Codpieces

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

That's a good one, Tom! But it's not the only one. The brasses were one of my chief sources for the film, as the best ones are very detailed and (very important!) show exposed cuirasses. The ones that had lames wide as the fauld lames I ascribed to what we might call the Pistoia type groin gard, though it seems that an especially common type used two rectangular plates, again about the same width as the fauld lames. By contrast, the brasses, such as the one I posted, show tiny lames with very much a mail brief look that even combined are not much wider than a single fauld lame. Yours has unexpectedly wide lames, and in a brass would have looked very like a blunt Pistoia type. This early one, on the other hand, looks very like the brass. It can be, however, contended that if it was just a hanger, it would look like this due to gravity. The problem I have with that is that it remains a mystery as to why they would use such narrow lames. There is also the odd thing about how the effigy artists are posing their models; many seem to me to be working from vertical models that are then modified at points to allow for the fact that they will be horizontal (also putting the praying hands in positions impossible for their gauntlets to achieve, etc.), but others, like the sculptor of the Wolf of Badenoch (man died in 1405! I really, really think the effigy must be much later, or the Scots are at the forefront of plate armour development in 1405), show a very natural drape to the mail skirt. Anyway, this effigy is to be found at Etchilhampton, Wiltshire, England, and he has one of those odd neck defenses.

Etchilhampton_f26f45ba9d_k(1)cr.jpg (98.23 KiB) Viewed 437 times

Etchilhamptonc9943d1403_k cr.jpg (50.79 KiB) Viewed 437 times

[Mac]

It would be exciting if this were an example of a laminated groin defense worn close to the body, but I'm pretty sure we are intended to see it as hanging from the edge of the fauld.

Here's why I think so......

I've just been looking at this guy in the album of effigy images that I have for Toby C's book illustrations project. There is an interesting detail which tells us about the layering of the armor. It shows up better from some angles, but it is visible in the image that James posted above.




In addition to a "bollock tasset", this guy has a series of little dag-like tassets where you might expect to find mail. We have the dagged edge of the surcoat, and then the three-lame "dag-ettes", and finally the cuisses. It's not just that the sculptor used this as a way to represent mail, though, because he has shown mail realistically around the edge of the articulated plate ventail.

I got to this conclusion by trying to see the relationship between the groin defense and the mail skirt. If the groin plates were close to the body, we would expect to see the mail skirt over top of the upper edge. If it were part of the fauld, we should see a break in the mail where the groin defense covered it. I was very surprised to find that what I assumed to be mail dags was made up of lames.

If we need a better view, I'll ask Toby if I can post one or two relevant images from his albums.

Mac

[Mac]

In the example that Tom posted, we can see that the bollock tasset is attached to the fauld because of the way the mail is shown disappearing under it.



Although it looks like gravity is pulling the terminal end of the tasset down, it can not end up so close to the body as the Example James posted because of its shape. It's just too blunt to fit; so it rests on the cuisses.

I have no idea why these bollock tassets are made of narrower lames than the rest of the fauld; but that does seem to be typical.

Mac

Mac

[Sean M]

We need horsey people here. Wouldn't the kind with narrow lames be less uncomfortable between you and your saddle?

On Tom's there is no sign of a mechanism to remove the bollock tasset (and if I find a better name I will post about it, but I think if you said that to someone in 1450 they would know what you mean).

I will keep my eyes open for anything like "one pair of breeches of mail with a few lames at the genitals."

[Mac]

We need horsey people here. Wouldn't the kind with narrow lames be less uncomfortable between you and your saddle?

We would have to chose our horsey people carefully, and find ones who rode in the correct saddles. Something like the Henry V saddle is the thing that's contemporary with these faulds.

One of my (almost innumerable) pet peeves is seeing someone with a nice armor riding in the wrong saddle. The armor and the saddle evolved to fit one another and work together. You can't draw valid conclusions if your saddle does not work well with your armor.

On Tom's there is no sign of a mechanism to remove the bollock tasset (and if I find a better name I will post about it, but I think if you said that to someone in 1450 they would know what you mean).

I think that the narrow examples can probably be turned back inside the fauld, but that won't do for the wider ones.

I will keep my eyes open for anything like "one pair of breeches of mail with a few lames at the genitals."

I look forward to hearing about anything you find!

Mac

[Scott]

I have no idea why these bollock tassets are made of narrower lames than the rest of the fauld; but that does seem to be typical.

Mac
Mac

Isn't it obvious? It's all a matter of perspective. The smaller lames make the contents look bigger!

- Scott

[Tom B.]

Slightly better images of the 1511 effigy of Andreas von Waldburg.
It seems he was murdered and buried in 1511. I wonder if this is one of those cases where the effigy was commissioned ahead of time so shows older armour.
A a side note Andreas was the owner of an up to date early 16th century harness from the Helmschmid workshop, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, A 310 in Vienna

Effigy images are from bildindex
https://www.bildindex.de/document/obj20 ... m=fm804307

[Mac]

Slightly better images of the 1511 effigy of Andreas von Waldburg.

