The Armour Archive

Yeah, I finally have bragging rights, so here is the link. It took me quite a few months to make this, but it's finally done, and I think it looks great. Constructive Criticism is always appreciated, but don't flame me (not that I think you would).

http://mercenary.atspace.com/CoP/index.html

I like it, and I usually hate 14th century armour. Kudos to you for using canvas instead of leather. The only negative thing I will say is that I think people ought to replicate CoPs other than the Wisby type I.

Merc,

Indeed a clean job, good work.

If you ever get around to doing another....consider form. In many period pictures, many COPs -when worn- show a distinctive anatomical curvature to them.

Now Im not suggesting the plates were curved--many probably were not... what Im saying is that many..heh, many people make COPs too long, hence extending over the hips thus ignoring the natural male form. Generally it shouldnt extend much past your navel/lower ribs. And a healthy male form still flares out above the hips up to the armpit. In general most SCA coat of plates are much to flat/straight at the sides. I believe this is because the Thordeman reconstructions were not reassembled correctly; if layed out flat they should (in my opinion) form an upward Y or V shape so that when they wrap around the male torso, they form a natural flared out fit. Most period pictures show knights wearing COPS such that their hips are fairly prominent, suggesting the COP was similar in overall fit-against-the-body to a later period cuirass....stopping at the navel/lower ribs and following the flared shape of the male torso.

Suffice it to say...good form is often missed in many 14th century armours. Show me a pair of peroid leather or splint legs in history that were flat across the instep for example. Yet we see tons of one dimensional leather 'wraps' passing as authentic shape. For most its making a moutain out of a molehill....but food for thought as you continue down the anatomical road.

Notice how curvy these cats are....the inward sinch above the hips is very similar to that of a later period bulbous cuirass/fauld. The main difference being that the cuirass is a bit more curved at the sides vs. the coat of plates.









Cheers
D

nifty

Josh, I am planning on making some other types some time in the future, but I don't really need them myself, so it may be a while.

Durasteel, yeah, I see what you mean about those CoPs, but are you sure that is what the Wisby ones would have looked like? I own the book by Thordeman, and my pieces are the same shape/size as the ones in the picture. Keep in mind that all these CoPs were not made to fit a certain person; they were basic pieces of armour stuck on a peasant, basically, and the most fitting they would have done was find one the right size.

Later CoPs and brigandines would definitely have been more anatomical; Wisbys, however, would be difficult to fit to the body. Sorry, but it's true.

Remember also that even with the Thordeman finds the plates range from a few to many.

A COP made from many smaller plates is going to naturally conform better to a torso than one made from larger straight plates, as many of the simpler COPs from the Wisby find were.

Several of the Wisby COPs clearly have long longitudinal plates that appear to be curved only in one axis - that is, to make them form around the torso roughly cylindrically and do not appear to follow the contours of a body.

I do think it is probably correct to say, though, that the plates may not have extended down as far as many often make them do, as doing so makes the plates dig into the groin and hips when you bend at the waist. It seems plausible that the armour is basicaly an "augmented ribcage" and may not be intended to cover the "gut" as many try to do with distorted shapes of the "Churburg" style of segmented breastplate.

Steve

A note: in practice, this CoP only digs into my pelvis upon sitting or bending far over. Since neither of these actions are all that common on the battlefield unless you are dying, I don't see why it would be necessary to detract from protection to appease those lazy peasants who wish to sit in the midst of battle!

Mercenary, nice work. I'm in the midst of making my own CoP, so some details would come in handy. What's the weight of canvas you used? How many layers of canvas? What's the steel thickness? It looks like you used roofing nails as rivets, correct? Thanks, and again, nice work. You made me rethink the numbers of rivets each plate needs, so I'm off to punch holes.

I got the only weight they had at the store, and I have no idea. Two layers, as I didn't think one was enough. 16 gauge, although it could probably be 18. It weighs 8 pounds. Yes, I used roofing nails, and the number of rivets is accurate to the Wisby 1 according to Bengt Thordeman.

Durasteel Corporation wrote:If you ever get around to doing another....consider form. In many period pictures, many COPs -when worn- show a distinctive anatomical curvature to them.

Yes, especially those after 1350, and the English were particularly hurried in depicting the slimmer waists in their artwork than on the continent. But you need to seperate out artsitic style and fashion, from technical reality.
Start looking at the continental artworks and you see almost nothing but straight trunks till 1340, with extreme waists only by about 1360.

Some german effigies show exactly what thordemann and others have reconstructed from their finds.

Durasteel Corporation wrote:.....many people make COPs too long, hence extending over the hips thus ignoring the natural male form. Generally it shouldnt extend much past your navel/lower ribs.

Where did you get these ideas? The early coats of plates were shorter, especially those using vertical plates, but there are surviving examples, not just from Wisby, as well as a wealth of artwork, that clearly show the coat of plates extending well past the hips. With a horizontally lamed CoP, the longer front is not a problem, and possibly the very reason they went to the vertical system.

Durasteel Corporation wrote: I believe this is because the Thordeman reconstructions were not reassembled correctly.

Based on what evidence of the actual reconstructions? You are saying that Thordemann not only reformed the plates to fit his opinion, but added and took off metal to change the length of the lames to make them fit the new form. And other authors, such as Gessler, then followed suit with their finds.

You have to rememebr that the Wisby CoPs were old when pressed into service, so you need to look for them in the artwork of the early 1300's, not that after 1350 or 60.

Durasteel Corporation wrote:Most period pictures show knights wearing COPS such that their hips are fairly prominent, suggesting the COP was similar in overall fit-against-the-body to a later period cuirass....stopping at the navel/lower ribs and following the flared shape of the male torso.

Please name some effigies that clearly show the CoP stopping at about the navel and having a prominent hip.

Erik

Erik Schmidt wrote:With a horizontally lamed CoP, the longer front is not a problem, and possibly the very reason they went to the vertical system.

In addition, some of the other Wisbys, I think number 9 being a good example, have vertical plates to about the waist, then a second set of vertical plates past that. This would probably facilitate movement in the bending of the waist.

This is very interesting post. I love CoP's, so little is really solid it is very interesting as their is alot of room to move and speculate. As far as I know it sufferes from the same issue as most torso armour of this ear, the surcoat. I have found lots of records of them between 1320-1370 in the civic records of London. The king (Edward III in 1330) at one points states that all Men at Arms are to have one when in service (along with plate gauntlets and bascinets with visor(perhaps aventail). Something perhaps on the effigies of around 1350-1360 is that the effigies maybe portray breastplates, although the rivet heads on the outside could be a CoP use but also patterns with faberic covered breastplates seem to have been used. In the records I am shuffling through by 1350-70 many men in London own plate armour (apart from helmets) and breastplates are one of the first things to pop up and at times in multiples per person. In the 1360's a number of craft and tradesmen have them in their own armouries so it is likely in my opinion that the knight had them earlier, perhaps only slightly earlier, so the nice form could be representations of breastplates as well. In the end the varieties could be infinate as were later with brigs and other armour for that matter.

RPM