Ok... I have heard the pros and cons of the authenticity of the "corazzina" at the Met.
so if we were to consider the corazzina to be accurate..what would be the time period covered by it and what would be the best Helm and leg/arm harness to wear with it?
I would like to do an onion top bascinet with a Klappvisor and aventail but I am not sure that would be accurate...as well would splint arms and legs work with it?
this is not my forte' so I dont have many refrences for later period European armour.
oh...this would be for an SCA Pas kit...
Corazzina question...
Moderator: Glen K
Your Majesty,
As I recall, the corazzina in the Met (http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/vi ... %2E154%2E3) is dated to approximately 1400, which would place it twenty years or so following the death of Edward, the Black Prince (1330-1376).
Here are some images of Edwards funeral achievements:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~hanly/chaucer/images/blackprinmonmt.html
http://www.costumes.org/history/imsi/edwardblackprince.jpg
These images show a low point basicnet with plate arm and leg defenses rather than splint arms and legs (which typically would be early 1300's). You could easily swap in an onion top bascinet as they were fairly commonplace in the late 1300 to early 1400 period.
As someone who has fought in a corazzina for mamy years, I would recommend that you equip your corazzina with spalders that are more in keeping with the above period illustrations than the copy in the Met to better protect your shoulders.
The Milanese arm and leg armour sold by Sir Andreas Eisfalke at www.icefalcon.com would look reasonably close to this period:
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/2/14.htm?113
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/6/83.htm?113
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/4/19.htm?113
-Keith/Austin.
As I recall, the corazzina in the Met (http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/vi ... %2E154%2E3) is dated to approximately 1400, which would place it twenty years or so following the death of Edward, the Black Prince (1330-1376).
Here are some images of Edwards funeral achievements:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~hanly/chaucer/images/blackprinmonmt.html
http://www.costumes.org/history/imsi/edwardblackprince.jpg
These images show a low point basicnet with plate arm and leg defenses rather than splint arms and legs (which typically would be early 1300's). You could easily swap in an onion top bascinet as they were fairly commonplace in the late 1300 to early 1400 period.
As someone who has fought in a corazzina for mamy years, I would recommend that you equip your corazzina with spalders that are more in keeping with the above period illustrations than the copy in the Met to better protect your shoulders.
The Milanese arm and leg armour sold by Sir Andreas Eisfalke at www.icefalcon.com would look reasonably close to this period:
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/2/14.htm?113
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/6/83.htm?113
http://icefalcon.safeshopper.com/4/19.htm?113
-Keith/Austin.
-
Gaston de Clermont
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USA
- Contact:
Onion top bascinets do look pretty cool. The ones I'm familiar with are Germanic, and associated with a pointed pig face plate rather than a rounded klapvisor. It would be hard to prove a klapvisor on an onion top wasn't done, but it might have been rare.
There are more examples of splinted arms later in the 14th century in the Holy Roman Empire and Scandanavia than elsewhere in Europe, but they were becoming out dated even there by the time I'd expect to see an onion top helm.
You might consider very simple sheet steel arms, legs with maybe only one lame above and below, and a simple rondel rather than a fan. A nice coat of plates with chain attachements from the lung plates to your weapons would be typical for the second half of the 14th century in Germany. There are several images in the Battle of Wisby book you might want to base your kit on.
Gaston de Clermont
There are more examples of splinted arms later in the 14th century in the Holy Roman Empire and Scandanavia than elsewhere in Europe, but they were becoming out dated even there by the time I'd expect to see an onion top helm.
You might consider very simple sheet steel arms, legs with maybe only one lame above and below, and a simple rondel rather than a fan. A nice coat of plates with chain attachements from the lung plates to your weapons would be typical for the second half of the 14th century in Germany. There are several images in the Battle of Wisby book you might want to base your kit on.
Gaston de Clermont
-
Gaston de Clermont
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USA
- Contact:
I sort of fixated on the helm and the splinted limb harnesses. I was trying to get things to fit into a 1365 ish mode. If we're to go with the corazina as the base, it's some where around 1400, probably Venetian. A barbute, or a pig face bascinet would be most fitting. The arms the Met has displayed on the harness appear contemporary, and there's another arm in the adjacent case that's a good model. The Chartres child's arm harness (see CAD's site for good pics) and some of the Churburg armoury's arms would be good choices. By this point leg harnesses were a bit more developed, and a spade or oval shaped fan would be likely, and you'd probably have more lames on your articulations.
There's a nice illustration in Barber and Barker's book on Tournaments of an Italian melee around 1385 with nicely fitted corazzinas and great helms similar to the Black Prince's.
Gaston de Clermont
There's a nice illustration in Barber and Barker's book on Tournaments of an Italian melee around 1385 with nicely fitted corazzinas and great helms similar to the Black Prince's.
Gaston de Clermont
-
Cet
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2985
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: jobstown, nj. usa
- Contact:
Hello your Majesty. The closest I've ever come to finding something in iconography to the corazzina armour are some of the figures in the Pistoia alter piece c. 1376, some pieces of which are shown in AAoMk on pg 75. and also, I believe, in Ospreys' book on Italian medieval Armies. there are a number of helm styles shown on this piece, mostly variations on bascinets, and the armour for the limbs apears to consist primarily of floating articulation pointed to mail.
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
*sigh*...I had my heart set on an Onion top but it seems it would not be correct wtih the corazzna from what you are saying....
although....... the barbute IS my second favorite helm........
Yes the Corazzina is what I want to base my kit off of so I will start there and work my way out.
Thanks for all the info.
although....... the barbute IS my second favorite helm........
Yes the Corazzina is what I want to base my kit off of so I will start there and work my way out.
Thanks for all the info.
