The Armour Archive

Hello esteemed archivers!

I have a question that I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to on the archive.

When we see depictions of people wearing vambraces over maille in the 14th century in particular, do the haubergeon's sleeves always extend all the way down the arm, or might they be short-sleeved (just beyond the elbow or so) and just tucked into the proximal end of the vambrace?

Also, it is my understanding that very late in the 14th century the maille that is seen could alternatively be voiders or patches of maille covering parts not covered by the vambrace, rerebrace, etc., though I am not sure how late this might be.

Anyway, please forgive me if this has been covered before, but for the life of me I cannot find any thread that discusses it.

Actually Thom Richardson's thesis The medieval inventories of the Tower armouries 1320–1410 provides documentation for separate mail sleeves as early as 1325. Since mail was not kept before that date, there is a lack of evidence from that source into how early the practice begins, but I suspect it wasn't long after the introduction of the pair of plates. Later inventories show these separate mail sleeves to be made in both long and short versions.

To tuck the mail beneath the vambraces, the sleeve would have to extend past the elbow. I suspect that would be indicative of a tightly tailored sleeve which is usually associated with a long one more than a half sleeve.

Eric (worldantiques) recently posted images of an ex-Klingbeil German haubergeon with a peculiar "step" or lappet at the elbow over on MyArmoury. I don't know that I've ever seen anything like it in art, but it shows the possibility of a number of interim stages. I don't know how reliable the dating from the auction house is unless another similar example can be found.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... fbe813.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 0c2a63.jpg

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... KK_GB&co=3
Hermann Historica gave this description:

Lot Nr. 67
A Gothic full armour for the field
------------
Fine German mail shirt (Haubergeon), 15th century, formed of close-set rows of riveted flattened iron rings alternating with rows of flattened butted rings, of slightly smaller diameter at the sides, the hem and the cuff borders of riveted latten rings, as three rows and a single row respectively, extending to the mid-thigh and over the elbow, with neck-opening closed by a small overlapping flap (the neck now fitted with an Indian standing collar of mail reinforced with leather, 18th /19th century), the sleeves with flared openings unusually extended at sharp right angles over the outer sides of the elbow, and preserved in very fine and almost wholly undamaged condition throughout (two or three rings missing over the top of the right shoulder). Length (excluding collar) 78.5 cm.

Is there really any sign of vambs being put on over mail sleeves in the first place, rather than being borne in their stead?

In something that was more a slightly reduced hauberk than a haburgeon, in the 1340s we can find effigies showing a knee length mailshirt, the hem over gamboised cuisses, the sleeves of a 5/8 over-elbows length and a vamb continuing or teaming with a not-hourglass gauntlet on a somewhat Wisby model. The 5/8 sleeve often features a split at the cuff, a slit about four fingers' depth, for complete ease at the elbow and perhaps to ease putting the shirt on. The sleeve may be made tight.

Thank you, Ernst! The haubergeon you linked to is terribly interesting. Not sure what to make of it. What was it meant to be worn with?

As for what you mentioned about the sleeve extending past the elbow indicating a tightly tailored sleeve, I am curious if any examples exist of tightly tailored sleeves that do not completely extend to the entire length of an arm. A half sleeve is too short to tuck in effectively if we are talking about extending just down to the elbow. I am thinking more of a 3/4 sleeve or something. The reason I say this is purely due to what I see in effigies like this one, which I completely acknowledge are often not necessarily accurate in their proportions. I see the vambraces fitting somewhat close to the wrist and arm which I think would (assuming the effigy is accurate in this regard) indicate that there wouldn't be enough room for maille in between the arm and whatever fabric might be present in between and the vambrace itself.

What do you think?

This is a vexing issue.

On one hand, having a full length sleeve inside a full armharness seems quite redundant, and it makes the plate armor have to be too big and bulky. If there is mail all the way to the wrists, the vambraces have to be noticeably bigger in diameter than anything that survives. It also necessitates making the gauntlets bigger to fit over them.

On the other hand, there are no mail garments that I know of which stop just past a fitted elbow. I have tailored a couple of habergeons like this, but always felt guilty about it.

