The Armour Archive

For a while now I thought I knew. I was under the impression that Spaulders where the smaller, usually 14th/15th Century, shoulder defences that had the cup over the shoulder and then a series of lames down the upper arm. http://clang.adkinssoftware.com/shoulde ... h%2001.jpg
Pauldrons I thought were the larger, 15th/16th Century, cup over the shoulder that wrapped around to cover the armpit and extended over the back covering the shoulder blades. Sometimes with Haut gaurds. And again a series of lames going down over the upper arm. http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/aw1041t.JPG


I see on here, and other places that some people are calling what I always thought were Spaulders, Pauldrons.

So what is the difference? Is there a difference or is it a sort of interchangable term?


Thanks for the enlightenment,
Matt

I use the terms as you do.

I also use it as you do.

They are both shoulder protection and it is often that people interchange the words.

I use it as you do, as do most people who spend time on armoring boards. I'm not sure that means it is correct, or just a convention of communication the online armor community has adopted.

For me, the spaulder covers only the outside of the should and usually upper arm. Pauldrons cover all of that and the shoulderblade as well, and usually afford some protection if not full coverage for the armpit in front.

A spaulder is just a cop with lames added. Think of it like a wingless knee has no "fan".

Add the wings off the sides, and it's now a Pauldron.

Wing, no wing, that's the difference.

HAH!! For once I was right!

Let's also keep in mind that what the fourteenth century had was less a separate spaudler than its predecessor: the spaudler-type articulation of the top of the rerebrace. Early fifteenth saw the separate spaud, and late fifteenth saw the developed pauldron, which may or may not be pretty permanently attached to the rest of the arm. Its fullest, dozen-articulating-lame form reached from the gorget practically to the elbow.

I have not tried side by side testing of the 14th-c. arm against the 15th-c. arm + spaudler, but do you get easier, smoother motion of the arm and elbow in a turning motion, medial to distal and back, if the spaud is separate?

Konstantin the Red wrote:Let's also keep in mind that what the fourteenth century had was less a separate spaudler than its predecessor: the spaudler-type articulation of the top of the rerebrace. Early fifteenth saw the separate spaud, and late fifteenth saw the developed pauldron, which may or may not be pretty permanently attached to the rest of the arm. Its fullest, dozen-articulating-lame form reached from the gorget practically to the elbow.

I have not tried side by side testing of the 14th-c. arm against the 15th-c. arm + spaudler, but do you get easier, smoother motion of the arm and elbow in a turning motion, medial to distal and back, if the spaud is separate?

I have discovered that almost any covering can work well, if it follows basic rules.

1. It accomodates motion ratios in it's segmenting. If you measure range of motion from a centerline, looking from the side, it's about three times more to the front than the back. So your front segmentation is going to need to be narrower in front than back. You also need more retraction in front than back. So the plates must be designed to slide over each other in the sane ratios. In the back, they must only need to extend by a third. Sliding rivets were designed to collapse into the "rest position".

That is to say,arm down and by the side. In motion, they slide to thier forward range, and front plates must collapse.

2. Form must NEVER take percedence over function. If your design impedes motion, it's not armor-it's a parade costume.

One thing to remember is that we are looking backwards at a loooonnnggg period of time and using terms to differentiate 2 basic pieces of armor that may also be seperated by nationality, language barriers, available material type, present style of combat employed in, economic status and a host of other things. The words that WE use my not be the words that THEY used. Even it it was a word that they used it might mean two different things at two different times.

Stones Glossary of Armor lists "Shoulder Cop, Shoulder Guard, Shoulder Piece, Epauliere, Epaulette, Epaulet & Pauldron" all as the same definition. He never even includes the word spaulder. He does state "Still later the shoulders were covered by single large plates called the pauldron." and since I've never hears of one that was a SINGLE plate (with the exception of some jousting pieces) I'm not inclined to put much faith in that definetion.

(A whole lot of help there hunh...)

But for this message board we commonly use the term spaulder to mean the smaller shoulder defense with a few lames headed downward and maybe one or two upwards but the term pauldron to describe the later period piece that provides more front and back protection.

InfinitySteel wrote:
2. Form must NEVER take percedence over function. If your design impedes motion, it's not armor-it's a parade costume.

I'm going to humbly disagree... in part. Form follows function. Most true medieval function is protection, not movement. Sacraficing some range of motion in favor of increased protection is a very medieval solution. A pauldron design need only allow enough mobility to grab and hold a lance or swing basic downward slash with a sword at the pesant rabble. Its form and function are very different then the minimilist spaulder that allows an arm to whip a stick of rattan in an inverted corkscrew motion and rise into an opponents armpit. Armor may impede the motion of one activity but be acceptable for the other and still not be "a parade costume".

