"Fully breeched" armour.

YMHoward · Post by **YMHoward** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:37 am

Hi,

I came across a pic in a book (not sure which one, I am looking for it) of a suit of armour that completely enclosed the buttocks and thigh. I think that it was captioned "fully breeched" and the caption said that it was for tournament foot combat with the poll-axe.

I have googled it and come up empty, so would anybody have information on this style of armour?

Thanks,
YMH

zachos · Post by **zachos** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:45 am

It was an armour made for Henry VIII, and it's pretty good. Try googling Henry VIII foot combat armour, and see what you find.

I believe there are also some similar armours in the army museum in Paris, but could be wrong, and certainly Henry's is the most famous of this style of armour.

Andrew McKinnon · Post by **Andrew McKinnon** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:56 am

That harness for Harry the VIII was made for the Tourney of the Field of the Cloth of Gold but a last minute rule change meant the famous tonlet harness got used instead. I think the "fully breached" harness was left unfinished.

Osprey have a good piccie in the "Tudor Knight"..

How good is this...good old RA have a youtube video! Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPKrAfww79U

YMHoward · Post by **YMHoward** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:19 am

And now for the questions!

Would a suit like these have the same mobility as a more usual one?

Would it be possible to sit, kneel, touch toes, or anything else that requires big bends, and still be fully covered?

How tightly would the thigh fit?

And would it be possible ride wearing one?

Thanks,
YMH

edited

Andrew McKinnon · Post by **Andrew McKinnon** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:17 am

The other questions I would leave to more knowledgeable folk then me!

You would not ride in the harness with the enclosed breech area!

Adriano · Post by **Adriano** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:32 am

I saw that suit in the Armoury at Leeds. Pretty amazing -- but I've never seen it actually worn and moved around in.

Not only does it cover the bottomal and groinal areas, but the insides of the knees and elbows were completely covered with narrow lames.

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:52 am

There a number of surviving suits with articulated, close fitting covered buttocks and groin. Two in Paris I know of and in addition to Henrys suit I think there are others. (If I am not confusing older photos of the same suits). As for articulated inner elbows and knees, there are a much larger number of examples.
Mac and I discussed the Henry suit and his opinion was â€œit didnâ€™t workâ€

Scogar · Post by **Scogar** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:37 am

Is this the suit you are looking at?
It looks fairly articulated, but I have no idea if or how much movement would be available.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... lery&ino=3

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:28 pm

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:05 pm

I am pretty sure that a faithful copy of this armor would be disappointment, if you expected the sort of flexibility and ease of wear that you get with a normal armor. I feel sure that it would let the wearer walk and sit normally, but I don't think it would give him "touch your toes" flexability.

The articulated defenses for the backs of the elbows and knees present no particular problems, these things are not rare in armors. The action of these joints is fundamentally that of a hinge, and the motion is only in one plane or axis.

The articulated defense for the groin is another thing entirely. The motion here is much more complex, and I am not at all certain that the armor can accommodate the full range. There are only a couple of surviving examples of this sort of thing. I suspect that this means that they are somewhat disappointing in use.

The technical problems of the armpit defenses are not as great at those of the groin defense because each armpit is separate from the other. But again, these are "rare birds", and this probably means that look beter than they work.

The place where I am sure that this armor is "more protective than comfortable" is the neck. There is a turning joint, but no lames. Therefore, any rotation of the head will be on an oblique plane. While this is true of all helmet rotating joints, the presence of lames in a normal gorget allows the helm to remain upright and steady on the head. Further, the gorget is fixed to the cuirasse with bolts. Normall gorgets are not thus fixed, and can "float" within the cuirasse to accommodate changes in head carriage. This motion is also important in bending over.

While I am sure that this armor would work, and be quite protective in its intended context, I am just as sure that it would be significantly less comfortable than a conventional armor. It's a shame we can't ask the late Claud Blair how he liked it..... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obitu ... 28053.html

Mac

Ironbadger · Post by **Ironbadger** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:01 pm

YMHoward-

I think that sitting would be difficult.