Nice!

Mac

[Dan Howard]

I was under the impression that codpieces were removed when in the saddle, but now I think about it, I can't recall any solid evidence to back it up.

[Mac]

I was under the impression that codpieces were removed when in the saddle, but now I think about it, I can't recall any solid evidence to back it up.

I think that's probably true of the sort that pins to the fauld like this guy.



It needs to be removable, because the saddle will need to occupy that space. If the saddle did not require that space to be open, nobody would have such a big gap in their plate protection.

My working assumptions go something like this...
--the skirts or tassets of the armor must be cut high enough to allow for the saddle.
--that means having no plate over center of the lower abdomen.
--the cautious man would like something rigid to fill that gap when fighting on foot.
--something like a besegew or rondell would do the trick, but it would be boring.
--something that looks like a civilian fabric codpiece "just seems right".



In the other hand, these articulated Gothic codpieces which look like they are worn close to the body may be a different thing entirely.



The may be unobtrusive enough to ride in. Now.. that said, the fashion did not persist; so it may not be a really good solution.

The whole thing cries out for experimentation.

Mac

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

My thought about those 'hangers' is that they are what I call a geometric defense. Any blow headed that way will run into the thing on its way to the money. That and mail with some padding beneath ought to work out OK on foot, I think.

[Sean M]

The may be unobtrusive enough to ride in. Now.. that said, the fashion did not persist; so it may not be a really good solution.

The whole thing cries out for experimentation.

Mac

We also need research on what men-at-arms were expected to do in Tirol, Swabia, and Bayern 1470-1500. The people who research that style think that the surviving armour is fairly light, and it has smaller components than contemporary North Italian harness, so what was it designed to be good at? If the English effigy style of the early 15th century is optimized for foot combat, what was "German gothic" armour designed to do other than answer "why should I buy from you when any of ten cities in Italy will sell me something cheaper."

[Rene K.]

@ Sean; we know from emperor maximilians court-armoury, that the italian mass produced stuff hat a very poor material quality and lower reputation. Once the workshop had to deal with a very bad quality steel, so the armourers beg to store the finished stuff with the italian stuff.

[Sean M]

Everyone likes to say that their stuff is best by pointing to the worst products of someone else's factory, but I don't think studies of surviving armour agree with what what you are saying. And excellent quality harness like the AVANT armour and the two Gothic harnesses in the KHM show that contrast in weight and coverage. But I am basically passing on what folks like Toby Capwell and Alan Williams who study 15th century armour say, they could be wrong.

Edit: Its also worth saying that Max's dreams outreached his purse, so his agents were probably buying cheap stuff and ignoring the warning "well, if we use soft iron we could get the price down to ... the hundredweight but on your own head be it."

[Gustovic]

@ Sean; we know from emperor maximilians court-armoury, that the italian mass produced stuff hat a very poor material quality and lower reputation. Once the workshop had to deal with a very bad quality steel, so the armourers beg to store the finished stuff with the italian stuff.

I think he's referring to a quote from ffoulkes, talking about steel quality in general.

"The Germans themselves realized the superiority of their material, for in 1511 Seusenhofer complained that his merchant was not giving him good metal, and advised that is should be classed as "Milanese", so as not to lessen the fame of Innsbruck iron".

I believe that this coincides with the Italians using more and more iron for their armour, compared to the whole XVth century where they had the best quality and consistent steel for armour in Europe. Then if this change was dictated by concious choice or lack of the resources, that I can't tell.

[Tom B.]

Here is a detail from the Freydal

[Mac]

Dang!

It looks like the codpiece is being worn close to the body, rather than attached to the fauld.




Mac

[John Vernier]

Those are being used with some very low-profile saddles too, not offering much up-front protection. Nor anything much to brace against behind. Perhaps tipping the jousters out of their seats was part of the desired effect in this game?

[Mac]

Those are being used with some very low-profile saddles too, not offering much up-front protection. Nor anything much to brace against behind. Perhaps tipping the jousters out of their seats was part of the desired effect in this game?

I suspect that you are right on the money there.

Mac

[Mac]

My thought about those 'hangers' is that they are what I call a geometric defense. Any blow headed that way will run into the thing on its way to the money. That and mail with some padding beneath ought to work out OK on foot, I think.

"Hangers"... hm.... I sort of like that distinction. It gets me thinking along broad typological lines.

In some sense, we may be able to divide most plate groin defense into two major categories....
--There are the "hangers" that depend shield-like from the fauld.
--And there are the "stuffers" that are worn cup-like against the body.

Now.. that does get us into trouble when we try to characterize the various codpiece that are part of the fully enclosed armors. They partake of both categories.

Mac

[Tom B.]

Here is one that a friend just sent me

https://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/image ... t-georges/

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Yet another effigy that has a raised visor that looks nothing like a real visor. There must be some reason why they almost never get it right.