The Armour Archive

How long could a given suit of armor be maintained?

How realistic would it be for instance for a family heirloom to survive 100? 500? 1000? years?

Say from 300 AD to 1200 AD lets assume that the armor was kept by a church and never used but meticulously maintained?

Is there any institution around for that long that would have made this possible?

How common mixing and matching of armor from different cultures, I mean would a foot soldier end up with a mixed kit by the time he was done with a campaign?

I love the look of haute guards, when was the earliest this was done?

How did crusades era historians view Constantine? In a good light?

What common gladiatorial armor was also used on the battle field? how much of a difference was there between the two different areas?

I love the look of haute guards, when was the earliest this was done?

Depends on what you mean by how hauty, if youll pardon the pun.

Archaic Bronze age armor shows some suggestion of upper shoulder/neck protection with suits like the Dendra panoply



The upright flange of classical greek hoplon shields also aided in shoulder/neck protection.

So pretty early on if youre open minded about what you mean by upright flanges.

D

The oldest one I know continuously kept anywhere in plain view is the helmet and mail-shirt attributed to St Wenceslaus in (I think) Prague cathedral. If it did belong to him, it would date, IIRC, to the 10th century AD. However, there has been doubt cast upon its dating, with some saying it's as late as the 12th century. Unfortunately the people who hold it aren't apparently willing to have it investigated or to make it available - perhaps in case it turns out to be later and therefore not the armour of St Wenceslaus.

All the other armours I know of are either later or have been preserved in such things as burial mounds - not out in the open where anyone can grab them. The funeral armour of the Black Prince - assuming it was all there in the first place - is now represented only by a tilting helm, a pair of gauntlets and a shield. What happened to the rest? Stolen? Recycled? Who knows?

There is a helmet dating to the 6th century in Cologne cathedral, but that was walled up for centuries and only rediscovered in relatively modern times by accident.

The other thing is that different times had a different attitude to the preservation of armour. In the so-called "Dark Ages" armour was restricted to the rich, and unless buried with the owner, would have been re-used until it was lost or recycled into oblivion. After the beginning of mass-producd "munitions" armours, there was a glut on the market. Also people started to keep their ancestors' armour in their stately homes.

Regarding mixing and matching - there was certainly battlefield looting, and the chance of purchasing armour. However, we have almost no evidence for it happening on a large scale, or that it resulted in people with "mixed bag" armour. Granted that it would be more likely to be done by a "grunt" because the top bods already had the most expensive armour money could buy, and that grunts don't normally make it into the illuminated manuscripts, the ones we do see all seem to be wearing fairly consistent gear, without strange additions.

Regarding Constantine, as far as I know he was looked on favourably by Western historians, but the bogus "Donation of Constantine", whereby he was supposed to have given the Western Empire into the care of the Pope, muddied the waters. The "Donation" was later exposed as a blatant (probably 8th century) forgery, but throughout the Crusades most westerners would have believed it was genuine.

I think there was a world of differencebetween gladiatorial and military armours, though IIRC the sleeve armour of the arena was pressed into service with the army when they came up against the Dacian falx which could reach around the shield and slash a soldier's arm.

Parts of the "replacement joyeuse" are about a thousand years old. It is of course possible that those parts had not previously been in "continous service" when it was finally assembled.

I see no hinder in having a properly cared, or in fact, moderaterly cared about sword/armour to last almost indefinitely.

Budobudo wrote:How long could a given suit of armor be maintained?

Well, "maintained" means cleaning, most likely, and that will eventually thin the metal. I have heard that in the 18th century the British Army expected a soldier's musket to last 12 years. But they only lasted 6 years because the soldiers cleaned them to death! Granted, the average redcoat would spend a lot of time and probably some pretty harsh measures to polish his musket, whereas a good piece of armor probably just needs a wipe and some fresh oil every few days.

What common gladiatorial armor was also used on the battle field? how much of a difference was there between the two different areas?

As Egfroth mentioned, the segmented armguard started being used by legionaries in the second century AD. Greaves were also used by both soldiers and gladiators. Some shields were very similar in appearance and size, but there might have been differences in thickness, etc. Gladiator helmets were very stylized, generally twice as thick and heavy as battle helmets, and by the first century AD they covered the face. Basically, gladiator combat was most often one-on-one, or small teams, and the goal was entertainment. The Roman army, of course, was focused on the straightforward business of kicking their opponents in the teeth on a massive scale, in a brutally efficient manner. Military equipment was frequently decorated, but its basic design was very different from gladiatorial gear.