I would say its for standing/foot combat, and almost certainly couldn't be used mounted.
(It strikes me that the plates would dig into you painfully the moment you tried to mount a saddle...)

Bending over to touch toes?
Not sure.

Theres no way to judge the actual range of movement in the articulation from static photos.

My own opinions, of course- But I'd say it should work okay for a foot combat in the lists with very little walking expected.

-Badger-

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Badger,
I'm sorry, but saying "Based on my own experience with restrictive, rigid costumes, (Stormtrooper armor and a powered suit costume,) I would have to say that mobility would be limited." Is the same as saying: Based on my experience with my peddle car, I'd say driving a Porsche would be difficult.
Especially after a fellow like Robert Macpherson just posted a lengthy assessment.
(I speak from experience, as my profession is making Stormtroopers and â€œpowered armourâ€

YMHoward · Post by **YMHoward** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:26 pm

Mac wrote:The articulated defense for the groin is another thing entirely. The motion here is much more complex, and I am not at all certain that the armor can accommodate the full range. There are only a couple of surviving examples of this sort of thing. I suspect that this means that they are somewhat disappointing in use.

Would it be at all possible to make an armour that both has a full range of motion and is fully enclosed?

Mac wrote:The place where I am sure that this armor is "more protective than comfortable" is the neck. There is a turning joint, but no lames. Therefore, any rotation of the head will be on an oblique plane. While this is true of all helmet rotating joints, the presence of lames in a normal gorget allows the helm to remain upright and steady on the head. Further, the gorget is fixed to the cuirasse with bolts. Normall gorgets are not thus fixed, and can "float" within the cuirasse to accommodate changes in head carriage. This motion is also important in bending over.

If there was instead a more regular gorget, then the coverage would be the same, right? It wouldn't be as protective but would still cover the neck while allowing more movement.

Are there any other people who have worn this armour, or one similar?

If strict historical accuracy went out the window, would it be possible to build a suit of armour that has both full coverage and as much freedom of movement as possible?

Thanks,
YMH

Red Dragon · Post by **Red Dragon** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:12 pm

I have seen a video, rather an old one actually, that showed a man wearing one of these arms, with the plates along the inside of the elbow and the movement seemed quite good.

In the video about the two armors, we saw a combat reenactment with the tonlet armor that Henry did wear, and you can see that movement is pretty good.

The articulated-butt armor (my own name) is a foot combat armor and not intended to be used while riding. To answer the question about using it while riding.

The tonlet armor also was not intended for riding, though I have seen another tonlet armor with a cut out in front which could be removed for riding.

Now, if you are thinking that this could be made an used like other armors without protection inside the elbow, or no more than mail voiders, then I would agree with Mac that I find it extremely unlikely.

For someone who asked about kneeling or bending over...why would you. You might be able to kneel, say during the mass you heard before the tournament, and I have never felt the need to touch my toes while in combat.

In many ways, this suit of armor was sporting gear. It was intended for foot combat in tournament, not the battlefield. I would assume that the combatants at a tournament might be willing to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience and lack of motion in return for protection.

I am just not sure that the restriction on motion would be as great as we might think.

Ironbadger · Post by **Ironbadger** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:41 am

Comment edited to remove all offensive references to nonserious research issues.

My apologies for having interests outside of medieval research.

-Badger-

[quote="Chris Gilman"]Badger,
I'm sorry, but saying "Based on my own experience with restrictive, rigid costumes, (Stormtrooper armor and a powered suit costume,) I would have to say that mobility would be limited." Is the same as saying: Based on my experience with my peddle car, I'd say driving a Porsche would be difficult.
Especially after a fellow like Robert Macpherson just posted a lengthy assessment.
(I speak from experience, as my profession is making Stormtroopers and â€œpowered armourâ€

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:12 am

Badger,
I have interests outside of medieval research as well, and there was nothing offensive in your reference to sci-fi costumes. (Itâ€™s what pays my bills)
My issue was that there is virtually no comparison in the level of craft or technology between these costumes and the suits of armour being discussed.

