Corrazina Breast Plate

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 8:57 am

I have been having a hard time finding the correct time period of usage for one of these and what other armors they would have been used with, (arms, legs, etc.). I have a limited supply of books, could someone point me in the right direction?

Angus.

Edric · Post by **Edric** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 9:08 am

Late 14th to early 15th century europe. They work good with a bascinet or great bascinet. Maybe an early sallet when they still looked more like kettle hats. As for arms and legs you would be looking at full steel. Long pointed sabatons. Could scan some illuminations if you'd like.

------------------
--Edric de Aldebury--
edric@edricsrose.com
http://www.edricsrose.com

Flos est puellarum, quam diligio, et rosa rosarum, quam sepe video.
"My love is a flower among virgins, and a rose among roses"

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 9:25 am

Thanks, that would be great, also any sites or books that you could point me at would be good. Thanks for the help.

Angus.

------------------
I'll bet you can't say that with my sword in your mouth.

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 1:17 pm

Take a look at this. In the Met is the most complete surviving harnesses of its type. while the harness is composite, all the aprts are from the same source though they have been heavly restored and partially fabricated. The picture is clickable to zoom in on various bits of the suit. It is realy a great feature.

http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep=4&full=0&mark=1&item=29%2E154%2E3

------------------
Doug Strong
Sir William Talbot, OL
(The artist formerly know as Talbot Mac Taggart)

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 3:34 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talbot:
Take a look at this. In the Met is the most complete surviving harnesses of its type. while the harness is composite, all the aprts are from the same source though they have been heavly restored and partially fabricated. The picture is clickable to zoom in on various bits of the suit. It is realy a great feature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a great link, Doug! Thanks.

By the way, you might want to mention that that "harness" is a serious bastardization assembled by Bashford Dean out of a bunch of unrelated parts. For example, if folks look at the skirt of the brig, they will see that it's shown here to be composed of wide, vertical plates. If it was made that way for real the wearer would be unable to bend over in it. Iconographical sources and modern experiments have shown that the skirt would best be made either with a skirt of split hoops (much like a later fauld) or as smaller brigandine plates. Also, it's fortunate that the Met now has this harness placed so that you can't see the back, since what Dean did to that I wouldn't do to a communist. The helm, too, is messed up: The lower edge was rusted away, so Dean had another plate welded in place to show what he thought it should look like; actually, it was probably originally a standard bascinet with vervelles, etc., and a straight bottom edge.

The museum is horribly embarassed by this harness, but it's so well known and so popular they don't feel they can remove it. I spent an afternoon with the late Bob Carroll, the then armorer for the Met, and was appalled to find out just how bad this harness is.

It seems that Dr. Dean was a paleontologist by profession, and brought that approach to the "conservation" of the pieces he found at Chalcis (ruining many of them in the process)... it really makes you wonder how many dinosaur skeletons are assembled incorrectly!

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:14 pm

Talbot: Thanks for the link, that helps alot.

SirRhys: Thank you for your input. I think you are right, horizontal hoop type plates would deffinitely make more sense.

Thanks alot.
Angus

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
For example, if folks look at the skirt of the brig, they will see that it's shown here to be composed of wide, vertical plates. If it was made that way for real the wearer would be unable to bend over in it. Iconographical sources and modern experiments have shown that the skirt would best be made either with a skirt of split hoops (much like a later fauld) or as smaller brigandine plates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While Rhys is absolutely right Dean was not making this syle of fauld up out of thin air. a nearly identical covered cuirass to this one (whith this sort of fauld) is illustrated on the altarpiece of St. James at Pistoia cathedral. (circa 1371) See the illustration of the beheading of St. James. It is remarkable similar as is illustrated by the placement of rivets.

------------------
Doug Strong
Sir William Talbot, OL
(The artist formerly know as Talbot Mac Taggart)

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 8:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talbot:

Originally posted by SyrRhys:
For example, if folks look at the skirt of the brig, they will see that it's shown here to be composed of wide, vertical plates. If it was made that way for real the wearer would be unable to bend over in it. Iconographical sources and modern experiments have shown that the skirt would best be made either with a skirt of split hoops (much like a later fauld) or as smaller brigandine plates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While Rhys is absolutely right Dean was not making this syle of fauld up out of thin air. a nearly identical covered cuirass to this one (whith this sort of fauld) is illustrated on the altarpiece of St. James at Pistoia cathedral. (circa 1371) See the illustration of the beheading of St. James. It is remarkable similar as is illustrated by the placement of rivets.