-
Albrekt af Viborg
- Archive Member
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Salem, OR
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chadwick:
(snip)These images show a low point basicnet with plate arm and leg defenses rather than splint arms and legs (which typically would be early 1300's). You could easily swap in an onion top bascinet as they were fairly commonplace in the late 1300 to early 1400 period.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you'll find, when you look at the BPs effigy, that he's wearing a low-point bascinet. In fact, it's one *honking* hugely-tall bascinet, and it's this sort of hat that would go well with the globose-breasted CoP everyone is calling a corazzina. Low-point bascinets seem pretty usually intended for use inside a great helm. Even early in the century we see very tall bascinets; look at the Romance of Alexander plates shown on p. 74 of Edge & Paddock.
Why do you say this? I've fought for *many* years with simple disk-shaped spaulders and have had no problems at all (except that I made them too light and they have to get pounded out periodically). Personally, I'd like to see if the spaulders shown on that harness have any validity; one source I read says they were complete fabrications like so much of that harness, but I've yet to see proof one way or the other.
Sarnac, I think the Globose-breasted CoP was a fairly wide-spread phenomenon, seeing use in England, France, Germany and Italy. What you wear with it largely depends on what country you wish the harness to be from, if you see what I mean.
A knight from England or France would, in all liklihood, be wearing full plate arms with articulated pauldrons and a very high-point bascinet with a hounskull visor.
An Italian might have a much less extensive arm harness, as in the famous Italian tournament painting on p. 85 of Barber & Barker's _Tournaments_. These knights seem to have an articulated coude with a leather lower cannon (I can't tell if they're splinted or not). An Italian might also have a small, round spaulder on the point of the shoulder, such as the ones you see on the Pistoia alterpiece.
Germans might wear a klappvisor bascinet with a rounded visor.
Any of them might wear a low-point bascinet under a great helm (you can see this on the upper-left hand corner of the Barber and Barker painting I referenced above).
You would *certainly* be wearing full plate legs with a probability of closed greaves (although I have evidence for frnt greaves well into the 1390s). The Charles VI legs pictured on page 83 of Edge and Paddock would be a good match, and are similar in design to the ones currently displayed with this CoP. An English knight of this period might actually have *closed* cuisses. In all cases, however, the cuisses would be fairly simple, with the demi-greave pretty much straight across (none of the pointed ones SCA armorers so adore! Those come later) and relatively simple wings.
And, of course, wherever your harness is from, you'll certainly want hourglass finger gauntlets. I like the Italian ones best because their wrists flare more than the English and French ones seem to, giving more wrist motion.
Naturally, the single most important part of this harness, the piece without which none of the rest works, is a *perfectly* fitted arming doublet. Since we have none extant from this period I use a pattern taken from the Charles de Blois pourpoint. This garment was *clearly* not intended for military use, however its grand aissette sleeves make it very convenient for use under armor. (Although I believe these sleeves would be difficult to use under a full closed English vambrace since I think the upper cannon would get in the way of the fullness of the sleeve under the armpit. I haven't actually tried this, however, so it's only a theory.)
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
(snip)These images show a low point basicnet with plate arm and leg defenses rather than splint arms and legs (which typically would be early 1300's). You could easily swap in an onion top bascinet as they were fairly commonplace in the late 1300 to early 1400 period.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you'll find, when you look at the BPs effigy, that he's wearing a low-point bascinet. In fact, it's one *honking* hugely-tall bascinet, and it's this sort of hat that would go well with the globose-breasted CoP everyone is calling a corazzina. Low-point bascinets seem pretty usually intended for use inside a great helm. Even early in the century we see very tall bascinets; look at the Romance of Alexander plates shown on p. 74 of Edge & Paddock.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As someone who has fought in a corazzina for mamy years, I would recommend that you equip your corazzina with spalders that are more in keeping with the above period illustrations than the copy in the Met to better protect your shoulders.</font>
Why do you say this? I've fought for *many* years with simple disk-shaped spaulders and have had no problems at all (except that I made them too light and they have to get pounded out periodically). Personally, I'd like to see if the spaulders shown on that harness have any validity; one source I read says they were complete fabrications like so much of that harness, but I've yet to see proof one way or the other.
Sarnac, I think the Globose-breasted CoP was a fairly wide-spread phenomenon, seeing use in England, France, Germany and Italy. What you wear with it largely depends on what country you wish the harness to be from, if you see what I mean.
A knight from England or France would, in all liklihood, be wearing full plate arms with articulated pauldrons and a very high-point bascinet with a hounskull visor.
An Italian might have a much less extensive arm harness, as in the famous Italian tournament painting on p. 85 of Barber & Barker's _Tournaments_. These knights seem to have an articulated coude with a leather lower cannon (I can't tell if they're splinted or not). An Italian might also have a small, round spaulder on the point of the shoulder, such as the ones you see on the Pistoia alterpiece.
Germans might wear a klappvisor bascinet with a rounded visor.
Any of them might wear a low-point bascinet under a great helm (you can see this on the upper-left hand corner of the Barber and Barker painting I referenced above).
You would *certainly* be wearing full plate legs with a probability of closed greaves (although I have evidence for frnt greaves well into the 1390s). The Charles VI legs pictured on page 83 of Edge and Paddock would be a good match, and are similar in design to the ones currently displayed with this CoP. An English knight of this period might actually have *closed* cuisses. In all cases, however, the cuisses would be fairly simple, with the demi-greave pretty much straight across (none of the pointed ones SCA armorers so adore! Those come later) and relatively simple wings.
And, of course, wherever your harness is from, you'll certainly want hourglass finger gauntlets. I like the Italian ones best because their wrists flare more than the English and French ones seem to, giving more wrist motion.
Naturally, the single most important part of this harness, the piece without which none of the rest works, is a *perfectly* fitted arming doublet. Since we have none extant from this period I use a pattern taken from the Charles de Blois pourpoint. This garment was *clearly* not intended for military use, however its grand aissette sleeves make it very convenient for use under armor. (Although I believe these sleeves would be difficult to use under a full closed English vambrace since I think the upper cannon would get in the way of the fullness of the sleeve under the armpit. I haven't actually tried this, however, so it's only a theory.)
