The Armour Archive

I have been studying late 14th century English effigies in preparation for reproducing my own harness. I understand that a haubergeon was worn under full plate at this time, but am unsure what exactly was worn under the leg harness. Many effigies that I have found clearly show maille guarding the backs of the knees and ankles, but I am unclear if they were wearing full maille chausses or patches of maille stitched to padded/gamboised chausses that only cover what the plate does not. If wearing full maille under plate, are there issues with the maille interfering with the articulations of the knees?

Just put mailpatches on the backs of the knees if you wish to. Note that the defense-in-depth of haburgeon under plate body armor was confined in all these effigies to the vital organs -- and the genitals.

They did not, moreover, find it very advisable to get any more stuff than they had to between the knight's thighs and his contact with his saddle.

The gamboised cuisse of the first half of the century helped with that a lot. I can think of at least one example of gamb-cuisse, early hard cops w/fans, and mail chausses only rising knee high in effigial art. Presumably these chausses pointed to something -- hose, most likely, as whatever kept the mail up is invisible in every example I've seen. (Effigy of Ulrich von Werdt)

Konstantin the Red wrote:and the genitals.

the MOST vital organs

Konstantin, have you seen mail patches on the legs in any period? I know in the 15th a similar thing is done for the arms, but I haven't seen it for the legs.

I'm personally inclined to think that full mail chausses were worn, since this was the case with the rest of the body. I don't think mail over the knees would interfere with articulation any more than it does on the elbows (that is, not at all).

This isn't quite what you wanted, but it is mail shorts and a "cavalry stripe".

This St Eustace by Durer is a light lancer, c1498-1504




The Paumgärtner Altarpiece:
St Eustace (Right Panel)
Albrecht Dürer,
c.1498-1504

http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/durer/index_a.html

14cbascinet wrote:I have been studying late 14th century English effigies in preparation for reproducing my own harness. I understand that a haubergeon was worn under full plate at this time, but am unsure what exactly was worn under the leg harness. Many effigies that I have found clearly show maille guarding the backs of the knees and ankles, but I am unclear if they were wearing full maille chausses or patches of maille stitched to padded/gamboised chausses that only cover what the plate does not. If wearing full maille under plate, are there issues with the maille interfering with the articulations of the knees?

Under padded armor or leather I would assume full maille but that is not seen in the late 14th c; the art is all plate in the late part of the century. Padded or leather armor seems to die out after 1370 in art.

I'd geusse that after 1345-1350, the mail on the legs was just a patch or voider on the back of the knee.
Surviving cuissies and greaves from the later 14th century are carefully shaped to fit closely to the legs, and my opinion is that they weren't worn with mail, or even much padding.
The 14th century seems to be the only time fully enclosed cuissies were mainstream, which would indicate a lack of mail.

I've never seen any sort of defense behind the knee other than part of a gamboised cuisse. for plate defenses, I've never seen mail behind the knee.

Remember:
1) if you've got leg armor and are riding on a horse, then there's no way for anybody to reach back there!
2) if you're on foot, as long as you've got friendlies behind you, there's no way for anybody to reach back there!
3) since the target is so low, it's really difficult to reach back there without exposing your head.

Well, just because you've never seen it does't mean there aren't depictions. The topic mentions effigies that show this feature.

Galfrid atte grene wrote:Konstantin, have you seen mail patches on the legs in any period? I know in the 15th a similar thing is done for the arms, but I haven't seen it for the legs.

I'm personally inclined to think that full mail chausses were worn, since this was the case with the rest of the body. . .

My point being: heavy, redundant, and that's the case even against sharps. Thus I figure mailpatches in the crook of the knee at most, and even then these would be optional.

I fear I was less than clear about it.

The defense in depth of haburgeon under breastplate, etc., in torso defense is characteristic of torso defense and coverage of the vital organs -- not characteristic of limb defense. The overall trend in leg defenses since hauberks and chausses began to be modified and to shrink was to defend the legs sparingly. The chausse with a kneecop included, the gamboised cuisse under a hauberk w/aketon and lower leg defense of mail, the articulated plate leg -- all these exemplify a minimalist approach to defending the leg. Supplemental leg defense generally was borne by the horse, not the man: saddle steels, etc., even the tilt-barrier, a solid fence, was not borne by man or horse. I don't know of any departures from this minimalist approach. I'd cite the greater direct tactical effect of a functional weapon arm over a functional or nonfunctional leg: the arm would be directly relevant to whether a combatant was a combatant or a casualty, the leg definitely less so, and hence a more secondary target. They simply wouldn't need to defend it very heavily.

