Late 14th C body armour

[Galfrid atte grene]

Hey folks,

I hope this is the appropriate place to put this topic.

Anyway, I'm looking for some body armour that covers one's hind end, that is appropriate for the late 14th century. I mentioned this topic in the AA chat, and although we came up with some ideas, it was pretty difficult to find anything definitive. As far as I can tell, this was the period where the coat of plates transitioned into solid armour. The examples of coats of plates I've seen don't really offer much protection below the waist. I currently wear one for SCA combat and after a couple wraps to the rear last practice, I've decided I really do need something there - hence the plan for an armour that offers more coverage. I also looked at the Corazzina which seems like a better alternative. What I'd really like to do is something that is full steel - it would be a nice armour project. From what I understand, the globose breastplate would probably be acceptable, but it doesn't extend below the waist (at least not on the examples I have seen). Now the only full steel body armour style I could find that was anywhere near the late 14th is the curiass which often has layered plates dropping below the belt line - though the earliest example of this seems to be around ~1410 (Churburg).

I'm not too concerned about geographic location right now - since I'm trying to expand my options rather than reduce them. The only problem with all this now is the fact I'm currently using a greathelm, which, from what I can, dates to 1375 (pembridge) at the latest which is already pushing the late 14th condition. I'm concerned that steel only body armour (with lower protection) might simply be out of the question for this time period. I'd really like to not have to compromise historical accuracy (to the low extend I can achieve in the SCA, anyway) but I would also not like to receive arse bruises every weekend. The only other solution I could think of was going with some sort of basic globose-like breastplate and wearing hidden plates under some a long surcoat (I think this may not be the right term - I am thinking of the garment that goes under torso armour but hangs down to knee or mid-thigh). Now I'm guessing I probably have some misconceptions in here somewhere, please forgive me for those.

Suggestions, corrections, etc are certainly welcome!

- Mike

[Trevor]

Faulds were worn with breastplates by this time. I've seen faulds with horizontal lames that reach most of the way around the back.

I've also seen scale skirts as well. Not totally inappropriate with the Pembridge, though not as common as a Bascinet.

[Galfrid atte grene]

Hi, thanks for the reply!

Any chance you (or anyone really) could provide me a source to see some photos of these faulds? Online is of course easiest but I'm willing to hunt down a book or two as well.

[Orazio]

There's a picture on page 76 of Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight of a breastplate with a fauld of horizontal lames.

[Galfrid atte grene]

Thanks! I own that book but unfortunately I don't have it with me right now - I'll definately check it out when I get back to it in a week. I am correct in assuming that it is late 14th century? I can find lots of 15th C stuff online but not really much in the way of 14th.

[Orazio]

Yep, it's 14th century. It's description is:

A late fourteenth century brestplate with a fauld, covered in velvet. Probably north Italian.

[Galfrid atte grene]

Ah, thank you. Dammit I wish I could have referenced that book before I made this thread. Anyway, what is the general take on velvet coverings? I don't think it would stand up well to SCA sticks and duct tape - I'm guessing I could leave it off without substantially harming correctness?

[James B.]

There's a picture on page 76 of Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight of a breastplate with a fauld of horizontal lames.

That would be a true corazzina brigandine. I happen to have one in the works right now. I plan on covering it with silk velvet with hemp liner. To keep the velvet from getting damages I plan to make a period tabard (for lack of a better word) to cover the corazzina brigandine.

[Richard Blackmoore]

Full articulated steel faulds are seen on a number of brass effigies from just before and after 1400. Eric Dube and Francois of Armureria du Duche in Quebec just knocked out a nice breatplate, backplate and front/rear faulds for my daughter, appropriate for 1400. Look on their website and you will see pictures of later period examples that are a little fancier, but not all that different from lat 14th century faultds in basic look and function.

You can even justify taces hanging from the lowest front fault for additional protection in front for that era. Look at a book of knightly brasses or effigies and you will see numerous examples. Unfortunately they rarely show the backplates or the rear faultds on the brasses as they are usually front only shots or the backplate even on the effigies is often hidden by a cloth covering or quilted armour, etc.

