose for its use!

(Once more he is describing traditional splints and rivets. The greaves are indeed lighter depending on manufacture. My
interpretation that I made had very narrow sprints on the outside and larger ones on the inside. The ones on the inside being lighter weight metal (1mmish) the ourside thicker 1.2-1.5mm, in the end I think it could be lighter but I think much of the appeal of the armour was likely the ability it has of being somewhat more snug to the wearer, it will always be so whether weight gained or lost, it also would likely be cheaper as they could be made by almost anyone and require less metal workign skill to have formed).

Christopher Rothero wrote:

The protection given to von Schwarzberg's limbs consists of rivets placed between longitudinal strips, presumably of metal.

Again, no mention that the rivets must be holding splints beneath the backing!

(no mention the rivets must be supporting metal plates but he fails to do any identification or state there is anything behind them either way, once again totally ambigious, I can see this one as supporting what you are thinking only as it does not make any claim one way or the other).

Here's Niels M. Saxtorph's interpretation of von Schwarzberg's limb protection:
Niels M. Saxtorph wrote:

In this case the arms and legs are covered by cuir bouilli which has been grained and painted into the bargain. It is possible that the pattern was made with metal rivets that served as reinforcement.


(now this one is clearly in the order of what you are saying I think. I have not heard of Saxtorph but as I said I do not doubt it possible just not likely. It seems by his wording he does not either.)

Charles Henry Ashdown wrote:

Studded pourpoint or studded mail, as it was occasionally called, consisted of metal disks or roundels, generally of steel, secured by rivets to the padded garment, or to leather or cuir bouilli. These roundels were made very similar to the modern stud, but with a short neck; where large roundels are seen...the smaller head is buried in the pourpoint, or boiled leather, and the larger back, as we term it, is visible. This is generally reversed in the case of other defenses...

Ashdown suggests that the "studs'" affixed roundels, not splints. It actually sounds similar to what is seen between the splints on the von Schwarzberg effigy.

(Ashdown, wow I have not heard of him in ages. Is this the same born late 19th century (1881 I think)? Aside from things changing a lot since the antiquarianism men like Ashdown, Laking and Bashford-Dean I do not think that rondels supported by rivets would change the main idea behind what I am saying, rather that where there is a rivet more likey underneath is a plate of some material, perhaps bone or leather even, but something. From what I have spoken to other about most adacemics (I think Rothero does at one point mention something like this but do not recall anyone else) do not put alot of faith in this description of armour, "Studded Mail" should be the first indication of trouble. This is the time where scale mail, plate mail and studded mail came from. (I think the origin of D and D vocab, so they did do their homework just with very old books)

IN THE END, we are back to where we were except I will conceed that decoration was important to add into the equation but will maintain that there still is a major difference between the decoration of armour itself and its peripheral equipment.
I think if the rivets were pure decoration they would have done more with them, especially if on leather with the tooling that exists on existant pieces, mimicking what was done on the types of belts you mention which get all sorts of things, plaques, designs of squares, circles, diamonds,chequered, etc. which are not done on the types of armour seen. If anything it was to give the illusion of splints behind them.

On the effigies that Nicolle assumes are leather by the high level of decoration they do not have rivet decorations. It would seem a gap that would not follow from using leather alone as a defence which is highly tooled and decorated you would expect it to be done to other pieces as well with the addition of rivets not in place of them. Now it could be personal preference, perhaps they do not like tooling but then why are the rivets in straight lines instead or patterns whichh is quite often done on belts and other non armour bits?
It could be that the slpints spaced on the outside and rivets between were without back plates. Is it needed? No,not likely, I assume most limb armour is for slashes, cutting and the like not piercing so having one plate at the front and two on the sides more than enough to complete its function. I think with back plates it makes it alot more efficient, it absorbs most of the impact as well and with a padded layer behind it is great armour.

I will have to look up said Saxtorph and his book as I could only find one book by him and it was not on armour but thanks for the heads up. Once more it is not that leather was used as its own defence, it is totally possible and from existing pieces seems to have been used though with rows and lines or rivets I still would maintain most often there are plates supported behind.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
R. Figueres




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Reading list: 16 books

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 7:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi all !

My first post will be an interrogative one Wink

I've just finished this very interesting thread but I was wondering what was the source of the pictures posted by Nathan ?

Thanks,

Renaud

No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violonist.
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Those of you interested in the construction of 14th c. armour may find this interesting:


 Attachment: 107.21 KB
armour.jpg


-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard Fay




Location: Upstate New York
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Reading list: 256 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 1:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello all!

That's definitely an interesting example of a coat-of-plates with a large breastplate, complete with chains. I've seen very similar armour on some German effigies, like Otto von Orlamunde, who died in 1340. The von Orlamunde effigy even shows the small shoulder plates.

Very interesting, indeed!