I suspect that historical answer was probably gussets. As Ernst suggests, we have documentary evidence for them by the second quarter of the 14th C. Further evidence comes from English effigies. If we can trust the sculptors, the mail at the bend of the elbow (typically) has its row direction at 90 degrees to the mail we see entering the upper cannon at the armpit.

Mac

Andeerz,

The effigy you linked to does suggest a 3/4 length sleeve with a tailored elbow. The upper cannon is rather skimpy in its coverage, and I don't think "gussets" can be the answer in this case.

I only wish there were some surviving example, or at least a period illustration of such a thing.

Mac

Oh wow. I never thought to look at the row direction! I will keep this in mind. And thank you for your input, Mac!

The Kuno von Falkenstein effigy seems to be the worst of both worlds, with a tightly fitted 3/4 mail sleeve and mail gauntlets worn over the forearm.
http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/Ge ... %20100.JPG
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/838/3011/

Mac,
Do you think the bracers on the Frederik van Drakenborch effigy are meant to be fluted plate or splinted leather? If it's leather, it might explain why we haven't found a larger example in plate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilam ... 468647900/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilam ... 468647900/

Golly, Ernst! It's just as you say: he's got 3/4 length tailored sleeves over his vambraces. No doubt about it. This is a very cool find.



Mac

Ernst wrote:Mac,
Do you think the bracers on the Frederik van Drakenborch effigy are meant to be fluted plate or splinted leather? If it's leather, it might explain why we haven't found a larger example in plate.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilam ... 468647900/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilam ... 468647900/

I'm usually the last guy to say "leather armor", but It looks to me like it's supposed to represent splinted leather.

I don't follow you about the "larger example in plate". Can you clarify that for me?

Mac

Mac wrote:If there is mail all the way to the wrists, the vambraces have to be noticeably bigger in diameter than anything that survives.

Mac wrote:I'm usually the last guy to say "leather armor", but It looks to me like it's supposed to represent splinted leather.

I don't follow you about the "larger example in plate". Can you clarify that for me?

I was thinking along this same line. Do we know if the extant leather and spinted vambraces are as tightly fitted as iron ones? Or are they simply more adjustable?

Ah! I see. Thanks!

That's an interesting line of inquiry, but there is a snag. We would find it hard to generalize form our extant examples of leather vambraces for two reasons. The first is their smallness of the sample size, and the second is the propensity for leather to shrink, to a greater or lesser extent, when it's dried from a waterlogged condition.

I think we discussed all of the examples that have ever been identified in this thread. forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=143600 Counting in my head, I come up with a total of seven vambraces of which two have been destroyed. One way or another, I think all of them had been preserved in wet conditions, so I fear that even if we had good measurements we would not be able to draw any conclusions.

Mac

Ernst wrote:. Do we know if the extant leather and spinted vambraces are as tightly fitted as iron ones? Or are they simply more adjustable?

Thinking about this again... I think we do know that leather vambraces were not intended to overlap at the opening. In a sense, that makes them more adjustable. If they were being worn over mail, a gap of some variable width would not be much of a defensive fault because it would always have mail in it.

So... Yea.. Maybe leather vambraces are more suited to wearing over mail than plate ones.

Thinking further, though... We come to the fact that the hems and applied borders at the wrists of the earliest extant closed vambraces do not permit of an overlap either. Perhaps they to were expected to "not quite close" like the leather ones. That brings us back to full sleeves under plate vambraces. I don't much like that conclusion, but there we are.


(Sorry about the stream of conciseness thing... It's just what happened when I started typing, and I thought it might be better to leave it that way rather than to edit it and pretend that I have all my thoughts together. )

Mac

Free exchange of ideas is good.

Even letting 'em poach a bit.

Now that we've steeped or simmered a bit, I'm beginning to wonder if the Hermann Historica shirt isn't being displayed backwards. We know the Indian collar is a later addition, and without it the neck opening is very high without a slit. So I'm thinking this is the back we're being shown, and the sleeve extensions or steps belong on the front.