You're right, Doug; I have often tried to puzzle that piece out. Do you have any theories about it?

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 7:57 am

I dont think its to improbable for the pair of plates in the Met to be close to the original configuration. This was a time of experimentation,and many odd thinks might have been created. I do remember reading that Dean reused all the original rivits when recovering the armour in velvet.This makes me think there is a probability that the plates making up the pair of plates, coat of plates, Corrazina did in fact go together in the present configuation.However,there may have been two such COP"s, nearly identical, that were put together to make one usable example.IE the fauld may have come from the back plates of a very similar armour.I have a pic somewhere of another Corrazina, from the same site, thats actually in pretty good shape, most of the plates still conected to each other. If Deans was in as good a state of preservation as this one,it would not have been to difficult to restore accuratly.While I would hate to disagree with Mr Carroll, I would take what he says with a grain of salt, Heck ,Id take what I say with a few grains of salt LOL.....Otto

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 9:36 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Otto von Teich:
I do remember reading that Dean reused all the original rivits when recovering the armour in velvet....
I have a pic somewhere of another Corrazina, from the same site, thats actually in pretty good shape, most of the plates still conected to each other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chaclis armour was in terrible shape walled up in a fortress when it was abandoned. All of the covered cuirasses were reduced to parts. No known fauld plates were identified. All of the plates used By Dean to make up the fault appear ot have bee cut up from other plates by Dean. (my skin is crawling right now) I do not believe that any substanially complete covered cuirasses came out of Chalcis (From whence the Met suit came) If indeed there were others, as you indicated, I would be thrilled to see pictures. There are quite a few parts but nothing joined together that I am aware of. I have done a great deal of research into this find over the years and I would love to find more pieces out there.

------------------
Doug Strong
Sir William Talbot, OL
(The artist formerly know as Talbot Mac Taggart)

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 9:40 am

<quote>You're right, Doug; I have often tried to puzzle that piece out. Do you have any theories about it?
 </quote>
Hey Rhys,
My theory is that Perhaps one plate was found that looked like those or Dean knew the Pistoia altarpiece (or another similar artistic source) and copied that. This style of fauld, while less sueable than a hooped fauld does work. It is not good for horse combat because sitting is difficult but it does just fine for foot combat. A castle garrison was probably well equipped with footmen as well as mounted knights.

------------------
Doug Strong
Sir William Talbot, OL
(The artist formerly know as Talbot Mac Taggart)

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 10:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talbot:
My theory is that Perhaps one plate was found that looked like those or Dean knew the Pistoia altarpiece (or another similar artistic source) and copied that. This style of fauld, while less sueable than a hooped fauld does work. It is not good for horse combat because sitting is difficult but it does just fine for foot combat. A castle garrison was probably well equipped with footmen as well as mounted knights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, and you may be right. I think if it worked at all it would actually be better for a horseman since he doesn't really sit on a war saddle, he stands in it. I think a footman is more likely to have to bend in ways that this arrangement doesn't seem to permit. I know his, because I know a fellow who built "Irving" just as it is in the Met (except the back; fortuntely, he hadn't seen that), and all he could do was stand up straight; he couldn't even duck to avoid a blow.

Of course, we have no reason to believe Dean was right about the buckle closures on the side. I was at Mac's shop yesterday looking at two new books he just got showing magnificent scenes from frescoes in a pair of 14th-century Italian churches in great detail. I can't remember the names of the chapels, but the frescoes are fairly common in the literature; they're the ones Michael Lacy references, where they have globose-breasted CoPs and those funky kettle hats, especially the one with the brim cut out for the eyes, but a narrow nasal extending down from it.

Anyway, in looking at those, it seems clear the rivets are set for a fauld of hoops, but it isn't clear they buckles on the sides are there to close the sides of the skirt; the skirt appears solid, and Mac theorized that the buckles on the sides were meant to be attachment points for daggers.

