The Classic Suit of Armor

Home , Aventail, Barbute, Bascinet, Bevor, Body armor, Breastplate

Project Number: JLS 0048

An Interactive Qualifying Project Report

Submitted to the Faculty of the

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Bachelor of Science by

______Justin Mattern

______Gregory Labonte

______Christopher Parker

______William Aust

______Katrina Van de Berg

Date: March 3, 2005

Approved By:

______Jeffery L. Forgeng, Advisor

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 RESEARCH ON ARMOR: ...... 9 ARMOR MANUFACTURING ...... 9 Armor and the Context of Production ...... 9 Metallurgy ...... 12 Shaping Techniques ...... 15 Armor Decoration ...... 19 GENERAL TYPES OF COMPLETE HARNESSES ...... 22 Heavy Cavalry ...... 22 Light Cavalry ...... 25 Infantry ...... 28 Tournament ...... 31 General Tourney Torso Armor ...... 31 Jousting Armor by Style ...... 31 Foot Combat (1450 – 1650) ...... 33 TORSO ARMOR ...... 35 Breastplate: ...... 35 Italian 1450 - 1600 ...... 35 German 1450 - 1600 ...... 37 Maximilian 1500 - 1530 ...... 41 Jacobean Period: 1600-1650 ...... 42 Backplate: ...... 43 Germany 1450-1600 ...... 43 Jacobian Period 1600-1650 ...... 43 Tassets: ...... 44 Germany: ...... 44 Italy: ...... 44 Culet: ...... 45 Tonlet / Tonnlet: ...... 46 Lance Rest / Lance Arrest: ...... 47 Queue: ...... 48 Plackart / Placart / Placard / Placate/ Plaquet: ...... 48 Stop Rib: ...... 48 Attachment Methods: ...... 49 Brigandine: ...... 50 Anime: ...... 51 Waistcoat Cuirass: ...... 52 HELMS ...... 53 Open Faced Helms ...... 53 Barbut (aka. Barbute, Barbuta) 1430-1520: ...... 53 Bascinets 1220-1460...... 54 Burgonet (early 16th century – 1675) ...... 54 Cabasset and Morion 1500-1600...... 55 Kettle Hat 1180-1480...... 56 Sallet 1430-1520...... 57 Zischaegge (late 16th – 17th century) ...... 58 Closed Helms ...... 59 Armet (15th century – 1510) ...... 59

Closed Helm (1510 – post 1650) ...... 60 Tournament Helms ...... 61 Great Bascinet (1350 – late 16th Century) ...... 62 Frog-Mouthed Jousting Helm (Mid 15th century – Early 17th century) ...... 63 Foot Combat Helm ...... 64 Decorative Helms...... 65 Parade/Ceremonial Helm ...... 65 MISCELLANEOUS ARMOR ...... 66 Shoulder Armor (1400-1630) ...... 66 Besagew c.1400- c.1570 ...... 66 Spaulder c.1300- c.1560 ...... 67 Pauldron c.1470- c.1630 ...... 68 Arm Harness (1350-1650) ...... 69 Couter (Cowter) c.1350- c.1600 ...... 69 Rerebrace (Upper Cannon) c.1450- c.1650 ...... 70 Vambrace (Lower Cannon) c.1450- c.1650 ...... 71 Leg Harness (1400-1620) ...... 73 Schynbalds (Shin-guards) c.pre-1400 - c.1500 ...... 73 Greaves (Greves, Graves) c.1400- c.1575 ...... 74 Cuisses c.1400- c.1600 ...... 75 Poleyns c.1430- c.1620 ...... 76 Hand and Foot Armor (1350-1625) ...... 77 Gauntlet c.1350- c.1625 ...... 77 Gadlings c.1350- c.1500 ...... 79 Sabatons c.1350- c.1600 ...... 80 Miscellaneous Armor (1350-1625) ...... 82 Almain Collars c.1530- c.1600 ...... 82 Arming Doublet (Doubling Armet, Armor Doublet) c.1450- c.1620 ...... 83 Cod-Piece (Brayette) c.1450- c.1570 ...... 84 Gorget c.1300- c.1600 ...... 84 Rump-Guard (Hind-tasse) c.1450- c.1500 ...... 86 Haute-Piece (1425 – 1585) ...... 87 WORKS CITED ...... 88 ANALYSIS OF HIGGINS ARMORY SUIT #207 ...... 89 HELMET ...... 89 Helmet Photo Appendix ...... 92 GORGET ANALYSIS ...... 94 Gorget Photo Appendix ...... 97 HAUTE PIECE ...... 98 Haute Piece Photo Appendix ...... 99 REINFORCE FOR LEFT PAULDRON ...... 100 Shoulder Protection Photo Appendix ...... 101 PAULDRON ANALYSIS ...... 102 Right Pauldron ...... 102 Right Pauldron Photo Appendix ...... 105 Left Pauldron ...... 106 Left Pauldron Photo Appendix ...... 109 ARM HARNESSES ...... 110 Right Arm Harness: ...... 110 Left Arm Harness: ...... 112 Arm Harness Photo Appendix: ...... 115 PASGUARD ...... 119 Pasgaurd Photo Appendix ...... 120 GAUNTLETS ...... 121 Gauntlet Photo Appendix ...... 124 BREASTPLATE ...... 125 Breastplate Photo Appendix ...... 128

BACKPLATE ...... 129 Backplate Photo Appendix ...... 130 TASSETS ...... 131 Tasset Photo Appendix ...... 133 CUISSES/POLEYNS ...... 134 Cuisses/Poleyns Photo Appendix ...... 137 GREAVES/SABATONS ...... 138 Greaves/Sabatons Photo Appendix ...... 140 WEB SITE CONCEPTS ...... 141 WEBSITE PRODUCT ...... 142 CONCLUSION ...... 145 APPENDIX ...... 150 OUR CHECKLIST FOR ARMOR ANALYSIS ...... 150 BACKGROUND MATERIALS ...... 151

Abstract

This project documents the forms of European plate armor from 1450 to 1650, with an in-depth examination of a composite harness nominally of the late 1500s, Higgins

Armory suit 207. Information on individual pieces of a suit of armor is organized in encyclopedia format with pictures and descriptions. The heterogeneous component pieces in suit 207 are documented in detail, with conclusions about their various origins.

Introduction

Armor has been used for thousands of years, but armor of plate steel was only at its pinnacle in Europe from 1450 – 1650. Over time, there were relatively few mainstays in armor structure, but a variety of functions and styles. There were different types of armor for different purposes and who wore it. Eventually, armor met its downfall and was no longer effective, so instead of having practical value, its value changed to one of monetary and aesthetic ends. In working on this project we have learned an exorbitant amount of information about armor’s historical timeline, and used it to create a rich document along with an analysis of an Italian suit of armor of the late 1500s.

Our project focused on the time period of 1450 – 1650. Europe literally “forged” itself into the epicenter of armor making because of the development of plate armor in the

1300s. Armor came into being so the body could be protected from various weapons, but its composition and purpose changed extensively over time. The plate that the Europeans had developed allowed for both maximum protection and general mobility.

Around 1400, armor had little style and it wasn’t until the mid-1400s that regional styles emerged based upon the current clothing trends. The two predominant styles were the German and Italian. The Italian style was very globular and favored simple lines for decorations while the German style had many protrusions of spikes as well as ripple-like fluting and lamination. Eventually, these two styles converged back into one which incorporated stylistic properties from both countries. These styles applied to everything except for the helmet which did not have many regional stylistic differences. The Italians

and Germans each used the same basic style for each type of helmet, with the main difference lying in the visors.

There were five different basic types of armor made for battle and tournament.

The heavy cavalry wore a full suit of armor at first, but over time turned to the three- quarter suit and then half suits because the armor needed to protect against guns was much heavier than what was needed against swords and spears. The light cavalry wore somewhat less armor than the heavy cavalry. The infantry armor had to cover vital parts of the body while allowing for mobility. When armor became heavier to protect against bullets, soldiers would leave pieces behind as they became too heavy or cumbersome.

Tournament armor emphasized protection, while ceremonial armor was elegantly decorated for the knights to help show off. The underlying structure did not change much from one of these types to another, although there were a few distinct differences between tourney and battle armor which are discussed in the body of the document.

The art of armor making was a very skilled process and has been documented from images, as well as texts and artifacts. What has been inferred from these sources has provided great insight into the inner workings of an armor maker’s shop. In order to become a skilled artisan, young men had to go through an apprenticeship program where they would learn everything there was to know about the trade. The metallurgy and decoration processes became more involved as styles progressed, while becoming easier at the same time with the advent of more advanced tools and mass production.

During the 17th century, armor was in decline. Armor was increasingly unable to

protect the body from firearms so it lost its practical value, but eventually gained a

monetary and aesthetic one. Eventually collectors began to gather large numbers of suits

and display them in their homes. In the 1660’s the Tower of London opened a gallery of suits of armor representing the past kings of Britain. The suit of armor was displayed as a symbol of power among the rich and famous. During the 1800’s dealers and collectors began to gather suits and random pieces together. Incomplete suits were matched with pieces which had to be altered to fit together to make a “composite” suit. Collectors, including museums like Higgins Armory, then bought up these suits, both “homogenous” and “composite,” for display. A large part of the work of armor scholars is to take these suits apart to figure out where their various parts actually come from. This is a general history of how the suit of armor we chose to study for our IQP came to Worcester.

The suit of armor which we chose to study was described in previous spotty notes as being a complete suit of Italian tournament style. Our IQP is the first one of its kind performed at WPI. The first term of IQP consisted of research into the history, styles and manufacturing process of armor from 1450-1650 which was the epoch of armor’s height as described in the first section of the document. The second term involved the actual hands-on analysis of the suit we selected and documenting its defects, dimensions, structure and style. We compiled a checklist of what to look for if you have a piece of armor and would like to know what to look for when analyzing it. The last term of the project consisted of piecing everything together into a final document and creating an interactive website featuring our written document, the checklist, a dichotomous key to help identify the name and location on a suit of different pieces of armor. This project is truly one of a kind and instilled in us a great sense of pride, as well as great group working and researching abilities. We hope you enjoy sifting through our work and good luck in your own work into the history and structure of armor.

Research on Armor:

Armor Manufacturing By: William Aust

Armor and the Context of Production

During the 12th through 15th century most craftsmen including the armorers were a part of organizations called guilds. The trades were learned through an extensive apprentice-master program. Throughout Europe there were many different guild organizations dealing with armor. One of the major guilds of the time “The Armorers

Company of the City of London” is similar to many other armor guilds and will serve as a good example of both guilds and the apprentice-master system.

The Armorer’s Company of London is a craft-guild, an organization to monitor all aspects of a craft. It is analogous to the modern day labor union although there are some major differences. The craft-guild had much more control over the craft than the modern day union has over jobs. They controlled not just the craftsman’s rights, but the rights of the customers, prices of the armor and the relations with the governing body.

“Members were protected from outside piracy of methods and trade-marks, they were cared for in body when ill or incapable of working, and in soul by masses and religious exercises.” (Ffoulkes, 120) They were a very close knit group. So close knit in fact, that they had issues with the church, who considered them briefly to be a cult. The work that was produced by the members of the guild was thoroughly inspected by the guild-master or Warden. This was to insure that the craftsmen were doing good work and not

producing shoddy armor. This in turn protected the customers against faulty poor quality armor.

The apprentice-master program trained newcomers to the craft and passed the trade on from generation to generation. This was a very effective method to turn out many highly skilled craftsmen. While a future craftsman was in his apprenticeship his master basically had control of his entire life. They lived very strict lives and were forbidden to partake in many activities. In a letter from the Lord Mayor in 1560 apprentices are not to use “swearing and blaspheming, haunting evil women or schools of

Fence, Dancing, Carding, Dicing, Bowling, Tennis play, using of Ruffs in their shirts,

Tavern haunting or Banqueting, and if any shall be found faulty the same be for with punished by whipping openly in your hall in the sight of other apprentices.” (Ffoulkes,

124) Also when the apprentice finished his apprenticeship he was to be in debt to his master any amount the master deemed fit. In order to become a member of a guild you must partake in the apprentice program for no less than 7 years. In some instances the apprenticeship lasted as long as 14 years. After the conclusion of the apprenticeship, the apprentice would become a journeyman where he would work and produce his own armor but it would be for a master and in many cases he would be producing only specific portions of the armor, for example gauntlets. A journeyman’s armor was continuously inspected for quality and durability by multiple masters of the guild. In order for him to become a master he had to make trial pieces of armor that met the specifications for quality that the guild had set. It was very difficult to become a master and in many instances the journeyman was not able to do so. If lucky after a few years he would become a master and could start to produce and sell armor as well as take on an

apprentice of his own. Different guilds had different regulations although many held restrictions on the number of apprentices and journeymen one master could have. This was done to improve quality and maintain demand.

Most armor shops were made up of a master, apprentice, and a couple of journey men. Although in Italy and a few other locations this was very different. In Milan the armor production was run by merchant armorers. They had no regulation on the number of journeymen, apprentices or masters to a single armor shop. If fact these were run much like modern day factories where each person was given a specific job. This specific task such as making forearm pieces was done by one person. This person would only make forearm pieces. This person would become very good and very fast at making them. This organization enabled the mass production of pieces of armor in much like an assembly line fashion.

The wealth of armor masters certainly ranged from poor to relatively wealthy. If an armorer was very good and produced suits for royals then he was usually paid a large quantity of money. Also in many instances if you had made a suit for a royal gifts were also given to you as perks. The common armor probably made enough to get by but not enough to significantly change his status.

The guild also made other regulations, such as:

• Armor should not be sold with cloth covering it because that could be a disguise

for the poor workmanship.

• Also imported armor was to be inspected by a guild-master before it was sold to

the public to be sure that it also wasn’t of poor quality.

• Every armorer must have his own mark or seal that is to be put on the armor so it

can be identified as his own.

• Before the armor can be sold it must have a proof mark on it. A proof mark in a

mark that signifies that this particular armor actually works as intended. Which

ever weapon the armor was intended to defend against must have been trial tested

against that armor. The proof mark was the mark made from that testing. This

was done with arrows, pikes, swords, and finally guns. This was proof that the

armor actually would hold up in a battle.

(Ffoulkes 171,191)

Metallurgy

Metallurgy is the science of manipulating metal in order to change its properties.

The main property that armor smiths are concerned with is the hardness of the metal.

Iron was the base material for nearly all armor. It was strong and malleable. Early armor smiths acquired ingots of iron from which began the armor making process. Ingots are small pieces of purified iron. They would have most likely been in the form of square or

round bars. The purifying of the iron to the state of the ingots was done on the end of the

mining company. The ingots would usually be beaten into sheets before being worked

with. This was normally not done by the armor smith but by his apprentices or other

workers that he would have hired. By the late 1500’s as technology progressed and water power was becoming more common the beating of the ingots was done by the mining company by tilt hammers or later by water powered rolling mills. Later on the process of turning the iron into steel was also taken up on the side of the mining company.

Pure Iron is rarely found naturally on earth. In most cases it is found chemically combined with other element in the form of oxides. In addition, it is mixed with other materials, the most common of which is silica. This combination is found all over the earth as rocks, which are known as iron ores. Iron is not useful in the form of ore; it must be stripped of its chemical bonds and rid of most of its containments. The initial steps of purification before smelting were breaking and sorting, washing, and roasting. Breaking and sorting was done throughout the iron purification process. It is simply breaking up the iron and sorting out the pieces that clearly don’t contain and iron. The iron could be identified because it would rust to a reddish orange color. Washing is exactly what it sounds like; water was run over the broken pieces of iron ore to wash away other impurities. The reason it worked is because iron was heavier than all the other elements found in the ore so when water was run over them the iron stayed put while some impurities washed away. Roasting was done just prior to smelting to remove and sulfur from the ore. Breaking and sorting was done throughout this entire process. The final step of smelting was a chemical process to remove the oxygen from the ore. The first step was to pile charcoal, flux and the iron ore and cover with a clay hood. The combination was ignited and brought to a very high temperature using bellow to intensify the fire. This would cause the oxygen in the iron ore and carbon in the charcoal to combine and removed in the form of carbon dioxide. The flux would act as a catalyst and would also help further separate the iron from any silica that was left. This would flow away from the iron in the form of slag. This technique was called blooming because of the blooms of iron left at the conclusion of the smelting. The blooms of iron were then

beaten and the smelting process was repeated again. This was done multiple times until the iron was sufficiently pure. It was now considered wrought iron.

