How should my lower canons fit? How do I get them to?

[Aussie Yeoman]

My first and second lower canons were not terribly successful. They went around my arm of course, but there was obviously too much room as my wrists rattled about and I got some bruising. I did the heinous thing and glued some foam inside the second set.

So I want my next set to fit properly.

For clarity, before anyone says 'it depends', I'm making Gothic, and may play with Italian and/or Kastenbrust armour.

Are the distal ends meant to be round? oval and just slightly larger than the wrist cross section?

Cheers,

Dave

[wcallen]

Pick one.

1490 German will be pretty different from a vambrace from the same period in Italy, and a 1430 arm will be different again. Early Italian ones include rotators and would have more "tulip" shape than either of the others. Ones with rotation would fit differently from later ones that don't.

I guess that is a different way of saying "it depends" but it does depend over a 60 year period when armour was changing a lot.

Wade

[Aussie Yeoman]

Okay, lets break it down:

- Gothic armour with floating elbows and such. This was my most recent effort and the one I had to pad with foam.

- Kastenbrust armour: I'd like to give this a go someday.

- Italian/Milanese: I'd like to have a go at this too.

I guess what I'm most interested in is how the distal end accommodates the wrist. The shape of the overall canon can be observed from extant pieces, and the need to be round at the proximal end such as in Italian canons can be deduced from their mechanical requirements. But how they fit about the wrist has been a little harder a nut to crack.

[Mac]

OK. Let's look at the characteristics of the vambrace, and see how that effects what the wrist can or must be like.....

--If it's got a "floating" elbow, some of the wrist's rotation can be taken up by the the entire lower canon rotating. In this case the wrist opening may be an oval.
--If it has an articulated elbow and a turner, some of the wrist rotation will be accommodated by that turner. The wrist opening can be oval, but perhaps not quite so much as the previous example.
--If it has an articulated elbow without a turner, then all of the wrist's rotation must happen at the distal end of the lower cannon. I this case the wrist opening must be pretty much round.

The other thing we should consider is the gauntlet. The nature of the gauntlet effects where and how the lower canon terminates......
--If the gauntlet fits closely to the wrist, the lower cannon is probably short. For example, a Gothic gauntlet will need a lower cannon that stops well short of the wrist; perhaps a couple of fingers short of the ulna bump.
--If the gauntlet has large diameter wrist, the lower cannon may be longer. Most gauntlets work with a lower cannon that stops within one finger of the ulna bump
--If the gauntlet has a large diameter wrist, and a short cuff, the lower cannon must be rather long. For example, an "hourglass" gauntlet does not the wrist-gap very well. The lower cannons that go with them are so long that the wrist opening must be flared a bit to accommodate the wrist comfortably. These will probably cover the ulna bump. This is the essence of the "tulip" shape. Because they are that long, the opening is usually not perpendicular to the axis of the cannon, but rather cut at an angel to be a bit shorter on the thumb side.

Mac

[Aussie Yeoman]

Do Italian arms from the later part of the 15thC not have rotating sliders? Interesting.

So some canons come quite far down the wrist, some end further up. Some are near-round, others more ovoid.

Understanding that, how close should the end of the canon fit? For example, in a canon which is meant to be rather ovoid like the wrist...how much clearance should there be between arm and armour? I suppose that in the case of Italian canons that have a bit more 'tulip' in them the closest fit may actually be an inch or so up from the hem.

But then, what do I know? Not much it seems.

[wcallen]

Do Italian arms from the later part of the 15thC not have rotating sliders? Interesting.

Yes. In fact most arms built do not have sliders in the lower part of the arm. It appears that the "need for rotation in the lower arm" was dismissed pretty quickly. I can't point off the top of my head to when it ended, but certainly the first half of the 15th c. They kept building solid steel arms way into the 17th c. without rotation down there.

So some canons come quite far down the wrist, some end further up. Some are near-round, others more ovoid.

Understanding that, how close should the end of the canon fit? For example, in a canon which is meant to be rather ovoid like the wrist...how much clearance should there be between arm and armour? I suppose that in the case of Italian canons that have a bit more 'tulip' in them the closest fit may actually be an inch or so up from the hem.

But then, what do I know? Not much it seems.

Most of the arms I have do not have rotation built into the lower half. So they tend to be round-ish at least. The only arm I have that does have rotating slots in the lower half has been put back together and the inner plate is a modern replacement, so I can't prove the original shape of the wrist. The part that remains appears pretty round. I expect that the arms with rotators would tend to be more ovoid near the wrist, but I can't actually prove it. There aren't that many of these that survive.

I haven't done the type of detailed study I should have of the particular shapes of 15th c. vambraces, but there appears to be some correlation between the length of the cuff on the gauntlet and the length of the vambrace. The early ones which were used with an hourglass appear to be the longest. And most likely to have rotation built in. The only way the rotation would work would be that the area farther away from the elbow is more oval so that the arm will actually rotate the armour. The German ones used with the long close fitting "gothic" gauntlet cuffs are more often relatively short. The Italian ones used with the pointy cuffs where the inside of the cuff is relatively short have vambraces that probably fit more the way many people try to fit them these days - in between the other two, and relatively round.