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
I would love to see the evidence that the oniontop was common before 1400. Personally I don't think it developed before then, and was not common until 1400-1410.
What is the defining feature of the corazzina? It is simply a form of a coat of plates or breastplate with fauld split up the front.
The German knights, around the 1370's-1380's, tended to have one piece covered breastplates with fauld, not split up the front.
In Italy around 1385 the soldiers are depicted with a covered breastplate with fauld that is plit up the front, thus a corazzina.
I sent you a pic Sarnac.
As usual, one can't see what the English are wearing.
So to wear a corazzina, you should be aiming for an Italian look of the late 14th c, unless you can come up with other evidence.
As was mentioned by someone above, that means Italian style bascinet/barbute, or even a kettle hat.
Erik
What is the defining feature of the corazzina? It is simply a form of a coat of plates or breastplate with fauld split up the front.
The German knights, around the 1370's-1380's, tended to have one piece covered breastplates with fauld, not split up the front.
In Italy around 1385 the soldiers are depicted with a covered breastplate with fauld that is plit up the front, thus a corazzina.
I sent you a pic Sarnac.
As usual, one can't see what the English are wearing.
So to wear a corazzina, you should be aiming for an Italian look of the late 14th c, unless you can come up with other evidence.
As was mentioned by someone above, that means Italian style bascinet/barbute, or even a kettle hat.
Erik
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B> Why do you say this? I've fought for *many* years with simple disk-shaped spaulders and have had no problems at all (except that I made them too light and they have to get pounded out periodically). Personally, I'd like to see if the spaulders shown on that harness have any validity; one source I read says they were complete fabrications like so much of that harness, but I've yet to see proof one way or the other.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do I say this? For two reasons:
The first is that this armour is dated as 1400, and the historical record of the Black Princes funeral achievements dated 20 years earlier shows a better design for the shoulder protection which offers greater coverage and more flexibility.
The second is that I have fought in this style of armour for 20 years (my body harness is one of Robert MacPhersons' early armours), and am quite familiar with it's advantages and limitations. The upper arm/shoulder protection shown in the Met presentation at:
http://Eisner.Encompasserve.org/~chadwick/sca/transitional-armour-1400.jpg
Shows plates which appear to be pointed to the underlying garmet. As the armour is displayed by the Met, these plates offer no protection to the 2-3 inch area between the edge of bascinet and the point of shoulder, and the situation would only get worse if the figure was shown with a raised arm - the edge of the shoulder plate would tend to dig into the shoulder. Yes, there is underlying mail protection, but getting the edge of that plate driven into the top of your shoulder will hurt (I speak from personal experience here).
I too have also heard the arguments that this harness is largely a fabrication. From my personal experience, this harness does largely work - even the vertical faulds do work reasonably well, although I have modified the covering on my body armour to allow some articulation between the two vertical fauld sections. As displayed in the Met, the two sections are attached to a common section of velvet - On my armour I have covered each of the fauld sections with suede individually, and have a "hidden" section of suede/leather which keeps the two sections in alignment as well as allowing the two sections to articulate.
-Keith/Austin.
<B> Why do you say this? I've fought for *many* years with simple disk-shaped spaulders and have had no problems at all (except that I made them too light and they have to get pounded out periodically). Personally, I'd like to see if the spaulders shown on that harness have any validity; one source I read says they were complete fabrications like so much of that harness, but I've yet to see proof one way or the other.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do I say this? For two reasons:
The first is that this armour is dated as 1400, and the historical record of the Black Princes funeral achievements dated 20 years earlier shows a better design for the shoulder protection which offers greater coverage and more flexibility.
The second is that I have fought in this style of armour for 20 years (my body harness is one of Robert MacPhersons' early armours), and am quite familiar with it's advantages and limitations. The upper arm/shoulder protection shown in the Met presentation at:
http://Eisner.Encompasserve.org/~chadwick/sca/transitional-armour-1400.jpg
Shows plates which appear to be pointed to the underlying garmet. As the armour is displayed by the Met, these plates offer no protection to the 2-3 inch area between the edge of bascinet and the point of shoulder, and the situation would only get worse if the figure was shown with a raised arm - the edge of the shoulder plate would tend to dig into the shoulder. Yes, there is underlying mail protection, but getting the edge of that plate driven into the top of your shoulder will hurt (I speak from personal experience here).
I too have also heard the arguments that this harness is largely a fabrication. From my personal experience, this harness does largely work - even the vertical faulds do work reasonably well, although I have modified the covering on my body armour to allow some articulation between the two vertical fauld sections. As displayed in the Met, the two sections are attached to a common section of velvet - On my armour I have covered each of the fauld sections with suede individually, and have a "hidden" section of suede/leather which keeps the two sections in alignment as well as allowing the two sections to articulate.
-Keith/Austin.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi All,
the altarpice in question my not be showing a corrizina. In the Bayersche Historichesmusee there is a covered breastplate of 1390-1400, complete with decorative 'false' rivets that is a solid breastplate, but the cloth cover is split up the middle, leaving a very visible seam (it was to tailor the snug fit of the cover). This may be what you are seeing in the Italian altarpiece, which isn't quite detailed enough to say one way or the other for certain. As I recall, there are no straps depicted, which would be required with a split breastplate, so that is an argument against.
------------------
Bob R.
the altarpice in question my not be showing a corrizina. In the Bayersche Historichesmusee there is a covered breastplate of 1390-1400, complete with decorative 'false' rivets that is a solid breastplate, but the cloth cover is split up the middle, leaving a very visible seam (it was to tailor the snug fit of the cover). This may be what you are seeing in the Italian altarpiece, which isn't quite detailed enough to say one way or the other for certain. As I recall, there are no straps depicted, which would be required with a split breastplate, so that is an argument against.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Cet
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2985
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: jobstown, nj. usa
- Contact:
I agree Chef, and I didn't mean to imply that the figures on the Pistoia piece represent the type of construction in question but rather that they are the closest thing that I've seen in iconography. Of coarse my knowledge is by no means exhaustive . Your point regarding straps is well taken- especially as other pieces of armour depicted in the same piececlearly show strapping.