Iron could be converted into steel in order to increase strength. This was done by various methods. Steel is comprised of Iron and carbon. One method of combining the iron and carbon was to hammer charcoal into the iron while the iron was red hot. Then the metal would have to be folded and hammered multiple times to evenly distribute the carbon in the iron and have strong consistent steel. Another method was to leave iron in a furnace with charcoal. The charcoal would give off carbon monoxide which would turn the surface of the iron into steel. The metal would then have to go through the process of folding and hammering in order to become consistently distributed with carbon. The last method was after the iron had been formed in the desired shape it was heated and packed in a box of coal. It was then continued to be heated for a long time, possibly days. The carbon would slowly penetrate the iron. Initially it would just harden the outside, but if left heated for long enough it would penetrate all the way through the metal. This method makes the outside shell of the armor stronger than the inside. These three were the most prominently used methods of creating steel although there were without a doubt other methods for example “Theophilus suggested smearing the iron with old hog’s lard.

The iron was then wrapped in strips of goatskin covered in clay and heated for some time.”(Pfaffenbichler) This method would work because anything that is organic is composed of mostly carbon. Carbon was not the only additive to iron that could improve its properties. Manganese was also found in some of the metals but this element was native to the iron ore that made the metal. This resulted in better armor coming out of

better areas because some of the ores had naturally occurring advantages metals found in them.

Another process the steel must go through before being finished is tempering.

This is the process of heating and cooling the metal in order to make it harder or softer.

These processes were very precise and difficult to do correctly. Tempering was one the most coveted secrets of the tradesman. There were many different ways to temper the metal. If steel was heated and then cooled rapidly it would become much harder. For example, the steel would be heated to red hot and then put into water. The downside to this was that the faster the metal was cooled it not only became harder but it also became much more brittle. If it was too brittle it would simply break rather than give when taking a blow. If the metal was cooled not in water but in some other material such as oil it would be less brittle but also not as hard as if it had been cooled with water. The best way to temper was found to be cooling it fast with water and then slowly heating it back up a little and letting it cool slowly. This two-step tempering process was only known by a few. Innsbruck steel was most likely tempered in this manner. The two-step tempering process was especially difficult because to get best results the steel had to be heated at a very specific rate and this was very hard to accomplish. Innsbruck was world-renowned at the time for producing the best steel.

Shaping Techniques

The process of shaping armor is relatively simple yet requires tremendous skill

and patience. It would start with iron and ingots that would be flattened into large plates,

as discussed above. These plates of armor would then be cut into rough outlines of the

desired piece, whether it is a helm, breastplate, gauntlet, etc. They would be cut out with massive cutting shears. These raw cutouts would be shaped into the pieces of armor.

The actual shaping was done mostly with hammers and anvils. It was mostly completed by cold hammering rather than hot. Cold hammering was when the piece was not heated before beaten into shape. This could result in stronger steel and could be held by hand while hammered out. Hot hammering was done while the piece was red hot. When the steel was hot it could be bent and changed much more easily. In general hot hammering was used to get the basic shape and then cold hammering was used as a final touch. There were different hammers, anvils and stakes for the different pieces of armor. They were similar to normal anvil with the exception of having a large, usually square, metal rod protruding from the bottom. This was to be inserted into a similar hole on the workbench or wood block. Examples of different stakes are listed from 1514 Greenwich court workshop.

• Pype stake – a round horned anvil for making tubes

• Creste stake – for beating up a helmet crest

• Curace stake – for the cuirass

• Vysure stake – for the visors

• Hedde pecys – for helmets

Each of these stakes had unique shapes to which different curves could be obtained that would be useful for different pieces of armor. There were also different types of hammer for the different pieces of armor. These varied in size, weight, and shape of the head.

Some of these were; platynge hammer (like a sledge hammer), hedde pecys hammer, crest hammer, riveting hammer, boos hammer (for embossing). In general the piece would be hammered hot until the basic shape was taken. Then it would be hammered cold with a larger hammer to finalize the shape. Although at this point the piece of armor would have many hammer marks, therefore it would be repeatedly hammered lighter and lighter with smaller and smaller hammers until nearly no hammer marks could be detected.

Another aspect of the armor that may be overlooked is its varying thickness. The different parts of the armor would be different thicknesses in order to offer the greatest amount of protection while weighing the least. For example the breast plate would have been much thicker than the back of the suit of armor. In the highest quality armor there was even variation in the individual pieces. For example the breast plate would be thicker in the middle than on the sides and also on the left than on the right. This is because in a battle that is the way most people turn from there opposite side. In jousting the helmet would be very thin in back and thick in front. In all wherever the armor was most likely going to get hit was where the armor was thicker.

Hammering and molding the metal is just one part of the shaping process.

Multiple plates have to be assembled together. Some may be welded or riveted others may have had to be removed so buckles and latches would be used. The most complicated were the ones that had to move with respect to one another, in other words, joints.

Riveting is probably the easiest and most widely used method for attaching two pieces of armor. A rivet is nail like; it has a rounded head on one side and a stubby shaft.

In order to attach two pieces of metal with a rivet, a hole must first be punched or drilled through both pieces where they are to be attached. The rivet is then placed through the two holes and the shaft end in hammered with a ball pin end in order to flatten it. This will hold the two pieces of metal together with a good amount of strength. When two plates are connected with rivets and are not allowed to move with respect to one another this is called firm intention. There are also slotted rivets which were one form of creating a movable joint. These were the same as normal rivets although there application was a bit different. Instead of having two holes there was one hole and a slot. When the two pieces were riveted together there were generally washers on the outside and a spacer in the middle that would be removed after. This would allow adequate space in order to be able to move the two pieces with respect to each other.

Forged welding was another method in attaching two plates to one another. This was done by heating the two plates, then overlapping them and banging them together until they become one. The process was stronger than rivets but required much more time and skill.

In a suit of armor there are many different parts that require some sort of movement. There are 4 basic types of joints that are used throughout a suit of armor.

The first is floating joint articulation. This is the simplest and easiest type of joint. It is simply leather straps between two of the pieces of armor. This worked well as a joint but didn’t do much for protecting that joint from some sort of attack. The second type is shell articulation. With shell articulation the pivot plate is on the outside of the joint.

This forms a shell around the joint and therefore protects it. These are commonly used for elbow joints. The third type is step articulation where multiple individual joints are

used in what looks to be a stepping fashion in order to allow more movement while maintaining a lot of protection. This is generally used in gauntlets because of the vast motion of the fingers and wrist. The fourth type is channel articulation. This type is roughly two cylinders inside one another. It is for rotation. Upper are joints may use this type of joint along with the joint between the forearm and gauntlets.

Latches and hinges are most commonly used on helms. The visor is usually held in place with the aid of a hinge and is latched to hold in place. The basic latch was a piece of metal that went from the visor to the bowl of the helmet. The metal was bent slightly in order to induce a spring effect and hold it into place. The latch was hooked under another piece of metal. The different types of latches are spring and post, spring with push lever, post and hook. The hinges were made from a single sheet of metal which was folded in half, cut and fitted with a similar plate; a cotter pin was used to hold the two halves of the hinge together. Hinges were most commonly made decorative and riveted to the outside of the already existing plate metal. This was found to be the easiest and most effective method.

Armor Decoration

The different types of decoration done on armor are quite extensive. They range

from engraving and etching to painting. The additions to the armor could be structurally

degrading or have no effect at all. Some on the other hand actually served advantageous

purposes. Some of these affects were found only on ceremonial pieces of armor and on

some other very elite pieces. The additions to armor had began with the creation of

armor and expanded as skills and techniques became more known. The different

processes are painting, bluing/blackening, decorating with brass or silver, edging, bordering, embossing, engraving, etching and gilding.

Painting was done for a couple reasons and was the only technique that actually improved the armor. Painting was done to help prevent oxidation. Another reason thing were painted was to cover up lower quality work. When suits had to be produced fast many armorers skipped finishing touches and just painted the suits. The third reason pieces were painted was for heraldic display.

Bluing and blackening were both done most likely by some sort of heat treatment

“although there are references to processes using fats, ox gall, a mixture containing sulphur or antimony glaze and even by pickling with various combinations of acid.”(Price, p275) This was done mainly for effect and style although it may have protected against rust.

In the early 15th century brass was used extensively to many pieces of armor.

They were used in edging and different attachments such as latches and hinges. Rivets

were also commonly made out of brass. Also in some cases gauntlets and some other

pieces of armor were actually made entirely out of brass. Towards the end of the 15th

century brass was going out of style and was mainly just used for rivets and edging of

some pieces.

Edging was done with strips of brass. The brass was either engraved or etched in

a certain pattern and then the brass would be attached to the edges of the armor. The

rivets were also in many cases decorated themselves to add yet another effect to the

border. Decorative rivets were commonly used on helmets during the 14th century, along

with decorative brass to give the effect of something like a crown.

Embossing is basically hammering a design into metal. This was done mostly on the decorative brass or to washers. Any piece of armor that was embossed directly was almost certainly for decoration or ceremonial purposes as the embossing process greatly lowered the strength of the metal.

Engraving is simply scratching out thin slivers of metal using extremely hard and brittle steel tools. The process was very slow and tedious. Most of the patterns chosen were of geometric shapes and letters although some were of floral designs.

Etching produces a similar effect to engraving although the process is different.

With etching the metal is coated with wax, and then the wax is cut away in the areas you wish to etch. The metal is then dipped in acid. The wax protects the metal except where it was removed, and it is in those areas that the metal is eaten away. The metal would then be cleaned off and the overall effect would be that similar to engraving.

The last process is that of gilding. Gilding is attaching gold to the metal. This was done by two methods. The first was banging paper thin sheets of gold into crevices of etches or engraveries. The second method was to melt and mix with mercury and then paint onto the piece. The metal was then heated which would evaporate the mercury out and leave the gold bonded to the metal. This was very dangerous because of the highly toxic mercury vapors that would be given off. The heating to remove the mercury could be done along with blackening or tempering.

General Types of Complete Harnesses

By Gregory LaBonte

Heavy Cavalry The importance of the heavy cavalry in an army from the mid 15th century to the

mid 17th century cannot be ignored. They served tactically as the shock troops, charging into the heart of the battle with lances down. After their charge, they would continue riding through, wheeling about to get into position for another damaging charge (Edge and Paddock, 50). During the 15th century, the most common armor worn by the heavy

cavalry was the full suit of armor. The full suit consisted of a full helmet with slits cut

out for the eyes and breathing, a gorget to protect the neck, and both breast and back

plates. Also included in the set were pauldrons to protect the shoulders, couters for elbow

protection, gauntlets, and vambraces to protect the remaining areas of the arms. For leg

protection there were two possibilities. Some suits used tassets, cuisses, greaves and a

curved plate to cover the knee. Later styles simply had tassets that ran down to the knee and then greaves to cover the lower leg. Some suits of plate also included a fauld for

Figure 1 added protection of the upper leg. Milanese Cavalry Armor Edge & Paddock pg 111 An image analysis of the suit in Figure 1 revealed the

following. The head was protected by a barbute. There is a

centrally running leather strap which was used to support the lower

half of the breastplate. The left pauldron covered a portion of the

breast and backplates, whereas the right pauldron was cut

differently, to better accommodate a lance. Both arm harnesses

bear additional armament due to the Italian lance techniques. It is difficult to tell exactly how much protection is given to the arms though it appears to be great. On the left arm there is an additional piece to provide more than adequate protection. The breast and backplates appear to be hinged together, with leather straps on the unhinged side to keep the pieces together, though it is hard to guarantee. While the image above does not have any tassets attached, the straps attached to the five lame fauld suggest that there was a set of tassets originally with the suit. The leg harness on this suit consisted of an open backed thigh, with an articulated knee guard. On the outer knee, one of the lames extended out and back to provide additional protection. The back of the lower leg guard had to be buckled into place. Also located on the lower leg guard were studs to attach the foot protection.

In the mid 15th century, armor for the heavy cavalry began to change in response

to a new fighting tactic with newer, lighter lances (Oakeshott, 198). There were two

different styles of changes; Italian and German. The Italian style focused on the addition

of larger pieces of plate connected by smaller pieces for protection, thus decreasing the

points that a lance could penetrate. The Italian armor smiths also enlarged the pauldrons

to the point that they covered a section of the breastplate and the armpit area, eventually

stretching across the upper back and causing later problems. The right pauldron was cut

to allow the cavalryman to couch his lance across the body and over the head of the

horse, aiming for his opponents left side. Subsequently the left side of the armor was

usually covered with an additional piece of plate. By the end of the 15th century, stop ribs were being placed in a v-shape across the breastplate (Oakeshott, 202). The function of

the stop ribs was to channel the lance tip away from vital points on the body and weak

points in the armor.

The German style used larger, flatter pieces which would often meet with pointed

edges down the center of the breast and back plates. The concept of using the pointed

edges, or keels, was to drive the lance tip to either the left or the right. Furthermore the

German smiths would ripple the pieces of the plate, making them even stronger. The

concept behind the rippling is similar to that of corrugated cardboard. The flutes, as the

ripples were often called, served as stop ribs.

By the second half of the 16th century, the most common

armor worn by the heavy cavalry was the 3/4 suit of armor. The

3/4 suit consisted of many of the same components as the full suit

of armor. The only dramatic change was the lack of solid plate

protection for the lower legs. In place of the greaves and sabatons,

thick leather boots were used.

However, in the mid 17th century half suits of armor begin

to replace the increasingly rare and expensive 3/4 suits (Oakeshott, Figure 2 French Heavy Cavalry Armor ca. 198). The half suit consisted of a close helmet with an umbral 1600 Metropolitan Museum ridge and comb, breastplate and tassets. The gorget remained a

part of the suit to cover the gap left by the helmet and the breastplate. By the end of the

17th century, the use of heavy armor for cavalry was restricted to helmets and cuirasses, these units becoming the aptly named cuirassiers. The thought behind this was quite simple. Firearms, such as the flintlock rifle, were able to pierce the thick plate armor worn by the heavy cavalry (Oakeshott, 197). The heavy cavalry began to change their

protection accordingly. The officers of the unit shed most of their armor, going to a

simple breastplate and open face helm. The remaining lancers continued to wear the half

or 3/4 suit.

Light Cavalry

The light cavalry were mounted soldiers, often equipped with shirts of chain mail

or a cuirass with a helm and a sword or spear for weaponry. Few western units of light

cavalry were equipped with crossbows or bows, due to the chivalrous nature of the lesser

knights. Tactically the light cavalry served as the reconnaissance unit of the army as well

as running down the retreating infantry, as opposed to the shock tactics used by the heavy

cavalry (Edge and Paddock, 50-52). In formation the light cavalry would typically be

Figure 3 placed on the flanks, allowing for good speed Italian Style Cavalry Armor ca. 1510 Metropolitan Museum of Art Item # 14.25.716 and maneuverability. They were quite good at

attacking the supply trains of the opposing force.

When cannons were being used, the light cavalry

would be used to take out those positions as well

as attack the rear of the enemy.

From the period of 1450 to roughly 1525,

the light cavalry wore a 3/4 suit of plate for their

protection. The suit didn’t include elements

maintained within the heavy cavalry suits, such

as the pauldrons and the heavy gauntlets. Instead the riders wore more flexible gauntlets

made up of segmented plate. The piece in Figure 3 is an Italian made suit of light cavalry

armor.

The suit in Figure 4 is a light cavalry suit produced by the Innsbruck smiths of

Austria. The smith who crafted this suit in particular is Christian Schreiner the Younger.

The suit shows the elements typical of the Maximilian period armors. The breastplate

(A) is fluted in the Italian style, though the stops end short from the top of the plate. The lack of pauldrons signifies this as a suit used for mobility in the shoulder joints. The wearer probably used a weapon that required increased flexibility in the shoulders, most likely a sword or a horse bow. The upper arm pieces (B) consist of four or fives lames each in an articulated arrangement. The lower arm pieces, made of a two pieces of plate joined with a hinge, join the upper arm pieces at a slightly enlarged couter (C), leaving the inner elbow unguarded. The segmented gauntlet (D) extends well into the forearm, possibly limiting use in the wrist. The fauld consists of six lames, possibly slide-riveted or articulated, later giving away to the five lames tassets, also articulated. Helmets used by the light cavalry varied by time period but were most often close faced sallet.

Figure 4 Diagram of Light Cavalry Armor ca. 1560 Image courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Sources used:

Blair; Claude, circa 1066 to circa 1700

Edge and Paddock; Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight

Oakeshott, Ewart; European Weapons and Armor

Infantry

In the period from 1450 to 1650, an army was comprised mostly of infantry.

Exact percentages vary by country and armament but numbers up to 80% were normal.