Vale,

Matthew/Quintus

Thanks for the replies, fascinating stuff.

I am full of questions though =)

I have seen in illustrations and art incense burning iron orbs that hang around the neck of a knight. such that they would billow sweet smoke during combat?

Is this historical or perhaps embellishment, or maybe it IS historical but was only used for ritual?

What about the "holy water sprinkler" as a weapon is this real or a modern dnd type myth?

more questions as I think of them...

Budobudo wrote:What about the "holy water sprinkler" as a weapon is this real or a modern dnd type myth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_%28weapon%29

The morning star was a medieval weapon resembling a mace, but with a large spike on the end and smaller spikes around the circumference. It was also known as the goedendag (from the Dutch word for "good day") and the holy water sprinkler (from its resemblance to the aspergillum sometimes used in the Catholic Mass).

It was used by both cavalry and infantry; the horseman's weapon typically had a shorter haft than the footman's, which might be up to six feet long. It came into use in the beginning of the 14th century.

The name "morning star" is often erroneously applied to the military flail (also known as the therscol), a similar weapon, but with the head attached by a short chain.

As far as the "morning star" name goes, I wonder if it doesn't also involve a reference to Lucifer:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

I'm sure I'd see stars and be among "the fallen", if I got whacked upside the head with one.

Wikepedia is incorrect in stating the morning star was the same weapon as the godendag. See http://www.liebaart.org/goeden_e.htm

yep, morning star = morgenstern

Egfroth wrote:The oldest one I know continuously kept anywhere in plain view is the helmet and mail-shirt attributed to St Wenceslaus in (I think) Prague cathedral.

The mail is in Prague Castle, in a new exhibition near the cathedral (or was last year). The helmet is in that exhibition and also in another museum nearby - neither museum piece claims to be a reproduction.

The mail consists of a shirt and a separate mantle. You can get a pretty good view of it, but unfortunately the museum doesn't allow photos and my wife is a stickler for that sort of rule, especially when there are very few people in the museum and I might get caught

Andrew

Sounds suspiciously like you are looking for provenance to wear a mishmash of cultures and periods yourself.

He is, Tim. We'll have to tactfully bring him up to speed.

Budobudo, stick with us, and we promise to steer you right. You may have already noticed that there's a reason plate armor looks the way it does: in those shapes and configurations, it moves best with the human body, protecting sufficiently.

Haute-guards are a pretty advanced feature of high-end plate harness from the late fifteenth century on. They get zero use in SCA rattan fighting because they are such a poor fit for the SCA game -- they are far more useful in keeping lance-irons away from your neck region, which is inherently very difficult to both armor and preserve mobility; often our Renaissance forebears accepted losing mobility there for the sake of protection. This is not a bad tradeoff for the tilt, but it's not so good for the battlefield. SCA gear is more battlefield-oriented, leaning towards the more mobile end of the scale, and we're not using the couched lance because foot fighting is more affordable, to put it mildly. Since the fighters rely on the feel of impacts to determine if they are too light or are effective, protrusions from armor that actually catch the blow of a stick inject confusion into the fighter's mind as to whether he's been hit properly, and where he's been properly hit as well. As you can see, that's not good.

Can't say as I've ever heard of such knightly thuribles. When and where?

I’ve long thought about the evolution of armor and what happened to the older armor.

If you look at many books on the subject there are clear lines of delineation separating the types of armor used on the battlefield.

This gives rise to the idea that on the stroke of new years everyone threw out their old harness and went out to purchase the latest fashion. I think sometimes we forget just how expensive good armor was.

I would imagine that as a wealthy knight acquired new armor his old harness was passed down to a favored vassal of sold outright. A mail hauberk once fit only for a knight might find itself resting on the shoulders of a lowly archer.

If you care for a mail shirt it can last a very long time, and considering how expensive they were I can’t imagine that they were left to rust away too often. In the middle ages there was not a “throw away cultureâ€Â

The armour from Wisby might be relevant in this case. We know exactly when it was last used, and can compare that with depictions of armour elsewhere, both earlier and at the same time.