. Your point regarding straps is well taken- especially as other pieces of armour depicted in the same piececlearly show strapping.-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>Hi All,
the altarpice in question my not be showing a corrizina. In the Bayersche Historichesmusee there is a covered breastplate of 1390-1400, complete with decorative 'false' rivets that is a solid breastplate, but the cloth cover is split up the middle, leaving a very visible seam (it was to tailor the snug fit of the cover). This may be what you are seeing in the Italian altarpiece, which isn't quite detailed enough to say one way or the other for certain. As I recall, there are no straps depicted, which would be required with a split breastplate, so that is an argument against.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure what you mean here: Do you mean there are no straps shown on any of the Pistoia alterpiece breastplates? If so, there is at least one showing a breastplate *very* much like the German to which you referred in which we can see the straps perfectly. There's a mounted figure shown on the middle pice on p. 75 of Edge and paddock who's back is turned away enough to clearly see the strapping. In fact, this is the picture used to establish the strap arrangements for my breastplate.
If that's not what you were saying, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Hi All,
the altarpice in question my not be showing a corrizina. In the Bayersche Historichesmusee there is a covered breastplate of 1390-1400, complete with decorative 'false' rivets that is a solid breastplate, but the cloth cover is split up the middle, leaving a very visible seam (it was to tailor the snug fit of the cover). This may be what you are seeing in the Italian altarpiece, which isn't quite detailed enough to say one way or the other for certain. As I recall, there are no straps depicted, which would be required with a split breastplate, so that is an argument against.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure what you mean here: Do you mean there are no straps shown on any of the Pistoia alterpiece breastplates? If so, there is at least one showing a breastplate *very* much like the German to which you referred in which we can see the straps perfectly. There's a mounted figure shown on the middle pice on p. 75 of Edge and paddock who's back is turned away enough to clearly see the strapping. In fact, this is the picture used to establish the strap arrangements for my breastplate.
If that's not what you were saying, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Hugh & Cet,
Cet has nailed what I meant to convey - no evidence for the straps for the center closure to argue for it representing a corizzina rather than a covered breastplate.
Yes, a corizzina would look like that, but with the closure straps.
My muddled communicative abilities again.
------------------
Bob R.
Cet has nailed what I meant to convey - no evidence for the straps for the center closure to argue for it representing a corizzina rather than a covered breastplate.
Yes, a corizzina would look like that, but with the closure straps.
My muddled communicative abilities again.
------------------
Bob R.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>Hi Hugh & Cet,
Cet has nailed what I meant to convey - no evidence for the straps for the center closure to argue for it representing a corizzina rather than a covered breastplate.
Yes, a corizzina would look like that, but with the closure straps.
My muddled communicative abilities again.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah! Forgive me, Bob; as I said I simply wasn't sure what you meant.
Thanks to you, too, dave!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Hi Hugh & Cet,
Cet has nailed what I meant to convey - no evidence for the straps for the center closure to argue for it representing a corizzina rather than a covered breastplate.
Yes, a corizzina would look like that, but with the closure straps.
My muddled communicative abilities again.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah! Forgive me, Bob; as I said I simply wasn't sure what you meant.
Thanks to you, too, dave!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
so have we come to a consensus???
I am basing this off of the premise that the corazzina in the met is correct....
so lets move on shall we???
so the general thought is that a barbute (t face), with 3 lame pauldrons, plate arms and legs...(should they be enclosed vambraces or gutter? ditto on the greaves)
with roundels or small spade fans.
this would be a good start if this all seems to fit...
Rhys....sorry...the hour glass gauntlets will have to wait...I do not have even a fraction of the talent to pull those off right now and I want to make this all by myself.
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 07-20-2002).]
I am basing this off of the premise that the corazzina in the met is correct....
so lets move on shall we???
so the general thought is that a barbute (t face), with 3 lame pauldrons, plate arms and legs...(should they be enclosed vambraces or gutter? ditto on the greaves)
with roundels or small spade fans.
this would be a good start if this all seems to fit...
Rhys....sorry...the hour glass gauntlets will have to wait...I do not have even a fraction of the talent to pull those off right now and I want to make this all by myself.
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 07-20-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sarnac:
<B>so have we come to a consensus???
I am basing this off of the premise that the corazzina in the met is correct....
so lets move on shall we???</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I missed part of this, but no, the globose at the Met is *not* correct. It was built from random pieces of steel found at Chalcis and ...ahem... 'acquired' by Bashford Dean. Dean was, by training, a paleontologist, and he took that approach to assembling this harness. There are *many* mistakes in its assembly. Bob Carrol, the former armorer at the Met, informed me that they would actually like to have taken this piece out of the display, and only keep it in because the public expects it. Note that it's now placed so that the back of the piece is up against the wall; that's because many of the most egregious errors are on the back.
For example, the vertical plates in the skirt are just random pieces of metal that Carroll said Dean simply *cut up* from other pieces; note that the pieces don't really line up with each other. It's more likely that the skirt was composed of split hoops, much like the fauld on a white harness breastplate. The back of the piece, as I said, is even worse: It should be one smooth piece of fabric over an indeterminate number of smaller plates around a piece shaped like an inverted "T" at the center top. (If what you meant was "the corazzina as corrected by someone else previously" is correct, then I apologize for all this wasted bandwidth.)
Does anyone other than me think the t-faced barbuta is too late for this piece? There was a kind of helmet often called a barbute, but Blair says that this is merely an open-faced kind of bascinet (p. 85); on p. 74 he says that we can't really know what kind of a helmet the 14th-century barbuta was. Blair hesitates to say when the developed form of barbuta was first worn, however he says they were certainly present by 1430-40 (also p. 85). The famous T-faced Barbuta on the Milanese harness in Glasglow is dated at approximately 1450. Since the globose-breasted CoP was more like a last quarter of the 14th century sort of thing, I believe that a bascinet, kettle hat or helm would be much more appropriate, unless someone else knows of documentation for the globose CoP being worn after 1400 or so.
