The Armour Archive

I have made a test-gauntlet inspired by a 1450 Milanese armour. It's a mitten type gauntlet, with cuff.

My question is: how is/was the cuff attached to the rest of the gauntlet? There are no visible rivets along the side of the cuff. I have no additional pictures showing the inside, but have a drawing which suggests a single plate at the inside of the wrist, attaching the cuff with the rest.

Since these gauntlets are to be used for live steel fighting, functionality is an issue. The original gauntlets show some gap between the cuff and the rest, suggesting some form of movement, but I can't figure out how, aside from a (leather?) hinge at the inside of the wrist.

Any suggestions?

Ralph

Hi Ralph,

Milanese gauntlet cuffs of the mid 15th c. are not articulated. Any rivets you see are probably to hold the leather glove in place inside, or to hold the cuff to the metacarpal plate. They may be flush rivets and not readily apparent in a photograph.

If you are using historical sword technique for armoured combat, such as Fiori de Liberi, then the master in question has taken into account the realities of the harness in use and the cuffs will not be an impediment. If you want to use historically correct harness, then it is an incentive to use historically correct technique.

------------------
Bob R.

Ralph,

While Bob is correct that some mid 15th century Milanese Left hand gauntlets did not articulate at the wrist, most others did. It is not the typical articulation with two pivoting rivets, but a rather more complex single rivet articulation. I will attempt to describe how it works to you and refer to the photos:

Fig.1 Back view of Fredrick I right gauntlet
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Fredrick1RG.jpg

Fig.2 Front view of Churburg no.21 left gauntlet
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Churburg21-1LG.jpg

Fig.3 Front view of Churburg no.21 right gauntlet
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Churburg21-1RG.jpg

Fig.4 Front view of Churburg no. 20 left gauntlet (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow1LGF.jpg

Fig.5 Rear view of Churburg no.20 left gauntlet (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow2LGB.jpg

Fig6 Front view of Churburg no.20 right gauntlet (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow1RGF.jpg

Fig7 Rear view of Churburg no.20 right gauntlet (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow2RGB.jpg

Fig8 Rear view of the armour of Fredrick I (in Vienna)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Fredrick1a.jpg

Fig9 Front view of the Churburg no. 20 armour (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow1a.jpg

Fig10 Rear view of the Churburg no.20 armour (now in Glasgow)
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Glasgow2a.jpg

Fig11 Front view of the Churburg no.21 armour
http://justus.pair.com/DiscussionPhotos/Churburg21-1a.jpg

The central pivot rivet may be seen clearly in Fig 1. The gauntlet cuff is shaped with a flare that closely follows the angle of the metacarpal plate. This shaping may be seen in Fig 6. The metacarpal plate is assembled over the cuff flare with some space allowing for movement between the two plates. An idea of the proper amount of spacing can be derived from fig.4, 5, 6, and 7. The end result is almost a ball and socket joint allowing limited movement along almost all axis’s. The motion while small makes a dramatic difference in the performance of the gauntlets. It was in some cases preferable to have a more protective ridged wrist gauntlet for the left hand, particularly in heavy cavalry applications. An example of this type of gauntlet is pictured in fig2. The gauntlets may be viewed in context with their harnesses in fig 8, 9, 10, and 11.

You may also derive the system used in mounting the gloves to the gauntlets from the photos. It is important to their proper function. A last bit of advice, steel swords and other replica weapons are very hard on armour. I would recommend using 1050 spring steel even if you don’t temper it. The improvement in durability is significant.