Thanks for the additional thoughts. This is a tricky subject. The arm may be more functionally important for battle, but there are examples in art of men more armoured in the legs than the arms, and greaves were worn long before any plate defense on the arm. I also see many examples on effigies of mail behind the knee, more than not, and the same for illuminations in manuscripts - at least where such detail is even visible. My concern with your proposed "knee voiders" is that the concept of voiders is usually considered to be an invention of the 15th century, not the 14th.

If the vambraces or greaves (or even breastplate/backplates) are cased, there won't be mail in there. There are plenty of depictions in effigies of mail on top of partial plate arms, etc.

Hmm, I disagree. What makes you think that? Yes, there are effigies with half sleeves that go over arms, but also plenty that show mail in the bend of otherwise cased arms.

Galfrid atte grene wrote: My concern with your proposed "knee voiders" is that the concept of voiders is usually considered to be an invention of the 15th century, not the 14th.

What have we for earliest evidence of voiders, anyway? Chef de Chambre got anything? He's good with data like that.

And I still can't think of any full or even partial chausses under plate legharness. They seem to have figured out that cased greaves work particularly well if they are tailored about as close as a coat of paint.

Looks like there were a variety of approaches, but there seems to be pretty good evidence of mail voyders in the 1380-1385 Lancelot du Lac

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... rhose.html

A German chronicle describes pieces of a haubergeon stitched to the doublet, in the bends of the arms IIRC, for c. 1350.

Bertus Brokamp wrote:A German chronicle describes pieces of a haubergeon stitched to the doublet, in the bends of the arms IIRC, for c. 1350.

I'd like to know more about this reference.

Konstantin the Red wrote:And I still can't think of any full or even partial chausses under plate legharness. They seem to have figured out that cased greaves work particularly well if they are tailored about as close as a coat of paint.

If by partial you mean at least voider-like patches, there are many many examples in art.

Galleron wrote:Looks like there were a variety of approaches, but there seems to be pretty good evidence of mail voyders in the 1380-1385 Lancelot du Lac

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... rhose.html

Now that is very interesting. Those "panzerhose" seem to be almost exactly what we are discussing. The evidence from the manuscript is also compelling. I've also seen mail around the ankle (example, Black Prince effigy) which the hose lacks, but I guess that wouldn't be difficult to add if plate coverage was lacking.

I'd like to know more about that reference, Bertus. Very neat. I always figured voiders were a 15th century invention. Perhaps this is not so!

If it could be argued to be plausible, that'd certainly cut a huge bit of weight (and work!) out of my kit!

The text:
Item die underwamse hatten enge armen unde in dem gewerbe waren si benehet unde behaft mit stucken von panzern, daz nante man musisen.

My translation:
"The underdoublets had narrow arms and in the articulations they were besewn and fitted with pieces of haubergeons, these were called 'mus'irons."

Limburger Chronik, speaking about c. 1351.

The maile at the Black Prince's ankle is a bit of a puzzle. His effigy is missing a lot of details like hinges and rivets on his arm harness, but there's also no evidence of that ankle being a separate patch. There's maile at the back of the knee going down into the top of his greave, and there's maile seen at the ankle. I share Keegan's frustration that this hints at a full chausse which more than doubles the weight of the lower leg.

My approach to the St. George harness in Galleron's link is to rivet the maile to the back of the cuisse. This obviates the need for additional lacing/patching/chausses while saving the weight of the whole maile chausse, but it's not clear that this is how it was originally done.

I'm almost sure it's not a historical meathod, though if you have full cuissies, you could just drill holes along the lower edge of the back.
Then just put wires through the holes, and use them to twistie-tie the mail on the inside.
If you're good, you might be able to hide the wires wiht an edge roll.

Gaston de Clermont wrote:The maile at the Black Prince's ankle is a bit of a puzzle. His effigy is missing a lot of details like hinges and rivets on his arm harness, but there's also no evidence of that ankle being a separate patch. There's maile at the back of the knee going down into the top of his greave, and there's maile seen at the ankle. I share Keegan's frustration that this hints at a full chausse which more than doubles the weight of the lower leg.

My approach to the St. George harness in Galleron's link is to rivet the maile to the back of the cuisse. This obviates the need for additional lacing/patching/chausses while saving the weight of the whole maile chausse, but it's not clear that this is how it was originally done.

Gaston de Clermont wrote:The maile at the Black Prince's ankle is a bit of a puzzle. His effigy is missing a lot of details like hinges and rivets on his arm harness, but there's also no evidence of that ankle being a separate patch. There's maile at the back of the knee going down into the top of his greave, and there's maile seen at the ankle. I share Keegan's frustration that this hints at a full chausse which more than doubles the weight of the lower leg.