Sean

Sean Powell wrote: A pauldron design need only allow enough mobility to grab and hold a lance or swing basic downward slash with a sword at the pesant rabble.

I beg to disagree - What would occur with such a pauldron worn, say, by an English knight/man-at-arms in full plate, fighting on foot with a pole-weapon? Severely restricted motion such as you advocate would surely spell disaster, especially against a mounted opponent. You have to have an almost full range of motion, whilst maintaining protection. Poorly designed pauldrons that limit raised arm movement just don't work.

Oh - MJB, I use your definitions too.

I beg to disagree - What would occur with such a pauldron worn, say, by an English knight/man-at-arms in full plate, fighting on foot with a pole-weapon? Severely restricted motion such as you advocate would surely spell disaster, especially against a mounted opponent. You have to have an almost full range of motion, whilst maintaining protection. Poorly designed pauldrons that limit raised arm movement just don't work.

Ummm... It seems to me that the answer to this question lies in studying acutal armour.
Do surviving shoulder protections limit movement?
Certainly some do, so I don't think your statement stands in all situations.

Sean Powell wrote:He never even includes the word spaulder.

I think it's worth noting that I have never seen this word in any of my books - only online and generally amongst SCA folk.

Both terms are in dictionary.com and show the distinction already noted (that spaulders would be for the shoulder only), but I'm wondering if "spaulder" is kind of like "cop".

Brian wrote:

I beg to disagree - What would occur with such a pauldron worn, say, by an English knight/man-at-arms in full plate, fighting on foot with a pole-weapon? Severely restricted motion such as you advocate would surely spell disaster, especially against a mounted opponent. You have to have an almost full range of motion, whilst maintaining protection. Poorly designed pauldrons that limit raised arm movement just don't work.

Ummm... It seems to me that the answer to this question lies in studying acutal armour.
Do surviving shoulder protections limit movement?
Certainly some do, so I don't think your statement stands in all situations.

I cited a reasonably specific instance to differentiate from mounted combat as indicated by Sean. So I agree that my statement wouldn't stand for all situations - certainly later jousting armour severely limited movement, but by then the joust was a sport. In my personal experience, restrictive pauldrons will get you "dead" very quickly, regardless of weapon. SCA polearm combat I find to require as much movement in that area as full-speed/contact steel combat. Most surviving pauldrons or reproductions that I've seen would not appear to put form over function or be overly restrictive. I would say that the answer is in wearing actual armour

Brian wrote:

I beg to disagree - What would occur with such a pauldron worn, say, by an English knight/man-at-arms in full plate, fighting on foot with a pole-weapon? Severely restricted motion such as you advocate would surely spell disaster, especially against a mounted opponent. You have to have an almost full range of motion, whilst maintaining protection. Poorly designed pauldrons that limit raised arm movement just don't work.

Ummm... It seems to me that the answer to this question lies in studying acutal armour.
Do surviving shoulder protections limit movement?
Certainly some do, so I don't think your statement stands in all situations.

It also lies in studdying medieval combat. What little study I have been able to do from reading Talhoffer and Lichtenhauer Implies that Harnesfechten (fighting in armor) is much more linear in sword motion and achieveable in somewhat restrictve armor (example: half-sword thrusting to the face) while some of the positions depicted for unarmored long sword combat require a high degree of mobility of the shoulders.

I know people who fight SCA style in suits intended for later period pike-men where the "gorget" and the "pauldrons" are esentially one piece (for a black and white civil war harnes, what is this piece called?). The motions for setting or thrusting with a pike are quite easy and the general form of the suit follows it's function of protection from other pike-men and cavalry but the suit is not ideal for matched singles combat.

Now against a mounted opponent I would rather wear a suit and wield a weapon designed for that purpose. I merely desire the ability to raise my pike shaft over my head with my elbows about level with my shoulders. The aformentioned pikemans suit is probably sufficient. I think it would be unwise to sacrafice much of the protection for "full range" motion. More important would be to keep the legs unencumbered and move sideways from the horse. Ward the blow as best you can and let the armor do it's job.

Getting hit on the armor is not the instant death that is percieved from sport reenactor combat.

Now when I participate in SCA combat where being hit on or off the armor is equally "deadly" (aside from an occasional bruise) I do chose to maximize my personal mobility including arm and shoulder mobility. The form of my spaulder follows it's function but it's function is different then the function of period armor.

Anyway I do think of spaulders as refering to the less restrictive designs and Pauldrons as to the more protective designs.

YMMV
Sean

Sean Powell wrote:I know people who fight SCA style in suits intended for later period pike-men where the "gorget" and the "pauldrons" are esentially one piece (for a black and white civil war harnes, what is this piece called?). The motions for setting or thrusting with a pike are quite easy and the general form of the suit follows it's function of protection from other pike-men and cavalry but the suit is not ideal for matched singles combat.




