Info on Milanese Mitten Gauntlets

[d-farrell2]

I am trying to collect some information on a set of gauntlets that I am thinking I will commission (been on the fence for a while, think I will take the plunge).

While the harness I am building (in my mind) is essentially the Churbug S-18, I wanted to change to a Milanese style mitten gauntlet for safety while bouting with steel swords and wood/rubber polearms (the intended use of these will be in a WMA/HES environment) - and the sort of brigandine style of the S-18 gauntlet fingers seemed like they may not be safe against blunt objects. I decided not to go with finger gauntlets for the extra protection of the mittens (and I like the look) - though perhaps I may have to. I have thought of getting a set of half-gauntlets to round out the 'historical' look and for instances where I don't need the full gauntlets.

The harness I am basing this idea off of is from the first quarter of the 15th C, of Milanese styling:
http://www.mallet-argent.com/images/churburg_s18.jpg

The suits with mittens that I have found are these two (from mid-late 15th):

the 'Avant' / Von Matsch Suit (I believe):
http://living-history.no/images/E19396E1.jpg

and one I am not sure of the name of:
http://apollo.mech.northwestern.edu/dav ... nown_2.jpg

One of the things that I had been told is that the style of gauntlet in the second (left hand w/ a single finger lame, right having 2) is historically accurate though it can cause some difficulties when gripping a dagger, sword grip or poleax haft. Also that the left gauntlet on the Avant suit is a modern reproduction, likely based on the right hand but not likely accurate.

So a few questions come up:

are there extant milanese mittens from the earlier 15th C? Or do the finger gauntlets seem to dominate? The MS the WMA group I am in studies from (Northern Italian, circa 1409) seems to illustrate mainly hourglass finger gauntlets.

I haven't been able to try on a gauntlet with the single lame to feel how restrictive it is, does the single finger lame really make that big of a difference in grip?

are there extant pieces showing both gauntlets with 2 finger lames?

[Blk_jouster]

I'm not as knowledgable as some on the archive. However the left with the single lame is actually not refered to as a gauntlet but rather a manifer. It was worn while riding. It also has no articulation(other than what you get from the cuff) in the wrist area as the cuff and metacarpal are one piece. Also on that style there are finger plates under the mitten. My knight just got a set with the manifer from Sasuke where as I use a set similar to the ones on the Avant. Both of our harnesses are mid 15th Cent. based off the Churburg 20. In my knights opinion so long as the pinky finger is not fixed to the gauntlet there is no loss of mobility and no restriction.

[Dierick]

Per the von match gauntlets:
From what I have seen of artwork, and trying to reconstruct gauntlets, that gauntlets with two finger lames are not meant to articulate around enough to cover the tips of the fingers. On the same hand, those exposed finger tips are up against the palm of your hand and are only exposed when your wrist is tilted way back or your arm is way out to your side, both of which would leave your inside wrist and palm exposed as well.

I'm trying to solve the safety issue on my two lame gauntlets by including finger scales over the last inch or so of my fingers and leaving them black so they do not show up against the gloves.

Per the second unknown armour harness:
I've made multiple single lame gauntlets and absolutely love them. The plate covers the long bones of the fingers that are very prone to breaking, while leaving the fingers very maneuverable.
Here is the first pair I made, and even with limited armour knowledge at the time, they worked wonderfully:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Christoffel/Reinactment%20Armour%20Pics/Old%20Armour/146a0a47.jpg

Here is the last pair I made, and they worked even better:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Christoffel/Reinactment%20Armour%20Pics/Full%20Harnesses/Export%20Stainless/Gauntlets/IMG_0259.jpg
I left the plate short for sca combat, so there would not be a large projection off the fingers, when bent, that might go into a grill.

As far as the time period, I don't know enough to answer that question accurately. My instinct tells me that these were a little later than 1409, as most of the armour styles I've seen tended to follow 14th century lines up until the 20's.

[d-farrell2]

ah - so it sounds like the mittens I have seen on harnesses were posed such that they appeared to cover more of the hand than I thought.