Gaston,

It's not just the Black Prince, of course. The mail at the instep is characteristic of English brasses and effigies from the third quarter of the 14th C all the way past the middle of the 15th.

There are several plausible ways to produce the effect that is seen on the effigies. A mail patch could be sewn or laced to the front of a high shoe or low boot. The patch could be sewn or laced to the hosen. The patch could be sewn to a leather strip riveted inside the greave.

In any of these cases, it would look just like it does in the effigies. That is to say, there would be "no evidence" of it being a separate patch, because its upper edge would be concealed by the greave.

In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; and a mail patch or voider would look the same as a full mail chausse.

In conclusion, I would like to add that I believe that a full mail chausse under a closed greave and closed cuisse is very unlikely. Such a thing would be heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, and unnecessary.

Mac

JoJo Zerach wrote:I'm almost sure it's not a historical meathod, though if you have full cuissies, you could just drill holes along the lower edge of the back.
Then just put wires through the holes, and use them to twistie-tie the mail on the inside.
If you're good, you might be able to hide the wires wiht an edge roll.

Jo Jo,

What you describe is (with some variation) the method used by 15th C Italian armorers to secure mail sabitons to greaves.

The difference is that they used one continuous wire to "sew" the mail to the holes in the plate. It's a sort of "whip stitch"....once through the plate, once through the mail, once through the plate......etc.

Mac

Mac wrote:There are several plausible ways to produce the effect that is seen on the effigies. A mail patch could be sewn or laced to the front of a high shoe or low boot. The patch could be sewn or laced to the hosen. The patch could be sewn to a leather strip riveted inside the greave.

Hey Mac, have there been any corresponding rivets or rivet holes around the bottom of the greave? Or any brasses or effigies with those rivets?

Any boots that still have the holes from where the mail was stitched on?

It'd be awesome if there are, but I haven't found any, yet. Perhaps I just haven't looked close enough...

Bertus Brokamp wrote:The text:
Item die underwamse hatten enge armen unde in dem gewerbe waren si benehet unde behaft mit stucken von panzern, daz nante man musisen.

My translation:
"The underdoublets had narrow arms and in the articulations they were besewn and fitted with pieces of haubergeons, these were called 'mus'irons."

Limburger Chronik, speaking about c. 1351.

Mouse armor?

Mac wrote:In conclusion, I would like to add that I believe that a full mail chausse under a closed greave and closed cuisse is very unlikely. Such a thing would be heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, and unnecessary.

Hi Mac, what is your opinion on a full mail sleeve under closed vambraces and/or rerebraces? Same logic applies?

Kegan,

The tragic truth is that there are no known surviving English greaves from that period. If there were an internal leather strip,it would probably have been fastened with flush rivets. That being the case, the effigy carvers would not have bothered to show the rivet heads. Hell!... they sometimes couldn't be bothered to show the articulating rivets.

The mail could also have been attached to an internal metal strip. Such a strip would be the analogue to the internal knuckle strips which were used to attach gauntlet finger leathers. A strip like this would be attached with only two (flush) rivets. It would take a pretty fussy sculptor to bother to show that.

I know of no extant boots or shoes which show evidence of mail attachment. Although unfortunate for us, this is not at all surprising when we consider the statistical probability of their survival. If such things did exist, they must have been outnumbered dramatically by civilian footwear.....and what tiny percentage of them have come down to us?

The whole idea of sewing the mail to shoes is something I made up to explain what we see in the effigies. It's a conjectural reconstruction. On the other hand, I have done it this way several times, and know that it will work.

Mac

The sewing of mail to a shoe or chausses would also seem consistent with the images above of the mail sewn on the back of the knee.
Considering all they developed, I'm sure the idea of sewing on patches of mail occoured to someone.

Mac wrote:Kegan,

The tragic truth is that there are no known surviving English greaves from that period. If there were an internal leather strip,it would probably have been fastened with flush rivets. That being the case, the effigy carvers would not have bothered to show the rivet heads. Hell!... they sometimes couldn't be bothered to show the articulating rivets.

The mail could also have been attached to an internal metal strip. Such a strip would be the analogue to the internal knuckle strips which were used to attach gauntlet finger leathers. A strip like this would be attached with only two (flush) rivets. It would take a pretty fussy sculptor to bother to show that.

I know of no extant boots or shoes which show evidence of mail attachment. Although unfortunate for us, this is not at all surprising when we consider the statistical probability of their survival. If such things did exist, they must have been outnumbered dramatically by civilian footwear.....and what tiny percentage of them have come down to us?

The whole idea of sewing the mail to shoes is something I made up to explain what we see in the effigies. It's a conjectural reconstruction. On the other hand, I have done it this way several times, and know that it will work.

