The Armour Archive

I am looking to make a corazzina breastplate. I need some advice about fitting one. I have not seen a pic yet of someone actually wearing one so i do not know how the plates are supposed to fit. If anyone has some directions/suggestions/comments about making or fitting one i would be most grateful.

*bump*

Help... Please?

[img]http://sites.netscape.net/tkekona/Hall01altcrop.jpg[/img]

This pic isnt mine, Greyholt posted it on an earlier thread. the guy to the far right is wearing one.

-+G

Thanks that helps alot. What I was trying to gather was where the 'breastplate' stops and where the 'faulds' begin. From what it looks like in the pic is that the 'breastplate' stops at/or below the rib cage and then the faulds begin.

does anyone know what kind of contact cement was used to attach the fabric on the plates?

The breast plates stop below the ribs, but no lower than the navel. The best method of fitting is to put the breast plates against the chest and bend forward. The lower hem should slip neatly into your gut, passing comfortably above the hips.

I have an 18g breastplate that is waiting to become a corrazina. All I need to do is cut it in half, but I don't have the faulds conceived of. Let us know of your progress, helpful tips, et cetera.

Idëval

I'm still dying to know what the back of a corazzina cuirass would look like. In Dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum, most of the armoured figures seem to be wearing a type of corazzina that buckles in back. Would this back be armoured? lined with plates? defended only by mail? If anyone has any data at all on what a real, historical corazzina looked like from behind (not that harness in the Met...), I'd be perfectly thrilled...

Try this link, It shows a copy of the one at the met, front, back, ans inside out. Otto
[img]http://www.varmouries.com/tran_06.html[/img]

http;//varmouries.com/tran_06.html

On the Valentine Armouries piece, it appears that the armour is actually made in 5 discreete pieces - true?

The font is two separated halves, the back has two halves, and the upper back is a separate piece. All the pieces appear to attach via buckles.

Steve

I'm also confused as to how the plates are held in place.

For example; if you look at the lower faulds they appear to be set in triples - two plates overlapping a central plate. Yet from the outside it looks like only two plates. How is this arranged and riveted? Does the central plate rivet to its neighbors?

Steve

Hey Steve, Your right, there are five main assembleys.the plates in each assembly are held together with internal leather straps.
19 plates total.each front half includes 1 large lung plate and 2 fauld plates.for a total of 6 plates. the upper back plate is large,covering the shoulders.and the 2 halves of the lower back, each consist of 3 small back plates and 3 small fauld plates.
I'll see if I can get a couple of pics of mine posted that valentine made for me.On a side note, when Dean restored this piece he reused all the original rivits to secure the new velvet.If the plates didnt belong together,it would seem odd that they were all covered in velvet,and with matching rivits.The rivits on the lung plates are larger than the ones on the smaller plates,but they all seem to match in style.

Caution!
From what I understand, the piece you are referring to was a reproduction made in the 1920¡¯s with no basis in the actual style of the 14th century.

The originals were globos in shape without the split down the center. Additionally, the faulds were fashioned horizontally, not vertically.

While, they could be worn with a back plate, it was more common, in earlier periods, to see them held together with cross straps, without the back plates.

I may be wrong, so check your references.

Check this out.
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1.asp?dep=4&full=0&item=29%2E154%2E3

While Krieger is absolutely correct about the Met corrazzina, there is evidence of simialir pieces oused in period.

Specifically, there is evidence of globose, fabrick covered breastplates that split in the middle (silver altar piece from the Pistoia cathedral, AAotMK p. 75).

Krieger is correct about the hip protection - it should be horizontal faulds, not the vertical flaps that the Met corrazzina has (although I just looked at the altar piece again, and it looks like the one there may have flaps after all... Hmmm...).

As to the backplates, my belief is that the corrazzina had them, but I know of no good evidence of what they looked like or how they were constructed.

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

I'm aware of the argument that the configuration at the Met may not be historically accurate.The 1st time I ever heard this was here on the AA board. What is the main reference for the the plates not belonging together? A recent study? Just getting very curious, thanks, otto

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

As to the backplates, my belief is that the corrazzina had them, but I know of no good evidence of what they looked like or how they were constructed.

[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was not one present. However, the construction and lacings indicate that there was one originally

Otto: No study necessary, the history of the piece is well known. In the 1920s, the Armor curator of the Met took a bunch of plates from the find at Chalcis and stuck them together in an attempt to show what the armor might have looked like. While the gerenal lines are consistant with period garments, the specific construction (especially the arrangment of plates on the back and the hanging hip guards) were simply made up.

It even mentions this on the webpage:
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1.asp?dep=4&full=0&item=29%2E154%2E3

So basically, while all the plates were actual 14 C. armor, they were not necessarily put together in that fashion, and probably came from lots of different pieces.

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

So if those trapazoidal skirt plates were not originally intended as a fauld, what were they?

Hob: Random bits of other armour.