The roles played by infantry remained much the same as they have for ages, though with

the addition of firearms, more roles were added. Historically, the infantry force is broken

into heavy and light versions. The light infantry was typically unarmored or lightly

armored and equipped with bows or crossbows, though not after 1550, when firearms

became popular. The heavy infantry was armored with varying levels of armor,

depending upon their weaponry. A typical heavy infantryman would be equipped with a

gambeson and a breastplate with tassets, with a spear or pike. Heavy infantry troops

could also be afforded a helmet or other pieces depending on the period.

In the early 15th century, a leather jack or a coat of brigandine was

the usual armor given to an infantryman. Brigandine was a coat

composed of layers of leather or fabric with metal plates in between,

typically with the rivets sticking out of the armor, giving it a studded look.

This armor was also the root for the term brigand, as soldiers between

wars would often turn to looting to provide themselves with funds. The choices for

helms were usually between a kettle hat, simple skull cap, or an open faced sallet for an

infantry officer. The officer would be given a gambeson, which served as an additional

layer of padding beneath the armor, and a cuirass to wear over it, if he was a light

infantry officer. The heavy infantry continued to wear corslets well into the 16th century.

A corslet consisted of breast and back plate, tassets, vambraces, gauntlets and an open

faced helm. Morions were also worn at this time.

A mercenary heavy infantry unit that

became popular in the later 15th century was

the German Landsknecht. The purpose

behind the training of the mercenary troops

was to provide a unit that fought better than

the Swiss pike men (Oakeshott, 195). They

were typically armed with a very large two

handed sword called a zweihander and a

long shafted pike. Due to their training, a

landsknecht was capable of fighting with a

wide variety of weapons. For armor they

wore a breast and backplate with tassets to

Figure 6 the knees German Landsknecht ca. 1510 Image courtesy of www.St-Mikes.org (Edge and

Paddock, 140). Their lower legs were protected by leather boots. Head protection was afforded by the wide brimmed hats that they wore. The landsknecht remained one of the most popular infantry units until the later half of the 16th century, when the mercenaries

were swallowed into the Holy Roman Empirical Figure 7 “Puffed” Costume armor in the style of the landsknecht ca. 1525 Image courtesy of MET museum. 24.179; 26.188.1,2 army.

Until the mid 16th century, the most effective light infantry unit was the English longbow men. Laws in England to this period required all capable men to train in the

longbow. The proof of their effectiveness was shown in the Battle of Agincourt in the early 15th century. Laws passed in the early 16th century forbade any crossbows from

being used in England, though they were gaining popularity across the rest of Europe.

Firearms were also being introduced in this period (Oakeshott, 197,198). The choice of

guns over bows was fueled by the amount of time necessary for effective training. A

typical unit of musketeers needed two to three months, where as it took years to be a truly

effective archer.

Early in the 16th century, it wasn’t

uncommon for the heavy infantrymen to

wear the so-called “munition plate.”

Munition armors (Figure 8) were suits that

were made of poorer quality metals and

were of a low quality due to the speed of

manufacture (Edge and Paddock, 139). It

typically consisted of a simple, reinforced

breastplate, a backplate, small fauld and

tassets, and a helmet (Oakeshott, 195). The Figure 8 Munition plate date unknown Edge and Paddock pg.139 inclusion of arm harnesses varied amongst

the army. During the later half of the 16th century, the breastplate was thickened as an

attempt to bulletproof the heavy infantry. The tassets decreased in size as did the gorget

and the gauntlets, save for the finger lames.

Tournament

There was more than just one type of tournament course. There were a multitude

of different events for both foot and mounted combat. Jousting had at least three variants

each with its own set of rules. Mentioned within this section are two of the more popular

German variants, with both typical armament and rules described. For the foot

tournament, the rules and weaponry varied nation by nation. Once more the most

common rules and armament are listed under that heading. Finally, in the early years of

the tournaments, it wasn’t uncommon to see modified suits of battle armors being used.

General Tourney Torso Armor

The breastplate terminated at the waist. It was very heavy and boxed and

flattened on the right side for the lance rest and queue, or kept globular shaped for foot

combat. A broad fish-tail-shaped central plate was riveted under the lower edge of the

breastplate. The breastplate was arched over the fork and extended downward to rest on

the tops of the thighs providing additional support for the armor. Riveted along the outer

edges of the plate were broad strips of leather, which could be laced to corresponding

strips on the culet. A normal fauld and tassets were worn (Blair 161,167).

Jousting Armor by Style

Plankengestech (1400 – 1530)

The rules for the plankengestech were quite simple. A pair of riders rode at each

other with blunted lances. A wooden or cloth divider, called the tilt, separated the riders and also helped to protect the horses, (Blair 1958: 158). More points were awarded for a

dismount, although points were awarded for a successful shattering of a lance. (Blair

1958: 162)

The German Gestech jousting armor was quite similar to a 3/4

suit of plate with variations as follow. The frog mouthed helm was

screwed down onto a very heavy breastplate (Edge and Paddock 1990:

115). The right side of the plate was flattened to helm with couching

the lance. A hook, called the rest of advantage, was attached to the Figure 9 Gestech Helm ca. 1500 front of the armor roughly in front of the right arm pit. The rest also If one looks closely, you can see the clip and holes used to keep the helm in helped with keeping the lance steady. The fauld, which rested on the position.

Courtesy of the MET museum thighs for extra support, was fishtailed in appearance. The back Item # 29 156 67a

plate with this suit was quite lightweight and small, sometimes merely a plate “X” to

keep the breastplate in position (Oakeshott, 264). Small pauldrons were used on both

shoulders with the right side having an additional piece of plate draped over it. Due to

the build of the lancing arm harness, it could be locked in position with a series of

screws. Leg harnesses were not used, considering the jousting saddle extended out and

down to cover the jouster’s legs (Oakeshott, 263).

Scharfrennen (Late 1400’s - ?)

The rules for the scharfrennen were quite similar to those of the plankengestech.

The differences occurred in that the lances used for the scharfrennen were tipped and that

there was no tilt between the riders. A shattered lance was worth more points than a

dismount.

After 1480, the vambraces, pauldrons and gauntlets were removed from the composite harness. To replace the arm harnesses an item called the Renntartsche was used. The Renntartsche was shaped wood and leather covered with a plate of metal.

Screws on both the bevor and the breastplate helped to maintain lancing position

(Oakeshott, 264).

A specific type of helmet called the rennhut was used

by these jousters. It was comprised of a deep sallet with eyes

slits cut out, with the bevor covering the throat and lower

jaw. To the outside of the eye slits small pieces of plate,

called the volant pieces, in England. Heavy boots were worn

Figure 10 with simple pieces of plate to cover the knees and leg. Rennhut ca. 16th century Image courtesy of Deutsches Historisches Museum

Foot Combat (1450 – 1650)

In the mid 15th century, the German foot combat known as the Kolbenturnier was

the common style (Oakeshott, 265). Essentially the rules were to beat your opponent into

submission using the heavy wooden cudgels or maces. A large, rounded helmet with bars

protecting the face was worn for the fight. Field armor was worn to protect the rest of the

body, usually a full suit of plate. The helm would be screwed down to the breastplate to

keep it from being knocked off.

It was a simple matter to convert the field armor to use in a tournament. The core

pieces of armors able to be converted were called garnitures (Edge and Paddock, 174).

For those men participating in the joust, an additional piece of plate would be placed over

the left shoulder and a reinforced helmet would be substituted in place of the lighter

helms (Edge and Paddock, 173). The left arm harness was improved with the addition of the pasguard to protect the elbow as well as a thicker gauntlet being used. Those fighting in the foot tournament, their armor remained fairly similar; generally an additional reinforcing plate was added to the breast plate.

Figure 11 Field and Tournament Armor ca.1527

A Greenwich made garniture shown with surviving pieces.

MET Museum Item # 19.131.1,2

Torso Armor By Christopher Parker

Breastplate:

Up until 1450, style of a suit of armor was not given the same amount of time and energy that suits after 1500 were given. In the second half of the 15th century though, two quite different styles emerged out of Italy and Germany. After 1500, these two contrasting styles fused together into a Maximilian style which was later replaced by a period of less sophisticated style once more because of the advent of firearms.

Italian 1450 - 1600

Structure: During the 15th century, the Italians favored using large pieces of plate armor to cover significant portions of the body all at once. The breastplate was specifically made of two overlapping pieces.

Style: It was rounded and cut off straight at the waist. The globular shape favored simple lines for decoration without many embossments or protrusions.

Milanese Armor

Italy

Circa 1450

Blackmore Pg. 34

Italy

Circa 1450

Edge and Paddock 97

It was a common practice for Italian armorers to incorporate the styles of armors from other countries, like Germany and Spain, in order to stay in fashion. In the early

16th century, the northern reaches of Italy really began to borrow aspects of the German gothic style. From 1500-1520, the breastplate was fluted in a gothic style which was usually flat and of v-section. The breast used both a globular and flattened style which didn’t have a waist lame and also had a slight ridge running along the midsection. In the

1520s the style was to sometimes have ridges that ran outwards from the medial ridge of the breastplate like ribs.

Breastplate with lance rest: 1500-1510, Italy

Higgins Armory Museum

HAM 803

The ridge line became larger and the waist line became dipped in the center in the 1540s and eventually in the 1560s the dip became a more prominent point which in the 1570s turned in to the peascod form that became very popular until around 1600.

Peascod breastplate for foot service

1575-1600

Milan, Italy

Higgins Armory Museum HAM 1136.a

Peascod Breastplate

Circa 1585-1590

Northern Italy probably Brescia

Deep, peascod shape, with articulated gussets & narrow basal

flange without fauld. No provision for lance rest.

Higgins Armory Museum

HAM 2961.2

Breastplate

Northern Italy perhaps Brescia

Circa 1560

Higgins Armory Museum

HAM 798

Sources:

Blackmore: page 34

Blair, Claude pages: 80,119-120

Edge and Paddock: page 97

Higgins Armory: Artifact Catalogue

German 1450 - 1600

Structure: Made of one solid plate and usually had a plackart riveted to the breastplate.

Style: The apex of German armor style occurred in the second half of the 15th century with the gothic style. The armor was a generally slenderized and elongated form with ripple-like fluting and lamination at the joints which increased mobility. The armor was often stamped in many places with a fleur-de-lis and had lots of spikes which served both stylistic and functional purposes.

Gothic Armor

Germany

Circa 1480

Pg 44 Blackmore

It was constructed to prevent arrow pierces, and the decorative fluting deflected a missile or weapon attack from vital areas. The Gothic style remained in fashion until about

1500, with its popularity climaxing in the 1480s (Blair, 94).

Breastplate with lance rest

Germany

Circa 1490

Pg 49 Blackmore

Armor of the Archduke Sigmund of Tyrol by Lorenze

Helmschmied.

Augsburg, Germany circa 1480 Blair, pg 104

Around 1500, German armor became more globular like the Italian style. All along, armor from Innsbruck had been partially Italian looking because of its close proximity to Italy. Eventually the traditional gothic towns like Augsburg swayed towards the rounder and less decoratively elaborate Italian style (Blair, 95-96).

Field armor of Kunz Schott von Kellingenp

Germany

Circa 1500

Pg 31 Blackmore

Germany

Circa 1510

Pg 142 Edge and Paddock

The globular form was universal until about 1530. After 1530 the breastplate developed a low medial ridge and an incipient projection in the center. In 1540, two other forms developed. In the first one, the projection dropped a little and became more and more prominent until the 1550s-60s where it became a point. The second style was

similar to the Italian style. The breastplate became flatter and longer and a shallow curve formed from the neck to waist. This style stayed in use in Germany until around 1600, but from 1580 on, the peascod breastplate was most widely used.

Armor of Kaspar von Montani

Innsbruck, Germany

Circa 1555

Pg 94 Blackmore

Light field armor of Heinrich von Rantzau

Germany

1550-1560

Pg 131 Blair

¾ Suit of armor

Germany

1590-1600

Pg. 141 Blair

Sources:

Blackmore pages 40, 43

Blair, Claude pages 91, 94-96,117,120

Maximilian 1500 - 1530

Structure: Breastplate made of one solid piece.

Style: This style is a general name for the fusion of German and Italian styles after 1500.

The fluting on the breastplate, skirt and all other body armor was vertical and parallel like

the German style, while it maintained the rounded forms of the Italian style. The breastplate was globular with moveable gussets and a narrow waist plate.

Maximilian armor

Circa 1520

Pg 53 Blackmore

Maximilian style armor

Germany

1530

Maximilian armor

Circa 1520

Pg 143 Edge and Paddock

Sources:

Blackmore

Blair, Claude page 117,119

Edge and Paddock page 142

Jacobean Period: 1600-1650

Structure: One piece breastplate with attachments of lance rest and queue when

appropriate.

Style: Not much effort was placed upon gracefulness or beauty. The most vital parts of the body were heavily fortified, most notably the breastplate. The breastplate was made thicker and once common fluting almost entirely disappeared. By 1600, the peascod breastplate had given way to a breastplate with a sharp medial ridge and flat surfaces.

Armor for a boy

Milan, Italy 1610

ÅBlair pg 142

Cuirassier armorÆ

South Germany, 1641

Pg 151 Blair

Sources:

Ashdown page 313

Blair, Claude page 147

Backplate:

Germany 1450-1600

Structure: The whole of the back and shoulders were made of overlapping plates

(Blackmore, 43). In 1460, the backplate consisted of an upper plate and a plate to cover

the join of the neck and shoulders, riveted to the inside of the upper plate. One of the

advances during the 1470s was that the breastplate and plackart were riveted together

instead of attached by a strap and buckle (Blair, 91). In Innsbruck from 1490-1510, the

backplate was made of 3 pieces instead of one solid piece. It consisted of one central

plate which was a lower half of truncated triangular shape with the other two pieces being

hinged plates on either side.

Jacobian Period 1600-1650

Structure: The backplate was equipped with a hook from which the helmet was hung

when not in use.

Style: The backplate was of the same previous style, but was shorter with a narrow

flange as opposed to a culet.

Sources:

Blackmore page 43

Blair, Claude pages 91, 123

Edge and Paddock page 101

Tassets:

Structure: Protection for the thigh made of a single plate or many smaller horizontal

plates held together by straps and rivets. Initially tassets were hung from the fauld, but as

the fauld disappeared, it became directly riveted to the bottom rim of the breastplate.

Germany:

One-piece tassets of Gothic form were in use until 1530 and were found on Italian jousting armors until 1575. In Germany during the first decade of the 16th century, one- piece square tassets were widely used. After 1510, laminated tassets were used everywhere frequently. The laminated tassets were rectangular with rounded corners and shaped to the thigh. During the 1560s they became wider with a marked spring at the waist to be worn with large trunk hose.

Italy:

After 1550 short tassets became wider at the bottom and were rounded over the fork.

Some second-quality Italian armors made during the second half of the century had one-

piece tassets with lames simulated by embossing, which became widely used after 1600.

For other images of tassets, refer to pictures of armor in breastplate section of the text.

Maximillian style breastplate and tassets

Circa 1523

Pg 145 Edge and Paddock

Sources:

Blair, Claude page 123

Stone page 606

Culet:

Structure: Made of overlapping lames like the fauld and tassets.

Style: In Germany around 1460 the culet was made of three lames and sloped to form a

tail like projection. A deep, laminated culet was very popular during the Maximillian

period. At first it had Gothic-looking points, but after 1510, it had a straight or slightly

curved lower edge. After 1540, it became increasingly shallow until 1560 when it had

become a single lame. An accessory of choice by cavalry depending on whether their

saddle had a rump protector, as armor became heavier and in decline, the culet was

disposed of for weight reasons.

Sources:

Blair, Claude page 123

Edge and Paddock page 101

Stone page 198

Tonlet / Tonnlet:

Circa: First half of 16th Century

Structure/Function: A solid, single plated, skirt used mainly for fighting on foot, but

sometimes used to replace leg armor when jousting in a tournament. It usually had

vertical fold, sometimes made of horizontal lames connected by sliding rivets so that it

could be pulled up and down.

Style: It was wide and bell-shaped, and surrounded the front half of the body. It became a requisite part of certain tournament armors in later years.

Parade armor for Emperor Charles V

Innsbruck, Germany

1512-1514

Blair pg. 122

Sources:

Blair, Claude page 122

Stone page 622

Fauld:

Circa: 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries

Structure: A short skirt made of lames, attached to the breastplate, to which the tassets

were attached if present.

Style: The number of lames decreased from about 5 to non existent over the period of

their use, with more lames being used in earlier times.

Breastplate and fauld

German 1550-60

Pg. 131 Blair

Lance Rest / Lance Arrest:

At first the lance rest was a simple hook attached to the right side of the breastplate. It

did not support the lance, but rather helped to distribute the blow over the whole

breastplate. At first it was lined with felt, then later lead or wood. In later times, it

actually supported the lance and became much more elaborate.

