The Armour Archive

The subject of 'profiles and lines' comes up a lot. Ive been kicking around some ideas lately; more like pushing forward with some observations on a new cuirass to see how it turns out. I seem to notice two fairly distinct shapes in late 14th and early 15th century cuirasses.

Regardless of height or central apex creases, which can vary a bit:


--one cuirass shape appears to be fairly uniform globosity from side-to-front-to-side

--while the other appears to have slightly higher profile peak. Its almost as if approximately between the sides and center this alternative cuirass flattens just a bit, allowing the profile peak to rise upward a bit. Im not suggesting a wasp or even greyhound look, as the shape would not be terribly different if viewing it from the front. Only the side profile or a 3/4 angle would begin to show a slight difference. Ive been wondering if its just me (always a possibility ) or if there was some degree of interest in shaping cuirasses to increase its glancing ability.

Off hand I cant think of any specific effigies or extant examples but I thought Id kick off a discussion, see what you all think.

You should post some images to illustrate what you're talkng about, too. Me, I think the greyhound look comes from a globose BP, but a fauld that is pretty flat in front. The wasp waist is evident when viewed head on. I would love to hear from more who are especially knowledgeable on the subject.

Working on photos...

beautiful.

Like this one?:

zachos wrote:Like this one?:

That's interesting. I figured there would be a placard on that guy. Speaking of proper profiles, you, my friend have one nice kit that few could squeeze into. Kudos and whatnot.

To put it more succinctly, I think I am seeing patterns in two types of 14th and early 15th cuirasses:


--a lower peak style, possibly with more depth to the curved sides (churburg 13 or even churburg 14)

and

--a slightly higher peak (occasionally less curved/seemingly more shallow shape and sides as depicted in effigy post above ) and often with a crease resulting in a more knee cop/arch shaped cuirass.


If indeed this is a true pattern, the questions arise as to why?....clearly a crease down the front helps with strength and deflecting direct impacts. Could this apexual shape be designed to decrease likelihood of blades moving upward toward the throat?

Or maybe since the arms and legs have medial ridges, it made sense to the armourer (or effigy carver) to be consistent and put one on the body. Who knows.

I tend to see type II on germanic effigies, and type I on english and french effigies. Maybe a regional style?

Galfrid atte grene wrote:I tend to see type II on germanic effigies, and type I on english and french effigies. Maybe a regional style?

YES Galfrid I think you may be right about that, Ive thought something very similar.

Ive seen a few English images of the type IIs, but nothing I can immediately recall as extant or in effigial prominence.

PartsAndTechnical wrote:

Galfrid atte grene wrote:I tend to see type II on germanic effigies, and type I on english and french effigies. Maybe a regional style?

YES Galfrid I think you may be right about that, Ive thought something very similar.

Ive seen a few English images of the type IIs, but nothing I can immediately recall as extant or in effigial prominence.

I seem to think a type III, (often segmented with a type I bulbous shape, but seemingly higher and occasionally with a central crease like type II) appears in a lot of eastern European art.

Now the question is whether this is a real trend or a product of the various art schools. I suspect there is something to it all, but I dont think we can really prove it unless Talbot (ahem, ahem, cough, cough) undertakes one of his exhausting yet sexy effigial and art research projects to track trends.

When you guys refer to " type I, type II, etc." are you referring to a typology that is floating around on this board somewhere? This conversation might make a lot more sense to me if there's something else to look at.

jarlragnar, no, that is just the order in which P&T described them.


The particular shape being a product of the sculptor's preference rather than a reflection of reality is something I considered as well. I know proportions are not always well-represented on such monuments. But, given the detail of the depiction of other parts of the armour, I'm not sure I'd attribute the difference in shape to the sculptor. I think a reasonable way to verify would be to compare art in another medium and see if the difference holds true.