Confusing Italian Fresco armor

[Gabriel von Stettin]

Hey guys,

Was browsing the Armour in Art site and ran across something that I cannot quite figure out:

http://armourinart.com/15/249/ - Overall (Guy on far left)

http://armourinart.com/15/252/ - Closeup

What kind of armor is the guy on the far left sporting over his maille? Is this some sort of covered armor like a corrazina or coat-of-plates or some kind of leather or metal segmented breastplate? Or is it possibly not even a real armor and just more 14th C Italian stylization?

Thanks for any input

Edit: The thing that gets me is that unlike alot of the other body gear, this actually has a defined, crisp structure. And the presence of what appear to be rivets adds to the peculiarity... especially since the rivets are shown on either side of a clearly defined seam, which almost seem like segments of armor riveted to internal leathers as opposed to a textile covered armor. Confuzzlement....

[Baron Alcyoneus]

It dates it at 1340-1360, so I'd say it is close enough to contemporary with the Churburg harness, as well as similar in design.

Considering that the mace guy has some leather armor, it might be leather.

[Caius705]

And since it's a biblical depiction, they might have been drawing it with an "classical" flair. Harness like that may have never existed in life. Not certain one way or the other.

[Gustovic]

Churburg harness is much later, we are talking about '70s/'80s.
It doesn't seems a segmented breastplate at all, but more likely some kind of stylization of a CoP.

[Caius705]

That seems possible as well.

[James B.]

Looks like nothing frankly. Religious scenes often depict Romanized or nonsense armor to look "old". The shoulder caps and fringe on the body of the guy leading Christ look like depictions of trim you see on Roman statues which were not worn at this time at all; they are depicted with submeralis padding in Roman era art.

[Ernst]

Those Romanesque features frequently occur in Italian art, even in non-religious scenes, so my presumption is that it was an Italian fashion to glorify their history. We have a number of later surviving armors a la Romana which are usually written off as "parade" armors, but which are functional. The 16th and 17th century Poles made quite a few functioning scale armors "in the Sarmatian style" to link themselves to a greater history. Just because it's antiqua in style doesn't mean it's fantasy or non-functional.

The fresco shows rivets along the edge of what could be a large plastron plate, so I would suggest a leather covered corrazina type defense over the mail.

[Gabriel von Stettin]

True on the archaic pteruges... but at the same time the bulk of the figures are sporting 14th century bascinets, aventails, shields, and weapons, so some mixing of old and contemporary styles is evident. Though what could the rather robust chest piece be emulating from antiquity? That is not something with which I am remotely familiar beside some very basic Roman and Greek armor pieces (the generic stuff) so I'm having trouble seeing what would make it resonate as classical with the artist(s) and audience. Scale makes sense, muscled cuirasses make sense, but to my untrained eyes this just looks strange...

Is there any reason to suspect a sort of experimental/transitional armor given there are forms similar in other Italian pieces?

[Caius705]

If they were going for an antiquated look, they could have modeled it after an older Coat of Plates that was very unfitted. Just a theory.

[Ernst]

Since the fresco is dated 1340-1360, one would expect plates similar to those found at Wisby (1361), without having to resort to older forms. The Wisby plates aren't fitted with the wasp waist and globose breast.

[Caius705]

True, though my understanding was the the armour at wisby was a few decades out of date at that time, no?

[Ernst]

And the fresco could date to a couple of decades before the battle...

[Caius705]

So in short, we don't know what it is, but it's probably not a functional idea.

[chef de chambre]

It was my impression that the Wisby Coats of plates, with a few possible exceptions, represented significantly older coats of plates, which was why they ended up in the grave pit, instead of being stripped off the third rate militia defense of old men and boys outfitted with obsolete equipment.

When I say significantly older, I mean late 13th and early 14th century examples.

[Caius705]

I'd thought they were left on because the bodies had started to rot badly. Were the armor being outdated the reason, I think they might have at least stripped the mail, since that had not changed much.

[chef de chambre]

They would have been stripped immediately following the battle of anything considered of value - in point of fact, nothing of value to speak of outside of the armour was found in the pit. In other words, were the harness considered worthwhile, they would have been stripped - that they weren't indicates the armour was considered to be of no significant value.

[Gustovic]

Well, not that outdated. In fact CoP were use even after the battle of wisby.
This effigy is dated 1359 http://wgue.smugmug.com/Orte/Franken/No ... ngen-L.jpg
and this one 1370 http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Sn ... 9h47kqeFdA.

[Caius705]

Yes they were. Notice the later ones have a very different shaoe and style though.

[Ernst]

The fresco seems compatable, though not identical, to a construction using large plates which would be up-to-date for c. 1360. There seem to be separate plates around the arms which migh allow compression with forward arm movement. Wisby #7 (the one with the scallops and escutcheon medallions) is one of the more modern sets of plates at Wisby, and is tentatively linked to a noble. It only has four large plates on the front. Here's some views of a reconstruction.