Best Wishes, Tom Justus

Note after posting: Tom beat me to it while I was thinking and rounding up pics

I'm not entirely comfortable disagreeing with you Chef, as you have much more experience with authentic armour and many more resources than I do, but I simply cannot make myself believe that mid-15th C. Milanese guantlets didn't have movement in the cuff. Specifically, these from the Von Matsch harness, which are the most well known generally speaking -

[img]http://home.gci.net/~wombat/images/February_22_1999_53_small.jpg[/img]

[img]http://home.gci.net/~wombat/images/February_22_1999_52_2_small.JPG[/img]

I'm seeing a huge (for Milanese armour of this period) gap betwixt the cuff and metacarpal plates. If the armourer had intended for these to be non-articulating, he would have made that gap disappear, yes? If it serves no function, then that gap wouldn't be there. I'm basing that upon the gestalt of the harness - the way it is all-of-a-piece - sensible, practical, useful. There's not a lot of extraneousness going on here, and the details are rigorously attended to.

My theory - based solely on conjecture since I've not made it over there to take a look at the thing and play with it, nor have I corresponded with anyone who has - is that the cuff is flared into the metacarpal plate loosely. It's not riveted in place, just left loose to move as needed. That would allow for as much angle as existed in the metacarpal plate (a fair amount) and would allow you to actually use the gauntlet. If it doesn't articulate at all, then your wrist has hardly any range of motion, as the cuff is of the relatively close fitting variety.

I can't believe that our ancestors - practical fighting men who depended for survival on the battlefield on their ability to move freely and swing a weapon as needed - would have allowed themselves to be stuck with gauntlets that trap their wrists while at the same time wearing a harness which in all other respects allows that absolutely necessary range of motion.

Anyway, that's my theory on the subject. I await the lesson to follow

------------------
Steve Belden
The Hammered Wombat
armourer@hammeredwombat.com

[This message has been edited by Hammered Wombat (edited 05-02-2001).]

Hi Guys,

The primary thing to keep in mind is the intended use of the armour. Italian armour is intended for horse combat, and the range of motion neccessary is perfectly adequate without cuff articulation. The motions to attack with a sword or a hammer/mace from horseback are extremely limited, as is exponed on by Monte' and Duarte in their treatise on mounted combat.

From my understanding Tom, the left metacarpal on Italian armour de-rigur is one piece with the cuff. Churburg 20's left gauntlet if I remember aright is a reconstruction. Take a long hard look at the Maddona della grazzi suits, and then tell me about gauntlet cuffs. Have you checked with the museum in question to see if the right hand gauntlet artiuculates at the cuff in actuality, have you handled it? Or are you speculating?

My information primarily comes from other, wiser men who study armour for a living. Check out the Karcheski & Richardson Rhodes harness book. Look at the 15th c. gauntlets. You will find infantry munition Italian/Western European gauntlets with a very limited range of motion. I also say if you reconstruct fechtbuch fighting, you will find that a gauntlet without an articulating wrist will work well. You can practise Fiori all day without wrist articulated gauntlets - you can't throw wrap shots effectively.

I would say that for the form (Italian mitten gauntlets), heavy articulation or articulation of the cuff is the exception rather than the rule. German gauntlets on the other hand are an entirely different story.

Our ancestors fought in their own style, which was effective with the weapons employed and armour used. They wen't engaged in stick fighting as a general rule.

------------------
Bob R.

I have to agree with Steve.

Hi Guys,

From pg 90 (plate 31) of Claude Blair's "European Armour

"Armour of a member of the Matsch family. Milanese (Missaglia workshop), c. 1450.N.B. - The tasstets and right gardbrace are missing and the left gauntlet is an inaccurate modern replacement. See also 219, Scott Collection, Glasgow Museum (formerly at Churburg)" Emphasis mine

So the left gauntlet of Churburg 20 is definitely not original to the harness, and is not period.

------------------
Bob R.

Hi Guys,

As I have said many times before "What I don't know would fill a warehouse". I took a look at Blair, and this is what he says on the issue.

European Armour, pg 84

"During the 1430s the fingered gauntlets of the type found on the Churburg armour (18) developed into mittens. This was effected by prolonging the metacarpal plates to the tips of the fingers. The right gauntlet was usually articulated once at the wrist and twice over the fingers, while the left one, which for obvious reasons did not have to be so flexible, was articulated once over the middle of the fingers."