No conclusion here... I just wish I understood this a bit better. It's a fascinating body defense, and I suspect it's what is usually worn under the armorial garments of the 14th C.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:37 pm

Anyway, in looking at those, it seems clear the rivets are set for a fauld of hoops, but it isn't clear they buckles on the sides are there to close the sides of the skirt; the skirt appears solid, and Mac theorized that the buckles on the sides were meant to be attachment points for daggers.

How does this sound, a fauld of hoops split front and back for mobility but with no opening on the sides. (Just a thought from the point of mobility.)

Angus.

------------------
I'll bet you can't say that with my sword in your mouth.

Trevor · Post by **Trevor** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 11:04 pm

If the corazzina is split in front for ease of putting on/taking off, then splitting in front is correct, appropriate and practical.

I see no advantage for splitting in back.

I've made a corazzina, and Glendour just made a version based on the met with the funky fauld. His version tends to catch on one's pants legs, but with steel legs probably wouldn't. Also, if the crotch was a bit higher, it would probably be a moot point. Not as bad as I thought it would be!

On my version, I used hoops. Almost every version I've seen has horizontal rows of rivets in the fauld indicating horizontal lames underneath.

To be perfectly clear (you probably already know this) I'd also suggest that the hoops be made in three parts: back, right front and left front. This will allow the corazzina to be opened readily.

Good luck!

Josh W · Post by **Josh W** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 11:27 pm

I see nothing wrong with a corrazina that opens in the back. In fact, I think several such are illustrated in Flos Duellatorum...

AngusGunn · Post by **AngusGunn** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:13 am

Thank you all very much fo your assistance. I have gotten a very deffinite idea on where to go with it now.

Angus.

------------------
I'll bet you can't say that with my sword in your mouth.

Zanetto · Post by **Zanetto** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:35 am

Talbot,
Can you think of any way that we can plant the idea into Karcheski's and Richardson's heads, that a catalogue of the Chalcis pies would be very well received? A catalogue similar to the one on the Rhode's pieces, would be invaluable. All the information on Chalcis is scattered between hard to find articles and the two museums.

Zanetto

ScottC · Post by **ScottC** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:47 am

Sir Rhys said, "For example, if folks look at the skirt of the brig, they will see that it's shown here to be composed of wide, vertical plates."

I'm confused. Isn't that what tassets are? And I believe I have seen tassets attached straight to the cuirass historically. So why is it so unbelievable that the Corrazina has large vertical plates instead of faulds? Maybe they act just like covered tassets? Not arguing, just curious why so many people discourage the idea of the Corrazina set-up. While it may not be the best way, it certainly seems possible to me.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 12:48 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ScottC:
Sir Rhys said, "For example, if folks look at the skirt of the brig, they will see that it's shown here to be composed of wide, vertical plates."

I'm confused. Isn't that what tassets are? And I believe I have seen tassets attached straight to the cuirass historically. So why is it so unbelievable that the Corrazina has large vertical plates instead of faulds? Maybe they act just like covered tassets? Not arguing, just curious why so many people discourage the idea of the Corrazina set-up. While it may not be the best way, it certainly seems possible to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tassets hang from the bottom of a fauld, and are *very* different from what we're seeing here. First, they aren't at the level of the waist. Second, they don't wrap all the way around the body. Third, they aren't joined side-by-side as these are; they usually are just attached at the top.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

wcallen · Post by **wcallen** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 12:51 pm

The main reasons I discourage a slavish copying of this torso armour are:

Most of the illustrated images of this type of thing from the period show faulds of hoops.

This harness is a real hodgepodge and should not be trusted without independent confirmation. (for instance the slightly funny cuise and knee setup is completely trustworthy - but only because there are others just like it in Churburg).

On the tassets question...

Anyhwhere near this period, there was always a fauld between the breast and tassets (actually, tassets are a bit later addition, but not all that much later...).

When there were tassets hung directly off of the breast there were other differences too.

1. That is 16th or 17th cent.
2. It is almost always on cheap armour.
3. They were really tassets, and so they were designed to move independently (and not buckled to each other to form a skirt).
4. They were normally made of a lot of horizontal plates anyway.
5. When they were made of one plate they were the cheapest possible version of themselves, they did not fit closely to the wearer, they flapped independently, and they were for use on foot - like on a pikeman's harness.

So, yes there were one piece tassets hung from the breast - but I would still choose to copy pictures that were really done in period rather than this harness. (In fact that is what I did when I made one - I used a fauld-like set up).

Wade