The Armour Archive

Hi everyone,

I'm a sculptor that makes military miniatures for companies. I've recently been comissioned to sculpt and Earl in the 17th cen. The sculpt is based on a painting. I've been trying to find photo's of armor similar to the one he is wearing but haven't found anything so thought I'd ask people that knew more about armor.

Here's the armor ref I was sent





I'm not sure if all three are the same set of armor, The first one is the painting I'm basing the sculpt on.

The part I can't find extra ref on is the "skirt"(sorry!) that straps onto the breastplate. He seems to have two on each side?, I can only find reference for suits with one on each side.

So can anyone help me out? photo's or drawings of similar armor or even a name of the type would be super helpful.

thanks in advance!

regards

I'm not sure if all three are the same set of armor, The first one is the painting I'm basing the sculpt on.

They look close enough.

The part I can't find extra ref on is the "skirt"(sorry!) that straps onto the breastplate. He seems to have two on each side?, I can only find reference for suits with one on each side.

Breastplate is a peascod, he has segmented tassets strapped to it. Looks like he has a full backplate with fauld.

So can anyone help me out? photo's or drawings of similar armor or even a name of the type would be super helpful.

I dont know the name of the type of harness, I'm not particularly knowledgable when it comes to late period harness.

lemme see what I can find in AAOMK...

Otto Heinrich has a similar harness in black and gold

The second pic looks like it might be a mirror image copy of the first pic. They are not the same but they are pretty close.

Here's what this amateur would add.
These look like they could be ECW era. I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that people still wore full armor into battle by then.

So if I was sculpting miniatures for use in wargaming, I'd be asking questions about whether having an earl wearing full armor in battle is historically accurate for the time period. In any case I'd be suspicious of the fact that these are portraits, and that the armor being worn may have been specifically for painting portraits and may never have even been taken outside.

Hey,

I'm making a 1/10 scale bust for a museum that has the original painting. The Earl died in 1641 approx so the armor could have been from an earlier period.

thanks for all the help

regards

Holy crap you do awesome work!


I'm sure someone will chime in here and give you some good info, there are a couple of amateur experts on armour of that period.

The harness looks very late Greenwich to me, with similar arm harness to the attached pics. It's also a bit similar to a French example. The cullet (skirt to protect the posterior) is very deep, of a form seen often on cuirassier armours of the 17th c.

Here's that cullet sketch. Also, your middle portrait is indeed reversed; the lance rest is a dead giveaway.

thanks!

so the cullet is a fixed part of the rear breastplate(?) ?

barbados_wild wrote:thanks!

so the cullet is a fixed part of the rear breastplate(?) ?

Yes. Technically, this would be a 'fauld of lames', because it covers his backside, it is labled a cullet, but it would be bad to confuse you. The legs on the 3/4 harness, probably have all the lames integral to the front of the cuirasse, the belt you see is the waistbelt for his sword. They attatch at the bottom edge of the cuirassse, but there is no break between them and the knee. Some suits have the legs more or less permanently there, some detatch as the painting, and allow shorter tassets of lames to be used to turn it into a half-armour.

I would be utterly shocked if you didn't have a score of good examples of 3/4 harness within an easy days travel of you, as you are in the UK. Go and look at the stuff firsthand, it is always better than trying to interpret paintings.

thanks again,
I only have to sculpt him down to the bottom of his sword hilt so all this info has been great.

regards

Barbados,

There are a number of different schemes for attaching the tassets (laminated leg defenses) to the breast of a 17th C cuirassier's armor. In the pictures you are working from, they are attached to the fauld lame of the breast with a pair (each) of straps and buckles. The medial strap of the left tasset is easy to see, but the lateral one is obscured by the sword pommel in one pic, and the elbow in the other.

Likewise, there are several ways to attach the cullet (laminated butt defense) to the backplate. Sometimes they are attached, and made easily removably, by one or two (believe it or not) wing nuts. These screw onto a central post, or pair of broadly spaced posts, which protrude from the surface of the turned out flange of the backplate. (this is probably what is going on in the Van Dyke illustration which James posted above) Other times, the cullet is set on a pair of small posts, and secured by pivoted hooks which fall into transverse holes in these posts. This seems the most likely case here. The location of the posts would be just barely out of view in your pictures.