Egfroth wrote:Wikepedia is incorrect in stating the morning star was the same weapon as the godendag. See http://www.liebaart.org/goeden_e.htm

That can be corrected if you have the time.

Konstantin the Red wrote:He is, Tim.

Yeah pretty much though I am sort of growing out of that. I have decided on late 12th century armor. Attiles sort of satisfy my stylistic desire for haut guards, and a coat of plates is easy to make.

I want to save on weight and cost of mail, and will be wearing a surcoat/talberd is there such a thing as a detached mail sleaves attached to the coat of plates?

In addition, are there any historical examples of greaves that rise above the knee or have a cop attached to them?

I really like this guy's kit.

http://www.liebaart.org/ailett_e.htm

Thanks for your help, I am slowing but surely getting out of my dnd armor phase.

First I admire your humility, sometimes the folks on this forum can be a little hard on new guys.

I also want to encourage you in trying the mail sleeves idea, but I would make a separate vest out of cloth and attach the sleeves to that. You will also want to attach the mail sleeves to leather, and then sew the leather to the cloth. You may also want to consider running the chain up the shoulder a bit to ensure that you can see the seam.

If you wear a coat of plates over that (or even a surcoat) it will give the appearance of a full hauberk with a fraction of the weight.

I am building an exact same set up at this moment, and when I finish it I will be happy to post some pics.

This was an actual period practice by the way, but it occurred in the 14th century and later. Mail patches would be sewn onto a padded gambeson in difficult to armor spots like the underarm, and then the plate would be worn over the mail-reinforced gambeson. (pic attached from Medieval Military Costume by Gerry Embleton)

As for shovel type greaves that cover the knee, I do know that they were wearing gutter greaves or “schynbaldsâ€Â

Budobudo wrote:

Konstantin the Red wrote:He is, Tim.

Yeah pretty much though I am sort of growing out of that. I have decided on late 12th century armor. Attiles sort of satisfy my stylistic desire for haut guards, and a coat of plates is easy to make.

...

In addition, are there any historical examples of greaves that rise above the knee or have a cop attached to them?

I really like this guy's kit.

http://www.liebaart.org/ailett_e.htm

Thanks for your help, I am slowing but surely getting out of my dnd armor phase.

I just want to point out the style of armour you're talking about is 13th century, not 12th. Also, Joris there is wearing his 1302 kit, so it was current into the early part of the 14th century.

Saverio wrote:I just want to point out the style of armour you're talking about is 13th century, not 12th. Also, Joris there is wearing his 1302 kit, so it was current into the early part of the 14th century.

I never got the whole 14th being the 1300's thing.

Easy enough. The years of 1 A.D. to 100 A.D. (the first 100 years by count)theare the 1st Century...101 A.D. to 200 are the 2nd Century...1301 to 1400 are the 14th Century...2001 to 2100 are the 21st Century, etc.

Aonghus wrote:Easy enough. The years of 1 A.D. to 100 A.D. (the first 100 years by count)theare the 1st Century...101 A.D. to 200 are the 2nd Century...1301 to 1400 are the 14th Century...2001 to 2100 are the 21st Century, etc.

No, I understand it but I can't get into the habit

It helps if you understand there was neither a Year Zero nor a Zeroeth Century. The monk -- one Dennis Exiguus -- who invented the whole AD calendar was doing his figuring in Roman numerals (no zero available), and through an error of arithmetic in the process, was off by four years anyway. I think they sainted him for his labors, though, error or no error.

Practice will put you in the habit, btw. Now we need you to clarify: twelfth century or thirteenth? Thirteenth is easier -- more ref materials.

Konstantin the Red wrote:It helps if you understand there was neither a Year Zero nor a Zeroeth Century. The monk -- one Dennis Exiguus -- who invented the whole AD calendar was doing his figuring in Roman numerals (no zero available), and through an error of arithmetic in the process, was off by four years anyway. I think they sainted him for his labors, though, error or no error.

Practice will put you in the habit, btw. Now we need you to clarify: twelfth century or thirteenth? Thirteenth is easier -- more ref materials.

c1270 so 13th then I think.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/maciejowski_bible.htm

The Maciejowski is among the most detailed 13th-c. pictorial references. It is circa 1240-50. The above is my favorite Maciejowski site: tons of pics, very detailed, rather slow to load through a dialup. You start here, you've got a good baseline of knowledge.