Critique My Living History Kit

[DeCalmont]

Okay, this thread is for those willing to post their Living History kits in order to get some constructive criticism. The purpose behind this is to move our kits to a more accurate portrayal level. If you're looking to build a fantasy kit, this thread isn't for you. Ideally you should post multiple views (front, back, sides) of your kit in good lighting, maybe some action shots (to show flow), and what direction you're planning on going with it.

For those offering criticism, please keep it constructive. If you don't know something, don't just make it up, it kind of defeats the purpose of this thread. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread as much as possible and will delete any inappropriate content.

[Josh W]

I'll give it a go.

This is my portrayal of a north Italian man-at-arms, circa 1470. It is based heavily on the armours in the Mantova collection, but incorporating other features from other surviving Italian harnesses from the period c.1450-1490, as well as a few illustrations from the era, notably Mantegna's St. George.











Many more photos may be viewed here, at the website of the photographer:
http://ailinstock.deviantart.com/gallery/

This harness comprises pieces made by Patrick Thaden, William Hurt, Mark Berry, Brian Brown, and myself, all of them constantly worked on, tinkered with, and tweaked by yours truly (with occasional assistance from Benedek, Trevor, and jarlragnar). As worn in these pics, it weighs about 74 pounds, including the 12-pound haubergeon worn beneath. The cuirass is the heaviest component, weighing in at 24 pounds with all the tassets on (a pair of side tassets are not shown). The upper breastplate averages 3.5mm thick, and the plackart 2.3mm thick, according to my digital caliper. The front of the armet is similarly substantial. Other pieces range from .9mm-2mm thick.

There are at least a dozen things wrong with it that I can think of off the top of my head--the armet's ventaglia should be solid, not full of ventilation holes, the occularium should be much smaller, and it should have a wrapper to go with it; my mail standard should be worn inside the cuirass, not outside (and it shouldn't be rusty...), the gauntlets should have scaled fingers; I should have mail footies instead of segmented plate sollerets. Additionally, there are also a couple of mild issues of proportions being slightly off in one or two components. An educated eye may be able to spot other errors. Since these photos were taken, I have swapped out the synthetic SCA padding in the armet for a more authentic liner.

Though not visible, the soft kit worn beneath is pretty standard clothing for the second half of the fifteenth century: wool hosen and an arming doublet (with "no shirt upon him..."), with pretty ordinary turnshoes. I would not have worn the sollerets (which are based on a supposedly Italian pair c.1460 in the Royal Armouries) except that the photographer insisted. I am wearing a tailored haubergeon underneath the harness, which seems to have been common practice among Italians at this time. If I had taken a moment to think about it, I might have remembered to don my separate mail skirt underneath it in order to achieve that spiffy doubled mail skirt look one sees so often in contemporary Italian artwork. I also have brass trim for all the mail elements in the works.

In addition to working on correcting the above-mentioned issues with the kit, I intend to give it a better polish and smooth out all the dents it has accumulated over a decade of SCA use. I am also in the process of arranging to have the whole thing case-hardened at some point in the very near future.

Finally, ignore the Cold Steel pollaxe--it was all I had available.

[AvM]

A horse. You need a horse. And a banner.

-- Andreas the helpful

[Josh W]

A horse is in the works. I have two possible places to board an animal locally. I grew up on a farm, around horses, but I haven't ridden in years. I intend to remedy this very soon. After all, what's the point of having such an extremely thick breastplate with a lance rest if you're not going to joust in it?

As for a banner...

I'm not sure yet. I have no idea what I'd do for one.

A horse. You need a horse. And a banner.

-- Andreas the helpful

[jarlragnar]

A horse is in the works. I have two possible places to board an animal locally. I grew up on a farm, around horses, but I haven't ridden in years. I intend to remedy this very soon. After all, what's the point of having such an extremely thick breastplate with a lance rest if you're not going to joust in it?

As for a banner...

I'm not sure yet. I have no idea what I'd do for one.

A horse. You need a horse. And a banner.

-- Andreas the helpful

I know a guy with a wife who's a fantastic artist.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Josh, two things come to mind when considering things you could alter/add with relative ease.

A helmet crest.

A better pole arm.

Cheers!

