Late 14th century question

belmtho · Post by **belmtho** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:56 am

hi guys,
I'm working on a breastplate at the moment for my new 14th century kit, and I'm trying to base it on the effigy of John Cray

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/20 ... 2%2099.jpg

It's working out okay, and the shape I've got on the breastplate and fault is very lease really getting the wasp waist look.

But my question is this, in the effegy it looks like the fauld covers the top of the legs. If I did that on mine I would have problems moving because if I extened either the legs or the fauld they would interfere with my abilty to walk and to move my legs without stabbing myself.

Is there anything I can do to maintain the look of the effegy whilst keeping mobilty. (the gap between the fauld and the legs is about 6-8inches at the moment) I don't really want to have just fabric over it.
Thanks
Tom

Ingelri · Post by **Ingelri** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:42 am

If you look at most 14th century breastplates you will find that the appearance of the "waist" is actually above the actual waist. The Churburg #13 and #14 are truly breast plates that stop around the bottom of the rib cage.

My thought process is that the fauld was designed to cover the gap between the bottom of the breast plate and the top of the leg harness, particularly while sitting horseback, so while standing the fauld would cover the soft fleshy part of the lower abdomen and the top of the groin.

Also, the wasp waist look is what they were shooting for. If you've ever looked at the dimension of the original pourpoint of Charles de Blois you find that he had a very small waist and a fairly large chest comparatively.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:13 am

Yeah, figure his cingulum buckle is right about over his 'nads. His legs start in the usual place. That kind of silhouette and layout is very typical of the era. The fauld, or skirt portion, of the body defense descends little farther than the crease of the buttocks. The cuisses take over from about there.

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:59 pm

Gentlemen,
The conventionalized figures that one sees depicted in this period are so foreign to the modern eye that it is difficult at first to relate to them. I've given considerable thought to this since I began armoring in '79. As the old man of craft, here's my take on it.

The waist is located between the rib cage and the top of the pelvis. This is about where the elbows fall, if your arms and shoulders are more or less normal. It should be as narrow from side to side as you can comfortably bear. The waist at this time is approximately parallel to the ground when viewed from the side.

The fauld fits closely to the body. Since it is either on internal straps, or an internal foundation, or an external covering, it will be free to collapse and move with the body. It should fit like the plates of an insect's abdomen. It should define and shape the body.

The fauld ends at the level of the hip belt. Anatomically, this is just above the great trochantor of the hip joint, abd about level with the pubic bone. Modernly, this is the place where kids are wearing their belts. The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

The cuisses are very high on the medial (crotch) side. When I say high, I mean not for the faint of heart. The upper edges rise only slightly, and do not quite cover the hip joints.

This leaves a gap of about 2 or 3 fingers over the hip joints which is not covered by plate. This gap is covered by mail, much of which is obscured from view by the jupon. Likewise the groin is protected only by mail.

Now, by 1410 or so things start to change, and the fauld would be long enough to cover the groin, but this is not the style we are discussing here.

I hope I've made sense here, because this is all critical to reproducing this style. It is not necessarily what I've done in the past, but it represents my current state of understanding. Id est, if I made you a harness 20 years ago which does not reflect these ideas, I'm sorry.

Mac

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:02 pm

Mac, while this effigy is up for examination I wonder if you could give your opinion on what the knee defenses consist of. The rivets around the knee and the oddly shaped panels above and below have got me stumped. Some kind of covered armor or a floating defense perhaps?

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Lorenzo,
You see this sort of knee represented a lot in English funerary art in the third quarter of the 14th c. I wish I was sure what to make of it. I don't think they are articulated knees, but I'm not certain of that. I think the circles around the cops are supposed to be rivets, and I assume that means that they are fabric covered,but I not sure.
I think I understand the "oddly shaped panels". The lower one is the plate which for lack of better name we all call a "demi-greave". The upper one is something you see on English effigies into the very early 15th c., which I hesitate to term a "demi-cuisse".
An interesting thing which this brass shows is the unmistakably closed cuisses.
Sorry I can't be of more use to you,
Mac

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:19 pm

Thanks, I was just wondering if there was some effigy that made it obvious what the mysterious rivets were holding.