Breastplate with lance rest

Pg 49 Blackmore

Stone page 410

Queue:

Circa: 16th Century

A long bracket, usually around a foot or more that projected from the backplate to

help hold down the butt end of a lance.

Source:

Stone page 520

Plackart / Placart / Placard / Placate/ Plaquet:

Either the lower part of the Gothic breastplate or an extra piece of armor that was

placed on top of the normal breastplate for extra protection and worn in tournaments.

Source:

Stone page 510

Stop Rib:

A small bar riveted to plate armor to prevent the point of a weapon from sliding into a joint or opening. Sometimes the bar was hammered into the metal as a build in accessory.

Breastplate with lance rest

Germany Circa 1490

Note the stop rib at the neck of the breastplate

Pg 49 Blackmore

Attachment Methods:

There were four main ways of attaching different pieces of armor to the

breastplate and backplate. The strap and buckle was most common for attaching loose

pieces over time, while later on, rivets, hinges and key-hole slots and studs became

widely popular. Leather straps with buckles were common for attaching accessories

under the armor since they could be easily slashed. Hinges of brass were on the outside

when necessary, but lateral steel hinges were used on the inside because they were likely

to be damaged. The hinges were locked shut with spring pins and sometimes with a

sneck for extra security.

The plackart was attached with three vertical straps and buckles. Tassets were

commonly attached to the bottom of the breastplate by hinges or leather straps and

buckles, but also sometimes by catches so they could be easily removed if not needed.

During the 1600s three new forms of attaching tassets became common.

1. Attachment via wing nut bolts permanently fixed to the breastplate

2. The upper edge of the tasset had a horizontal key hole slot that fit over

a corresponding stud on the lower rim of the breastplate

3. Attachment to the culet at the sides with hinges with detachable pins.

The whole thing could be put on like a belt and buckled together.

Sources:

Blackmore

Blair, Claude page 80, 145

Brigandine:

Circa: 15th century and later

Structure: The brigandine was much like a coat of plates. It was made of small lames

which could work over each other providing a flexible defense (Blair, 58-59). It wad

made of an inner lining, an interlining and an outer shell. The plates were tinned to

prevent rusting and ruining the cloth. The plates were on the inside with the riveted

heads showing on the outside. Early on, the plates were 3 or 4 X 8 to 10 inches in size,

and later were usually no larger than 1 X 2 inches in size.

Brigandine

ÅPg 150 Stone

Brigandine Æ

Probably Italian Circa 158

Style: There were two primary types, both including small plates riveted to the inside of

a fabric covering. The outer fabric was made of expensive material for the wealthy, but

most commonly made of canvas or leather for the normal soldier.

Type 1: Opened down the front

Type 2: Included a small globular breastplate made in two L-shaped halves, used

to protect the chest and lungs, joined by straps and buckles down the center.

Sometimes a simple, but rough backplate was included. The backplate was

shaped like an oblong with a truncated triangular extension at the bottom.

It was usually a sleeveless vest, but sometimes had arms and rarely legs as well. The bare rivets on the brigandine were made in a decorative fashion either in horizontal lines or most commonly groups of three or four. During the 16th century, the brigandine

became quite fashionable and its style was modeled after the current civilian fashions.

Worn by: Brigandines were worn by all classes of soldiers by 1450. They were worn as

light armor for men not expected to go into battle or who were traveling through any sort of dangerous territory. It was also worn as a replacement for a cuirass for the soldiers who could not afford a full suit of armor. During the 16th century, it remained popular for

all classes, but being primarily worn by light cavalry and infantry.

Sources:

Blair, Claude pages 58-59

Edge and Paddock pages 77,118,120

Morrison page 167

Anime:

Structure: Invented in Italy in 1530. The anime was made like the old coat of plates of

overlapping horizontal lames, but now pinned together by internal leathers and sliding rivets.

Sources:

Blair, Claude page 124

Waistcoat Cuirass:

Structure: It was usually made of two or more shells hinged to either side of a strip up

the center of the back, and fastened up the front like a waistcoat with studs locked in by

pivot hooks.

Style: Made in the form of a peascod civilian doublet, often with imitation steel buttons

down the front.

Sources:

Blair, Claude page 124

Helms By Justin Mattern

Open Faced Helms

The first helmets on record were open faced helmets and they remained widely

used from the dawn of armor up to present day for many reasons. Perhaps the best are the ease and low cost of construction coupled with the protection, mobility, and clear

vision. The function of all open helmets is to protect the head while allowing visibility.

Barbut (aka. Barbute, Barbuta) 1430-1520:

Barbut, Milan, 1450

(Blair pg 200)

Structure: One-piece helmet, often with a t-shaped facial opening. Similar to a bascinet and sallet. This piece was produced most often in Italy and exported. The helmet was not usually attached to the chest armor to allow for rotational movement of the neck.

Style: Often worn by knights, commonly with a coif and breast plate. Many helmets could be worn with a visor; the barbut was rarely to never worn with one due to its already inclusive face cover.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, pg 85, 200

Bascinets 1220-1460.

Hounskull Bascinet, Milan, 1400

(Blair, pg. 194)

Structure: Derived from a conical helm (1066-1250), it was originally a small

hemispherical skull cap constructed of one piece. Later in its usage, around 1330, it was often fitted with an aventail to shield the back of the neck.

Style: Originally with open ears, the bascinet was often worn with a coif. Later when a closed ear construction was more widely used, the coifs were mostly. Many times bascinets were worn with visors as shown above

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 68

Burgonet (early 16th century – 1675)

Burgonet and buffe of Sir Henry Lee, Greenwich England, 1585

(Blair, pg. 204)

Burgonet, Nuremberg Germany, 1575, HAM 603

Structure: Very similar to a sallet, which is where it was likely derived from, though its origin is very obscure. They were rarely worn with visors except for the falling buffe, so named because it could be raised of lowered by raising or lowering the chest.

Style: The burgonet was the “par excellence” of infantry and light cavalry throughout the

16th century. Because of its classical look it was used in many parades of the time.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 136

Glossarium Armorum, pg 39, 43

Cabasset and Morion 1500-1600.

Comb Morion, Northern Italy, late 16th century

(Blair, pg.198)

Structure: The morion had u-shaped brim on a skull cap with a thin tall keel or comb

down the center of it. The cabasset had a very similar structure to the morion only the

cabasset had a flatter brim and often a less emphasized fin.

Style: Towards the end of the 16th century this helmet was extremely decorative and used

in parades (however, not exclusively), a sort of “show helmet.” With a face guard, vision

was poor and coverage incomplete, so they were often worn alone. This was a very

common helmet amongst Musketeers, Archers, and Infantry as it did not impede aim.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 110

Kettle Hat 1180-1480.

Kettle Hat, traditionally that of Ulrich Zwingli, South Germany,

early 16th century

(Blair, pg.198)

Structure: A bowl shaped skull cap with a wide angled brim. Often the helm is segmented and joint at the peak with the segments connected by an x-shaped plate bent to contour the head. The segments are riveted to the plate. A brim was riveted around the skull cap, with a leather chip strap attached to hold the helmet in place. The kettle hat later evolved into the cabasset and the morion, two helmets from later in the period of a similar construction. After approximately 1320 the kettle hat evolved into one piece with a slightly taller center.

Style: The kettle hat is primarily the hat of a foot soldier. That being said, it was often

worn by knights and nobility. Upper class people, who wore the kettle hat, usually wore

a coif with the hat, which was worn plain by most soldiers. The brim allowed for a lot of

movement and still provided additional coverage from archers.

Sources:

Arador Armour Library

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 32

Sallet 1430-1520.

Sallet, Northern Italy, 1490

(Blair, pg. 200)

Sallet from Rhodes, South Germany, 1450-60

(Blair pg. 200)

Structure: There are two versions of this helmet. The Italian version is a “single piece

almost to the shoulders at the back and sides. The skull is rounded usually with a keel-

shaped comb and curves into the shape at the nape of the neck, then out to form a small tail. The face opening is an open arch narrowing slightly toward the bottom.” The

German version of this helm is very often worn with a visor; it was a larger helm that was much deeper with a tail that sloped drastically down.

Style: This was primarily a soldier’s helm usually worn without a coif. A visor could be attached and often was to provide more facial covering.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 85

Zischaegge (late 16th – 17th century)

Zischaegge, Austrian, 17th Century, HAM 190

Structure: The Zischaegge originated in Turkey but was used commonly as far away as

Central Europe. It has a segmented tail that covers the back of the neck. Earflaps are of varying sizes. There is often a high pointed crown. As shown in the above picture there is often a lone nose-bar to shield the face.

Style: The Zischaegge was worn in Turkey and the surrounding areas but was also very common in Europe; it warrants mentioning due to its influences on European armour.

Commonly the Zischaegge was made with a nasal bar to shield the face, which was later adapted into some styles of the Burgonet.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pg. 137

Closed Helms

Closed helms came into popularity for the most part in the 16th century. They were by no means a replacement for open helms but more of a co-evolution to satisfy different needs. A fully armored knight with a kettle hat would have a fairly obvious weak point.

Armet (15th century – 1510)

Armet by Hans Rabeiler of Innsbruck Germany, 1505

(Blair, pg. 201)

A small sparrow’s beak visor is attached in this piece.

Structure: The early armets were constructed in the Italian style with cheek pieces hinged by the upper edge. Around 1505 the German version surfaced with cheek pieces hinged at the back. A rare version from 1505 – 1510 had a one-piece bevor hinged to the tail with a catch on the side like a door. Usually a sparrow’s beak visor was attached. After the development of the bevor armet in the early 16th century the armet evolved into the

standard closed helm of the 16th century.

Style: The armet was worn with full suits or armor, often with a gorget around the neck.

The German style of helm had many more sharp edges but structurally the Italian and

German helms were nearly the same.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 133

Glossarium Armorum, pg 38

Closed Helm (1510 – post 1650)

Closed Helmet, English, 1520 (Blair, pg. 202)

Probably French, 1550, HAM 208.1.a

Structure: The skull portion was much more closely shaped to the head than the short- tailed sallet. A close fitting bevor overlapping the skull on both sides and a visor both pivoted from the same place. The only difference after 1510 between the closed helm and the armet was the armet’s cheek pieces as opposed to the full facial cover on the closed helm. Italian closed helms did not have nearly the versatility of German ones.

The German helms were constructed with interchangeable visors for different purposes, fighting in the field, jousting, and so on.

Style: Outside of Germany the sparrow’s beak visor was in common use until 1530. In the late 1520s a new visor was introduced. The old visor was divided in half to a visor proper and an upper bevor. The new visor had many ventilation slits that could be covered by another visor for added protection. The new visor was much flatter than the sparrow’s beak. The German type of the helmet used a sparrow’s beak visor with a more concave lower portion than the Italian one. Many of them had interchangeable visors to save the owners from needing to own multiple helmets.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, pgs. 134, 135

Glossarium Armorum, pg 43

The Art of the Armorer, pgs. 19, 20

Tournament Helms

The jousting we all picture when the sport is mentioned was not originally a sport

with its own equipment. It rose out of a necessity for training. Not until long after its

conception was jousting practiced as a sport. As with any sport it developed its own

equipment. The helms of jousting occasionally consisted of just a normal armet with a

frog-mouthed visor. More commonly, a variation on the bascinet, the great bascinet was

used. Eventually the frog-mouthed jousting helm rose from the specific needs of

tournament jousting.

Great Bascinet (1350 – late 16th Century)

Great Bascinet found at Athens, South German,

(Blair, pg. 194)

Structure: The great bascinet was constructed primarily in Italy for export and was used in Germany well after its use had been discontinued in other countries. Germany used it until roughly 1420 at which time it became more and more common in tournaments.

(Foot combat most often, as in the picture) The skull of the great bascinet was smaller than that of its predecessors, fitting more tightly to the head. Unlike the original bascinet it often extended to the shoulders or at least below the cheeks.

Style: Unlike the original bascinet it often extended to the shoulders or at least below the cheeks. When used for jousting there was a single slit in the visor for sight sometimes broken up by vertical bars. In the “snout” of the visor there were many circular holes for ventilation. The visor style changed with the great bascinet. A much more rounded visor that contoured to the face was used.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 109, 194

Frog-Mouthed Jousting Helm (Mid 15th century – Early 17th century)

Stechhelm Jousting Helm by Lorenz Helmschmied of Augsburg,

(Blair, pg.196)

Structure: This helm was either constructed in two halves that could be fastened together

by hasps and pins, or was essentially a closed helm with a removable visor. The helm

was fastened to the cuirass by hasps at the front and rear. There was an inner hood for comfort, and later on in its life the left side was reinforced for jousting. There was a single slit for sight and breathing. Occasionally there was a door on the left side that could be opened while not competing for breathing. The visor was curved upwards to the eye slits; there was no way to see properly unless leaning forward ready to strike in the joust. When the lances struck and the body straightened the eyes were completely covered and protected.

Style: The frog-mouthed helm is “the earliest identifiable piece of armor apparently designed exclusively for the joust.” (Blair, 157) There was little variation in this helm until around 1520. There were several versions that surfaced around this time. The

“swung” was a version with a drastic curve upwards. The “pillbox,” originating in Italy, was a shorter, squatter version. In Flanders, France, England and Spain a medium

between the two was used.

Sources:

Blair, 1972, Pgs. 73, 157, 158

Foot Combat Helm

Tourney Helm for Combat with Mace or Sword, possibly English

(Edge and Paddock, pg.173)

Structure: This particular helm was pumpkin shaped, but there are many others designed

for the foot combat of tournaments. Their basic structure is just designed to shield the

eyes, and protect the head, in this case that is accomplished with a wire fence around the

helmet from ear to ear extending from the forehead to chin.

Style: Used primarily in mace and sword combat; designed to give maximum vision,

there is no visor, it is attached to the breast plate and the head swivels freely inside.

Sources:

Edge and Paddock, pg 173

Decorative Helms

Parade/Ceremonial Helm

Lion’s Head cover on a Sallet, Venice, 1460

(Edge and Paddock, pg. 171)

Parade Armor built for Margrave Albrecht von Brandenburg, 1525

(Edge and Paddock, pg. 172)

Structure: Usually based on an existing helm. The helms that were purely ornate could

not be used as a functional helm, but the modified version of the other helms could often

have the ornate pieces removed. Above is a sallet with a removable cover in the shape of a lion’s head.

Style: There is no specific style to a decorative helm. The only specific style is that it

should be decorative and interesting and serve whatever parade or ceremonial purpose it

was designed for. Some common methods of decoration include embossing, engraving,

and attachment of additional pieces. Generally anything that had been embossed would

no longer be used in practice as its structural integrity was now compromised.

Removable pieces allow the helm to still serve its purpose of protection.

Sources:

Edge and Paddock, pg 171, 172

Miscellaneous Armor

By Katrina Van de Berg

Shoulder Armor (1400-1630)

Besagew c.1400- c.1570

Fluted Besagew HAM 2607 Plain Besagew c. 1500 Germany HAM 828.8

Structure: The besagew is a small disc that was used to protect the armpit area. Before the pauldron came into popularity, there was a gap between the spaulder and the upper cannon; this is where the besagew went. It was tied on with leather straps to the arming doublet worn underneath.1 From 1450 to 1530, a segment of the besagew was cut away

to make room for the lance.2 As the pauldron became more used, the besagew’s use

declined so that it was gone in Italy by the 1550s, although it remained in use in Germany and Greenwich until 1570.3

Style: The besagew only experienced minor stylistic changes throughout its life. The

simple circle was fluted on occasion; this was seen primarily with the Gothic and

Maximillian styles. The plain circle and fluted circle were seen without variation in all of

the countries that used this piece of armor.3

Sources: 1. Oakeshott, R. Ewart. “A Knight and His Armour.” pgs. 86, 89, 264 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pgs. 36, 40, 44 3. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 45, 53, 65, 97, 108, 126

Spaulder c.1300- c.1560

Spaulder c. 1420 Edge and Paddock pg. 28

Structure: The spaulder protected the point of the shoulder. It was seen in basic form as early as the 1300s. It took form as a simple disc on the shoulder from the early 1400s to

1460. After that, it was constructed from many small overlapping plates from about 1460 to the 1500s. Around 1470, it was enlarged in front and back and a space cut out for the armpit was included. The spaulder went out of style in 1560, as it was replaced by the pauldron.1

Style: The spaulder originally was a small disc that was tied on to the shoulder through

laces attaching to the arming doublet. When its design changed in the 1460s, the

articulated lames were attached with laces or rivets to the collar. The Germans continued

using spaulders instead of the pauldron until the late 1500s, when they too switched to the

pauldron exclusively.2 There was no real distinction between German and Italian styles

for this artifact, however one unique style did emerge. Munnions came into use around

the mid 1400s, and were simply elongated spaulders. The articulated lames reached from

the top of the shoulder down to the elbow. This style was rare though, and only lasted a

few decades.3

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 44-5, 64-6, 119, 126, 144 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pgs. 97, 118 3. Oakeshott, R. Ewart. “A Knight and His Armour.” pgs. 90, 103, 195-6

Pauldron c.1470- c.1630

Pauldron c. 1500s Western Europe HAM 9

Structure: The pauldron is a shoulder defense that replaced the combination of besagew and spaulder. The pauldron, in fact, evolved from the spaulder around 1470. By 1480, the pauldron was square shaped on the left side, a small rounded rectangle on the right side, and on the back it had enlarged to cover more area. This asymmetrical shape was to be the regular shape for the next century. In 1490 the Italians cut the back of the pauldrons so that they didn’t overlap, yet still covered a large area. The early 1500s brought a lot of distinctive changes to the pauldron. The German pauldrons were still rarely used yet they had extended down the front to eliminate the need for a besagew.