Samuel · Post by **Samuel** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:18 pm

Id heard rumor this suit was used extensively as a basis for astronaut suits for NASA. can anyone confirm or deny this?

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:14 pm

I had read this as well, but it is untrue. Iâ€˜ve worked with Joe Kosmo, who was involved in the development of the Apollo suits and is head of development on the Mark III suit (http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/resource/1001494 )and I asked him about that. He said early on they (NASA/ Litton) looked at armour, but nothing was really gained from it. A spacesuit is deceivingly complex. The trick is to create joints that maintain a constant volume and this is much harder to do that it seems. This is why higher mobility suits have rigid elements. (And before someone brings it up, the sleek form fitting suits at MIT do not work. As much as they would like you to believe they do.)
It is interesting to note that on the shuttle EMU gloves; there is a "knuckle bow" just like a 14th C hourglass gauntlet. When I pointed this out to Joe, he explained that was to allow the fingers to get longer when the fingers bent. I said, yes, just the same function on the medieval gauntlet.

Here are some pictures I took of the other fully enclosed suits like this that I know of. They are in the MusÃ©e de l'ArmÃ©e in Paris. [img]http://www.globaleffects.com/Temp/Enclosed/G%20178%20Small.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.globaleffects.com/Temp/Enclosed/G%20179%20Small.jpg[/img]

Here is a link to a file folder with full size images.
http://www.globaleffects.com/Temp/Enclosed/

Mike England · Post by **Mike England** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:23 pm

I notice a harness that i believe to be of this configuration in Schloss Ambras in Austria has a harness made in 1515 for Louis II of Hungary.

Aussie Yeoman · Post by **Aussie Yeoman** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:30 pm

There seems to be this meme that armour should allow absoloutely unhindered movement. It shouldn't.

Before everyone jumps in, let me finish. I know that extant armour does allow a generous range of movement, allowing people to turn cartwheels, play piano and all other sorts of fancy stuff.

The thing is though, armour does restrict movement. A 14thC breastplate will limit how close you can bring your elbows together. But you know what? It doesn't matter. There is no need in battle or duel to bring your elbows together, unless you're Ong Bak.

The craftsmen that made these harnesses were probably as close to the pinnacle of enclosed armour development as can be. This means the range of motion available in these suits is about as much as anyone can get.

But if strict historical accuracy went out the window, you're probably best off getting a space suit and riveting brigandine plates all over it.

D

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:41 pm

Aussie Yeoman wrote:....
But if strict historical accuracy went out the window, you're probably best off getting a space suit and riveting brigandine plates all over it.

D

Actually, you have better mobility in a suit of armour than most spacesuits once they are pressurized.

Md02geist · Post by **Md02geist** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:45 pm

Aussie Yeoman wrote:But if strict historical accuracy went out the window, you're probably best off getting a space suit and riveting brigandine plates all over it.

D

I tried that and people got all upset about the glass faceshield not meeting requirements.

Gerhard von Liebau · Post by **Gerhard von Liebau** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:18 pm

Chris Gilman wrote:Actually, you have better mobility in a suit of armour than most spacesuits once they are pressurized.

I don't believe it. What do you know about space suits?

YMHoward · Post by **YMHoward** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:39 pm

Aussie Yeoman wrote:There seems to be this meme that armour should allow absoloutely unhindered movement. It shouldn't.

Before everyone jumps in, let me finish. I know that extant armour does allow a generous range of movement, allowing people to turn cartwheels, play piano and all other sorts of fancy stuff.

The thing is though, armour does restrict movement. A 14thC breastplate will limit how close you can bring your elbows together. But you know what? It doesn't matter. There is no need in battle or duel to bring your elbows together, unless you're Ong Bak.

The craftsmen that made these harnesses were probably as close to the pinnacle of enclosed armour development as can be. This means the range of motion available in these suits is about as much as anyone can get.

Hi, I realize that armour will always have some movement restriction, I wanted to know just how much restriction this type would impose. I have always underestimated the freedom of movement in full plate suits so I asked here.

But if strict historical accuracy went out the window, you're probably best off getting a space suit and riveting brigandine plates all over it.