Hi Robert,

I think i'll probably leave the cullet off ( as I mentioned the bust stops around waist level) instead of just sculpting a cm or so of it.

"Other times, the cullet is set on a pair of small posts, and secured by pivoted hooks which fall into transverse holes in these posts. "

Do you have a photo or picture of this attachment system? - the part on the backplate.

thanks for your help,

Aaron,

I searched the books in my library this morning, and I'm not coming up with any images which show the cullet attachment. Perhaps someone else out there has a pic... (come on guys...!)

Mac

well, most people've got there first with helpful comments, but...

1. you're a git. I wish I could do figs like that.
2. I wish I had the patience for that. (tried a little with the target of a job with games sweatshop, but I ended up in the videogames business making all my sculpts in virtual medium)


my gut feeling is that the painting is'nt 1645ish, but closer to 1610 or so. there's subtle differences in fashion.


beyond that, if you can afford to travel, you might like to head up to glasgow to the Kelvingrove, and you'll find the greenwich harness of the 2nd earl of Pembroke.
its almost spot-on for what you're trying to depict, except for the tassets are a bit more voluminous for the fashion of trunk-hose which were popular when it was made about 15-20 years earlier than your target point.

the curator of arms and armour is Ralph Moffat, and he'd likely be able to help you with close-up viewings.
I'm afraid I dont have a single photograph of the 2nd earl's harness here. which is shameful given the number of times I've been there.

oh, and on your website, the #2 and '3 pics of the duke of cumberland 1/10th bust are coming up as a bit of htlm, instead of a box with image...

great stuff though.

I need to have the whole thing finished in around 3-4 days so unfortunatly can't go traveling.

The painting was done in 1636 by Van Dyck.

I'll look around online for shots of the Earl of Pembroke and see what I can find,

thanks for the site info will go and have a look


thanks everyone for your help

barbados_wild wrote::)

I need to have the whole thing finished in around 3-4 days so unfortunatly can't go traveling.

The painting was done in 1636 by Van Dyck.

I'll look around online for shots of the Earl of Pembroke and see what I can find,

thanks everyone for your help

3-4 days?
make that "total git" then

if you can list which earl the painting is from, there's a little bit of a chance that there's someone here who might know if the harness itself has survived, and if so, where it might be found, to grab reference pics.


note that there's a 2nd earl's harness in the Met in new york which is noticably different style though - there's less pronounced peascod breast, and different shoulder shapes, so careful with the google-fu.

its curious though as the armour style of those paintings is saying to me that they're older armour than the dates of painting, by a good 20 years.

Maybe I'm going mad, or just talking out my arse, and completely messing up a detail, so I'll shut up before I sidetrack you with erronious info on superb figs.

He's the Earl of strafford - Thomas Wentworth, 1st Baron Wentworth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wentworth,_1st_Earl_of_Strafford


I don't know anything about such things but I would have thought could be a lot older than the painting, family/personal armor ?

The armour is entirely contemporary with the painting, being a 3/4 armour of the early to mid 17th century. There is no doubt the armour would have been specifically made for him, given his station.

A plate armour has to be fitted to an individual to work well, most did not get passed down entire as inherited harnesses to use, because most sons are not exact replicas of their fathers body shape. It was not uncommon for people to require a new suit of armour as adults, as they aged, and their body changed (not the obese, but a middle aged male body of a fit male is generally different than the same mans body at 20).

chef de chambre wrote:The armour is entirely contemporary with the painting, being a 3/4 armour of the early to mid 17th century.

was the peascod still in use in the mid 17th?

I thought it started to drop out of fashion around 1610?

That is a pidgeon-breasted breastplate, not a peascod.

The butt-coverage is also spelled culet, and that search may yield a little more.

I prefer the single-L spelling to eliminate any confusion with recycled glass.

Konstantin the Red wrote:The butt-coverage is also spelled culet, and that search may yield a little more.

I prefer the single-L spelling to eliminate any confusion with recycled glass.

Dang, you beat me to it! LOL..

chef de chambre wrote:The armour is entirely contemporary with the painting, being a 3/4 armour of the early to mid 17th century. There is no doubt the armour would have been specifically made for him, given his station.

