What time period does the sugerloaf fit into and what other type of armour would be worn with it?
------------------
"Beer is living proof that God loves us, and wants to see us happy"
B.
Franklin
My Armour Page
Suger Loaf Helm period?
Moderator: Glen K
-
Drake Orion
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Warminster, Pa.
- Contact:
-
Gaston de Clermont
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USA
- Contact:
Its use spashed outside the range some, but the short answer is the first quarter of the 14th century. It tended to be worn with a very maile dominated kit, despite the early inklings of plate showing up during the same time frame. For a documentable self consistent harness, a sugar loaf and maile would be the right thing to do. Splinted leg harnesses and simple coats of plate were contemporary.
Gaston de Clermont
Gaston de Clermont
-
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 Clermont:
<B>Its use spashed outside the range some, but the short answer is the first quarter of the 14th century. It tended to be worn with a very maile dominated kit, despite the early inklings of plate showing up during the same time frame. For a documentable self consistent harness, a sugar loaf and maile would be the right thing to do. Splinted leg harnesses and simple coats of plate were contemporary.
Gaston de Clermont</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Gaston,
I don't think that splinted legs are contemporary; I think they tend to be more mid-century. The sugar loaf is really the latter part of the 13th century to the early part of the 14th; you could get along with gamboissed cuisses.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Its use spashed outside the range some, but the short answer is the first quarter of the 14th century. It tended to be worn with a very maile dominated kit, despite the early inklings of plate showing up during the same time frame. For a documentable self consistent harness, a sugar loaf and maile would be the right thing to do. Splinted leg harnesses and simple coats of plate were contemporary.
Gaston de Clermont</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Gaston,
I don't think that splinted legs are contemporary; I think they tend to be more mid-century. The sugar loaf is really the latter part of the 13th century to the early part of the 14th; you could get along with gamboissed cuisses.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I have seen two knights in sugarloaf helms in The Romance of Alexander (1338-1344), that's the latest I've been able to pin down. The earliest I'm not sure of but they were used during the late 13th century.
So if you look at 14th century effigies, the easiest rule of thumb I can think of is anything before the hem lines got shorter than knee length.
The simple answer on armour is coat of plates, gutter or enclosed arms, optional simple spaulders and padded cuisses at the later end of its use and all maille at the beginning.
As far as splinted cuisses are concerned, I'm enclined to agree with SyrRhys. The legs in The Romance of Alexander kind of look splited until you look at their aventails which have the same pattern. That suggests to me that it is either the artist's short form for maille or quilting.
Bartok
SCA Gilbert the Short
So if you look at 14th century effigies, the easiest rule of thumb I can think of is anything before the hem lines got shorter than knee length.
The simple answer on armour is coat of plates, gutter or enclosed arms, optional simple spaulders and padded cuisses at the later end of its use and all maille at the beginning.
As far as splinted cuisses are concerned, I'm enclined to agree with SyrRhys. The legs in The Romance of Alexander kind of look splited until you look at their aventails which have the same pattern. That suggests to me that it is either the artist's short form for maille or quilting.
Bartok
SCA Gilbert the Short
Here is a link to the effigy of Von Steinburg,1397. I think it shows him holding a sugarloaf.
http://www.armourworks.com/images/Effigy%20von%20Steinberg%201397.jpg
http://www.armourworks.com/images/Effigy%20von%20Steinberg%201397.jpg
-
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 'Romance of Alexander' mentioned is indisputably dated to the mid 1340's (they know precisely when it was finished and prsented - 1344, I believe). There are several pictures of helmets (not just the one example mentioned) in it that are clearly sugarloafs.
This means they were wearing them in the Low Countries to the 1340's - this shouldn't be a particular shock, Brughel was painting armour in the mid 16th century that wouldn't have been out of place in the 1470's (The Massacre of the Holy Innocents). This could be because the Dutch were reactionarily conservative in fashion throughout the Middle Ages, or it could be due to the fact (joke please), that two Dutchmen invented copper wire by squabbling over a mite (this attitude told to me by a Dutchman), hence keeping old equipment in use until it is no longer feasable. One will note that Dutch armies retained armour for infantry long after the rest of Europe passed the custom by.
The long and the short of my point is that when you place a solid cut off date (It was 1325 dammit!)for a helmet type that was commonplace across Western Europe, your just opening yourself up to looking silly when someone presents evidence to the contrary, such as Bartok has.
I would sincerely be surprised if a professional scholar of armour would look at the von Steinburg effigy of 1397, and emphaticaly state that that most definitely was not a sugarloaf - they would open themselves up to a virtual drubbing by their peers who could make a cogent argument that the image *might* just be what they are claiming it absolutly not is.
------------------
Bob R.
The 'Romance of Alexander' mentioned is indisputably dated to the mid 1340's (they know precisely when it was finished and prsented - 1344, I believe). There are several pictures of helmets (not just the one example mentioned) in it that are clearly sugarloafs.
This means they were wearing them in the Low Countries to the 1340's - this shouldn't be a particular shock, Brughel was painting armour in the mid 16th century that wouldn't have been out of place in the 1470's (The Massacre of the Holy Innocents). This could be because the Dutch were reactionarily conservative in fashion throughout the Middle Ages, or it could be due to the fact (joke please), that two Dutchmen invented copper wire by squabbling over a mite (this attitude told to me by a Dutchman), hence keeping old equipment in use until it is no longer feasable. One will note that Dutch armies retained armour for infantry long after the rest of Europe passed the custom by.
The long and the short of my point is that when you place a solid cut off date (It was 1325 dammit!)for a helmet type that was commonplace across Western Europe, your just opening yourself up to looking silly when someone presents evidence to the contrary, such as Bartok has.
I would sincerely be surprised if a professional scholar of armour would look at the von Steinburg effigy of 1397, and emphaticaly state that that most definitely was not a sugarloaf - they would open themselves up to a virtual drubbing by their peers who could make a cogent argument that the image *might* just be what they are claiming it absolutly not is.
------------------
Bob R.
...