The Italians began to turn up the corners of the pauldron to deflect lance blows away from the neck. These were called haute-pieces.1 In the 1500s, the pauldron reached its

height of popularity and the designs for it were quite varied. However, by the 1600s, it began its decline: the traditional asymmetric defenses were abandoned for a symmetric design as there was no need for additional movement without the lance. By 1630 the pauldron was out of use.2

Style: The 1480 asymmetrical design remained the most widely used for a century. The early 1500s brought a lot of distinctive changes to the pauldron. The German pauldrons were still rarely used yet they had extended down the front to eliminate the need for a besagew. The Greenwich pauldron had a strange rounded shoulder design that gave the wearer a humped look. By the early 1600s, the pauldron became symmetrical like its forebear, the spaulder, which was the last change before its demise.2

Sources: 1. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pgs. 66, 80-1, 96 2. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 85-7, 90-1, 95, 97, 101, 103, 196-7, 206-8, 263-4

Arm Harness (1350-1650)

Couter (Cowter) c.1350- c.1600

Couter c. 1530 Greenwich Claude Blair pg. 213

Bracelet Couter c. 1525 South Germany Claude Blair pg. 213

Structure: The couter is a defense for the elbow. It began as a simple plate fastened to

mail armor in the late 1300s and later evolved into articulated lames riveted to plate

armor. In 1430, the couter’s right side wing was drawn out to cover the inside of the

elbow joint and the tendon. A small reinforcing plate was attached to the upper half as

well. The left side was only slightly enlarged. Around 1490 the couters became more

symmetrical and had large tendon guards.1 The bracelet type of couter emerged in 1515

and remained in use until 1540. This type completely enclosed the elbow joint and was

put on like a bracelet and held in place by rivets; it saw most use in Germany.2 In 1560,

the Italian construction reduced the size of the couter and it remained small until the early

1600s, when it ceased to be a separate and distinctive entity.1

Style: After the couter stopped being just a simple plate attached to the outside of the

elbow, it began to vary its style depending on the timeframe and location. In pre-1500

Italy, the couter had reinforcing plates put on and then taken off and a tendon guard

attached instead. In Germany at this time, shaped wings were put on and this stylistic

design soon became popular across Europe.1 Eventually, the couter was enlarged to wrap around the entire elbow and acted as a joint between the rerebrace and the

vambrace. This was known as the bracelet design and the Germans used it extensively.

The couter decreased in size after the 1560s and remained as a part of the arm harness for

many years but it stopped being separate in the 1600s.2

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 83, 98-9, 125, 149 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pg. 61

Rerebrace (Upper Cannon) c.1450- c.1650

Rerebrace c. 1550 Italy HAM 1444.4

Structure: The rerebrace is a defense for the upper arm. It is connected on top with the spaulder or pauldron and on the bottom with the couter. It was traditionally secured with arming points or buckles. The rerebrace can be gutter shaped, tubular, or hinged. The

gutter shape is oldest and protects the outside of the arm and is attached with belts around the arm. The tubular shape was popular for a while but was difficult to wear as it was put on like a large bracelet. When the hinged version emerged it was clearly superior to the previous ones as it offered complete upper arm protection and was easy to put on and take off.1

Style: The rerebrace’s three forms, the gutter shape, the tubular shape, and the hinged

shape have had only minor style differences through the years and countries. In early

Italy, the short, open rerebrace that was favored for a while became longer and almost

totally enclosed. In early Germany, the gothic style required the armor to become

elongated and rippled. They also permanently attached the rerebrace to the spaulder and

completely enclosed it.1

Sources: 1. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pgs. 44-5, 64-5, 80

Vambrace (Lower Cannon) c.1450- c.1650

Vambrace c. 1475-1525 Europe HAM 3084.18

Structure: The vambrace is a defense for the lower arm. It is attached to the couter at the

top and comes down to the wrist at the bottom. It shares the same three forms as the

rerebrace: gutter shaped, tubular, and hinged. The vambrace was often found reinforced

with strips of metal running longitudinally to give strength to the metal frame. In addition, a rudimentary couter was sometimes attached to the vambrace.1 From 1400-

1500 the Italian design had hinged vambraces that filled in the gap around the couter with

many small laminations. At this same time, the Germans had a tubular vambrace that

was riveted to the couter which was in turn riveted to the rerebrace creating a somewhat

permanent arm harness. The 1500s saw few changes to the vambrace and in 1620 there

was a limited trend in Germany to have a “tulip” shaped vambrace but not much else.2

Style: The styles were fairly distinctive in the vambrace. In Italy, the vambrace was tulip shaped for awhile, flaring out at the wrist to protect the gap of skin between the end of the vambrace and the start of the gauntlet. Gradually it became less tulip shaped for aesthetic reasons.2 In Germany, the vambrace was used in conjunction with the rerebrace

to form a turning joint in the elbow area. The bottom edge of the rerebrace had a flanged

edge that rotated in the top of the vambrace. The gothic styling also elongated the

vambrace and added ripples in the metal to give a look that was very different from that

of the Italian vambrace. The tulip shape experienced a short revival in 1600 Germany,

right before the end of arm harnesses.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 44-5, 64-5, 91, 98-9, 124-5, 148-9 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” pgs. 43, 83-4

Leg Harness (1400-1620)

Schynbalds (Shin-guards) c.pre-1400 - c.1500

Schynbald c. 1475 Italy HAM 3084.28.a

Structure: The schynbald, or shin-guard, was used throughout the 14th century in place

of greaves. It was made out of a plate of metal that covered only the front and partial

sides of the lower leg. The schynbald was first strapped over the chausses, a padded

undergarment for the legs. It was fastened in back with straps and buckles. By the 1500s

it was replaced almost entirely by the greaves.1

Style: The schynbald was fashioned from a single plate of armor, and stylistically there

was little that could be done to distinguish one maker from another. The Germans added

roped detailing along the edges around 1475 and everyone else soon followed this design.

Occasionally more wealthy people had pictures and coats of arms etched into the metal

but this was rare and didn’t last.2

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” Pgs. 42-3, 53, 63. 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” Pgs. 39, 48.

Greaves (Greves, Graves) c.1400- c.1575

Greaves c. 1450 Edge and Paddock pg. 34

Structure: Greaves are a defense for the lower leg; they were a replacement for the

schynbalds. They were constructed of a front and rear plate hinged together on the

outside, fastened with straps or buckles on the inside. The lower part of the greave

followed the shape of the ankle and curved down almost to the ground. This construction

remained the same from the 15th to late 16th centuries. In the early 1400s the extensions

over the sabatons were cut off and the greaves ended about an inch from the tops of the

sabatons. Around 1500, the back of greave was extended to the ground and a slit was cut

in it to make room for spurs. It was attached to the poleyn and sabaton with pin-catches.

In 1545, German armorers started using three-quarter greaves, which went only three-

quarters of the way around the leg. This trend was continued by those in Greenwich in

1570, however by 1575 the greaves were no longer used in battle, although they

continued to be used in fashion armor for many years1.

Style: Like the schynbalds, greaves were made simply and efficiently, which didn’t leave

a lot of room for decoration or stylistic changes. They were generally pieces of metal

with the occasional roping detail along the edges2.

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” Pgs. 85, 101-2, 129, 143-4, 149. 2. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” 40, 52.

Cuisses c.1400- c.1600

Cuisse c. 1575 North German HAM 2610.1

Structure: The cuisses were a defense for the upper leg and have been

around for a long time. They were originally made out of quilted cloth

and referred to as “gamboised” cuisses.1 Around 1400 the fabric was replaced by a metal

sheet that covered the top of the thigh. In 1430 an articulated plate was added to the top

of the cuisses and it filled in the gap between the top of the main plate and the groin.

That articulated plate was reduced to one narrow lame in 1450 and in 1490 the top of that

lame resembled a flattened S-shape. By 1500, the lame and the main piece became

completely convex; 1510 brought hinged extension plates to the outside of the thighs, allowing for more ease in putting them on. In 1530, the cuisses grew shorter and flatter on top. In Italy at this time, the cuisses were being made of horizontal laminations,

which Greenwich picked up in 1570. In Germany, the cuisse was formed into two halves

that were joined horizontally and were used until 1600. After 1600, occasional short

cuisses were seen, however they were largely replaced by knee-length tassets.2

Style: The cuisses made in Germany largely reflected the style of the overall harness at

the time. With the exception of the horizontal joining of the cuisses in 1530, the shape

remained the same throughout the years. In Italy, the cuisses were mainly the traditional

metal plating that was seen on the rest of the armor. No specific styles emerged that were unique to cuisses.1

Sources: 1. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” Pgs. 40, 52-3. 2. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” Pgs. 81, 84-5, 101-2, 129, 143, 149, 164.

Poleyns c.1430- c.1620

Poleyn c. 1500 North Italian Claude Blair pg. 215

Structure: The poleyn is a defense for the knee. It started as an occasional rounded

segment over the knee but did not develop into its own form until the mid-1400s.1

Around 1430, the poleyn was formed of a plate over the knee with articulated lames

attaching it to the cuisses and the greaves or schynbalds. In 1450 the bottom lame of the

poleyn became pointed and a mail fringe was attached. From 1450 to 1500, small wings

were built into the poleyn that protected the sides of the knees. In the period of 1500 to

1540, the bottom lame lost its point and became shallow. 1570 brought heart shaped

wings to the sides of the poleyn to better protect the knee joint. After 1620, the poleyn

was not widely used. It was occasionally included in the leg harness but it was not seen

as a separate entity.2

Style: The poleyn had a basic form and the styles were reflected in the wings of the

poleyn. Early years shows the poleyn with a pointed bottom lame in addition to the mail

fringe but this style did not last very long. The wings on the sides varied according to the style of the day: the Italians favored rounded wings with decorative touches on them, whereas the Germans preferred large fluted wing-shaped or heart-shaped wings.

Sources: 1. Oakeshott, Ewart. “European Weapons and Armour.” Pg. 38 2. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” Pgs. 53, 62-3,81, 84, 128, 148.

Hand and Foot Armor (1350-1625)

Gauntlet c.1350- c.1625

From left to right: Elbow Gauntlet c. 1560 Southern Germany, HAM 3455.a Fingered Gauntlet c. 1480 Germany Claude, Blair pg. 209 Mitten Gauntlet (Front and Back) c. 1440 South Germany, Claude Blair pg. 209 Hourglass Gauntlet c. 1376 English, Claude Blair pg. 207

Structure: The gauntlet is first mentioned around 1350 as a replacement to mail mittens that were the usual for the time. The late 1300s brought a distinctive shape to the gauntlet: the hourglass shape. This was constructed of 2-3 laminations over the top of the hand and a plate connecting them to the flared out plate that covered the wrist. The plate stopped at the knuckle line and the fingers were protected by mail gloves worn

underneath. This design remained popular until the 1430s. In Italy at this time the gauntlet cuff was pointed, which was different from the German style which lacked the point but remained symmetrical.1 The use of the hourglass form ended in 1430 when a

new form derived from the hourglass gained popularity. This new form had several changes:

• The back of the cuff was extended to halfway up the forearm

• It protected the sides and back of the hand and was held in place with a narrow

strip across the inside of the wrist

• A slight bend along knuckle line was added; main plate followed thumb shape

• Fingers were protected by small laminations or mail

This style was known as the mitten gauntlet and was in use until the 1500s.2 At that time

fingered gauntlets became more widely used. In Italy from 1500-1550 bell shaped cuffs

of moderate length were most commonly made. This design ensured that a lance could

not travel along the gauntlet and strike the space between gauntlet and vambrace. The

German design at this time had shorter, more tubular cuffs that were often hinged. In

1530 they also followed the Italian style of longer pointed cuffs with a flare to protect the

jouster. Also in this same time period the armorers in Greenwich were making distinctive gauntlets. Theirs protected the base of the thumb on the underside with a cuff extension, and on the back and sides by longer metacarpal lames. Another popular gauntlet in the 1500s was the elbow gauntlet. This was generally a mittened gauntlet in which the cuff extends up past the lower arm to the elbow. It often replaced the lower cannon and saw the most use in Germany. During the 1600s the gauntlet was mostly fingered with laminations in the metacarpal area and long flaring pointed cuffs. In 1620

the elbow gauntlet became shaped to the forearm but was only used on the left side. By

1625, the gauntlet had disappeared from practical use.1

Style: The early style of gauntlets was the hourglass shape in which the joint between the

wrist plate and the hand plate was highly emphasized. This form had the fingers

protected by mail gloves underneath.1 The mitten form of the gauntlet had the top of the

hand up to the knuckle line covered by many small laminations while the fingers

underneath were still covered in mail. The cuffs of these mitten gauntlets varied by

location: in Italy the style was to have a longer pointed cuff while in Germany it was to

have a shorter, non-pointed hinged cuff. The fingered gauntlet that came about later had

each individual finger protected by many tiny laminations that completely enclosed the

finger.2 Again, the Italians had pointed cuffs, this time that flared out excessively and eventually deteriorated in use. The Germans had pointed cuffs now as well but with only a slight flare. The elbow gauntlet had articulated fingers with a cuff that extended up to the elbow. In Italy, it was scarcely used, but in Germany it replaced the vambrace for a short time until the entire gauntlet fell out of favor.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 41-2, 54-5, 66-7, 80, 99-101, 108, 127-8, 144-5, 154, 168 2. Edge & Paddock. “Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight.” pgs. 49-50, 84, 92

Gadlings c.1350- c.1500

Gadlings HAM 2440.2

Structure: Gadlings were a decorative and offensive structure mounted to the knuckles of gauntlets. They were usually low spikes or jagged metal points, as the intention was to hurt the person they were fighting or to at least intimidate them.1

Style: Gadlings were generally low spikes or some sort although depending on the

intended use, different figures could be used. Examples of this are the leopard gadlings

seen on the Black Prince’s gauntlets; he replaced the spikes with the animal that was on

his crest.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pg. 67

Sabatons c.1350- c.1600

From left to right: Pointed Toe Sabatons, HAM 2607 Bear Paw Sabatons c. 1550, Glossarium Armorum Blunted Toe Sabatons, HAM 428

Structure: Sabatons were a defense for the foot. They are first seen around 1350 as plate

metal shaped around the top of the foot and connected to the schynbalds or greaves. In

the early 1400s, they enclose all but the soles of the feet. They were constructed of a

wide plate shaped to the instep and front of the ankle and approximately four laminations

that overlapped downwards to join the toe plate. The toe plate had holes in it through which laces were tied to attach the sabaton to the shoe worn underneath.1 At this time

there was a mix of mail-covered shoes and actual sabatons. The sabatons followed the

fashion of the time, with long pointed toes that could sometimes be detached if necessary.

By 1490 the pointed toe had been replaced by a broad round toed style known as the

bear-paw design. This was easier to walk in, although still unnatural as the width of the

toes steadily increased.2 In 1530 the bear-paw was narrowed down and in 1550 the sabatons were mostly oblong with rounded toes. 1570 brought bluntly pointed toes to the sabatons; these were the closest to our present day shoes and were the most efficient and effective. By 1575, sabatons were no longer used in battle and were seldom used after

1600.1

Style: The style of the sabatons was largely dictated by the fashion of regular shoes. The famous long pointed sabatons mimicked the fashion of civilian shoes in which the toes grew so long they had to be tied around the ankle to keep the wearer from tripping. The bear-paw design emerged after the pointed toe style lost favor. It is believed to have been

designed to give the wearer more toe room as opposed to that of the previous style. It

was eventually narrowed down to get rid of the excess room and then the sabaton

developed into rounded toes and bluntly pointed toes.2 These are the most similar to our

shoes today and were usually seen on armor dating from the late 1500s to the early

1600s.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 43-4, 62-4, 81, 85, 100-2, 129-30, 149 2. Edge & Paddock. “Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight.” pgs. 80-2, 85

Miscellaneous Armor (1350-1625)

Almain Collars c.1530- c.1600

Almain Collar c. 1600 Switzerland HAM 2961.4

Almain Collar c. 1550 Germany Glossarium Armorum

Structure: Almain collars appeared in 1530 in Germany. They consisted of a collar that was attached permanently to spaulders. There were two different constructions/styles of almain collars: the first one had spaulders that were meant to be worn with mail sleeves.