-Gerhard

[Gaston de Clermont]

It's a great kit, Josh. I'm jealous. I love the way your greaves are shaped, and how the fans curl behind your knees. What covers your thumb? Shouldn't the fingers be stitched into the gauntlets? The total weight could be cut almost in half if you move to spring steel.

[Josh W]

Yes, the gauntlets need fingers. These are in the works.

I'm not sure, though, that I want the weight cut in half. True, the harness is heavier than some surviving Italian suits of the period, but without the haubergeon, it weighs 62 pounds, which is fairly near the weight of a few of them (IIRC, the Avant suit weighs around 58 pounds). At ten pounds, the armet is the only piece that I think is truly excessively heavier than the genuine article.

[zachos]

Looks nice Josh. My suggestions:
Knee blankets: Mentioned in several documents, just strips of wool to stop the hose from being cut up by the leg armour.
Red Hose: Again, pretty pedantic here, but it's mentioned several times that red hose are helpful for stopping people from seeing where you're bleeding from. You'll notice that quite a few paintings of men in armour show red hose as well (I'd like to say most, but would want to do a statistical study before making a claim like that.)
I also think the armet could probably be a bit tighter in to your head, but that is not something easy to change, and I'm sure everyone's helms fitted slightly differently anyway.

Those are the things I can think of. Overall a great presentation. As for the finish, I heard from a reliable source that a mirror polish was one of the most expensive "optional extras" one could have on a harness. It could apparently be up to 75% of the overall cost of the armour. Bearing that in mind, I think the "Brushed" look is actually pretty cool, and possibly more authentic than all of us that run around super shiny.

Cheers.

Zac

[Tom B.]

Josh,

Here are a few things I noticed that were not listed above:

1. No mail attached to demi greave.
-I think most of the Mantova armours have this.
2. The rondel seems a bit flat, could be just the photo angle.
-Aren't these usually a bit dished?
3. Visor latch? My guess this is for SCA usage correct?

I may have shown my ignorance of 15th century Italian armour with the comments above, but I look forward to your responses / corrections.

I do like the details you got correct that most miss.
1. Cuise strap buckles attached to the 1st wrap plate.
2. Differences between right and left gauntlets.
3. Greaves closed with straps not spring pins.

Tom

[Tom B.]

Do you have removable reinforce pieces for the left side?

Tom

[Josh W]

Josh,

Here are a few things I noticed that were not listed above:

1. No mail attached to demi greave.
-I think most of the Mantova armours have this.
2. The rondel seems a bit flat, could be just the photo angle.
-Aren't these usually a bit dished?
3. Visor latch? My guess this is for SCA usage correct?

1. I have pieces of mail that I could put on them, but I am reluctant to punch holes in these greaves.

2. I'm not sure what to do about that rondel. I am not satisfied with it at present. Sometimes I think it might be too big, and I know that the stalk it's mounted on is too thin and possibly too long. I will replace it soon.

3. Yes, the visor latch is for SCA use. It should probably go, too. If I ever use the thing for SCA combat again, I will attempt a more subtle method of locking the visor closed.

Do you have removable reinforce pieces for the left side?

Yes, the reinforces for the left pauldron and elbow are removable.

[ramses2003]

pardon my ignorance, but why the rondel on the back of the armet?

[DeCalmont]

Just a reminder, let's keep the comments to providing assistance or critiques please.

[Tom B.]

1. I have pieces of mail that I could put on them, but I am reluctant to punch holes in these greaves.

2. I'm not sure what to do about that rondel. I am not satisfied with it at present. Sometimes I think it might be too big, and I know that the stalk it's mounted on is too thin and possibly too long. I will replace it soon.

3. Yes, the visor latch is for SCA use. It should probably go, too. If I ever use the thing for SCA combat again, I will attempt a more subtle method of locking the visor closed.

1. Sorry for the confusion, I meant the mail that is attached to the lowest or next to lowest piece of the upper leg harness and lays against the top of the greave. (see attached photo)

2. I was going to comment on the size of the rondel and the length of the stalk, but after reviewing some of Boccia's books and photos from Museo Diocesano (Mantova) I saw some that looked comparable. I was wondering about the cross section of your stalk though, I think it should be square or diamond. Can't tell what shape yours is.

3. I understand about the visor latch. I am waffling on doing this to my Thaden Sallet.
I do have 3 visors and will probably do something on one that is more SCA than historical.

Tom

[Josh W]

My apologies. I read only the word "greaves" and totally missed "demi."