Have you seen Junkyard Wars? Imagine an archeologist who finds a vehicle they built, trying to figure out what our real vehicles are like. Sure, some outward characteristics are similair, but the details are wrong, and the actual parts, though from the same period, came from totally different and unrelated items.

The Met corrazzina is kind of like that, except that at least we know all the bits were armour of some kind. for all we know those trapezoidal plates started their life as leg defenses, or back plates, or shield grip hardware. The poitn is, we really don't know.

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

I mean, what specifically? "random bits of other armor", sure. But which bits of which armor? I just can't seem to think of any bits that would be that particular shape. I suppose a vambrace would start out that shape, but it would be more curved. They don't seem quite wide enough to be thigh bits...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the idea that they were originally something else. Just trying to figure out what.

Ah, ok. Don't know specifically (not sure anyone does).

Some possibilities: Parts of a CoP (of a design we don't know off hand). Lung plates from a funny brig. Backplate elements for a brig. Early tassets. Bits of horse armour.

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

I think we should realize that all of the "Coat of Plates" type armors, including the corrazina, are speculative reconstructions. To my knowledge we don't have any examples of this style with the original covering intact. (please correct me if I am wrong!) Because of this, I think too much emphasis has been placed on the Met's corrazina being a "modern reproduction".

As to the Back Plate question, there were plates found in the Chalcis Hoard that have been interpreted by historians as back plates. They too would be for an armor of the corazinna style.

Stuart

OK, Thanks guys, I still think all the plates used came from remnants of COP's found.He may have had two backplates and one breast for example, and spliced them together,making a fauld from a back.He did reuse all original rivets from the plates for replacing the velvet covering,so I suspect it may not be as far off as some might think.ie if the plates all had matching rivits,they probably went to a similar armour.IMHO......Otto

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stuart:
I think we should realize that all of the "Coat of Plates" type armors, including the corrazina, are speculative reconstructions. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this is true to some extent, there are degrees. The finds at Wisby, for instance, while also not having their cloth coverings are thus somewhat speculative. OTOH, the plates were all in the same place, in pretty much the same positionas they started in, and much could be learned from that. Combined with the fact that the skeletons were present, and using period iconography that showed similair garments, those reconstructions probably came very close to the original.

The Met piece, however, was assembled out of pieces from diferent armours, and there was little iconography to use (and much of that iconography is contrary - faulds, rather than the trapezoidal plates).

IMHO, the overall lines, and the chest portion of the Met corrazzina are pretty damn accurate. The back we have almost no knowledge on. And the hip protection would probably be more authentic with faulds. Really, it's only this last that I have a serious problem with.


------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

I have 2 comments on the Met piece.

1) I talked personally to the curator a few years ago and he said that the piece was constructed of bits and pieces of armour - that should be a good enough indication that it was made that way.

2) something that can be easily missed is that when the Met says that Bashford Dean &co 'used pieces of armour' to make it, what they really mean is that they used metal from period pieces of armour. They felt well within their rights to cut off pieces they didn't need and dish parts they wanted too (etc.). Think of the Chalcis hoard as composed of pieces of armour that Dean liked and others that he though could best be used as seet metal to make things.

If you don't believe that an art museum could be this cavalier, read the article that Grancsay published in the journal of the Walter's Art Gallery. In it he describes taking a very rotted 15th c. salad and cutting off all the thin stuff and welding in patches that were made from brigantine plates they had lying around. Real brigantine plates - and they welded them in with a torch after they trimmed and dished them. He even shows a view of the helmet with the welds before they ground them.

The 2 main breastplates are probably real pieces. The odd bit in the upper middle of the back is probably a real piece (this is a safe guess because they have more just like them that they have not 'fixed'). The other plates could have originally been anything, bacinets, cuises, anything big enough to privide material. They were most likely just other body bits, but they are unlikely to look anything like they did when they came out of the gound. This is basically what the curator told me (I don't have a quote, it was more than 10 years ago).

Yehuda,
I agree with you about the hip plates to some degree. I've seen the "fauld" plates used frequently on similar armors. But never the Trapezoidal plates. Then again I don't recall that I have ever seen another Split-front type corrazina Like the Met piece that claims to be from original pieces-parts. I guess speculation is all we have.

The back plate though is probably really a back plate. I have seen other plates
(unrestored) from the Chalcis Hoard that are identical.

Wcallen,
Your second comment is fascinating. I had read that Dean used "bits and pieces" of armor to construct the Met's corrazina. I had never heard that he may have modified the bits and pieces to suit his fancy. Much food for thought.

Thanks for all the great posts guys. I love this board and all the marvelous conversations we get into here.

Stuart

Stuart:

As I mentioned before, the Pistoia silver altar piece (AAotMk p. 75, middle picture, extreme left figure) has a soldier in armor that I can only interpret as a cloth-covered breastplate split in the front. Given the the level of detail in this piece, I can't imagine this is just an artist's misunderstanding.

Compleat Anachronist 69 (Cloth-covered armor) also mentions them, but I can't find my copy right now.