The spaulders were little more than caps on these and were attached to the mail with arming points and the occasional rivets. The second type had spaulders that replaced the rerebraces and attached to the couters with rivets. To open the collar for both of these designs, the spaulder on the opening side was fixed to the rear main collar plate only.

The collar itself was secured with a keyhole and stud design. The almain collar was used mostly in Germany until the early 1600s. It was cheap to make and often used on munition armors.1

Style: There were only two main designs of the almain collar: one with small spaulders

and one with spaulders that attached to the couters. This style of collar was most popular

in Germany.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 119, 127, 146

Arming Doublet (Doubling Armet, Armor Doublet) c.1450- c.1620

Arming Doublet c. 1400s Germany Claude Blair pg. 89 Structure: The arming doublet was a quilted undergarment

worn underneath armor. It was known as an “aketon”

earlier in history. In 1450, the arming doublet came to be

separate from the aketon. Mail armor was attached to it by arming points and it protected

places on the body that plate armor did not cover.1 It consisted of a standing collar,

gussets at the armpit and elbow or complete sleeves that covered the armpits, and a skirt

that just covered the tops of the thighs.2 In Italy the skirt was longer and in Germany, instead of a skirt, mail breeches were worn. The arming doublet had become less quilted overall by 1550; if more quilting or padding was needed, it was usually tied on separately. The arming doublet remained in a similar construction until 1620, when it was replaced by the buff-coat.1

Style: As the arming doublet was a very simple undergarment, it had few stylistic

changes. One trend in Italy was to have the skirt of the arming doublet reach down to the wearer’s knees. In Germany, the trend was to do away with the skirt and have short, tight-fitting mail breeches that were shaped to cover the genitals instead. Gradually, the arming doublet became more similar in both countries until it went out of use in 1620.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 77-8, 138-9, 154, 170 2. Edge & Paddock. “Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight.” pgs. 108, 115, 117

Cod-Piece (Brayette) c.1450- c.1570

Solid Plate Cod-Piece HM Royal Armory

Structure: The cod-piece is a cup-like protection for the genitals.

It is first seen in 1450 in Germany as a solid plate protecting the

general area. The cod-piece was constructed from either a solid plate or from several

articulations and thickly padded inside. It was attached to the bottom of the fauld with

either a leather strap or a rivet. The cod-piece is rarely seen in armor after 1570.1

Style: The style of the cod-piece varied on the wearer’s personal preference. It could be

made of solid plate and point out horizontally; it could be articulated and hang down; or it

could be made of plate and point upwards. Civilian fashion of the time also played a role

in the styles of the cod-piece.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 123, 164

Gorget c.1300- c.1600

Gorget c. 1550 Glossarium Armorum

Gorget HAM 2384

Structure: The gorget is a plate defense for the neck; it protects the gap between the helmet and the rest of the body armor. It was seen as early as the 1300s as a hinged plate covering the neck area. The early 1400s brought a gorget that opened with a pivot joint on one side and a keyhole closure on the other. In 1450 the back of the gorget was occasionally seen attached to the lower helmet in a sort of rotating joint while the front of the gorget was left separate. A laminated gorget was seen in 1520; it had separate laminations for the front and back with a pivot again allowing the gorget to open and close. The gorget went out of use in the early 1600s as helmets were being worn less and less with full body armor.1

Style: The gorget was seen with one main style. A pointed front and back originated in

the 1500s, and this style remained for many years. The variations on this design included

different types of points, roping along the edges, and various shields and emblems

painted or engraved on the front point. A plain, unpointed gorget was also seen

occasionally.2

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pgs. 42, 102, 105, 109, 135, 137 2. Edge & Paddock. “Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight.” pgs. 100, 140-1

Rump-Guard (Hind-tasse) c.1450- c.1500

Rump-Guard on Backplate c. 1490 Claude Blair pg. 221

Structure: The rump-guard was a small defense for the rear. It started in 1450 as a single

long oblong plate that was hung across the lower edge of the culet. It was attached to the

culet by rivets. This feature did not remain for long; by 1500 it had become incorporated

into the culet and ceased being its own entity.1

Style: The rump-guard only had one style and that was as an oblong plate of metal that

extended the length of the culet. It existed after 1500 as an additional lame on the bottom

of the culet.1

Sources: 1. Blair, Claude. “European Armour.” pg. 81

Haute-Piece (1425 – 1585)

Structure: The haute-piece is a defense for the neck. It was constructed from a single piece of plate mail and could be detachable. Around 1425, the haute-piece began as a turned up edge on the pauldron. It was made into a separate piece riveted to the gardbrace or pauldron in 1450 and a few years later was made detachable through the use of keyhole studs.

Style: The haute-piece began as edges of the pauldrons were bent upwards to form flanges in 1425. The left one was larger as that side required more protection. From

1425 to 1475, the haute-pieces grew rapidly in size until the left one reached the height of

the ear, its maximum size in history. In the 1500s, the Italian style was to have low

rising, asymmetrical haute-pieces whereas the German style was generally higher.

Greenwich armor had symmetrical haute-pieces that were always detachable. Haute-

pieces went out of style and use in Germany around 1560. The Italians used them up to the seventeenth century, however their use greatly declined by 1530. They remained in

use the longest in Greenwich, where their appearance was still seen up to 1585.

Sources:

Blair, Claude. pgs. 83, 97-8, 126, 211

Works Cited

Agricola, Georgius. De Re Metallica (1556). Transl. Herbert Clark Hoover and Lou Henry Hoover. New York; Dover, 1950.

Ashdown, Charles Henry. European Arms and Armor. New York: Brussel and Brussel, 1976.

Arador Armour Library, Glossary of Armour Terms. Available online. http://www.arador.com/glossary/index.html 2003.

Blackmore, Howard. Arms and Armour. London: Studio Vista, 1965.

Blair, Claude. European Armour circa 1066 to circa 1700. B.T. Batsford, Ltd., London, 1958; 2nd Ed. New York: Crane, Russak and Co, 1962.

Ffoulkes, Charles. The Armourer and His Craft. London: Methuen, 1912.

Flint Institute of Arts. The Art of the Armorer. Worcester, 1967.

Forgeng, Jeffery – ‘The Works of Fire’: Metallurgy and the Armorer’s Craft

Gamber, Ortwin. Glossarium Armorium. Graz, Akadem. Druc- u. Verlagsanst, 1972.

John Woodman Higgins Armor, Catalogue of armor: the John Woodman Higgins Armory. Worcester, 1961.

Morrison, Sean. Armor. New York: Thomas Y Crowell Company, 1963.

Oakeshott, Ewart. European Weapons and Armour. North Hollywood: Beinfeld Publishing Inc, 1980.

Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and His Armour. North Hollywood: Beinfeld Publishing Inc, 1982.

Paddock, John and Edge, Dave. Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight. Hong Kong: Brompton Books Corp., 1988.

Pfaffenbichler, Matthias. Medieval Craftsmen: Armourers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

Price, Brian. Techniques of Medieval Armour Reproduction. Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 2000.

Singer, Charles, etc., Eds. A History of Technology. 5 vols. New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1954.

Stone, George Cameron. A glossary of the construction, decoration and use of arms and armor in all countries and in all times, together with some closely related subjects. New York: Jack Brussel Pub, 1961.

Analysis of Higgins Armory Suit #207

The purpose of our extended research was so that we could analyze a suit of

armor at the Higgins Armory that has not yet had a detailed analysis. Below are our observations and measurements of all the pieces of our suit. Any number in parenthesis is a reference to a picture within the following photo appendix.

Helmet

Dimensions: 14 x 7x 11.5” (H x W x D)

Weight: 6lbs 12.75oz

Description: Closed Helm w/ 2 section visor, a visor proper, an upper and lower bevor.

Most likely a French or German helmet since the visor is in two sections.

There are front and rear gorget plates. This helmet is most like the HAM

208.1a. Any bullets with a picture in the Photo Appendix are denoted in

parenthesis.

Observations: Overall this helmet is a composite of original and non-original pieces.

Skull:

Probably original.

Very good craftsmanship

Extremely smooth curves (1,2)

Apparently original rivets, they have circular marks around them showing where

the original tool to hold them in place was used, only the larger rivets show the

circular mark, this is a pretty good sign that they are original. The larger rivets

may have been replaced since all the other pieces seem to have matching small

rivets.

The ventilation holes are very clean and symmetric. (1)

The bolts used to mount the visors are not original; the original bolts were

included with the helmet. The non-original bolts have bent both sections of the

visors. (14)

The hook to close the helmet is out of line with the others, possibly intentional but

I felt it looked a little strange. (5)

There are three holes in the keel of the helmet; these at some point were probably

used to hang the helmet from some support. (3)

Upper Bevor:

• Almost definitely not original

• There is no hole for a hook to connect to the eyelet in the visor proper. (8)

• Visibly poor craftsmanship, rough curves, obviously false ventilation holes that

are not symmetric and are very rough (8,11)

• Notch for the eyelet of the visor proper is very crude and rough (8)

Lower Bevor

• Probably original, rivets match, good craftsmanship

• It has a place for lining leather in the bevor (12)

o “that is a good sign” –Prof Forgeng

• The rivet with the hook to close the helmet looks awkward so the lower bevor

may not have originally been attached this way or it might have been replaced (5)

Visor Proper

• Probably not original

• Damage near the eyehole, possibly to bend the front rim to fit the false upper

bevor (9)

• Damage under on the front rim, obviously cut, possibly also to fit the false bevor

(10)

• The roped comb on the visor proper does not match the depth or pattern of the

roping on the skull. (15)

• Conclusion: possible an original but likely from another helmet, it may have been

bent and cut from possibly a sparrows beak visor to fit this helmet.

Gorget Plates

• These may be a replacement of original plates with brass rivets to match, and the

second row of roping to add decoration.

• Front bottom 2 are blocked from moving by a rivet, there is some warping

damage to the plates. (6)

• Probably not original, the rivets seem new and rounded, they have very round

washers on the back (7)

• The helmet with gorget plates does not fit on the torso armor

• The left side appears to be bent to fit the helmet. (7)

• Professor Forgeng noticed the poor fit of the rear plates, they step upwards more

than they should, they should fit flush. (4,5)

Helmet Photo Appendix 1. Front view 4. Gorget Plate “stepping”

5. Gorget Plate, poor seams

2. Rear view

6. Gorget plate, rivet blocking

3. Damage on the comb

7. Gorget interior misalignment

8. Upper bevor poor construction 12. Holes for leather lining/good roping

9. Bent visor proper 13. Clearly poor rivet on an edge

10. Cut bottom edge of visor proper 14. Threaded visor stud

11. Terrible holes in upper bevor 15. Visor proper poor roping

Gorget Analysis

Dimensions: 7.125 x 11.5 x 9.375” (H x W x D)

Weight: 2lbs 3oz

Description: Several Lames for neck movement as well as a front an back section that

can be separated to allow the piece to be removed.

Observations: I believe that this piece while not original to the suit in study, it is from

the same time period as the rest of the suit.

Overall Structure:

• The gorget consists of a front and back collar plates as well as a pair of rings to

guard the neck. The lower, outside edges on both collars are roped. The upper

ring of the neck guard is also roped. There are two types of rivets used on the

piece, flat headed rivets which lay close to the metal and large round headed

rivets that I believe were used for filling in support holes and also for decoration.

Condition:

• The piece as a whole is in good condition. There is some wear on the back collar

plate around the culet straps as well as some damage where the front plate would

rub up against it. The front collar just shows some minor rusts spots along the

outer edges. The neck rings are good condition, with some minor marks from

where they rub against themselves.

Subdivide by Components:

• The two piece collar is held together by a sliding rivet on the right and a pivoting

rivet on the left shoulder. Each collar plate appears to be two pieces of plate with

the upper folded over the lower and welded underneath. Evenly spaced rivets run

along the outer length. These rivets were used to hold a strip of leather padding.

Pieces of the leather are still visible on a few rivets.

• The neck lames consist of four single layer pieces of plate. There is a hinge

which joins the upper ring on the left hand side. A filed down rivet is used on the

right hand side of the upper ring to lock it in place. Several rivets hold a piece of

leather padding into the inner edge of the upper ring. Also the upper edge has

been turned out and roped. The neck lames are attached to each other and to the

collar pieces by a total of six vertical strips of leather. The central pieces of

leather are double riveted on each piece it interacts with, possibly signifying that

it was used to steady the piece while the other strips were being place. There are

two large headed rivets on each piece of the neck lames. I believe that these were

used for construction purposes.

Decoration:

• The only decoration to be found on this piece would be the roped edges on the

collar plates and also on the upper ring of the neck guard. I do not consider the

large round head rivets to be decoration as no real attention is called to them.

• More in depth look at the sliding and pivoting rivets make me believe that they

are not original to the piece. Further details on the collars, such as a similar hole a

quarter inch away and the difference in metals support this. The rivets used on

the rest of the pieces of the collection, plus a fitting, lead me to believe that this

piece does not belong with the set.

Origin: (Where Made and When)

• I believe it is Italian made and from the middle 16th century.

Leathers:

• The condition of the leather straps holding the neck rings in alignment with each

other and the collar plates can only be described as bad. The back central strap

has rotted away from the back collar plate. The rest of the straps are thinning out

in spots of high friction. The leather straps used to attach the gorget to the

pauldrons are in much better condition; the reasoning behind this is that they are

not the original leathers.

Gorget Photo Appendix

Image 1 Image 2

Haute Piece

Dimensions: 2.5” x 10.75”

Weight: 5oz

Description: Small arch shaped piece of metal, no moving parts.

Observations: Poor quality overall, probably altered to match this composite suit.

• The right edge has rope border then one inch of depression followed by an additional rope border.

• On the left side there is a 90 degree bend where this piece would attach to the rest of the piece of armor. From bottom to top on this bend there are 3 keyholes. The first two are right side up while the last is upside down(figure 3). The third is also of a different form than the first two, it two circular bulges instead of just one(figure 3). The middle keyhole is also cracked slightly. The entire bend portion gives the appearance that it has been reworked. It is not a consistently smooth surface and the metal is thinner than the rest of the piece.(figure 1)

• The inside rope border is almost definitely not originally there. The two parallel lines that incase the roping are of much less quality than the rest of the piece.(figure 6) They are not perfectly parallel throughout and at some spots a single line overlaps with itself. As for the actual roping part they are also uneven. The rope has not been raised to the same level as the roping in the rest of the suit. Also towards the top the inner roping just goes away and there are some very unattractive scratch marks.(figure 3) In general the workmanship of this rope is very poor.

Haute Piece Photo Appendix

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

Figure 5 Figure 6

Reinforce for Left Pauldron

Dimensions: 12” x 11”

Weight: 2lb 11oz

Description: The shoulder protection can be broken down into three regions: the neck region, the breast region, and the shoulder region.

• Along the top edge of the neck region there is a rope border with a one inch recessed border besides that. The workmanship of the border is very good.

• A similar border resides on the bottom edge of the breast region. This is also of very good condition. In the upper right portion of the breast region there is a hole and bolt for attaching to the left pauldron. It is unclear whether the bolt is original or made to look that way. The threads are uneven and the head has a design on it although those attributes could have been made to a modern bolt. There is an addition double line engraved border along the top edge of this region. This border is of very good quality.

• The border extends across the shoulder region. This same region has the two lined border along the bottom edge instead of the rolled roping. This is so no hindrance will occur in movement. On the right side of the shoulder region there is a keyhole. The keyhole does not look authentic. It is cracked slightly on the backside and the general quality of it is sub-par compared to the rest of the piece. Although it seems unlikely that the piece would attach by only a single bolt in the middle which mean that keyhole may have simply been modified rather than fabricated all together.

100

Shoulder Protection Photo Appendix

Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9 Figure 10

101

Pauldron Analysis

Right Pauldron

Dimensions: 9.125 x 11.5 x 11.25” (H x W x D)

Weight: 2lbs 11oz

Description: Several articulating pieces with lames between. The condition of the

right pauldron would have to be battle worn. There is a two inch long

gash (image 2) in the front that has been repaired as well as several other

small markings that I believe correspond with battle damage. Later

discussion with Prof. Forgeng revealed that this gash is not from damage,

but instead was caused by a layer of the metal pulling away from the layer

beneath it.