D

Hrrrmmm..... Nah the shipping would be a killer.

Also how tightly would the fully enclosed upper thigh fit? The lower legs look like they have the same fit as pretty much any other armour of the time.

Pitbull Armory · Post by **Pitbull Armory** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:13 am

Wow I love those suits of armor Chris posted, especially the top one. Can you tell me what words to seach to find more info on them?

Thank you

Pitbull

Jon Terris · Post by **Jon Terris** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:40 am

Chris, of the two harness in Paris, are either of them described as being made for king Francis?

I have been told that the reason Henry VIIIs harness wasn't worn in tournament wasn't that the rules got changed, but that Francis' harness hadn't been finished in time.

Henry, being a proper sportsman, agreed to fight in a different harness rather than have an obvious avantage in his (finished) enclosed kit.

I don't think we'll ever know the real reason, but I think this tale has equally as much merit!

Jont

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:46 am

Mike England wrote:I notice a harness that i believe to be of this configuration in Schloss Ambras in Austria has a harness made in 1515 for Louis II of Hungary.

Mike,

Have you got any pics of this armor? This is the best I can find on the web.
http://kunsthistorischesmuseum.org/syst ... e1750.html

Long ago, I saw a pic of the back view. This armor *does* have a fully closed butt.

Mac

Chris Gilman · Post by **Chris Gilman** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:14 am

Jon,
Here are the cards displayed with 178 and 179 (note the link I posted above has many other shots of these two)
http://www.globaleffects.com/Temp/Enclo ... bat%20.JPG
http://www.globaleffects.com/Temp/Enclo ... Combat.JPG

Mike England · Post by **Mike England** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:03 am

Mac wrote:
Mike England wrote:I notice a harness that i believe to be of this configuration in Schloss Ambras in Austria has a harness made in 1515 for Louis II of Hungary.

Mike,

Have you got any pics of this armor? This is the best I can find on the web.
http://kunsthistorischesmuseum.org/syst ... e1750.html

Long ago, I saw a pic of the back view. This armor *does* have a fully closed butt.

Mac

That looks to be the same as the photo in the Ambras catalog, which is the only one I have seen. Made by Conrad Seusenhofer for the 9 year old king who only lived to be 20. I assume that would be a childs armour actually designed to fit him when he was young.

Edit: Your link has mor detail than the Ambras catalog.

Tom B. · Post by **Tom B.** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:11 am

After seeing some inside shots of Henry's armour in a presentation by Thom Richardson I would concur with Mac & Chris about its mobility.

Tom

James Arlen Gillaspie · Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:55 pm

There was a third harness in Paris last time I was there, but it was uglier than the two above. :wink:

fghthty545y · Post by **fghthty545y** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:06 pm

You'd also probably have issues with the gravity boots on the space suit ripping up clumps of dirt wherever you walked, that'd be hard to walk/fight in!

Md02geist wrote:
Aussie Yeoman wrote:But if strict historical accuracy went out the window, you're probably best off getting a space suit and riveting brigandine plates all over it.

D

I tried that and people got all upset about the glass faceshield not meeting requirements.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:28 pm

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:There was a third harness in Paris last time I was there, but it was uglier than the two above. :wink:

Got pics? The two that Chris posted are the only ones in Paris that come to my mind. Was it ugly in terms of decoration, or was the workmanship bad?

Mac

James Arlen Gillaspie · Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:24 pm

P.S. BIG thanks for the pic's, Chris! I got some pretty good FILM photos of the 'Seusenhofer' harness last time I was there, but they can't compete with nice big digital imiages.

Mac, the third harness was also Germanic (it seems to me that 'Innsbruck' was in part of the description). It was in a banded puffed and slashed style that was simply in poor taste :roll:

I am out of town, and will not be able to post pics till after the 22nd. :oops:

Pitbull Armory · Post by **Pitbull Armory** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:49 am

Hi, Ok Im a bit slow. I just found the link Chris posted and wow, thank you. Amazing how you can blow those up as big as you want and zoom in with great detail. Im headed back there now for some more homework.

Ty

PB