Yeah, those.

I don't know--I've just never liked that fashion. Not all Italian legharness had them, and I don't think I'd want to add them to mine.

[RandallMoffett]

Maybe I am wrong here but does one really need the fingers in these gauntlets. Do we know that all mitten gauntlets of this type had them? I had always thought the rivets on the last lame of the fingers was just for suspension.

I have seen like Churburg 18 for example that have them and some other shorter lamed mittens with them but the one I am seeing of yours I am not sure needs it. That said I have not seen the gaunts this is based of in person.

And for thickness I'd not half the thickness either. Once you get below 1.2mm on a breastplate it seems outside knightly quality armour.

RPM

[wcallen]

Since we are being picky, How about the mail that would normally hang from the base of the armet? I think you need some. It isn't a lot of mail, but it helps make the look.

Mail hanging off of the demi-greave? I would say definitely for a real, typical Italian harness as worn in Italy, not so much for the same thing worn other places. I think that the same is true for the mail feet. Plate sollerets were worn other places. The English seem to like them.

And I wouldn't aim to make the thing lighter. Spring could be cool to make it more indestructible, but a total weight of 62 pounds is probably just a bit light. The Avant armour is 58-ish because it is missing some parts and it is for a pretty short person. I don't know exactly, but it looked like it was in the right range for my 5'6" sister. Maybe a little taller. Toby's book provides a thickness on the center of the breastplate on the Avant armour and it is 4mm - both inside and outside layers. The center of the fauld is thick too. There is a lot of metal there. I don't like the feel of a really light breastplate either. I expect if you were going to really mess with things you might make the breast thicker and some of the limb bits thinner. The cuirass on the Avant armour is 4.17+6.53 kilos with no tassets. That makes about 23 1/2 pounds. The only pieces of real 15th c. armour I have played with that weren't rotted weren't terribly thin.

Wade

Wade

[RandallMoffett]

I got to examine quite a few breastplates and I'd suspect 3-1.5mm is fairly common thicknesses. On the sides down to about 1mm.

This is one reason I'd like to do a large project on recording thickness but until I can get a FT placement or some major funding it will remain one of those good ideas. I figure one would need a special gauge or some type of scanning machine to be able to do it properly which also will make it a bit harder.

RPM

[wcallen]

I got to examine quite a few breastplates and I'd suspect 3-1.5mm is fairly common thicknesses. On the sides down to about 1mm.

This is one reason I'd like to do a large project on recording thickness but until I can get a FT placement or some major funding it will remain one of those good ideas. I figure one would need a special gauge or some type of scanning machine to be able to do it properly which also will make it a bit harder.

RPM

I mostly get to play with 16th and 17th c. breastplates. I have taken a deep throat gauge to a bunch of them. There are certainly thin breastplates, but most of them seem to be lower-end pieces. Most of the higher end ones seem to have some real thickness to them in the center. The only old-ish ones I have are very late 15th c., right at the turn of the 16th. They are:

A pretty low end one. Not terribly thick:
http://www.allenantiques.com/A-193.html

A nicer one which has been characterized as "very thin" by Pierre T. from Philly:
http://www.allenantiques.com/A-66.html

In the center they both get up to about 3mm. - over .1 of an inch.

Measuring a thickness for a breastplate is really not something that works. Most vary a lot between the middle and the edges. So a breastplate that is 3 mm thick at the center is probably a lot lighter than any modern breastplate that has any 3mm spots. And one that is 4mm in the center is actually wearable instead of feeling like a lead brick.

Most of my 16th c. ones are around this thick in the center or a lot thicker.

This is mid 16th c. and thick:
http://www.allenantiques.com/A-61.html
it gets up to .230 in. - about 5.8 mm.

This one is thinner:
http://www.allenantiques.com/A-74.html
It get up to .16 in - about 4mm.

I got the 4mm thickness for upper, lower and fauld in the center from Toby's "The Real Fighting Stuff" - since he kept the armour at the Glasgow museum for a while I expect he is about right. I know the copy of the upper breastplate they made at the Tower Armouries while they had the Avant armour there was really thick too. At the time is surprised me, but I have seen more since then.

Another weight for comparison is the "Ulrich" armour in Churburg. It is for someone much, much taller than the "Avant" armour so it weighs more - breast, back and one tasset (probably included the dependent mail fringe) total 19.36 K or 42 1/2 pounds. It is big, but it has to be pretty thick to weight that much.