There is a painting in a MS edition of Tristan and Isolde that shows a French knight from c. 1390 sitting with open greaves and with the lower cannons of his vambraces only having the lower plate. In addition, the inventory of the effects of Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (1397) show that he was in possession of several pairs of front or open greaves. Certainly these things are *far* less common than fully enclosed lower cannons or greaves, but they are at least documentable.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>so have we come to a consensus???
I am basing this off of the premise that the corazzina in the met is correct....
so lets move on shall we???
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe I missed part of this, but no, the globose at the Met is *not* correct. It was built from random pieces of steel found at Chalcis and ...ahem... 'acquired' by Bashford Dean. Dean was, by training, a paleontologist, and he took that approach to assembling this harness. There are *many* mistakes in its assembly. Bob Carrol, the former armorer at the Met, informed me that they would actually like to have taken this piece out of the display, and only keep it in because the public expects it. Note that it's now placed so that the back of the piece is up against the wall; that's because many of the most egregious errors are on the back.
For example, the vertical plates in the skirt are just random pieces of metal that Carroll said Dean simply *cut up* from other pieces; note that the pieces don't really line up with each other. It's more likely that the skirt was composed of split hoops, much like the fauld on a white harness breastplate. The back of the piece, as I said, is even worse: It should be one smooth piece of fabric over an indeterminate number of smaller plates around a piece shaped like an inverted "T" at the center top. (If what you meant was "the corazzina as corrected by someone else previously" is correct, then I apologize for all this wasted bandwidth.)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">so the general thought is that a barbute (t face), with 3 lame pauldrons, plate arms and legs...(should they be enclosed vambraces or gutter? ditto on the greaves)</font>
Does anyone other than me think the t-faced barbuta is too late for this piece? There was a kind of helmet often called a barbute, but Blair says that this is merely an open-faced kind of bascinet (p. 85); on p. 74 he says that we can't really know what kind of a helmet the 14th-century barbuta was. Blair hesitates to say when the developed form of barbuta was first worn, however he says they were certainly present by 1430-40 (also p. 85). The famous T-faced Barbuta on the Milanese harness in Glasglow is dated at approximately 1450. Since the globose-breasted CoP was more like a last quarter of the 14th century sort of thing, I believe that a bascinet, kettle hat or helm would be much more appropriate, unless someone else knows of documentation for the globose CoP being worn after 1400 or so.
There is a painting in a MS edition of Tristan and Isolde that shows a French knight from c. 1390 sitting with open greaves and with the lower cannons of his vambraces only having the lower plate. In addition, the inventory of the effects of Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (1397) show that he was in possession of several pairs of front or open greaves. Certainly these things are *far* less common than fully enclosed lower cannons or greaves, but they are at least documentable.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
SyrRhys, I agree with you totally that the 'T' faced barbute is too late for what we are discussing.
One often sees Italian artwork of the 14th century where the bascinets have flared lower edges and extended cheek pieces, which seems to be characteristic especially of the contract soldiers, and would be ideal to go with a corazzina.
Sarnac, did you get the pic I e-mailed you? You will notice that those corazzina seem to have hooped faulds, which is what I would use if I was to recreate one, as I have seen no evidence of anything other being used with covered CoPs/breastplates/corazzina of the later 14th century.
Erik
One often sees Italian artwork of the 14th century where the bascinets have flared lower edges and extended cheek pieces, which seems to be characteristic especially of the contract soldiers, and would be ideal to go with a corazzina.
Sarnac, did you get the pic I e-mailed you? You will notice that those corazzina seem to have hooped faulds, which is what I would use if I was to recreate one, as I have seen no evidence of anything other being used with covered CoPs/breastplates/corazzina of the later 14th century.
Erik
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Rhys,
Yes, the barbute is too late. Erik has the right of it with these rather encompassing bascinets, which while Blair couldn't say for sure were the ancestors of the Barbute, modern scholars are fairly certain (David Edge, Thom Richardson, etc...) is an earllier stage of development of a barbute.
Barbute is simply an Italian term for an open helmet (you can see the fellows beard - we complicate things too needlessly in trying to exactly define things, to a 15th century Italian, threre were barbotes, elmetos, and celetas, and thats all the terms he needed to know). He might call what we call a celleta a barbote, cause you can see the fellows beard.
My favorite illustration of this is that of a modern walking into either John Howards, or John de Veres 'armour house', and seeing 7 helmets on pegs on the wall, would start to inventory them saying "2 open faced sallets, 3 visored sallets, 2 deep kettlehats, whereas the 15th century clerk walks into the same room (and agrivatingly for us), would eyeball the same wall and jot down vii sallets on the page.
------------------
Bob R.
Yes, the barbute is too late. Erik has the right of it with these rather encompassing bascinets, which while Blair couldn't say for sure were the ancestors of the Barbute, modern scholars are fairly certain (David Edge, Thom Richardson, etc...) is an earllier stage of development of a barbute.
Barbute is simply an Italian term for an open helmet (you can see the fellows beard - we complicate things too needlessly in trying to exactly define things, to a 15th century Italian, threre were barbotes, elmetos, and celetas, and thats all the terms he needed to know). He might call what we call a celleta a barbote, cause you can see the fellows beard.
My favorite illustration of this is that of a modern walking into either John Howards, or John de Veres 'armour house', and seeing 7 helmets on pegs on the wall, would start to inventory them saying "2 open faced sallets, 3 visored sallets, 2 deep kettlehats, whereas the 15th century clerk walks into the same room (and agrivatingly for us), would eyeball the same wall and jot down vii sallets on the page.
------------------
Bob R.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erik Schmidt:
<B>SyrRhys, I agree with you totally that the 'T' faced barbute is too late for what we are discussing.