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:10 pm

lorenzo2 wrote:Mac, while this effigy is up for examination I wonder if you could give your opinion on what the knee defenses consist of. The rivets around the knee and the oddly shaped panels above and below have got me stumped. Some kind of covered armor or a floating defense perhaps?

One of the thoughts I had had was whether the holes werent in fact similar to those along the bascinet, to stitch in the liner. In theory if some cuisses were padded (lightly) it would stand to some reason that the cop could be sewn down along a similar method as the bascinet liner might be.

Those panels are most likely just the lames....notice that his leg is naturally turned outward....thus we dont see a straight line for the cop crease, rather its curved as it would appear from a side view. So if his leg was angled slightly outward, we would thus be able to see farther back. That little squarish piece on the bottom is probably the pin of the greave.

Not the best example in terms of propotionate detailing...but its all pretty much there. Id also be willing to bet some of these brass representations were of a 'school,' meaning some repetitive stylization was probably more likely that presents the gist of what harnesses of the day generally looked like...but in doing so they skim over some logical details (vs effigial works that took more time and tend to get more details right). Does that make sense?

Mad Matt · Post by **Mad Matt** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:14 pm

My take is that this fauld should have lames. Another case of artistic shorthand. Like the mythological ringmaille.

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:30 pm

Mad Matt wrote:My take is that this fauld should have lames. Another case of artistic shorthand. Like the mythological ringmaille.

Faulds....are....lames.

What did you mean?

He probably just has a cuirass over a "surcoat."....or artistic oversight as you put it.

Bertus Brokamp · Post by **Bertus Brokamp** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:42 am

Mac wrote:The fauld fits closely to the body. Since it is either on internal straps, or an internal foundation, or an external covering, it will be free to collapse and move with the body. It should fit like the plates of an insect's abdomen. It should define and shape the body.

Mac

In medieval Dutch / German the 15th c. plackard + fauld combi is called a kreeft / krebs (lobster). Coincidence?

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:57 am

krebs.....crabs.....gone fishing?

Armour Design · Post by **Armour Design** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:50 am

I agree with Matt - I think the fauld would have been made of a number of overlapping lames, it's just that the detail has not been depicted here.

Mike

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:14 pm

Meseems they just let the jupon cover said detail.

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:05 pm

Konstantin the Red wrote:Meseems they just let the jupon cover said detail.

Thats sort of what Im saying....if you look at the bottom of the jupon we can see the decorative edge....Im betting that we are either seeing the rolled edges through the sides of the jupon or a breastplate proper over top of the jupon.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:25 am

Or in further detail: in memorial brass art they never put engraving-type shading hatches of any description on the figures. What you see are medieval-type linear delineations: hard edges, hair lines, mail given detail depiction in varying degrees of accuracy, but no shading hatchings that might depict either 3-D form or subsurface shapes, as in eighteenth/nineteenth-century engraving. Hatching or panel backgrounding may appear, but the whole effect is more abstract than representational, reduced rather than meticulously realistic.

belmtho · Post by **belmtho** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:33 am

So would the fauld have actually gone down to the edge of the jupon, asssuming that it is a breast plate under the jupon?

Or could it have been a mail fauld beneath the breast plate?

Tom

Andrew Young · Post by **Andrew Young** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:58 am

belmtho wrote:So would the fauld have actually gone down to the edge of the jupon, asssuming that it is a breast plate under the jupon?

Or could it have been a mail fauld beneath the breast plate?

Tom

Rather, there could have been a mail 'shirt' under the cuirass which was not uncommon up to the last quarter of the 14th century.

Ergo, a jupon might have been worn atop the mail....and a cuirass atop it.

Its not that unusual to see this type of layered arrangement.