I think the attempt here is to recreate a high end, proof armour like the Avant armour so 3-4 mm in the middle of the breast seems about right.

Anyway, back to comments on the harness/outfit.

Wade

[Josh W]

It's interesting that the cuirasses on the Mantova armors are so much lighter than the earlier examples. Mine is supposed to represent an armor more like those at Mantova, but the weight of my cuirass is more on par with that of the Avant harness.

[wcallen]

It's interesting that the cuirasses on the Mantova armors are so much lighter than the earlier examples. Mine is supposed to represent an armor more like those at Mantova, but the weight of my cuirass is more on par with that of the Avant harness.

I don't know how thick the Mantova pieces really are. They have probably had a lot more loss due to corrosion (and maybe less due to cleaning) than the Churburg pieces.

I did some math - B1's breastplate is 3330 + 2270 + 1900 g (upper breast, lower breast and fauld which ends up with 16 1/2 pounds for the breast. The back is quoted a 3330 + 2270 (which seems a bit identical and suspicious), so that would be another 12 1/3 pounds without a fauld. Overall that doesn't seem a lot lighter. Overall B1 is 50 pounds and it is missing most of the wrapper, the rear fauld, both gauntlets and all of the tassets. B2 is 53.8 pounds - it is a little more complete, it is missing the rear fauld and rear tassets and the mail.

My wild guess without any real data to back it up is that the Mantova pieces might be somewhat more even in thickness than the Churburg pieces, but that is based only on the weights. I could easily be wrong, the back often wraps farther around than the breast so maybe they are thinner and end up with the same weights anyway.

Anyway, I think in general we are saying "nice job" other than the few little things you were picking on and a couple of additions. Wander by and we can play compare/contrast/pick on 15th c. armour in person. I have some that I have made that I don't wear that would make it an even trade.

Wade

[Swete]

Here we go. I am portraying a late 8th century wealthy Anglo-Swede merchant who now resides in the Kent area of Jolly-Old-Soon-to-be-Viking-Afflicted-England. I have always been interested in the peaceful relations of the Saxons and continental Scandinavian peoples before the onset of the Viking Age, and my kit reflects that. Sadly the only thing that really marks my kit as having any real Swedish influence, at this time, is my Mjölnir amulet and my SCA Valsgarde helm (which is not being shown here). The cuffs of the green tunic here are far too wide, thus they are rolled up in these pictures to hide this fact (It was my first successful fighting tunic and I was still learning). It is soon to be replaced by a far more period style tunic.
I am looking into a better pair of trousers and a more period color set of winnigas.
I finally have more period accurate maille after my knight kindly gifted me a shirt of mild steel round ring riveted. I am loving it.
The sword is a Windlass Stiklestad and as such, it is not wholly accurate in appearance, nor is it entirely appropriate for my time frame.
The seax is a simple piece that I made. It has the common broke back stlye that is found in several 8th-9th century finds.
The shoes are Westland turnshoes purchased through Viking Leather (a wonderful deal!).

Sorry this one is a bit blurry, but it is the only close up I have.

Pesky Anglo-Swedes always carvin up all the good sticks!

Drawing the Stiklestad

Fighting stance

Slayin some fools! (note the berserker rage)

Front (opened stance to show detail ;p)

The reluctant photographer and perfect wife who is wonderful enough to put up with her crazy husband's hobby

[Graedwyn]

The mail looks good.
And I like your hat too.

-Graedwyn

[Swete]

The mail looks good.
And I like your hat too.

-Graedwyn

Thank'ee kindly.
I think the maille looks good too; way more accurate than the ringmesh I was wearing too. I am lucky to have such an awesome mentor as Sir Grimbaldus.
As far as the hat goes, I figure a lot of people don't wear the phrygian cap because it looks silly. But I figure since the whole reenactment thing is kinda silly anyway, might as well do it right!


Did you see anything you didn't like/didn't look right in my kit? I am trying to bring it up to the next level of awesome.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Can you give us some details about how your shield is constructed? The kit looks lovely.

-Gerhard

[Graedwyn]

Did you see anything you didn't like/didn't look right in my kit? I am trying to bring it up to the next level of awesome.