.

Chef, this might be a stupid question but I'll take the risk. Could the armour be just painted in and not actually armour he wore? I did not see anything about military service in the quick check of the Wiki link provided. Knightedin 1611 and in Parliment by 1614. Not a lot of time to lead troops. Would someone in Parliment have a suit comissioned as a reference to his station? This period really interests me and I am curious aobut the culture surounding these portraits.

Was there not a habit of folks standing for portraits to get the face and stance correct and then the artist adding the details later? It does seem like an accurate depiction of armour of the time so the artist certainly had some sort of reference.

Mac has instigated me to post (no pun intended) some pic's of cullet securing systems.

And here is one more.

That's great thank you

Johann ColdIron wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:The armour is entirely contemporary with the painting, being a 3/4 armour of the early to mid 17th century. There is no doubt the armour would have been specifically made for him, given his station.

.

Chef, this might be a stupid question but I'll take the risk. Could the armour be just painted in and not actually armour he wore? I did not see anything about military service in the quick check of the Wiki link provided. Knightedin 1611 and in Parliment by 1614. Not a lot of time to lead troops. Would someone in Parliment have a suit comissioned as a reference to his station? This period really interests me and I am curious aobut the culture surounding these portraits.

Was there not a habit of folks standing for portraits to get the face and stance correct and then the artist adding the details later? It does seem like an accurate depiction of armour of the time so the artist certainly had some sort of reference.

I am not sure regarding his military participation, but I would wager someone of his station would have the harness, at this point in time. His grandson, on the other hand would have probably been painted with his grandfathers suit as a reference.

There were several minor military adventures under James I, that do not get the same sort of attention or press as the Civil War.

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:Mac has instigated me to post (no pun intended) some pic's of cullet securing systems.

In that last pic, what were the latches on the fauld used for?? any ideas?

Ckanite wrote:

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:Mac has instigated me to post (no pun intended) some pic's of cullet securing systems.

In that last pic, what were the latches on the fauld used for?? any ideas?

Ckanite,

Do you mean the hooks that are passing through the posts on the culet?

They are so you can remove the culet. Removable culets were practically universal on seventeenth century cuirasior's armors. I suppose they probably liked the flexibility of being able to chose weather or not they wanted to wear it on any given occasion.

Mac

thanks everyone for your help, I have another quick question.

How does the does the armor on his arms articulate? - specifically in relation to his wrist and the "cut out grooves" opposite his elbow ( I notice this space is somtimes filled with mail or sliding plates)


The end of the armor where his wrist is is oblong not round (to fit his wrist shape) but the two "cut out grooves" ( the one from the shoulder to elbow and the 2nd from the elbow to wrist) always seem to met on the inside of the arm regardless of which way the wrist turns. In my middle photo (at the beginning of this thread) the wrist is turned one way and in the 3rd pic it is another way but in both the grooves are in the same place.

does this make sense? have the painter just used artistic license?


any help would be appreciated,

thanks

The inside of his elbow appears to be covered by sliding plates. I believe it is referred to as compression articulation. That would be the horizontal "grooves" you see inside his elbow.

The vertical "grooves" you see running down the length of the arm are where the armor is hinged to open and allow the armour to be placed on the arm. The reason that the position of the wrist is different in relation to the vertical line, is that the forearm rotates inside the armour itself.

I hope I've answered your questions.

So the wrist can turn around freely inside the lower arm portion of the armor? I thought it was oblong in profile (where the wrist comes out) , or is it round?

thanks for your help

Generally, I would say that the opening was round to allow the wrist free movement.

There are examples of arm harnesses in later periods where the lower canon (forearm area) of the harness is attached to the elbow w/ sliding rivets, so that it can rotate slightly independent of the elbow. However, I don't see any evidence of that w/ this suit.

If I'm wrong, hopefully someone w/ a little more knowledge re: later period armours could chime in.

thanks Galvyn, I've had a another look at all my ref and i think you're right,

Mac wrote:They are so you can remove the culet. Removable culets were practically universal on seventeenth century cuirasior's armors. I suppose they probably liked the flexibility of being able to chose weather or not they wanted to wear it on any given occasion.

Mac

And thus began the rustic saying "left my ass hanging out there!"