Thanks for the info.

if I understand right - the manifer (single lame mitten) would have had scales on the finger tips, or is it the multiple lame (right gauntlet) that would? or both?

The images I have seen of the gauntlets on these suits don't seem to show that, but perhaps they didn't survive fully intact (or I haven't seen good enough pics).

[Dierick]

Although I can only judge by pictures, I believe the single lame should cover about an inch over the end of the long bones of the fingers. Don't judge the extension by my work, they are short in terms of the actual milanese gauntlets.

[Blk_jouster]

the manifer (left hand w/single lame) covers the fingers to appox 1" past the tips as does the right gauntlet. The finger plates actually went from the metacarpel to the ends of the fingers. So not only did you have the finger plates but you also had the lames covering those. The Italian gauntlet from the 14th cent through the 16th cent by my research were a bit funny, in that the tail end of the 14th and very early 15th used finger gaunlets.From the early 15th(Approx 1420's)though the late 15th they used these mittens w/ fingerplates. Then in the tail end to early 15th went back to fingers. Check this link aqnd you'll see what i mean.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/s ... ese/m3.jpg

[d-farrell2]

ah, ok - I thought the mittens with finger plates underneath were something from much later - like end of the 15th (last quarter)... very interesting.

I guess I perhaps should re-think my finger gauntlet position, as it seems those may be more accurate and when properly made would provide enough protection for my purposes.

[Blk_jouster]

the key to proper articulation apparently on these gauntlets is that the pinky not be affixed to the tip of the lame. due to the fact that the knuckles are offline with the index, middle and ring finger those should be attached to the lame by leather tabs rivited to the front of the lame.

[Talbot]

As to the unknown harness. It is in the private collection of Karstein Klingbeil in Berlin. A reclusive and secretive collector if ever there was one.

[d-farrell2]

As to the unknown harness. It is in the private collection of Karstein Klingbeil in Berlin. A reclusive and secretive collector if ever there was one.

ah, thanks for the info, Doug

Curious if there is any more info on it, there are bits of it that scream mid-late 15th to my (rather untrained) eye, but some aspects that seem more first/second quarter 15th (like the armet, assuming it isn't just missing the visor).

[d-farrell2]

the key to proper articulation apparently on these gauntlets is that the pinky not be affixed to the tip of the lame. due to the fact that the knuckles are offline with the index, middle and ring finger those should be attached to the lame by leather tabs rivited to the front of the lame.

interesting, I guess that makes sense though - there is some symmetry to the index and ring finger joints (at least on my hands), but the pinky kinda monkeys things up a bit.

[Talbot]

ah, thanks for the info, Doug

Curious if there is any more info on it, there are bits of it that scream mid-late 15th to my (rather untrained) eye, but some aspects that seem more first/second quarter 15th (like the armet, assuming it isn't just missing the visor).

There is not much info from the collector. The suit is highly composite. The arms are real and were once on a nice suit in a Swiss museum. Somehow they got here and beautifully executed copies are now on the Swiss suit. The armet is very much in the style of the one formerly in the Gwynn collection and would date to the very early part of the 15th century. Some authors have even suggested that the Gwynn armet may be a bit pre-1400 if I remember correctly. This one is a bit dodgy. The neck is very wide. One could almost get one's head inside without opening the cheek plates.

[d-farrell2]

There is not much info from the collector. The suit is highly composite. The arms are real and were once on a nice suit in a Swiss museum. Somehow they got here and beautifully executed copies are now on the Swiss suit. The armet is very much in the style of the one formerly in the Gwynn collection and would date to the very early part of the 15th century. Some authors have even suggested that the Gwynn armet may be a bit pre-1400 if I remember correctly. This one is a bit dodgy. The neck is very wide. One could almost get one's head inside without opening the cheek plates.

Ah - very interesting. Thanks again.

I ended up also posting this to the Arms and Armor Forum to see if I could get any info from the folks over there (and maybe some more images )