Observations: Overall I believe that piece is original mostly due to the evidence of the

gash on the front and other markings that suggest the suit was used.

Overall Structure:

• The right pauldron consists of a seven total lames. The upper arm flexor consists

of four lames, the collarbone consists of two lames, and the final shoulder piece is

the anchor between them (image 1). The rivets used in the piece are similar to the

brass rivets used in the rest of the pieces that we believe belong to this suit. There

were two loose rivets (image 1), as well as a rivet which looked far too new to belong

the piece. This rivet is of a different type of metal and is held in place by a small

block of metal to which it had been welded.

102

• The collarbone lames are attached in series by pivoting rivets to the shoulder

piece. The arm flexors are attached to each other and the shoulder by sliding

rivets and piece of leather.

• There is a rectangular cut in the lowest lame of the arm flexor. This cut

corresponds to a tab on the arm harness. It would be used to align the harness to

the shoulder.

Subdivide by components:

• The shoulder piece of the right pauldron has a prominent edge running down the

middle of the piece (image 3). I believe this edge is there for decorative purposes, as

the decorative lip is mirrored across it. This edge begins on the outer collarbone

lame and is continued on through the arm flexor lames, though the lames are out

of alignment with the line.

• The outer collarbone lame contains the lip and the rope work edge. A series of

evenly spaced rivets run in the space between the lip and edge. The inner

collarbone lame bears a small amount of the raised lip and the roped edges.

• The arm flexor as a whole contains a small number of discrepancies. The rivets

on the back of the flexor section do not fall into a straight line, compared to the

front riveting which lines up well. The first and last flexor lames do not contain

the ridge that passes down from the shoulder. The second lame contains two rivet

holes that line up with both the leather strap and the sliding rivet used to hold the

flexor together.

103

• There is a buckle on the first collarbone lame that would be used to attach to the

gorget. On the last lame of the arm flexor there is a buckle and strip of leather

used to secure the flexors to the upper arm.

Decoration:

• The entire outer edge of the piece is a turned edge decorated with rope work.

The rope work on the end piece of the arm flexor is a much more detailed rope

work, with deeper slashes (image 6). There is also a raised lip roughly an inch away

from the edge. This lip follows the front edge of the shoulder, heads upwards

and curves back down to end about the arm flexor.

Origin: (Where Made and When)

• I believe it is Italian made and from the middle 16th century.

Leathers:

• The condition of the leather strap to hold the arm flexors from overextension is in

bad condition. I believe this is due to use and the passage of time. The leather

strap used on the last lame of the arm flexor is not original to the piece, though it

does match the leather used on the gorget for attaching to this pauldron.

104

Right Pauldron Photo Appendix

2) Gash in the armor 3) Displays the ridge that runs from collar to arm

4) alignment issue pertaining to the back rivets 5) rivet holes on the second flexor lame.

6) Rope work along the bottom lame of the arm flexor.

105

Left Pauldron

Dimensions: 9.25 x 11.5 x 11” (H x W x D)

Weight: 3lbs 2oz

Description: Several articulating pieces with lames between. I would say that the piece

is in good condition considering its age.

Observations: Overall it is hard to guarantee the authenticity of the piece at this time,

though I doubt that it is original to the piece.

Overall Structure:

• The right pauldron consists of a seven total lames. The upper arm flexor consists

of four lames, the collarbone consists of two lames, and the final shoulder piece is

the anchor between them. The rivets used in the piece are similar to the brass

rivets used in the rest of the pieces that we believe belong to this suit. (1,2)

• The collarbone lames are attached in series by pivoting rivets to the shoulder

piece. The arm flexors are attached to each other and the shoulder by sliding

rivets and piece of leather.

• In the armpit of the shoulder piece there is a hole drilled for the attachment of

another piece. (5)

Subdivide by components:

• The shoulder piece is well constructed, having rivets spaced evenly amongst its

structure. This pauldron also contains the shoulder ridge as the right pauldron,

though only the shoulder piece has it. The hole drilled into the armpit region is

106

much too well drilled for it to be there originally, giving me suspect that not all

pieces on the suit are meant for it. (1,2,5)

• The outer collarbone lame contains the lip and the rope work edge. A series of

evenly spaced rivets run in the space between the lip and edge. Also the buckle on

this piece is used to attach to the gorget. The inner collarbone lame bears a small

amount of the raised lip and the roped edges. (1)

• The lames of the arm flexor bear a few chisel marks from their creation. Further

searching revealed the same markings on both the right pauldron and the gorget.

Each lame has a pair of sliding rivets, one at each end, to connect it to the piece

above it. A leather strap connects each lame to the shoulder to prevent the flexors

from overextension as well as falling off if the rivets attaching the first lame to the

shoulder were to become loose. The last lame contains a rectangular slot that

would be used to align the arm harness to the gorget and also to assure that the

pieces moved in harmony. (4)

• There is a buckle on the first collarbone lame that would be used to attach to the

gorget. On the last lame of the arm flexor there is a buckle and strip of leather

used to secure the flexors to the upper arm. (3)

Decoration:

• The entire outer edge of the piece is a turned edge decorated with rope work.

There is a raised lip roughly an inch away from the edge. This lip follows the

front edge of the shoulder, heads upwards and curves back down to end about the

arm flexor.

107

Origin: (Where Made and When)

• I believe it is Italian made and from the middle 16th century.

Leathers:

• The condition of the leather strap to hold the arm flexors from overextending is in

bad condition due to the rotting of the leather. The leather strap used on the last

lame of the arm flexor is not original to the piece, though it does match the leather

used on the gorget for attaching to this pauldron and also that of the other

pauldron.

108

Left Pauldron Photo Appendix

1 2

3 4

109

Arm Harnesses

Right Arm Harness:

Dimensions: Extended Length:19”, Elbow Width: 7”, Upper Arm: 4.75”,

Lower Arm: 3.125”

Weight: 3lbs 3oz

Description: The piece consists of a pivoting shoulder, bicep, elbow joint, and lower

vambrace (forearm). Any bullets with an entry in the Photo Appendix are

denoted in parenthesis ex: (1) is picture #1.

Observations: Overall this entire arm harness is composed of many unoriginal

components, given that fact it is nearly impossible to determine what

parts, if any, actually belong to this suit.

Pivoting Shoulder:

Almost definitely not original

Seams don’t line up, inside the arm has a large gap. (5)

There are exposed very poor looking rivets.(5, 6)

Roping near the pivot is good but gets worse as you follow it down. (7)

Near the mounting posts to connect the pieces to the pauldrons there are

rectangular scratches on either side suggesting that the pauldrons was held over

the piece while those marks were scratched to find the correct place for the

mounting post.

The post also blocks the articulation of the plates and has a circular washer. (4)

The rivets are raised and not in the same place on both arms.

The articulation of the actual pivot joint is very rough.

110

The curves and craftsmanship of the shoulder are terrible.

Bicep:

• Possibly original but has been altered to fit this suit.

• Fairly good curves

• Rivets look original

• Roping is poor, looks false, there is a dent in the roping.

Elbow:

• Probably original piece but it has been altered

• Articulation is fair

• Roping mostly well done, poor in places.

• Not all the rivets match each other but it is possibly only a difference between the

visible rivets on the front of the arm and the ones that have to be flush on the back

of the arm.

• The articulation plates are fairly smooth with several signs of trimming and

several have hash marks on them. (13)

• Katrina and Prof. Forgeng said it appeared to be a different color

Lower Vambrace (Forearm):

• Piece has probably been altered, craftsmanship of individual components while

ignoring alteration damage is good enough to suggest it was professionally made,

though overall it is obvious that these pieces do not go together.

• Large dent on it half way down from the inside out, by looking at the other arm it

appears that it is supposed to be a flush rivet to fill a hole, this one is much worse

than the other arm. (11)

111

• Other than the aforementioned dent the curves to this piece are good

• Seams near mounting post and hinges are poor (8, 12)

• Hinging articulation is poor

• The pieces attached only to the hinges has been cut, there are obvious marks,

jagged edges, etc (10)

• Roping is very poor, irregular

Left Arm Harness:

Dimensions: Extended Length: 20”, Elbow Width: 7”, Upper Arm: 4.75”,

Lower Arm: 3.125”

Weight: 2lbs 12oz

Description: The piece consists of a pivoting shoulder, bicep, elbow joint, and lower

vambrace (forearm). Any bullets with an entry in the Photo Appendix are

denoted in parenthesis ex: (1) is picture #1.

Observations: Overall this entire arm harness is composed of many unoriginal

components, given that fact it is nearly impossible to determine what

parts, if any, actually belong to this suit.

112

Pivoting Shoulder:

Almost definitely not original

Seams don’t line up (15)

There are exposed very poor looking rivets (15)

Roping is poor in general

Near the mounting posts to connect the pieces to the pauldrons there are

rectangular scratches on either side suggesting that the pauldrons was held over

the piece while those marks were scratched to find the correct place for the

mounting post.

The post also blocks the articulation of the plates and has a circular washer (16)

The mounting post is in a slightly different place on this arm.

The rivets are raised and not in the same place on both arms.

Does not articulate.

The curves and craftsmanship of the shoulder are terrible.

Bicep

• Has been altered to fit this arm harness

• Poor roping that just ends near the elbow

• Curves are good

• Significant damage near the elbow (17)

Elbow

• Probably original but has been altered

• Drill hole in the center for the mounting of the definitely fake elbow guard (see

elbow guard analysis) (18)

113

• Curves, lines, articulation are all good

• Roping is poor in some spots (18, 20)

• Many extra holes in articulation plates (19)

• Several plates could have been cut and some have hash marks on them, some may

have also been slightly bent to fit better. (19)

• There is damage to the bottom of the elbow

Lower Vambrace (Forearm):

• Could be partially original

• Hinges are a closer match than the other arm

• Hinge articulation is very poor, one of the hinges is broken

• There is a flush rivet in the center just like that other arm, this could be to attach

the gauntlets; the rivet in this arm is good, the other arm is a huge dent.

• The piece attached to the hinges only is also cut like that other arm, it does match

the one from the other ar;, they both do not go with this vambrace but could

possibly be from the same suit and have been altered the same way. (22, 23)

114

Arm Harness Photo Appendix: General

1. Visible sides 2. Left arm, side towards the body

3. Right arm, side toward the body

Right Arm

4. Right shoulder, interior 5. Right shoulder seam

115

6. Right shoulder mounting post 7. Right shoulder, poor roping

8. Right forearm, poor seam/hinge 9. Right forearm, cut edge

10. Right forearm, inside of flush rivet 11. Right forearm, external flush rivet

116

12. Right forearm, poor roping/seam 13. Right elbow, interior, jagged edges

Left Arm: 14. Left shoulder, mounting post 15. Left shoulder, terrible seams

16. Left shoulder, interior 17. Left Bicep damage near the elbow

18. Left elbow, drill hole/poor roping 19. Left elbow, interior

117

20. Left elbow, poor roping 21. Left forearm, poor seams

22. Left forearm, bad cutting damage 23. Left forearm, cutting near post

118

Pasguard

Dimensions: Height: 3” Length: 9.25” Width: 6.5”

Weight: 1 lb.

Description: This piece is constructed of a solid piece of metal contoured to the elbow.

It is held in place with a bolt that attaches to the arm harness (1,2).

Observations: Possibly authentic to some suit armor but not this one

Structure

• This piece is constructed of a single plate, made of very thick metal

• Doesn’t fit well over arm harness

Construction

• There are no rivets on this piece

• There is a simple hole in the middle of the piece with a nut and bolt, the bolt is

large and fairly modern, the nut is rectangular with cut edges

• Hole is couter is drilled; this one isn’t

Decoration

• Rolled edges on both sides touching arm

• No decoration like on other pieces

Condition

• Good overall condition

• Finish is bumpy, like the final hammering was not done (Photo 3)

• Edges are uneven

119

Pasgaurd Photo Appendix

Photo 1: Front View Photo 2: View of underside

Photo 3: Close-up

120

Gauntlets

Dimensions: Left Right Length 10.5” 10.5” Diameter Opening 5” 5” Cuff Length 6” 5.25”

Weight: Left: 1lb 10oz; Right: 1lb 11oz

Description: This piece consists of articulating fingers riveted to the base of the

gauntlet.

Observations: Overall it seems that these gauntlets are a compilation of several different

pieces.

• Around the opening of the cuff there is a rope design which seems to be common

throughout the suit. There are 10 brass rivets holding an inner leather strap. The

cuff is made up of two pieces, top and bottom. The bottom piece is shorter to

allow downward hand movement. Attached to the top cuff piece there are 4

metacarpal lames. Each of the four lames has a single brass rivet on either side

holding it to the previous lame. The first lame has a hole in the middle of the

lame. It appears to be modern for some sort of mounting purposes.

• The fifth lame is approximately two times as large as the previous four. It has

two rivets on either side one of which is connected to the thumb piece. The sixth

and final lame starts to take the form of the finger pieces. It is held on to the

previous lame by a single brass rivet on each side. The rivets are rounded on the

outside with a washer on the inside. The washer allows for movement.

121

Each of the finger lames is attached to a leather strap that allows them to be

mobile. They are attached via one or 2 iron/steel rivets. The lames of the fingers

are inconsistent and not from the original suit. At least not all of them. They are

of different sizes and shapes also having different coloring. In addition the right

middle digit has one extra lame compared to the left middle digit. Some of the

lames are rounded while others are square.

Some of the rivets appear flattened on top. This is a giveaway that they are not

original. The original armor smith must have used a rounded tool when

hammering the rivets in order to keep the round shape. When modern rivets were

used no rounded tool was used and therefore the tops of the rivets were flattened.

Also the shaft portion on the non-original rivets is larger in diameter. The

washers that accompany these rivets were clearly stamped rather than made by

hand because they are perfectly circular while the originals were cut using tin

snips and are not perfect.

On the right gauntlet the last two brass rivets on the last two metacarpal lames on

both sides are not original. The articulations from the metacarpal lames are fair

except for the last one which is rather poor. The last of the wrist lames on both

gauntlets could quite possible be from an entirely different pair of gauntlets.

122

The left gauntlet and the right have the last two rivets of the last two lames are not

original. Also the rivets and hinge that hold on the thumb piece are not original.

The cuff on the left is .75” longer than on the left. It seems like the piece could

have been completely taken apart at some point in time and reassembled in a

slightly different fashion. If this was done I suspect that it was done a long time

ago. There are two rivet holes on both gauntlets before the first lame of the wrist.

The entire wrist lame setup could have started in that position and then changed

for some reason. Possibly sizing.

123

Gauntlet Photo Appendix

Figure 11 Figure 12

Figure 13 Figure 14

Figure 15 Figure 16

124

Breastplate Dimensions: Breastplate: Height: 17 Inches Width: 13.5 Inches Depth: 6.5 Inches Fauld: Height: 2.5 Inches Width: 13.75 Inches Depth: 4.75 Inches Gussets: Height: 9 Inches Width: 1.5 Inches Depth: 4.5 Inches

Weight: 7 lbs 3 oz

Description: The piece consists of the breastplate, lance rest, gussets, and fauld (1,2)

Observations: The breastplate itself fits the time period with matching gussets but the lance rest and fauld are not original to the piece.

Main Plate

• The breastplate is made of one solid piece and is of peasecod shape (3). A turned

edge with decoration lines the neck portion of the plate. The edge is bent forward

and rolled over at the top towards the inside. The original rivets on the bottom of

the plate were removed when the non-original fauld was attached.

• A buckle on each shoulder of the breastplate allows for a strap from the backplate

to connect the two pieces together. Two rivets connect the lance rest to the left

part of the breastplate (3).

• Rust marks on the bottom of the plate match with rust marks on fauld, probably

caused by a leather belt.

• The vestigial stop rib at the top of the breastplate is adorned with roped

decoration. A V-shaped line converges at the top 1/3 point of the plate (1). The

point which defines a peascod styles is at the very bottom of the breastplate

indicating the plate to have been made in the late 16th century (3). Along the

125

shoulder where the gussets attach are two parallel lines scored into the metal, with

the inner line mostly worn off on the left side and mostly visible on the right side.

Fauld

• The fauld is made of 1 lame.

• 7 pairs of rivets: 4 horizontal pairs for strap attachment to tassets

2 horizontal pairs for attachment to breastplate

1 vertical pair for possible attachment of a codpiece

• All of the rivets are solid and none slide. The two vertical rivets are in the middle

of the lower portion of the lame. The upper rivet goes through a semicircular

ridge with the lower rivet just above a turned edge.