So in the end, we were both correct and both wrong at the same time.

------------------
Bob R.

Thanks guys!

I'm impressed with the detail and accuracy of the responses!!

I know about the left-hand gauntlets in this period being generally unarticulated. It did strike me as a bit odd that the Churburg armour had an articulated left hand, while the rest of the armour is clearly fortified on the left side, suggesting a similar style gauntlet. I discarded my concerns with the idea that in this and the following periods, sets of armour existed for use both on foot and mounted, with various add-ons and replacements depending on the use. A modern inaccurate replacement makes more sense as an explanation

Ralph

Hi Samuel,

I agree that Tom is a very tallented armourer from the photographs of his work I have seen, and from his well informed answers I have no doubt that he has a very large and up to date library on armour. Be that as it may, it is a healthy thing for us to question information we would otherwise take for granted.

I do not think that by asking Tom if he has seen the specific example closely or has handled it I am insulting him - I am asking him a pertinant question, and I am also assuming from the quality of his work that he has handled various real pieces of harness. It is quite proper to ask me what books my information is coming from, or what real pieces of armour I may have handled or examined closely. I am usually very forthcoming about where I get my information from, and I share it freely.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Have you handled it?? Are you speculating???</font>

No Samuel, I have not handled the left gauntlet of the Churburg 20 suit. Claude Blair had, or had closely examined it, which is where I got my information that the left gauntlet is a replacement. Blairs work is 50 years old, but it is still considered the foundation work of modern armour study, and his information is still considered good by modern professional armour scholars. Ask Tom for his opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately for me, the only Medieval gauntlets I can study closely are German examples circa 1490. The Higgins has no Medieval Italian gauntlets. If I can travel to the Royal Armouries late this Fall as I have been trying to plan, that is one of the things I plan on asking to see (the Royal armouries is blessed with a comparitively large collection.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">""My information primarily comes from other, wiser men who study armour for a living. ""

From books or do you call them on the Phone? check the print date.. 80% of Books on A&A are over 50 years old....

In Eldrids case, I would place serious money hes got more armor books than half this BBc put together. Not only does he study Armor as a passion, but he re-creates it as well. IMO your dismissing one of the Top 5 Armorers in the world. And doing it rather Rudely...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do have the occasional privilige of chatting with curators, and it comes from being very active as a very supportive local volunteer at my local Armour museum. Most questions to non local curators have been through the auspices of friends who either work at the museums in question, or who are on friendly terms with the curators. I have been priveliged to pick the brains of the curator of the Royal Ontario Museum (regarding Italian gauntlets in particular, through the ofices of a former conservator), and Tom Richardson at the Royal Armouries through a friend who is on staff currently.

As to armour books, I have a respectable personal collection - nothing particularly major, and I'm sure nothing to compare with Tom's. I do have access to a private collection that I'm sure rivals the best armourers research libraries. It contains amongst other volumes the new Churburg volumes, Boccias Monolova book (and several other Boccia volumes), Guy Lakings monumental work, the Kienbush collection volumes, Helmut Nickles essays, Granzi's essays, and more serious works on the subject that I can convienintly list here or care to mention.

I certainly was not dismissing Tom, but asking a legitimate question. I'm sorry if questioning a source bothers you, but it is the foundation of scholarship (which I attempt to follow the path of, albeit through my own poor efforts).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">your blanket statement """Italian armour is intended for horse combat, and the range of motion neccessary is perfectly adequate without cuff articulation. """

