The Armour Archive

The wing is extremely similar to that on the leg harness RA III.1285 and 1286 in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. The date of thes legs have fluctuated quite a bit depending on who you ask. Boccia, Rossi and Morin dated them the end of the 14th century in Armi e Armature Lombarde. In L'Arte dell' Armatura in Italia, Boccia and Coelho date them to 1400-1415. The Royal Armouries currently lists them at circa 1420 in their inventory.

Just food for thought.

Rolling buckle alert....rolling buckle alert! (and its iron).


....but is it original???

Durasteel Corporation wrote:Rolling buckle alert....rolling buckle alert! (and its iron).


....but is it original???

It could be but the arm is begining to suggest that it may be composite. Who knows where the buckle came from if the arm is composite.

Talbot wrote:Excellent! Now we're digging into this piece. This feature still appears in the 15th but it could push the date back a few years earlier. What is going on with the main vambrace plate and the buckle? It looks like the buckle is attached to the outside. If so we, probably have composite pieces. Do you have any pics that show this buckle more clearly?

Well I was wrong about the buckle. I went back and looked through my pics. The buckle is also properly done through a slot. I still beleive it is from around 1420 but it could be a touch earlier.

Dr. Strong's dead on here, there's a steel loop around the buckle attaching it to the vambrace. If it were a roller buckle the roller would be on the other side of the buckle's frame.
The buckle in the crook of the elbow is attached to the cop by a leather strap, and there are two attachment holes in line with the strap on the wing of the cop. Only one of the holes is currently used for the strap. This might indicate that there was another buckle attached in a similar way to the one on the vambrace and it was repalced with the present setup. It's a little wierd if it was on the wing side, since Churburg #13 has the buckle on the opposite side.
As to the inner elbow lame being salvaged form elsewhere, it's certainly possible. It would also have had to be cut to size, and given some fairly subtle compound curves and slot articulation. It seems there's been an acusation of a crime, but no clear evidence of one, and no obvious motive, as adding such an anomoly only makes the piece more suspicious. Occam's razor doesn't appear to be on the side of fabrication here. Don't get me wrong, it's healthy to consider, compare and be suspicious of what we see, but let's build a case on some concrete facts before we cast accusations.
I'm sorry for what Brashford Dean had done to some of the psyche's here, but despite his transgressions it's quite possible that not all curators are armour molesters.

Never mind- answered.

Clermont wrote:As to the inner elbow lame being salvaged form elsewhere, it's certainly possible. It would also have had to be cut to size, and given some fairly subtle compound curves and slot articulation. It seems there's been an acusation of a crime, but no clear evidence of one, and no obvious motive, as adding such an anomoly only makes the piece more suspicious. Occam's razor doesn't appear to be on the side of fabrication here. Don't get me wrong, it's healthy to consider, compare and be suspicious of what we see, but let's build a case on some concrete facts before we cast accusations.
I'm sorry for what Brashford Dean had done to some of the psyche's here, but despite his transgressions it's quite possible that not all curators are armour molesters.

Observation of fit, function based on photographic evidence at hand. Not reconstructionist conspiracy theory. Maybe I should start a religion, though... Deanism.

The rest of the forearm cannon appears to be well made. and fits together quite well. The lame, not so much. Either in its extended or compressed state.

Facts, accusations of a crime? Nope, simple observation. If we had facts about this piece we would not be having this discussion. Correct?

Brian W. Rainey wrote: Maybe I should start a religion, though... Deanism.

Where the churches are made out of bits and pieces of other churches... It's weird how that sounds like the Cloisters in Harlem.

Notice the hinges on the Musee de L'Armee arm are almost exactly the same as the copless vambrace next to the red velvet suit in the Met? That vambrace gets dated to 1420, so it bolsters Doug's assertion of a later date, assuming we can trust the dating and composition in the Met.

What sort of documentary evidence do we have for modified armour for the tournament c. 1400? It has occured to me that that lame could be a working life modification.

The abovementioned lower cannon at the Met has a significant flange protecting the elbow pit, and it's possible that in this case, an earlier 14th century vambrace with a clean-cut edge was modified with this add-on piece to provide the same defense. If that was the intent, it need not have been intended as a functioning mechanical lame, only a deflector of sorts. I'll go look for a postable picture of the Met cannon for comparison.

Yep, it's on both of them (the complete arm possibly being earlier?) It should be noted that these arms, coming from the military outpost at Chalcis, are more likely to represent field armor and not tournament armor.