And finally, of course, there are the latter 15C brigs that look very similair, and have various sized lungplates, some quite large (actually, the Met piece has relatively small lungplates).

As to the backplate - the one at the Met doesn't have a single plate, but rather about 5 - one for the upper back, and 4 runnig CoP-style around the lower back. Which one(s) do you refer to?

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

Hi Yehuda,
Not ignoring you, just too damn busy.

The backplate I was referring to is the top one. There are others just like it in the Chalcis hoard. (sorry can't remember where I saw the picture) I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than armor for the upper back.

Squinting furiously (it sucks getting old) at the Pistoia Altar Pieces in A&AotMK, pg. 75, the middle picture shows two examples that I have always thought looked like Corrazinas. (does anyone know the origin of that word?) From the drape of the armors below the waist, it almost looks like no hip defenses at all. The figure prominently facing forward in the lower picture has sometimes been interpreted as a Corrazina. I have always though it looked more like a solid breastplate with a pronounced medial ridge, than a split breastplate. So I don't know if that really supports the "faulds only" school of thoughts when discussing Corrazinas.

Not saying your wrong, my friend, just that I interpret it differently. Just my $0.02 worth. Thanks again for the engaging discussion.

Stuart

An excerpt from" The interrelationships of Costume and Armor" by Stephan V. Grancsay.
Feb.1950. "The central element of a backplate from Chalcis,dating from about 1400,is in the Metropolitam museum. This piece still retains its original linen damask covering. The earliest armor(composite)in the museum,also made about 1400,is from the same source(102.3) it has a fine globose brigandine with deep skirt,built of large shaped plates.The red velvet with which it is covered is a restoration,but the rivets which hold the covering in place are original." This armour harness was integrated,meaning made up of parts of similar armours.But i have found no evidence that any plates were reworked.
Another excerpt from Mediaeval Arms and Armour by Francesco Rossi 1990. " This is actually a recontruction of armour made up of pieces found in the greek castle of chalcis and integrated.The most Characteristic piece is the corrazzina,or breastplate,made up of two vertical joined plates covered in red velvet.This is a solution which was to give protection to the trunk yet in a lighter form and which was to evolve into the brigantina of the 1500's"

I should say that I'm not convinced that the fauld is 100% the original configuration.The fauld on this is rather odd.But most body defence from this period had no fauld at all.This could very well be experimental.I could see where a combatant might request hip protection,and this could be what the armourer came up with.On my reproduction,with the fauld straped shut,I cant sit down.Now, mine may not have as much of a gap between the breast and fauld as the original.a larger gap would mean more flexability.For foot combat this wouldnt be that big of a problem.And the protection is excellent.

Otto:

When you say "faulds", are you talking about the thing on the Met corrazzina? This may be obvious, but when I say "fauld" I refer to overlapped plates running horizontally, about 2-3" tall, and going either 1/2 or 1/4 way around the body. My argument is that the corrazzina should have these faulds instead of the trapezoidal plated they have now.

Stuart:

The specific example I like in the Pistola Altar pieces as an example of a corrazzina is the one farthest to the (viewer's) left, on the middle picture on the page. I agree that the one in the bottom picture is more likely a solid breastplate. For that matter, the middle figure on the middle page is probably just a covered solid breastplate as well.

As to faulds, I'm not saying we have evidence of corrazzinas with faulds - there is so little evidence of the corrazzina at all, we can't be sure. However, all other contemporary armors of similair overall styles (the ridged breastplate in the lower pistola piece, the covered breastplate on p. 76, and many others) use faulds. I've never seen the trapezoidal plates like on the met in any iconographic or exisitng pieces.

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

Look at some of the illustrations in Dei Liberi's "Flos Duellatorum". What many of his armoured figures seem to be wearing looks, to me at least, like a sort of corazzina that buckles up the back rather than the front, and has an otherwise ordinary horizontal-plate fauld (under fabric, like the rest of the defence) at the front only.

That's what I see, anyway. Does anyone else see anything different? Surely those vertically-divided back segments which carry the garment's buckles would be plated, too, right?

I just took a quick look at this copy: http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/Liberi.htm

And didn't see anything I thought was a corrazzina. I saw people in various exposed breastplates and white harnesses, but that's all.

Can you point me to a specific page?

Thanks,

------------------

Yehuda ben Moshe
mka Juliean Galak

Yes Juliean, I was refering to the vertical hip plates,could'nt think of anything else to call them,except faulds, LOL.....Otto
come to think of it, they are similar to pikemans tassets,the one plate rectangles with simulated lames from the 17th cent.hmmmm

Think of this, cut in half vertically, and covered with velvet.
[img]http://members.aol.com/krazytobyd/IMG_0307.jpg[/img]

Does no-one else see the buckles on the backs of certain of those figures? That looks like the fastenings of a coat-of-plates, or some other defensive garment to me.

Look at http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/D125.jpg for instance.

A figure in the top left pic and in the bottom right pic each appear to be wearing some form of protective upper-body armour that divides vertically down the back.

Am I just seeing things?