[James B.]

Since the fresco is dated 1340-1360, one would expect plates similar to those found at Wisby (1361), without having to resort to older forms. The Wisby plates aren't fitted with the wasp waist and globose breast.

The so called globose looks comes in early to mid 1350s somewhere. If this fresco is on the early end like 1330 or 1340s a Wisby style CoP is in line.



However I am am not sure that is what they are depicting with all the lines in the item, I think it might be a mash up of a CoP and a Roman armor. I am just unsure it realistically represents anything.

[chef de chambre]

Well, not that outdated. In fact CoP were use even after the battle of wisby.
This effigy is dated 1359 http://wgue.smugmug.com/Orte/Franken/No ... ngen-L.jpg
and this one 1370 http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Sn ... 9h47kqeFdA.

They appear in inventories of nobles up until about `1420, but the ;later ones are distinctly different from the earlier ones. The Prauge St. George represents the last stage or fully developed stage in shape and style. Most of the Wisby coat of plates are tubes, with wrap-around sides, the earliest form, and probably a development from what has been identified by modern scholars as 'the armoured surcoat'.

Stating the Wisby 3rd line equipment that ended up in a pit (and presumably more advanced examples were stripped) were obsolete is akin to stating the Trapdoor Springfield in 45-70 was obsolete in WWI, in comparison to a Springfield 03. Something still usable, but far from optimum.

[chef de chambre]

The fresco seems compatable, though not identical, to a construction using large plates which would be up-to-date for c. 1360. There seem to be separate plates around the arms which migh allow compression with forward arm movement. Wisby #7 (the one with the scallops and escutcheon medallions) is one of the more modern sets of plates at Wisby, and is tentatively linked to a noble. It only has four large plates on the front. Here's some views of a reconstruction.

Excepting context in the assumption, which has always bothered me. (from the scholars writing, like the woman in the forensic speculation over the Towton burial assuming the soldiers in the Towton burial pit never had helmets, because of all the head wounds, when we know it was the most common defense, and the more likely explanation is they threw away any encumbrance during their flight from the field.)

A Danish noble was not going into that pit. It is equally likely to be a slightly older or slightly less fashionable piece on such a mans retainer. The lending of armour in a noble retinue was apparently commonplace, and we see the practice 100 years later well documented in the Howard Books - even to the point of loaning quality armour ('a standard of my best').

[Mac]

I think that the artist intended to show us some sort of coat of plates. I am not sure if we can take the rivet placement literally or not. It looks like we are meant to see the plates on the outside.

The guy on the left's armor is a color that may be supposed to be leather, but I suspect that we are supposed to see it as bronze. He is a Roman, after all, and the same color is used on his shoulders and their pteruges. The body armor of the other two guys is the same color as their helmets, and I think we may presume that it is intended to represent iron.

It is difficult to know how much liberty has been taken with the form of the body armor to convey the idea of ancient Rome. The armor of the guy with the hammer has pteruges and bronze "nipples" and like a Roman musculata, but it might otherwise be rather normal.

Both the "bronze guy" on the left and the fat guy with the beard and mace have a strange inverted crest line down their central plates. This calls to mind the coat of plates fragment from Chalcis that is in the Met. The Met coat has smaller plates, and is probably much later, but it may be the product of similar aesthetic ideas.



Mac

[Baron Alcyoneus]

He shows the individual rings in the mail, why would he skimp on a few round rivets?

Mr. Mace has armor of the same color on his bicep, and I'd bet on that being tooled leather, and the dags on the guy's waist on the far right.

[James B.]

He shows the individual rings in the mail, why would he skimp on a few round rivets?

Mr. Mace has armor of the same color on his bicep, and I'd bet on that being tooled leather, and the dags on the guy's waist on the far right.

The dags represent the tassels on a subarmalis or seen will a musculata; the artist of the time still have the early roman armors to look at for inspiration

[Ernst]

The brown armor in question seems to have the same plate arrangement as these other armors in white from the same site.
http://armourinart.com/15/248/
http://armourinart.com/15/250/

Both the brown armor figure and the last mace bearer appear to have some chain attached to the upper right breast.

This example shows the breast chains on both sides. It seems they retain the shoulder hinge pins.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/renzodioni ... otostream/

St.Abbondio-hinges (257x300).jpg (86.77 KiB) Viewed 311 times

[Mac]

Too cool, Ernst!

I guess I was wrong to identify those gold colored things as nipples on the armor of the guy with the hammer. It looks like they are attachments for the shoulder-hinge-pin-guard-chains. Upon examination, they all seem to have them.

Mac