One often sees Italian artwork of the 14th century where the bascinets have flared lower edges and extended cheek pieces, which seems to be characteristic especially of the contract soldiers, and would be ideal to go with a corazzina.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, exactly; that's just what I have in mind when I refer to an early barbuta; those ones at Chalchis have an almost inverted triangular face opening. I have an interesting article published in Archeologia (vol. 62, 1911, p. 384) entitled Italian Armour From Chalcis which shows a number of these helmets (and some pieces of golobose CoPs, if you want to see more of what the separate bits look like, Sarnac).
What's interesting about these helms is that the line between "bascinet" and "barbuta" is so narrow (but still fairly clear). There's even one (#5) that has vervelles in place for an aventail. The Met has one like this too. In both cases, the aventail would cover the face in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell this wasn't a bascinet in the more traditional sense, since it covers the swept-forward lower edge. But the majority of barbuta in the article make no provision at all for an aventail; that could be appealing for SCAdians who are loathe to go to the effort to properly hang an aventail.
Also, of course, none of these barbuta have provisions for a visor (numbers 3 and 4 do, but I hope everyone will agree with me that these are *very* different from barbuta), so these helms will need to have grills fixed in place to make them SCA legal.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>SyrRhys, I agree with you totally that the 'T' faced barbute is too late for what we are discussing.
One often sees Italian artwork of the 14th century where the bascinets have flared lower edges and extended cheek pieces, which seems to be characteristic especially of the contract soldiers, and would be ideal to go with a corazzina.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, exactly; that's just what I have in mind when I refer to an early barbuta; those ones at Chalchis have an almost inverted triangular face opening. I have an interesting article published in Archeologia (vol. 62, 1911, p. 384) entitled Italian Armour From Chalcis which shows a number of these helmets (and some pieces of golobose CoPs, if you want to see more of what the separate bits look like, Sarnac).
What's interesting about these helms is that the line between "bascinet" and "barbuta" is so narrow (but still fairly clear). There's even one (#5) that has vervelles in place for an aventail. The Met has one like this too. In both cases, the aventail would cover the face in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell this wasn't a bascinet in the more traditional sense, since it covers the swept-forward lower edge. But the majority of barbuta in the article make no provision at all for an aventail; that could be appealing for SCAdians who are loathe to go to the effort to properly hang an aventail.
Also, of course, none of these barbuta have provisions for a visor (numbers 3 and 4 do, but I hope everyone will agree with me that these are *very* different from barbuta), so these helms will need to have grills fixed in place to make them SCA legal.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
My favorite illustration of this is that of a modern walking into either John Howards, or John de Veres 'armour house', and seeing 7 helmets on pegs on the wall, would start to inventory them saying "2 open faced sallets, 3 visored sallets, 2 deep kettlehats, whereas the 15th century clerk walks into the same room (and agrivatingly for us), would eyeball the same wall and jot down vii sallets on the page.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bob, you're absolutely right about the medieval useage. While I agree it's best to use the medieval terminology for most things (when possible), we, as modern students of armor, often need to use terminology which is more precise in order to make sense among ourselves. We could say "those Italian bascinets that have a triangular face opening and the lower edge sweeps forward", or we could just call them 14th-century barbuta and make it easier. Likewise, the sugarloaf helm of the late 13th century and the Pembridge great helm of the late 14th century would each, in their time, have been simply called "helms". We, on the other hand, need to be able to distinguish between them. Hence, we often use armor lexicology differently than did our ancestors. Mind, this often leads to a *great* deal of confusion, too! Some folks refer to forearm armor as a "vambrace", regardless of whether it's part of an articulated arm harness or not, while msot modern scholars refer to the entire arm harness as a vambrace, and to the constituent parts as the lower cannon, couter, and upper cannon. Armor lexicology is a pain.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
My favorite illustration of this is that of a modern walking into either John Howards, or John de Veres 'armour house', and seeing 7 helmets on pegs on the wall, would start to inventory them saying "2 open faced sallets, 3 visored sallets, 2 deep kettlehats, whereas the 15th century clerk walks into the same room (and agrivatingly for us), would eyeball the same wall and jot down vii sallets on the page.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bob, you're absolutely right about the medieval useage. While I agree it's best to use the medieval terminology for most things (when possible), we, as modern students of armor, often need to use terminology which is more precise in order to make sense among ourselves. We could say "those Italian bascinets that have a triangular face opening and the lower edge sweeps forward", or we could just call them 14th-century barbuta and make it easier. Likewise, the sugarloaf helm of the late 13th century and the Pembridge great helm of the late 14th century would each, in their time, have been simply called "helms". We, on the other hand, need to be able to distinguish between them. Hence, we often use armor lexicology differently than did our ancestors. Mind, this often leads to a *great* deal of confusion, too! Some folks refer to forearm armor as a "vambrace", regardless of whether it's part of an articulated arm harness or not, while msot modern scholars refer to the entire arm harness as a vambrace, and to the constituent parts as the lower cannon, couter, and upper cannon. Armor lexicology is a pain.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erik Schmidt:
<B>Yes, thanks SyrRhys. I had forgotten to mention that those Italian bascinets were not commonly fitted with an aventail. Ooops!
Erik</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It sure would be interesting to know *why*, wouldn't it? Were they the moral equivilent of kettle hats (my personal theory)? Were they mostly for lower-ranked troops? Were the Italians just being different (kind of like the way they seemed to wear less shoulder armor in the 14th C than was common in Emgland and France)?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Yes, thanks SyrRhys. I had forgotten to mention that those Italian bascinets were not commonly fitted with an aventail. Ooops!
Erik</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It sure would be interesting to know *why*, wouldn't it? Were they the moral equivilent of kettle hats (my personal theory)? Were they mostly for lower-ranked troops? Were the Italians just being different (kind of like the way they seemed to wear less shoulder armor in the 14th C than was common in Emgland and France)?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
Say what? "The moral equivalent of kettle hats"? You'll have to explain that one.