Compare this example from BNF Français 343 Queste del Saint Graal / Tristan de Léonois fo. 17 verso.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4317/7113/
The mail on the upper arm is tight fitting, but continues into the inner elbow. This is exactly what the Hermann Historica example would do if turned around. No need to have much mail below the vambraces, allowing for a tighter fit.

Opposing opinions?

Already arguing against myself: The auction shirt seems to have the rivet points facing out, and the extensions canted outward, which would place them over the point of the elbow. On the other hand we aren't provided with photos of the inside of the mail, so it's impossible to say whether it's everted or not.

As it is displayed, the flaps are somewhere between the back of the elbows and the sides of the elbows. If it were turned around, that would put them between the bends of the elbows and the outsides. That's about right for the mail sleeves I have handled.

If you look at blow up of the neck area, (you have to go beyond the + that the site offers) there is a slit and an overlap on the original material of what is currently the front, and a strange bit of tailoring in the corresponding place on the other side. It's a cross grain joint involving about eight rows from the right and about as many columns from the left. . I have not yet got a theory, but it's late.

Also, before I quit for the evening... It seems to me that this is not the only shirt I have seen with sleeves like this, but I can't remember where else I have seen it.

Mac

This bothered me, so I took the image at 200% and started looking at the weave. There is a vertical line of at least five contractions in the "front" of the haubergeon, although the weave is somewhat twisted on the mount. These are not unusual in the back to account for the expansions over the shoulders and inward sway in the lumbar area, but I have never seen contractions in this location on the front of a mail shirt. I'm almost positive this shirt is right side out, but turned about. We're looking at the back, and the sleeve extensions should go over the front and outside of the elbow joint.
I strongly suspect the 15th century dating is incorrect. The watershed around the riveted joint point to German manufacture. The demi-riveted construction possibly points to an earlier date. Further Doug Strong's analysis of German effigies shows that mail alone as an upper arm defense died out around 1400, while plate vambraces don't appear until about 1330. 1330-1400 sounds much more likely to me, with the demi-riveted construction favoring the earlier end of the date range.
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... figies.htm

Mac wrote:If you look at blow up of the neck area, (you have to go beyond the + that the site offers) there is a slit and an overlap on the original material of what is currently the front, and a strange bit of tailoring in the corresponding place on the other side. It's a cross grain joint involving about eight rows from the right and about as many columns from the left. . I have not yet got a theory, but it's late.

That is peculiar. The overlapping fly closure on the current front is pretty much what we expect on the front, not the back. The current back's expansions towards the neck remind me of those deeply set collars of the late 15th century. Yet the contractions in the front should be the back.

I am hesitant to even suggest it, but might the odd tailoring around the neck have originally let to an attached coif of some type? We know the separate coif in Edinburgh laces up the back to achieve a tight fit, and the fly closure might oddly be explained that way. The V expansion at the current back neckline might make room for the chin if the back is the front.....

I keep staring at that weird crossgrain thing. It appears to be neatly done, and I don't see any reason to think it is not part of the original plan form the shirt.



It's like one started with an overlap about eight rows tall and eight columns wide and twisted it until the lower edge of the overlap could be joined to the open edge.

This will do these things to the garment...
--It will give slope to the shoulders.
--It will produce a bit of a point of high spot in the neck line.
--It may or may not make a place that will protrude... I am having trouble thinking it through.

If it does produce a protrusion, that might be suitable for the front of the neck if the cross grain begins right at the hollow of the throat.
If it does not gain volume, but rather continues to lie in roughly the same plane, it would be better suited for the back of the neck.

I feel as though we need someone with a butted shirt who is willing to do a little experimenting.

Mac

You see the mail-over-vambrace all the time in the Chronicon Pictum.

Thank you, Russ!

These are definitely close fitted 3/4 length sleeves. It's easy to imagine the same thing being worn inside the vambrace. It's kind of the Hungarians to have worn them outside so we could see 'em.