[Galfrid atte grene]

Richard, thanks a lot for your reply. Very helpful. Looking at Eric Dube's website, I found this relatively simple example, I'm guessing simplifying it further would start to hit 1400.

I would really like to take a look at a book with effigy pictures. Do you perhaps have a title I can begin my search with?

[edit: for anyone else interested, this site has a gallery of effigies]

[edit 2: On that site, both Sir Thomas Braunstone (d.1401) and Sir John Lisle (d.1407) have distinct faulds. Earlier than that, they all have some sort of cloth covering and I can't really tell.]

[MalcolmdeMoffat]

I currently wear one for SCA combat and after a couple wraps to the rear last practice, I've decided I really do need something there - Mike

Mike let me make the same suggestion my knight made to me.

Don't add armour, Add more MOBILITY.
You don't like getting butt-wrapped, move faster!
and what i mean by this is (i am assuming you are right handed) if you close to A range with someone don't stop chest to chest with them with your shoulders all square. Keep moving!

The problem with adding armour to your bottom is that the knights in period were riding horses so their bum didn't need armouring. yes I would have to question my own, by saying that the English army fought on foot so how did they protect their bum's ? I dunno.

I had a 14ga chain skirt and it prevented me from recognizing leg and butt shots so I had to get rid of it. Now your milage may vary but this is my current harness and I don't have a problem with stinging butt-shots very much and that's because I move around. And I've been SCA fighting since Feb 2004.

That black chainmail haubergeon comes the the top of my butt and is covered in front and back by my jupon.

[James B.]

I guess I should mention that a corazzina brigandine will only cover half on my bum. I the period example in AAotMK it seems too short to cover all the way to below the groin, same with the artwork of a corazzina brigandine of the time. As Richard said "You can even justify taces hanging from the lowest front fault for additional protection in front for that era." this is also true.

In period to cover the rest of the groin and bum you would wear a maille shirt under the corazzina brigandine and maybe a pourpoint like the Charles the VI cotte over the armor. This cotte was 7 layers of cloth (6 linen shell is silk damask) with 2 layers of cotton/wool wading.

Also the wrap to the butt shot is not in any manual known to us; it seems to be an SCA thing. Men learned to grapple at close range in the Middle Ages and that would stop a person from closing to take such a shot. On the other hand Fiore has a technique about stabbing a man in armor in the butt with a dagger under his maille IF you are that close.

[Richard Blackmoore]

I don't completely disagree with Malcolm's point, I just look at it from a slightly different point of view.

Knights in period wore armour, typically more than the comparable SCA combattant wears. So to look like a knight, one should wear armour appropriate to the period, country and sort of knight one wishes to emulate. In any given period, there were options available in terms of how much armour one chose to wear and how much protection the different options afforded. Outside of the maille period, armours developed that were either for use on foot and on horse as well as specialty armours better for one than the other. Eventually you end up with tourney only suits where they specifically made for foot combat only (think Henry VIII foot armour/moonsuit) or horseback for say jousting (think Stetchelm) and garnitures with exchange pieces so one suit could be configured for joust, melee or war. That being said, very few knights tended to fight with their butt completely unprotected, on horse or otherwise. You would at least have some maille or fabric protecting it to some degree.

If Malcolm had said that armour should not be used as a substitute for skill, I would have agreed with him 100%. Maybe that is what he really meant. If however he is saying don't wear armour in order to improve mobility and develop enough skill that in the SCA rules set you don't have to wear much armour and you will gain an advantage over those that do? Then I don't agree. Knights wore at least some armour. It is part of what set them apart from the other combattants.

I'd suggest you acquire skill enough to defend yourself so that butt wraps are not landing on you frequently, but also acquire armour so that when you fight you are emulating knightly armoured combat, not padded heavy fencing.

Richard Blackmoore