Kettle hats were very common in Italy also, in fact there are some early examples which look much like the 15th century types with the high peaks and a steeply sloped brim.
I really can't find any very good reason why the bascinet style was so different in Italy.
They don't seem to have been confined to lower ranked troops, but probably more common there than among the knights.
Both Italians and the Spanish(even the Germans for that matter) tended to have less arm and leg protection than was typical among knights in England and France from what I can tell.
I would put it down to a combination of warfare style, climate and regional fashion, but the helmet style, sans aventail, is probably something to do with the hotter weather.
I guess we will never know.
Erik
Kettle hats were very common in Italy also, in fact there are some early examples which look much like the 15th century types with the high peaks and a steeply sloped brim.
I really can't find any very good reason why the bascinet style was so different in Italy.
They don't seem to have been confined to lower ranked troops, but probably more common there than among the knights.
Both Italians and the Spanish(even the Germans for that matter) tended to have less arm and leg protection than was typical among knights in England and France from what I can tell.
I would put it down to a combination of warfare style, climate and regional fashion, but the helmet style, sans aventail, is probably something to do with the hotter weather.
I guess we will never know.
Erik
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erik Schmidt:
<B>Say what? "The moral equivalent of kettle hats"? You'll have to explain that one.
Kettle hats were very common in Italy also, in fact there are some early examples which look much like the 15th century types with the high peaks and a steeply sloped brim.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that I only meant that like kettle hats they were light, comfortable helmets that got plenty of air, but that you sacrificed some other protection (the open face and lack of mail at the neck, unless you also wear a coif) for those things. I didn't mean they *looked* like kettle hats.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Say what? "The moral equivalent of kettle hats"? You'll have to explain that one.
Kettle hats were very common in Italy also, in fact there are some early examples which look much like the 15th century types with the high peaks and a steeply sloped brim.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that I only meant that like kettle hats they were light, comfortable helmets that got plenty of air, but that you sacrificed some other protection (the open face and lack of mail at the neck, unless you also wear a coif) for those things. I didn't mean they *looked* like kettle hats.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
Right. That was what I was thinking you meant, but I erred on the side of caution so to speak.
I think you could be right though. For a soldier often on the go and probably spending a lot of time in their armour and frequntly having to get into it quickly, there were probably convincing advantages to having an airy helmet with good visiblity that is easy to put on.
The question of regional styles is certainly an interesting one.
Erik
I think you could be right though. For a soldier often on the go and probably spending a lot of time in their armour and frequntly having to get into it quickly, there were probably convincing advantages to having an airy helmet with good visiblity that is easy to put on.
The question of regional styles is certainly an interesting one.
Erik
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Erik,
Having just gotten the combination of chapel de fer and bevor, and in addition to a mail standard, I can vouch for the fact that (at least the deep 15th century versions favoured in Flanders and Spain) this is an extremely effective defensive combination, and the air flow and vision vs. protection ratio is unmatched.
The rear of the brim of these things almost rests on the neck, and the sides come down a bit - even earlier examples worn with a coif, or over a bascinet with aventail, or those gawdawful plate collars in vouge at times in Spain and the Balkans make for a very good defensive arrangement.
Pretty much in a cavalry charge or an arrow storm, I'd be sticking to my elmetto - armet (loving life and wishing to keep same and limb intact), but in anything less, on the march, in a siege camp, skirmishing, etc. I'd be wearing the kettlehat/bevor combo. Were I doing 14th century, I'd opt for a clappvisor or side pivot - either to be dismountable, with aventail, with a kettlehat fit to go over the bascinet, and wear the equivilants in similar circumstances.
------------------
Bob R.
[This message has been edited by chef de chambre (edited 07-23-2002).]
Having just gotten the combination of chapel de fer and bevor, and in addition to a mail standard, I can vouch for the fact that (at least the deep 15th century versions favoured in Flanders and Spain) this is an extremely effective defensive combination, and the air flow and vision vs. protection ratio is unmatched.
The rear of the brim of these things almost rests on the neck, and the sides come down a bit - even earlier examples worn with a coif, or over a bascinet with aventail, or those gawdawful plate collars in vouge at times in Spain and the Balkans make for a very good defensive arrangement.
Pretty much in a cavalry charge or an arrow storm, I'd be sticking to my elmetto - armet (loving life and wishing to keep same and limb intact), but in anything less, on the march, in a siege camp, skirmishing, etc. I'd be wearing the kettlehat/bevor combo. Were I doing 14th century, I'd opt for a clappvisor or side pivot - either to be dismountable, with aventail, with a kettlehat fit to go over the bascinet, and wear the equivilants in similar circumstances.
------------------
Bob R.
[This message has been edited by chef de chambre (edited 07-23-2002).]
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
ok...so where did I go wrong here???
So the consensus is the Corrazzina is NOT correct and the pic that Erik sent me is closer to what I should be shooting for....
and....the t face barbute is way too late for this? but the Klapvisor bascinet is not correct either....
*sigh*
back to square one.
I will just start on the body, arm and leg harness and wait until I can find research the correct helm to go with it.
It needs to be a closed face or visored helm..no bargrills...
So the consensus is the Corrazzina is NOT correct and the pic that Erik sent me is closer to what I should be shooting for....
and....the t face barbute is way too late for this? but the Klapvisor bascinet is not correct either....
*sigh*
back to square one.
I will just start on the body, arm and leg harness and wait until I can find research the correct helm to go with it.
It needs to be a closed face or visored helm..no bargrills...
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sarnac:
<B>So the consensus is the Corrazzina is NOT correct and the pic that Erik sent me is closer to what I should be shooting for....
and....the t face barbute is way too late for this? but the Klapvisor bascinet is not correct either....</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know what pic Erik sent you, but all I said about the globose CoP at the Met was that it was assembled incorrectly. The *concept* of that CoP is certainly correct, you just need to find a more accurate pattern. There is a lengthy discussion of this type of armor in Michael Lacy's masters thesis, which has been published in the SCA as: The Development of the Coat of Plates: The evolution of Cloth-Covered Armor, in complete Anachronist #69, September 1993.