"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
View user's profile
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 2:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here's a better image of this armour:


 Attachment: 122.02 KB
[ Download ]

-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
R. Figueres




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Reading list: 16 books

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 4:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Very interesting indeed !

Thansk !

Renaud

No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violonist.
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 21 Feb, 2007 3:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree with Randall. The use of rivets in armour almost invariably involves affixing some sort of metal plate.

Please don't cite from books that are a century old. It is hard enough to squash all of the myths as it is without this sort of rubbish being dredged up. Ashdown is especially loathsome. He had decent sources such as Hewitt, Laking, and Ffoulkes and chose to ignore their excellent work and instead regurgitated Meyrick's already discredited nonsense.

Nicolle isn't much of a source either outside of his area of expertise - i.e. the Middle East. Don't rely on him for Western European armour,.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:14 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Hisham Gaballa





Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 508

PostPosted: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Sean,

It's interesting that although the armour you posted is a coat of plates, the arrangement of the breastplate and lower plates is similar to the breastplates and faulds on early 15th century "all-white" armour. So it almost illustrates how the plate cuirass evolved from the coat-of-plates. Happy

Hisham
View user's profile Send private message
Risto Rautiainen




Location: Kontiolahti, Finland
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 176

PostPosted: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean, thank you so very much for posting that pic!

I have never before seen surviving pieces of armour that have those chains on. That is most excellent! Has anyone tried to fight when using those chains/can you direct me to thread that discusses their use?

EDIT: I should use the search fuction before posting, I know....
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Fay




Location: Upstate New York
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Reading list: 256 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 6:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
I agree with Randall. The use of rivets in armour almost invariably involves affixing some sort of metal plate.

Please don't cite from books that are a century old. It is hard enough to squash all of the myths as it is without this sort of rubbish being dredged up. Ashdown is especially loathsome. He had decent sources such as Hewitt, Laking, and Ffoulkes and chose to ignore their excellent work and instead regurgitated Meyrick's already discredited nonsense.

Nicolle isn't much of a source either outside of his area of expertise - i.e. the Middle East. Don't rely on him for Western European armour,.


Let me point out that all of this is pure speculation based on interpretations of period art. Until a surviving example of this "studded and splinted" armour shows up, it remains just speculation.

By the way, I know Ashdown is mighty old, and I usually don't cite from his text as a rule. I do like to rely on his drawings of the brasses, since it is a good source for that particular information. However, there may be glimmers of interesting stuff mixed in with the outdated. I do not believe in discarding anything wholesale just because I don't believe in the majority of what's said.

Finally, as I have said repeatedly, based on my observations from period art depicted in various works (Paul Martin's Arms and Armour from the 9th to the 17th Century, Hefner-Alteneck's Medieval Arms and Armor: A Pictorial Archive, among others), most of these armours show no trace of rivets or other means of attachment for plates between the obvious strips. Even when rivets are shown on the "splints", as is the case with the greaves on the (now lost) brass of Sir Miles Stapleton, there is no trace of rivets between the splints. To me, this indicates the absence of splints beneath the cover. And, since leather was deemed a perfectly fine alternative to metal for protection for the limbs, an assertion backed up by period sources, written as well as in art, I see no reason why we shouldn't interpret the "splinted" armour as being leather reinforced with strips or "splints" of metal, alternating with bare leather.

Perhaps the next step will be to question the rest of my sources, since many of them are only drawings of the art, and not the art itself. However, I have matched many of the drawings to photos of the same effigies, and they match. Furthermore, the drawings from one source often match the drawings from the other. Other disciplines rely on technical drawings, so I see no reason why this discipline cannot.

Now, I think I've personally said all I care to regarding this subject. I'm more than ready to go on to other things.

By the way, I couldn't find an image of Sir Miles Stapleton on-line (there's a good drawing of an impression of his brass in Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock), but I did find an image of an English brass with similar greaves. Note the rivetted strips, and lack of rivets between, on the brass of Sir Thomas Cheyne. (And, yes, a drawing of Sir Thomas's knee protection, with a bit of the greaves and cuisses showing, appears in the much-maligned Ashdown work. The details in the Ashdown drawing are almost identical to the drawing of the brass.) I've also posted an interesting image of an English effigy with similar armour for the thighs. This time, no rivets are visible. Is is really necessary to suggest that there are also strips or plates beneath the cover as well as on the surface? Can't the cuisses be made of hardened leather reinforced with only the visible strips, especially when leather armour without reinforcement was another option?



 Attachment: 8.27 KB
Sir Thomas Cheyne, died 1368, at Drayton Beauchamp, England..jpg
Sir Thomas Cheyne, died 1368, at Drayton Beauchamp, England.

 Attachment: 9.14 KB
Sir Roger de Kerdeston, died 1337, at Reepham, England..jpg
Sir Roger de Kerdeston, died 1337, at Reepham, England.

"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
View user's profile


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Armour Identification
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