Now against a mounted opponent I would rather wear a suit and wield a weapon designed for that purpose. I merely desire the ability to raise my pike shaft over my head with my elbows about level with my shoulders. The aformentioned pikemans suit is probably sufficient. I think it would be unwise to sacrafice much of the protection for "full range" motion. More important would be to keep the legs unencumbered and move sideways from the horse. Ward the blow as best you can and let the armor do it's job.

Getting hit on the armor is not the instant death that is percieved from sport reenactor combat.

Now when I participate in SCA combat where being hit on or off the armor is equally "deadly" (aside from an occasional bruise) I do chose to maximize my personal mobility including arm and shoulder mobility. The form of my spaulder follows it's function but it's function is different then the function of period armor.

Anyway I do think of spaulders as refering to the less restrictive designs and Pauldrons as to the more protective designs.

YMMV
Sean

Okay, well I wasn't referring to pikemen. I am referring to the use of such weapons as glaive, halberd, poleaxe, bec-de-corbin, bardiche etc. Effective use of these requires overhead arm motion in many instances, as would other single-handed weapons suchs as the mace or axe. I haven't done as much sport SCA combat, but have been fighting steel re-enactment for about 20 years, much of it full speed and contact. Yes, you're right, being hit on armour does not spell instant death, especially with weapons that are largely ineffective against plate armour, such as swords. However - and this would apply as much to SCA as to steel - being bludgeoned by a fecking great poleaxe on the noggin can put a severe cramp on ones ability to defend ones self. Not being able to lift ones arms above ones head in order to parry with ones weapon when required is not the sign of great armour. As for being unencumbered I know people who can do pretty much anything in full harness that they can without, as can I (okay - not cartwheels, but then I can't turn a cartwheel without). Well designed plate armour (as in full harness) distributes weight over the body and moves with you, even (as in my case) it's not custom built to fit. Can I do as much in my crappy armour as one of the guys with a few Ks worth of "tailor-made"? No. But I can do most things that I can without it, so getting out the way of a man on horseback isn't a problem. Being unable to wield a weapon properly would be a problem, both offensively and defensively.
Yes - let the armour do it's job. Part of that job is allowing you to move.
Like I said, I've not that much experience with SCA combat, neither have I studied fechtbuchs and similar, or even trained (knowingly) with a WMA expert.
I just fight.

My perspectives come from 25 years of historical study, and observation of armor in use. Restrictive styles for dangerous sport such as "The Rennen" (jousting with real lances) Are the exception, rather than the rule.

Also remember that mounted men didn't need as good an articulation in legs as A dismounted man would-armorers bult well enough for them to walk and mount the horse. Real medieval legs don't articlate as far down as ours do.

They were also considered to be pretty damned close to death if they were on thier knees. So it wasn't a great concern. Admittedly fighting styles differed. Thier gauntlets were also not as flexible as ours. But let's face it, a 1500 pound horse sort of gets in the way for doing close in snap work.

I still stand by my origional statements of the function of medieval armors-having handled many.

Not to down play the seriousness of some of the points discussed on this thread...... I have to state that my answer to the original question is.....
From all my own research and comon usage experienced... I always explain to newbies that spaulders are one piece shoulder protection like aillietes, epaulets, or a single shoulder cop. whatever culture, period, or design. while Pauldrons are multi piece shoulder protection utilizing a spaulder (as the main piece) with added pieces for either more area coverage or articulation. with the same caveat... as far as basic usage terms to reduce, present day discussion, confusion.
Your Bruises may vary.

Being a newbie, I will say that I agree with pauldrons having wings at the shoulder blades and collarbone and spaulders having none. When I have investigated and researched them, it seems pauldrons are later than spaulders as was also stated. So I am in agreement there also.

I have always been one to feel that form follows function, but, function may also cause changes in form as needed.

When I look at military history and protective equipment over the decades, I have always noticed that dismounted equipment is not always the same as mounted equipment, due to the mobility aspects and requirements for both individual arms. That being said, yes, a mounted person who becomes dismounted, may have had mobility issues on the field. As well as a footman who would become mounted would have had less protection while mounted.
We, as reenactors, WMA practitioners, and living historians do some thins that were not done in medieval eras, and that is obvious. Living Historians not as frequently as Live steel and behourde groups. We also have a tendacy to find what works and use it with modification for function.
Just my 2 pence.

Not so much like "cop" as an anatomical reference. Armor bits get named after the part they cover, and spaudler/spaulder and pauldron both refer to the shoulder.

A similar usage, and quite sensible too, is seen in SCA armor wearers. They are always talking about "shoulders," "arms," "legs," and so forth. I don't know if they are saying "hat" for "helm," Archive style, but I guess I'll find out if I start hanging out at fighter practices again.