I could buy IF we had suits used primarily for battle instead of Jousting.. I consider a great deal of armor in Musuems today to be jousting suits, or otherwise meant for combatant games...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry Samuel, but your assumption is quite wrong. If you look at the various significant collections around the world, you will find that the vast majority of surviving 15th c. Italian harness is field harness. The most significant assemblege of it ever found is the Maddona della Grazzi collection (votive offerings? traditionally held to be so) which has eight non-composite armours I beleive. Every one of the eight is a field harness. The four 15th c. Italian harnesses that had been at the Churburg (18,20,21 the fouth I can't remember the numbering 19?) are all field harness. While I can think of one or two examples of 15th c. Italian jousting helms, I cannot think of a single jousting harness from the period that is Italian. The Philip the Fair tinned harness in the Real dates to 1500 I believe. The vast majority of surviving jousting harness from the 15th c. is German in origin, with a few stray French and English bits.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">""Our ancestors fought in their own style, which was effective with the weapons employed and armour used. They wen't engaged in stick fighting as a general rule""

Really??? I think King Rene would argue that point much better than I can....</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Rene of Anjou wrote treatise on mounted combat with wooden maces and rebated swords. Sticks were not involved - horses were.

As to your last commentary. I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't quote it in case you care to retract it or clean it up. I am a serious student of the subject, and I try to approach it in as scholarly a fashion as I can. Disagreement isn't having ones nose stuck up in the air. It was an honest difference of opinion.

That I was incorrect regarding the right gauntlet I freely admit - I was the one who posted the information to show my error.


------------------
Bob R.

Fellows,

Be calm. One of the reasons I posted so many photos and took the time to enlarge some of them is because of the complex nature of the wrist articulation in Milanese mitten gauntlets. Although the left gauntlet on Churburg no.20 is a reproduction, the right one is original. (I might also point out that both thumbs are modern as well, or so I am led to believe by the conservator at the Royal Armouries) Careful examination reveals the flush set rivets holding the metacarpal plate closed. Further examination show the flush set rivets holding the cuff closed. A single pivot rivet allows the two pieces to move. This style of articulating joint is neither common in armour nor readily apparent to the amateur scholar using photographic evidence alone for their studies, so it is only natural that some misconceptions about it will arise. The matter is further complicated by the left hand gauntlet, some of which have both metacarpal and cuff comprising a single plate, some fitted closely so that appreciable movement is doubtful, and a few examples which have enough room to articulate. There are some other variations which we have not visited in this discussion which further complicate matters.

Steve, Your analysis is essentially correct, although the cuff flare extends only across the outer half so that a rivet on the palm side is necessary.

Bob, I am familiar with the Rhodes book, as well as the armours at Churburg and Montova, which are illustrated in several Boccia books and the old and new Churburg catalogues, as well as some monographs from Archaeologia. My former student (now a master in his own right) James Burts had the fortune to visit the “Madonna delle Grazieâ€

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the further details! I know you go over on a fairly regular basis to the annual study day and suchlike. I was fairly certain that the left gauntlet of the 20 was a modern reproduction, which checking my resources proved correct. As stated before, I was obviously wrong about the right gauntlet.

I haven't had the chance to get a good close look at an Italian gauntlet as my regular venue of study doesn't have any. Recently, I have been concentrating on studying bigandines and fragments, and I've made no progress on study of Flemish harness whatsoever. A composite in the Higgins allegedly has some pieces that are Flemish 15th c. in origin, but I haven't had the chance to pursue the lead in detail.

I appreciate the selfless distribution of knowledge on your part Tom, and the efforts you have put into re-creating harness. I hope I can lay hands on your work at some future point, as I have heard nothing but good about it. My probing questions are based on a burning desire to learn more, not to prove myself some sort of 'know-it-all'. Obviously, I don't! As I so readily prooved last night.

------------------
Bob R.

I acheived my aim...
Although a direct attack is often harsh I Obviously was upset with the Dismissal Of Eldrid. ( Ive long time been a Fan of not Peeing on Supermans' cape, Irregardless of which Superman is wearing it) I didnt feel it right to let it go by.

I dont think we shouldnt disagree about things I do think we can do it without being unduely civil. I apologize for forgeting my civillity..