Mac

Interesting, I had never really though about how mail sabatons worked!

(I actually tried said wire weaving method to attatch mail to a coat of plates, though I gave up because my 16g wire was too stiff.)

Mac wrote:

JoJo Zerach wrote:I'm almost sure it's not a historical meathod, though if you have full cuissies, you could just drill holes along the lower edge of the back.
Then just put wires through the holes, and use them to twistie-tie the mail on the inside.
If you're good, you might be able to hide the wires wiht an edge roll.

Jo Jo,

What you describe is (with some variation) the method used by 15th C Italian armorers to secure mail sabitons to greaves.

The difference is that they used one continuous wire to "sew" the mail to the holes in the plate. It's a sort of "whip stitch"....once through the plate, once through the mail, once through the plate......etc.

Mac

Galfrid atte grene wrote:

Mac wrote:In conclusion, I would like to add that I believe that a full mail chausse under a closed greave and closed cuisse is very unlikely. Such a thing would be heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, and unnecessary.

Hi Mac, what is your opinion on a full mail sleeve under closed vambraces and/or rerebraces? Same logic applies?

Yea, it does, doesn't it. The thing I have done most recently is Galleron's armor. I made the habergeon have sleeves with taylered elbows that stopped just inside the vambraces. This gets rid of the bulk in the wrists, but still has mail in side the upper arms. Since, (as we know), getting the upper arms of English closed cannons to look thin and long is already a difficult issue, I am not perfectly pleased with this as a solution.

We know that there must be mail in the armpit, and we know that there must be mail in the bend of the elbow. I wish we had some way of knowing if these were really part of the same thing.

Burtus' translation (above) is a strong piece of evidence that voiders were known and used in the middle of the 14th C. The fact that a chronicler felt it necessary to explain them suggests that they were a relatively new idea.

I am personally leaning toward the idea that voiders and gussets of mail developed hand in hand with the adoption of more or less complete plate. Further, I think that at any given time and place there was probably more than one way to solve the problem. Some may have felt better wearing a full habergeon under their armor, just like dear old dad. Others may have felt that voiders and gussets were a better bet with this newfangled plate. We will probably never fully understand the nuances of the chronology of this change.

Mac

I'm fairly sure there is some stylization of the proportions of many effigies.
The vambraces on the Robert Swynbourne effigy, for example, don't look at all like the surviving vambraces from the 14th century. (or any century.)
His effigy, as well as others like it, seem designed to get a certian "look".

A Middle-Dutch account entry of 1361-62:
Item tot eenen paer kousen sine yseren lappen op te nayen ende op te wapenen 4½ quartier ghemenghets 18 s.

My translation:
'For a pair of hosen to sew and arm his iron patches on, 4½ quarters of mixed (colourwise) cloth [cost] 18 s.'

The same acount also mentions 1 paer yseren kousen; '1 pair of iron hosen' so presumably both types of maille legdefence were in use at that time.

Bertus Brokamp wrote:A Middle-dutch account entry of 1361-62:
Item tot eenen paer kousen sine yseren lappen op te nayen ende op te wapenen 4½ quartier ghemenghets 18 s.

My translation:
'For a pair of hosen to sew and arm his iron patches on, 4½ quarters of mixed (colourwise) cloth [cost] 18 s.'

The same acount also mentiones 1 paer yseren kousen; '1 pair of iron hosen' so presumably both types of maille legdefence were in use at that time.

Well now! That -is- promising!

Can't see if anyone has mentioned this but there are some images that are clearly mail bands (or possibly vioders) for the knees that go under the cuisse/kneecops shown in early 15thC sources (I can think of a St. Michael for one). I realise this is just outside of the period of discussion but I thought I would point it out.

After many years of looking ( I have seen a LOT of 14thC effigies in person - esp English ones) I think a lot of the time is its just full mail - BUT light, fine and much better tailored mail than most modern folks doing 14thC use...
However, We do know they had those top and skirt style mail bits from Visby and they did use Pisans/standards - at least in Italy (plus whater you interpret Pauncer (sp) as) ... so it is possible. I guess they started as full mail and began to supplement with plate until the had full coverage... during this time I suspect they began to experiment with ditching some of the mail but how and when is purely speculative and written sources tend to indicate at least full mail on the torso and arms (well at least 3/4 sleeves on the arms)... and often mail on the legs also...
Now- I do know someone who wore full chausse under his leg harness and it looked sleek and very period BUT he was a tall slim and fit fellow ...

ps.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Dragon.jpg

This is not the one I was thinking (same period though) of but shows what I mean- You can clearly see BITS of mail used rather than full chausse on the legs...