I do not see any problems.
Other than what you already mentioned- the bell sleeves on your outer tunic.
But even that is nothing terrible.
I think Phrygian caps are cool.
If they were worn by 11th c Normans, I would have one.
You look good.

-Graedwyn

[Swete]

Can you give us some details about how your shield is constructed? The kit looks lovely.

-Gerhard

Sure. It is just 3/8 birch plywood round at about 24 inches diameter I believe, with a mild steel shield boss held on by 3 steel nails and 3 copper rivets. I hope to make a plank rendition soon. I have a mild steel flat rod that runs along the the back of the handle and serves as the spine of the shield as a reinforcement. The coloring was done with light coats of spray paint made to resemble the simple quartering style as seen on the Gokstad shields.
This shield was originally made as an experiment to see how long an round edged shield with no rawhide or other reinforcements on the edge would last in SCA combat. The answer: not very long. The layers began separating after 3 practices so I retired it as wall decoration and for wearing at fairs, etc.

@Graedwyn: Well at least you can shave the nape and back of your head into a funky punk-hairdo. I get to have a handle bar mustache....if my Lady would allow it.
Funnily enough, I am re-reading Crocker's "Dress in Anglo-Saxon England" and while going through the chapter on 7th-9th century male clothing, not 30 minutes ago, I came across a passage describing an odd tunic as 'civilian dress consisting of a broad sleeved smock'. It is shown on a figure found on an engraving in Kirklevington. It looks just like my fighting tunic! My sleeves were period all along...Who knew? But the black color of the cuff and riding slit are still a no-no.

[Josh W]

I did some math - B1's breastplate is 3330 + 2270 + 1900 g (upper breast, lower breast and fauld which ends up with 16 1/2 pounds for the breast. The back is quoted a 3330 + 2270 (which seems a bit identical and suspicious)

Just so. Those identical and suspicious weights for the front & back make me think that you're adding them twice. Note that the Italian text next to the weight figures for the upper breast/back and the lower breast/back say "con il petto/schiena, etc."--i.e. with the breast/back, etc. It sounds as though they did not separate the front and back sections when weighing these. If this is true, it brings the weight figures for the Mantova cuirasses down significantly.

[wcallen]

Josh,

Hmm, could be right on the reason for the funny weight measurements. OK, so we have only 16+ pounds for the whole cuirass without rear fauld or any tassets. Adding those parts back in would add several pounds. Still not featherweight, but lighter.

I wonder if these armours were sort of one step down in quality. More "issue for cavalry" rather than "custom bought for the Count".

But back to other discussions.

Wade

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

Swete, only things I am noticing (and getting really picky on, so feel free to disregard) would be tailoring the maille to fit a bit better through the arms and possibly the lower area, and the turnshoes. They look nice from a form perspective, but the "orange-y" brown in the pictures seems to look more like a modern dye, as opposed to a natural one. That could also be the photo stuff. Otherwise, looks great!

[Swete]

No disregarding here! Your opinion (and those of others) are the reason I posted my kit here in the first place ;p
I have no idea about accuracy of the shoe color. It was the first batch that Viking Leather got in and that was the only color he had. I would prefer a more earthy brown or something. As such, I am very open to changing them out eventually.
Also, as soon as I can, I am getting some spare rings to tailor the arms (cause they kinda feel like wings flappin around right now.

[Effingham]

The reluctant photographer and perfect wife who is wonderful enough to put up with her crazy husband's hobby

LOL! That is SO much a "the things I put up with" look.

[Graedwyn]

My sleeves were period all along...Who knew?

How serendipitous!
As Oswyn says, tailoring the mail will really help.
It will drop a little weight, and it will just feet better when you wear it.
You will need to get some spare links and the setting tongs anyway.
Riveted mail is pretty durable, but holes will eventually show up due to
SCA combat, and you will want to keep looking good.

-Graedwyn

[Swete]

My sleeves were period all along...Who knew?

How serendipitous!
As Oswyn says, tailoring the mail will really help.
It will drop a little weight, and it will just feet better when you wear it.
You will need to get some spare links and the setting tongs anyway.
Riveted mail is pretty durable, but holes will eventually show up due to
SCA combat, and you will want to keep looking good.

-Graedwyn

That will be great, as right now the shirt weighs at least 25 or 30lbs....that is like 1/5 of my total weight! OoO (140lbs)