The Armour Archive

Randall,

I sense that you are conflicted about closed cuisses, but you need not be.

It's clear from innumerable artistic sources that closed cuisses were quite common, or perhaps even typical of the period, even if our skimpy body of extant material does not include any.

Consider how our body of extant material from the same period does not include any closed rerebraces either, but we all accept them as common and build them just the same. It would be folly to assume that everyone was really wearing short, open upper cannons and that the artists were all wrong. It is thus with the cuisses as well.

We are hobbled by a small sample size of surviving material, and dogged the words of authorities who cried "artistic convention" every time they met with something that does not fit their preconceptions.

Just embrace the idea of closed cuisses, and build them. Fly in the face of received wisdom from authors who have never worn armor. Put some faith in the artist's ability to depict what he actually saw. Thumb yore nose at the historian who is sure he knows better. Pick something in art that you like the looks of, and put the fastenings where ever they did. What's the worst thing that can happen?

Mac

I am indeed in some ways conflicted. I have no problem with the idea of full cuisses itself. It seems a logical and supported by enough evidence to seem pretty solid. How common and the specifics of them is where I have my greatest concerns. To a certain degree I am distrustful of art especially when it seems contrary to remaining physical evidence. When there is none fine that is what it is but when there is that seem problematic. It is true that we have so few remaining items of armour from the pre1450 period that we have to rely on other types of evidences.

To be honest the rerebrace inner plate has bothered me as well but coupled with the question of how high a priority helps in my mind. For the back plate of the cuisse it is not just the saddle issue but also the inner plate of the rerebrace is a place that can be exploited in a fight. While the back of the leg seems less likely than the inside of the arm to be as high a priority. Sort of like how the back of a cuirass is at times left free of plate defenses at this time.

Then the next question is also accompanied with the fact art leaves us with very little idea on how to execute them in many situations. Many lack any straps and have things that seem very contradictory for example in the last MS. What are we to make from rows of rivets on the inside and outside and no straps at all for example?

So I think full cuisses existed but I am thinking on their context and how I'd make them. I guess that is the big question. Which direction to take on them. With my time being what it is might be another decade before I can make myself new plate cuisses so I want to iron all the issues out before I start the designs and real application. I find this an interesting conversation here as before I assumed that the full cuisses were likely rather uncommon, perhaps the most uncommon of the setups, as well that we’d likely only see it for the English which seems pretty solidly untrue.

But now there are loads more questions. I am making these for a persona that is a man-at-arms of the 1380s in England. Is this really the most valid setup for him? Still trying to get a feel for it as well as if I do what set up would I use?

So not really doubt of full plate cuisses only details of setup and application.

RPM

This discussion has been helpful to me as far as clarifying the problems with my long held idea that cased cuisses could be converted to the usual form, as the idea of riding long distances essentially standing up in the saddle the whole time did not sound appealing to me. The convertible cuisse seems a lot less likely now. For my own 'fantasy harness', I intend to use snick hooks, which should work pretty well. I note though, that those on the Johan Wilhelm harness in the Met which is part of a 'large and complex' garniture, are not removable, and are assumed to be only for foot combat.

Well, it looks like you could also go like this, splinted back cuisse.


http://effigiesandbrasses.com/1083/1658/

And I honestly don't understand why you are so troubled.

You can just go with the normal outer back coverage o no back coverage at all. I don't think that english MaA only has ONE solution for leg protection.

RandallMoffett wrote:
But now there are loads more questions. I am making these for a persona that is a man-at-arms of the 1380s in England. Is this really the most valid setup for him? Still trying to get a feel for it as well as if I do what set up would I use?


RPM

My impression is that if your 1380s Englishman is affluent enough to have leg armor at all, then his cuisses are probably closed.

Mac

Problem solved =).

Name: Sir Nicholas Burnell
Dating: 1382
Location: St Mary's Church, Acton Burnell, Shropshire, England
Gender: M
Costume: Martial



http://effigiesandbrasses.com/654/880/

Mac,

I guess I am just wondering why we can assume he would have them over other options. I am fine with it being a possibility with other options but still looking at the evidence to understand the breakdown.

I am thinking this is indeed the direction to go for this situation and working on some patterns right now.

Gus,

Looks like he does not have rear cuisses plates in the drawing or brass itself to me. Is that what you are seeing?

I am not troubled really. As I said I understand full rear plates were in use. I am simply researching before making a conclusion as to how often this was, regions and how common. I tend to feel the answers are more solid that way that's all. There are plenty of examples in art I am seeing without the rear cuisse plate some which have great detail like Walter here.

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/1087/3399/

This one is interesting and it is sad there is not anything more than a line drawing. I assume he has rear cuisse plates as it would be odd to see partial greaves this late but not enough detail to be sure.

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/1364/19905/

So far after looking over the effigies and brasses the majority are impossible to tell from the angle we see them. That said those that are clear do seem to follow more full cuisses with rear plates than not from what I am seeing but as far as I can tell not tied to region at all.


RPM

Randall,

It's true. Your guy has several possible options for leg armor. I think the full/closed cuisses are probably the most typical thing for a well armed Englishman, but frankly I have been pushing this harder than I might because I have a hidden agenda.

There are a number of places where the modern armorer and his clients habitually deviate from the path of historical normality, and steer toward the comfort zone of the established modern conventions. Cuisses are one of them. I am arguing for closed cuisses in an effort to try to push the modern norms back toward period norms. As armorers, we need to be proactive about historical accuracy.

Mac

Mac,

I am onboard with that. I was thinking about it largely as something one does not see often in reenactment so something worthy of being done.

RPM

RandallMoffett wrote:Mac,

I am onboard with that. I was thinking about it largely as something one does not see often in reenactment so something worthy of being done.

RPM

That's certainly one of my motivations for including them on my 1380-1410 kit. That and the aforementioned wealth of imagery showing them.