• The fauld appears to have not been made for the breastplate, although it is not a

replica judging by the wear and age of the piece. The fauld is made of different

metal than the breastplate and the existing rivets don’t match with the rivet holes

at the bottom of the breastplate. The rivets also appear to be much newer than

those of the breastplate as indicated by nearly perfectly circular washers. The cut

line on the bottom edge of the lame is poor and the whole piece does not fit well

to the breastplate. The leather on the fauld is not original but appears to be quite

new.

• Rust marks on the upper part of the lame match with rust marks on the bottom of

the breastplate, probably from a leather belt.

• There is a crack on the far left of the fauld in between two raised pieces of metal.

• Four leather straps are present for attachment to buckles on tassets. Two rivets

attach the fauld to the breastplate.

126

Lance Rest

• The rest is solidly made and attached to right half of breastplate. The actual rest

is made on a locking hinge which is broken, although release tab is functional.

The rivets used to attach the lance rest to the breastplate do not have any washers,

although appear to be much older than those of the fauld, but not the same as

those used in the breastplate. The lance rest does not fit well to breastplate,

determined by numerous spaces between breastplate and attached portion of the

rest.

• Two rivets attach the base of the lance rest to the breastplate.

• Double scoring decoration on the bottom of the rest proper and triple scoring on

the top. The decorations do not match those of the breastplate or fauld.

Gussets

• The gussets are riveted to the main plate at two points. The upper rivet slides

while the bottom rivet is solid and acts as a pivot.

Buckles

• The buckles are made of brass and the hinge is riveted to the top of the shoulder.

127

Breastplate Photo Appendix #1 Front of Breastplate #2 Breastplate with extended lance rest

#3 Right side view #4 Rear view of breastplate

128

Backplate

Dimensions: Height: 14.75” Width: 12.75” Depth: 6 “

Weight: 4 lbs 5 oz

Description: The piece consists of the backplate and straps for connection to breastplate

and a leather belt (5).

Observations: The backplate is not original to the breastplate most likely

• The backplate is made of one solid piece (5) (7). The same V shaped line that

converges at top 1/3 point of the plate is the same as the breastplate (9). The

metal is the same as the breastplate judged by appearance and same pounding

marks made during construction (7). The bottom of the piece has a 1.75 inch

flange that flares outward (8).

• There are thirteen decorative rivets spanning the outer portion of the flange (8).

• One rivet on either side of the bottom of the plate is used to connect the belt

around the breastplate. The strap on the left side of the backplate has a buckle on

it (5) (7).

129

Backplate Photo Appendix #5 Back plate #6 Left side view of back plate

#7 Rear view of back plate #8 Close-up of flange

#9 Close-up of V at top of back plate

130

Tassets

Dimensions:

Right: Height: 10.5” Width: 9.25” Depth: 3” Left: Height: 10.5” Width: 9.5” Depth: 2.75”

Weight: Right: 1lb 12oz Left: 1lb 9oz

Description: The tassets are made of four lames. On the bottom lames of each tasset is

a V shaped line.

Observations: The tassets are original but not to the breastplate.

Left

• Roping is much deeper and thicker on the bottom lame and towards the top sides

of the lame, the scoring continues in the same direction. The scoring switches

direction on the sides of the top three lames. The top sides of the bottom lame on

the right side have three score marks while the left side has five marks (11) (12).

• The scoring is completely visible at the top of all four lames (11).

• The V makes a sharp point and is relatively quite higher than on the right lame

(12).

Right

• Top side edge of the bottom lame, the scoring switches direction and continues in

the same direction for the upper three lames. The left side edge has five score

marks that switch direction and the right side has three that switch direction (10)

(13).

131

• The right tasset has a gouge taken out of the middle of the top of the second lame

from the top (10). The left tasset has a hole in the bottom left of the bottom lame

(13). It appears to have possibly been a rivet hole at one point in time.

• The scoring is almost completely worn on the bottom lame, while it is quite work

in places on the top three lames (10).

• The V is more rounded and shorter than on the left lame (13).

General

• Near V on the bottom lame, the left tasset has six evenly spaced rivets placed

along the lower edge while the right tasset has five rivets with one directly under

the V and two evenly spaced on either side of the centered rivet. Near the double

scoring on the bottom lame, the right tasset has two rivets in the middle of the

scoring as on the other three lames. The left tasset has the same two rivets, but

placed well under the scoring, contrary to the other three lames on the piece (12)

(13).

• Two buckles at the top of each tasset attached to the leather strap which connected

the tassets to the fauld on the breastplate (10) (13).

132

Tasset Photo Appendix

#10 Top view of right tasset #11 Top view of left tasset

#12 Bottom view of left tasset #13 Bottom view of right tasset

#14 Rear of right tasset #15 Rear of left tasset

133

Cuisses/Poleyns

Dimensions: Right w/o Poleyn Left w/o Poleyn Height: 17.5” 13” 17.5” 13.25” Length: 5” 4” 5” 4” Width: 7” 7”

Weight: Right: 2lbs. 2 oz.; Left: 2lbs. 2oz.

Description: This piece is constructed of a cuisse held to the leg with two leather straps

and attached to the poleyn with rivets. The cuisse covers the front of the

thigh only and the poleyn covers the front of the knee with wings

extending out to the sides. The cuisse is constructed of a single piece of

metal, while the poleyn has two upper lames, a main piece, and two lower

lames (1,2).

Observations: Dents around rivets attaching to leather straps possibly from adding new

straps. The left piece most likely authentic, right one made to match

Structure (from bottom up)

• Two Lames have keyhole joints on each side of bottom lame, which is slightly its

self slightly pointed. There is one rivet on sides of upper lame. This piece has

good articulation.

• Main piece of poleyn is almost diamond shaped center and has an oval/heart

shaped wing on outside with a triangle crease in middle with rivet at tip (rivet

attaches to leather strapping)

• Two lames are attached with rivets on each side with good articulation

134

• Cuisse has a wide indented rim around top of cuisse continuing down side to

poleyn. There are six decorative rivets along top and 2 rivets on sides connecting

to leather strapping.

• The cuisse has roping along top and side and a raised center line going from the

top to bottom lames of poleyn

Construction

• Decorative rivets found on top of cuisses

• Washers are all extremely round

• Washers and possibly rivets replaced in leather strapping

• Keyhole joints in lower lames of poleyns – line up with studs on greaves

• 4 rivets that attach to leather straps to secure poleyn and cuisse to leg

Decoration

• Indented line below roping on both cuisses and poleyns

• Raised center line that starts at top of cuisses and goes down to bottom of lames

Condition

• Scratches in left poleyn

• Assembly marks in lames and poleyns on underside on left piece (3)

• Dents around rivets attaching to leather straps

• Small dent in body of right cuisse (5)

• Keyhole joint broken and badly repaired on right poleyn (6)

• Top roping on right cuisse cracked (4)

135

• Lots of denting around decorative rivets on right cuisse

• Indented line below roping not smooth or flowing

• Right piece lacking assembly marks

• Right piece has thinner roping on top and that metal is broken (4)

136

Cuisses/Poleyns Photo Appendix

Photo 1: Front View Photo 2: Side View

Photo 3: Assembly Marks Photo 4: Broken Roping

Photo 5: Dent in Right Piece Photo 6: Broken Keyhole

137

Greaves/Sabatons

Dimensions: Right Left Height: 18” 18” Length: 12.25” 12.00” Width: 4.00” 3.75”

Weight: Right: 2lbs. 9oz.; Left: 2lbs. 9oz.

Description: This piece is constructed of a greave in two parts; a front piece and a back

piece hinged together on the outer side and connected by studs on the

inner side. The greave covers the heel and extends in the front to the

instep where the sabaton begins. The sabaton consists of four lames going

downwards, a mid plate and three lames going upwards ending with a toe

piece in the blunted shoe design (1, 3).

Observations: Piece appears to be mostly original with a few rivet changes that do not

change the overall piece.

Structure (from the bottom up) (1, 3)

• Toe piece has a blunted toe design, two decorative brass rivets on center

• Three small lames are joined under toe plate and over middle lame

• One large lame is joined underneath both first 3 lames and last 4 lames.

• Four small lames are notch in center of each lame, raised center line that follows

the line on the greaves

• Front piece of greave is raised center line down front there are two keys that

would attached to poleyn; equidistant from center

• Back piece of greave is raised center line down back and continuing down

sabaton

138

• One lame on top back of greave has a roped design on top which gives added

movement in knee area (1)

Construction

• Brass rivets joining pieces are secured in back with cut washers of various shapes

• Two rivets on center of toe-piece colored differently and do not attach to

anything. Not secured with washers on the back of left sabaton. Secured with

washers on the right sabaton

• Front and back of greaves have hinges at top and bottom of outer side

• Stud hole closures on top and bottom of inner sides

• Two keyhole closures equidistant from center line on front piece of greaves;

attach to poleyn

Decoration

• Two rivets on center of toe plate, no clear purposes; slightly different color brass

• Roping design along bottom of sabaton and on top back of greaves.

• Notches in the center on top four lames of sabatons; similar to

those on the gauntlets

• Raised center line down front and back of greaves, stopping

at the large single lame in middle of sabaton

Condition

• Speckled black coloring over entire piece

• More black concentrated on back of greaves with slight indents in same location

139

Greaves/Sabatons Photo Appendix

1. 2.

140

Web Site Concepts

This section contains a few possibilities for our webpage. The actual webpage

should have a complete electronic copy of the preceding sections of this entire document in addition to a simple dichotomous key allowing people to find out something about a piece of armor which they will have to compare to a series of pictures and end up at an educated guess as to what their piece is. The final result will have links to anything similar in our background research and in the suit we studied.

A possible introduction page Beginning of Dichotomous key

Dichotomous Key Continued End Result, Your piece is probably a…

141

Website Product

The website that we produced followed our design very closely. The page was designed in html. The following are captioned screen shots of our webpage:

This is the website’s home page. The menu bar on the left is visible no matter what page you are viewing to aid in site navigation. The main menu headings are “The Classic

Suit,” our encyclopedia entry; “HAM Suit 207,” our analysis of suit 207; “Armor

Checklist,” the criteria we used to analyze Suit 207, applicable to nearly any armor analysis; “Identify Armor,” our modified Dichotomous Key to identify various armor components; and “About the Team,” a brief Biographical section about the members of our IQP team.

142

This is an example of an entry from within “The Classic Suit,” this particular section is on decorative helmets, any part of the Helmet section can be reached by the links on the bottom as well as any other part of the website from the menu on the side.

143

This is an entry from the “HAM Suit 207” Section. This section is the Haute-Piece within the Misc. Parts section. Our Armor Checklist is included in the Appendix of this document. Below is an example page from the “Identify Armor” section.

144

Conclusion

Overall we would say our IQP experience has been interesting. During our PQP we mapped out our plan of work, assembled our bibliographies, and pulled together a list of

possible armors we might work on; this meant filling in all the holes in the Higgins

armory database on full suits of armour. This served several purposes including acclimating us with Higgins Armory and its layout, as well as its procedures. Several of us knew a little something about photography so the pictures came out quite well and now the database is complete. Professor Forgeng played a vital role in helping us establish a list of likely sources; his years of expertise pointed all of us newcomers in the

right direction throughout the entire project.

Our goal in the first term of the IQP was to pull together a research document

covering common pieces of armor, full suits, and their construction. With our list of

sources and guidance from weekly meetings, the first term of our IQP was time to buckle

down and do many hours of research every week. We built an encyclopedia of armour

with Blair, Edge and Paddock, and Pfaffenbichler as our primary sources. Our

encyclopedia details everything from the actual construction of armor and the society

around it to detailed descriptions of many pieces. For the actual encyclopedia type

entries Blair was a very valuable resource. The time Professor Forgeng spent making a

PDF out of it saved us hours of library trips, as well as a lot of time scanning pictures

which we could now just cut out of PDFs and cite.

In addition to writing our encyclopedia we were also reviewing possible candidate suits of armor for study in B-term. Over a span of several meetings we identified and

145

eliminated possible suits to study. Any half suit or otherwise incomplete suit was discarded, along with any suit that had already undergone an in-depth study. We eventually decided on Higgins Armory suit number 207 for our B-term analysis. It was the most complete suit in Higgins without an in-depth study, perfect for this IQP.

A good summary of B-term would simply be “hands-on,” which was a welcome change of pace from being the library for hours each week. We extended our meeting lengths to incorporate guided analysis time. Professor Forgeng would help each of us follow the guidelines we made together and completely analyze every piece of armor in suit 207. We looked at contours, damage marks, construction nicks, and more, as detailed in our list in the appendix. As we moved into this process we came to find that almost none of the pieces to our suit actually went together despite how good they look from a distance all assembled. Most had been altered from some other suit, often times the alterations were rather brutal and obvious if you knew what to look for. This was sort of a surprise, the illusion is well maintained even if it is not supposed to be, that all the suits go together. We did not expect that every part of the suit would have been altered.

After the analysis phase we moved to webpage design in C term. We had made mock-ups in B-term and also decided on a lot of the content and layout. Now we come to the culmination, actually putting everything together. In the beginning we were not sure if a website was a feasible amount of work; honestly, towards the end of B-term we still were not sure if the website was possible. We did decide to do the page. It was to have a dichotomous key1 as a tool for people to identify pieces of armor, our entire

1 The dichotomous key is a tool used in biology for identifying species. Our final version did not exactly

match the biological dichotomous key, but was still inspired by it.

146

encyclopedia, our analysis of suit 207, as well as the guidelines we used to analyze the suit. Ideally the site could serve as an informative template to anyone wanting to repeat what we have done in our first-of-its-kind IQP, as well as a guide to anyone researching armor from 1450-1650.

Looking back on our IQP there are a few things worth saying. For C-term we made a total breakdown of every task, who had to do it, by when. If we had done that for the other terms there would have been less confusion than there was. We had issues a few times with people not having something ready because they had not realized they were supposed to. That could have been avoided with an itemized list of what need to be done, nothing slips by anyone. We divided up the work relatively fairly, mostly this was done on a volunteer basis, “Who wants this part?” and someone volunteered and so on until we were out of things to assign. By C-term everyone’s roles were more concrete and people had things they were better suited to do than others as was reflected by the list of tasks. This project had three very distinct phases and each phase contained a LOT of work.

After all is said and done we have a one hundred page encyclopedia, an in-depth analysis of a suit we selected with photographs, and an all-inclusive webpage with guides to identify armor and to analyze other suits. Within the documents encyclopedia section there are sources listed after each piece to give anyone who wants to further research any of the topics a place to go. The work load was originally supposed to be the burden of a team of 4. The quality of work we have produced would have been drastically reduced with only 4 people; either that, or the amount of time spent would have gone up higher than it already was. The fact that the additional member of our group happened to be a

147

CS major was an added bonus as far the website construction is concerned. We had a little trouble now and then trying to schedule meetings with 6 busy people but we think that hassle was outweighed by the effect an extra person can have on a team.

If this project or one like it is repeated in the future we can make a few recommendations.

1. Make complete task lists. It may seem like more time that it is worth

while making the list but once you get into the term that list will be your

bible and everyone will have everything they are supposed to at the

meetings making everything easier for all parties concerned.

2. Correct documents immediately. When you receive documents with

corrections on them, correct the document immediately, do not put it off

until you start doing work on your next week’s assignment. If you put it

off the weekly assignments, instead of being two portions, will be one

disconcertingly large assignment. Also the work quality will be better if it

is completed in two installments.

3. Assign work on a volunteer basis. If anyone is upset about what they have

to do they cannot get mad at anyone because they selected that portion.

4. Write down everything your advisor says. If you do not you will miss

small changes to documents and sometimes even entire items he wants

completed. Best way to do this is to assign a secretary who takes notes at

every meeting.

148

Having looked back over our entire project and having inspected all the details within it there is little else left. We have all taken away many things from this IQP. Our research skills have improved dramatically; we have also learned how to schedule an entire three term project. How many students can say they have gotten to handle medieval armor? This will not soon be forgotten. I doubt any of us will ever look at armor in the movies without saying “Hey, that isn’t right…” or “Why is he wearing a jousting helm while sword fighting?” This has certainly made a lasting impression and served its purpose as an IQP. All of us have gained much knowledge in an area that we had, at best, heard of before this experience. Now we have written an encyclopedia on the topic and a guide for anyone who has the internet to follow.

149

APPENDIX

Our Checklist for Armor Analysis

Intro to Piece: Height Width Length

Weight

List Components

For each component Bullets should include:

• Quality of craftsmanship

• Curves, Smooth or rough

• Damage and possible reason for it

• Rivets

• Connection Points/Pivots

• Decoration/Style

• Does it match the rest of the suit?

• Hypothesize about originality or the components and support with evidence

150

Background Materials The following suits were the final few considered for our study.

151

152