Yes, the T-Faced barbute seems way too late, but I don't know that the klappvisored bascinet is wrong. Let's say it would be "less than perfectly typical". Klappvisors are typically German, and Bob asserted above that the Germans were much less likely to wear this type of body armor. But the klappvisor was seen in both Italy and England, according to Blair (although he doesn't specify whether this was in the pointed or round-faced versions), and I'm convinced the globose CoP was worn in England (it was *cetqainly* common in Italy!). So by wearing a klappvisor I don't know that you'd be *wrong*, you just might be *atypical*. Now I'm a great believer in making sure one's harness is "homogenous" as to time and place, but you can go to far with that.
Have you considered a great helm, such as the Pembridge helm? These are exactly contemporary with the Globose CoP and are great helms to fight in. They have good air and *great* visibility, much better than any visored bascinet, because the face plate is flat, which means the breaths (and most of your vision comes through the breaths) are normal to the plane of your face. The more angled away the face plate is (as in a hounskull visor, for example), the more difficult it is to see out of the breaths. In addition, the helm has much better peripheral vision than most of the bascinets I've seen, even the ones with grills. I fight in one all of the time, and I've won a few fights.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>So the consensus is the Corrazzina is NOT correct and the pic that Erik sent me is closer to what I should be shooting for....
and....the t face barbute is way too late for this? but the Klapvisor bascinet is not correct either....</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know what pic Erik sent you, but all I said about the globose CoP at the Met was that it was assembled incorrectly. The *concept* of that CoP is certainly correct, you just need to find a more accurate pattern. There is a lengthy discussion of this type of armor in Michael Lacy's masters thesis, which has been published in the SCA as: The Development of the Coat of Plates: The evolution of Cloth-Covered Armor, in complete Anachronist #69, September 1993.
Yes, the T-Faced barbute seems way too late, but I don't know that the klappvisored bascinet is wrong. Let's say it would be "less than perfectly typical". Klappvisors are typically German, and Bob asserted above that the Germans were much less likely to wear this type of body armor. But the klappvisor was seen in both Italy and England, according to Blair (although he doesn't specify whether this was in the pointed or round-faced versions), and I'm convinced the globose CoP was worn in England (it was *cetqainly* common in Italy!). So by wearing a klappvisor I don't know that you'd be *wrong*, you just might be *atypical*. Now I'm a great believer in making sure one's harness is "homogenous" as to time and place, but you can go to far with that.
Have you considered a great helm, such as the Pembridge helm? These are exactly contemporary with the Globose CoP and are great helms to fight in. They have good air and *great* visibility, much better than any visored bascinet, because the face plate is flat, which means the breaths (and most of your vision comes through the breaths) are normal to the plane of your face. The more angled away the face plate is (as in a hounskull visor, for example), the more difficult it is to see out of the breaths. In addition, the helm has much better peripheral vision than most of the bascinets I've seen, even the ones with grills. I fight in one all of the time, and I've won a few fights.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Albrekt af Viborg
- Archive Member
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Salem, OR
I'm guessing that the pic Erik sent was that of the effigy of Günther von Schwarzburg--but not the "Gegenkönig" who died in 1349 (whose effigy most people have seen, which shows splinted arms/legs). This Günther von Schwarzburg lived later in the 14th C., and his effigy shows a covered breastplate with several hooped faulds. I can't remember his date of death, but IIRC it was between 1375 and 1390, which means a globose-visored klappvisier bascinet would fit quite well.
Anyhow, sorry I can't nail the exact date (or more details) down--I'm at work, and I have the pic on home computer. And FWIW, the same pic shows two other covered breastplates w/faulds from the same era in Germany.
Anyhow, sorry I can't nail the exact date (or more details) down--I'm at work, and I have the pic on home computer. And FWIW, the same pic shows two other covered breastplates w/faulds from the same era in Germany.
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
-
Erik Schmidt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B> There is a lengthy discussion of this type of armor in Michael Lacy's masters thesis, which has been published in the SCA as: The Development of the Coat of Plates: The evolution of Cloth-Covered Armor, in complete Anachronist #69, September 1993.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does anyone know where this article might be available. It sounds great!
Erik
<B> There is a lengthy discussion of this type of armor in Michael Lacy's masters thesis, which has been published in the SCA as: The Development of the Coat of Plates: The evolution of Cloth-Covered Armor, in complete Anachronist #69, September 1993.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does anyone know where this article might be available. It sounds great!
Erik
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
Hugh,
I wouldnt say homogenous...however I dont want to look incorrect. That would defeat the purpose of what I am trying to accomplish here and I might as well wear my bargrilled SCA helm then. This is for an SCA PAs kit....not living history...so...I would like to be as accurate as possible but still comprimise on things like stainless.
a great helm?
really?
I would have thought that would be too EARLY for that harness....
I really thought the bascinet was right in the perfect place to go with that harness...
I wouldnt say homogenous...however I dont want to look incorrect. That would defeat the purpose of what I am trying to accomplish here and I might as well wear my bargrilled SCA helm then. This is for an SCA PAs kit....not living history...so...I would like to be as accurate as possible but still comprimise on things like stainless.
a great helm?
really?
I would have thought that would be too EARLY for that harness....
I really thought the bascinet was right in the perfect place to go with that harness...
-
Derian le Breton
- Archive Member
- Posts: 15679
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 2:01 am
Erik:
Here is the order form. Print it, fill it out, and mail it to:
Member Services Office
Society for Creative Anachronism
P.O. Box 360789
Milpitas, CA 95036-0789
-Donasian.
Here is the order form. Print it, fill it out, and mail it to:
Member Services Office
Society for Creative Anachronism
P.O. Box 360789
Milpitas, CA 95036-0789
-Donasian.