I think that basically any time you "need to put padding in to make the wrist work" the wrist is to large.

Wade

[Mac]

For example, in a canon which is meant to be rather ovoid like the wrist...how much clearance should there be between arm and armour?

The short answer for nearly all vambraces is to make the distal end of the lower cannon "as close fitting as you can get away with."

It the distal end of the lower canon is too big it will have several problems....
--it will look bulky
--the arm will rattle around inside, which paradoxically can cause more bruising than a close fit.
--the space between vambrace and gauntlet will be reduced, leading to loss of motion....Or else the gauntlets will have to be made too large, which is its own sin.

With the "tulip shaped" vambrace is it important to note that the shape of the distal end has more to do with the underlying bone structure of the arm than it does with the visible anatomy. When you look at your wrist, you don't get any sense of a thing that flares out.....



...but when you look at the bones you do.



Mac

[Kristoffer]

The invalid image request is a bit of anticlimax.

[Mac]

The invalid image request is a bit of anticlimax.

Sorry about that. It was working earlier today....

I think I fixed it.

Mac

[leekellerking]

Question: what type of gambeson are you wearing under the canon?

Just a thought that it might affect the potentional for bruising.

[Aussie Yeoman]

Thank you guys, that's been most helpful. Definitely for me, hopefully for others.

Leekellerking, I wear a doublet. Double layer of linen. Not very thick at all. But I believe bruising can be alleviated by properly constructed armour rather than by padding in ways our ancestors did not.

[RandallMoffett]

Aussie,

I guess you'd have to prove that is the way our ancestors did it first.

I think the key point here that the vambraces need to be made with length, shape but also movement in mind. I think Wade's point on gauntlets and rotation built into the lower vambrace itself more or less are what I am seeing in period vambraces as well. I have two layers of linen and a very slight layer of cotton between them, still very thin and I find I get no bruising. Just wore the vambraces again and find them super comfy. I do think one can get them too tight though so make sure to make them with your doublet sleeves in mind. If you cannot rotate inside them I think it will make movement a problem.

Mine have the flare out that allows them to follow the shape of my arm as it reaches my wrist.

Mac's points on the too large vambrace are interesting. Most you see around in reenactment are like these, most simply curved and they do indeed suffer from this. The biggest issue I see is the loss of movement with vambraces and gaunts.

RPM

[Mac]

Double layer of linen. Not very thick at all. But I believe bruising can be alleviated by properly constructed armour rather than by padding in ways our ancestors did not.

Aussie,

I guess you'd have to prove that is the way our ancestors did it first.

I think he means to contrast his doublet with the doublestuff-arming-doublets we so frequently see today. They are pretty clearly one of the ways "our ancestors did not" pad their vambraces. I could post dozens of images of the sort of think I mean, but I would not want to embarrass anyone by pointing a finger.

Mac

[RandallMoffett]

Mac,

That makes sense and no photos needed I know what you are speaking of. To be honest I am more and more thinking that aketons made with plate and even before with mail were always made with differential padding as it enhances the use greatly. Guess I need to wait for us to find a early period aketon to prove it.... which likely will never happen.

Something I also wonder if there may be more than the shorter and long tuliped ones. Some seem almost like they approach the wrist but stop just short. but these could be the short ones and just be somewhat longer. I also wonder if both of the major armour design used the shorter ones during the 15th as well. One of the vambraces at the RA I looked at while last there was fairly long to its body's width but no flare at all at the wrist end. I suspect by its length to width ratio it was something in the middle. Of course they could simply be shorter ones that fit the wearer or armourers objective or perhaps the customer had arms shaped that way.

RPM

[Aussie Yeoman]

I think he means to contrast his doublet with the doublestuff-arming-doublets we so frequently see today. They are pretty clearly one of the ways "our ancestors did not" pad their vambraces. I could post dozens of images of the sort of think I mean, but I would not want to embarrass anyone by pointing a finger.

Mac has it. My doublet is thin. I understand mid-late 15thC doublets to have also been thin. So the answer to my bruising woes is in correct armour.

I was examining my lower canons last night. I think I may be able to salvage them. There is enough meat between the hinge rivets and the edge of the canon that I could cut out a thin wedge, roll the outer/inner a bit tighter, and have a better fitting canon. On the other hand, I could make new ones.

On the other hand (no idea how many hands I have) I think I would like to make a full new harness once I've made a sufficiently large pile of mistakes on my current harness.

[RandallMoffett]

Aussie,
"Mac has it. My doublet is thin. I understand mid-late 15thC doublets to have also been thin. So the answer to my bruising woes is in correct armour."

I think most assume this but evidence for mid 15th is much more complex to be sure one more of anything. Still mentioning aketons and gambesons into the 2nd quarter of the 15th as the prime under armour but the question then is what are they and how are they made design wise.

'On the other hand (no idea how many hands I have) I think I would like to make a full new harness once I've made a sufficiently large pile of mistakes on my current harness.'

I started making armour at 12.... still have that happen fairly often.

RPM