Mac

The current "back" of the shirt. I wish I were as good at posting larger and sharper images. From the bottom, there are 5 rows causing expansion towards the neck, almost an expansion on every riveted row.
The last expansion marked (towards the flat base at the top of the dotted triangle) seems to be the rist of a more dramatic expansion towards the collar, but the rings are simply too bunched for me to make a clear judgement from the photo.

The hourglass triangles to the left mark a likely weave error. The top one occurs at a hole caused by a missing ring. 4 rings are available, so it would seem an easy fix. However this leaves the last solid ring on the photo's left only going through three others, 2 upper and one lower. A few rows down we see an expansion added in for no apparent reason other than to balance out the error at the hole.

If the shirt is being displayed properly, then you're correct that this would provide some expansion over the shoulder blades, although it does force the rows into a peak at the back of the neck. This means the front has contractions from nipples to navel. Maybe the owner had really broad shoulders and a very narrow waist -- very athletic.

But this puts the mail extensions back over the points of the elbow.

I wish we could find some parallel in a piece of art.

Just to be clear. This is the area that I was trying to describe. It does not add volume to the shoulderblades, but I think it does make the upper surfaces of the shoulders more naturally sloped and less square. It may or may not do something useful for the throat if this is really the front.



Mac

What about this guy?
I can't tell if he has 3/4 sleeves over vambraces or sleeves under short vambraces.


ca. 1371 - 'Graf Gottfried IV von Arnsberg (+1371)', Dom, Köln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipila ... 2468647900
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipila ... 2468647900

Looks like 3/4 sleeves over vambraces!

http://www.bildindex.de/bilder/mi01074f04a.jpg
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/874/2990/

I just stumbled across this one:

This looks like the one Ernst posted.
Anyone have a better image?

Name Bernardino dei Baranzoni
Dating 1345
Location Museo Lapidario Estense, Modena, Lombardy, Italy
Nicolle, David. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350. Volume 1. Greenhill Books

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/3787/3343/

Tom, Perhaps that Italian example is the best analogy to the Hermann Historica sleeves. Presumably the mail on the forearms are separate pieces, musekins.

Back to the original question of mail stuffed into or beneath the vambraces:
http://armourinart.com/172/260/


Clearly the rerebrace isn't fully enclosed, but the mail sleeve seems to extend inside the elbow and go under the vambrace.

Ernst wrote:
I strongly suspect the 15th century dating is incorrect. The watershed around the riveted joint point to German manufacture. The demi-riveted construction possibly points to an earlier date.

15th century can be from 1400 to 1499, I think being a little to conservative is better than wrongly dating an object older than what it is. As for the watershed, are you absolutely certain that this is a feature that appears only on German armor?

At some point in time the makers of mail started to use wedge riveting instead of round rivets, there must have been some sort of orderly progression, they did not go from alternating round riveted links and solid links to all wedge riveted links without any steps inbetween, what exactly were these steps and when did they take place.

More effigies with mail disappearing into vambraces:
(click on images to open higher resolution images)

Thomas Cawne (1374)


Beringer von Berlichingen (1377)


Gerhard von Rieneck (1382)


Sir Dieter von Hohenberg (1381)


Heinrich von Erbach (1387)

Interesting effigy from denmark

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/1315/4645/

Even ore effigies with mail disappearing into vambraces and at least one 3/4 sleeve:
(click on images to open higher resolution images)

Gunter XXV (1368)


Markgraf von Baden (1390)


Schenk von Erbach (1373)


Konrad II von Limpurg (1376)


Landschad von Steinach (1377)


Grote Kerk Jan II van Polanen (1378)


Eberhard von Wolfskeel (1379)


Voit von Rieneck (1379)

Some earlier stuff mostly showing over the vambrace:
(click on images to open higher resolution images)

Gotfried von Berheim (1335)


Albrecht von Hohenlohe (1338)


Otto von Orlamunde (1340)


Kuno von Falkenstein (1343)


Margrave Thietmar died 978 and son Gero effigy 1350 ???


Ulrich von Treyvaux (1350)


Heinrich Beyer von Boppard (1355)


Konrad von Heideck (1357)


Walther Bopfinger (1359)