Hmm... I was bothered by how poorly the rolled edges on the lips of the cuff of the Paris arm lined up, having just looked at the ones Klaus posted from the Met. Perhaps unnecessarily bothered. Still, the pic of the strap side of the cuff doesn't show how off the lineup is. I could swear I have a pic somewhere...

some different angles......

The Churburg #13 arms have a roll at the inner elbow that's not closed- it's not as exaggerated as the ones in the Met. One of them is cracked. With thin metal it's a bit of a tricky roll since you're stretching the metal so much. Using a separate lame keeps you from screwing up all the harder shaping you've done in the vambrace. So the extra lame is kind of a short cut for similar coverage.

Clermont wrote:

Brian W. Rainey wrote: Maybe I should start a religion, though... Deanism.

Where the churches are made out of bits and pieces of other churches... It's weird how that sounds like the Cloisters in Harlem.

That made me laugh out loud!

Clermont wrote:The Churburg #13 arms have a roll at the inner elbow that's not closed- it's not as exaggerated as the ones in the Met. One of them is cracked. With thin metal it's a bit of a tricky roll since you're stretching the metal so much. Using a separate lame keeps you from screwing up all the harder shaping you've done in the vambrace. So the extra lame is kind of a short cut for similar coverage.

Do you have a pic that shows this? I'd love to see the crack. (I'm a crack addict. I love flaws and damage)

Forget what I said about the hinges on the Paris arm. Even if the 'door' had been inset enough to cover up the cut out bit for an internal hinge, there should be tell-tale rivet holes (filled or not) to show where it had been attached. Clearly external hinges are correct.

I was thinking that as well. This could potentially be a transitional form- 14th-century-style strap insertions, 15th-century-style hinges. If hinges, buckles and other closure items fell under the purview of different associated guilds, perhaps this arm was hinged by a shop that was more in touch with the cutting edge of armor fashion, as it were.

The met has a vambrace with these features. 29.150.22 has externally applied hinges and slots for straps. It is dated to 1425-1450.

By 1430 the slots are falling out of fashion and are being replaced with straps that wrap quite a ways around the vambrace. The same is true for greaves.

Correction-- the met has at least two of that same configuration. 29.150.33 is also set up that way. 29.150.19 may be. I have never seen the inside but there is a rivet on the outside (for the later setup) though Granscay did an excellent drawing of it and it shows this setup. It is possible that is wwas retrofitted with the more fashionable later strap style.

All are from Chalcis and carry the date 1425-1450

Why do you think this preference for strapping technique changed, other than simply a vagary of fashion? One would think a strap secured on the inside of the plate defense would be better protected than one on the outside. Perhaps with the increased used of heat-treating for high-end harness, the slots cut through the metal for the straps to emerge became weak points subject to stress cracks. The same might also hold true for cutouts made for in-line or integral hinges; it might have been easier to heat-treat and temper a piece without having to worry about the delicate fiddly bits of a hinge barrel, and then add more robust external hinges afterwards.

I'm not sure. It seems like a weaker setup to me though it might be easier to put on and take off. I'd love to hear input from one of our 15th century gurus. This is out of my depth. I have studied these vambraces in depth because Granscay initially dated them to circa 1400. Now though much scholarship on the part of the Met they have moved the date quite a bit later.

21.150.91G (the brass-trimmed arm) is still pretty firmly in the 1390-1400 camp stylistically, right?

Double post

It has all the earmarks of a late 14th century Italian arm. It has a smallish wing, inset hinges, slotted straps, tulip shaping on the vambrace, Three lames (2 down, 1 up), and the lowest lame is for rotation. It is possible that the arm could date to the very early part of the 15th century but there is nothing specific to suggest that it does.

It is worth noting that many of the above features continue into the 15th century. The inset hinges are the biggest defining feature for earlier rather than later though even these stay around until the second decade.

Klaus the Red wrote:21.150.91G (the brass-trimmed arm) is still pretty firmly in the 1390-1400 camp stylistically, right?

The capped wing is its biggest anomaly.

Clermont wrote:The Churburg #13 arms have a roll at the inner elbow that's not closed- it's not as exaggerated as the ones in the Met. One of them is cracked. With thin metal it's a bit of a tricky roll since you're stretching the metal so much. Using a separate lame keeps you from screwing up all the harder shaping you've done in the vambrace. So the extra lame is kind of a short cut for similar coverage.

I lost you Gaston.....can you kindly reword what you meant? I lost you between the thin metal and adding another lame...was that two different thoughts?

The capped wing is its biggest anomaly.

Is it capped, or straight latten? I don't recall seeing an additional thickness of a steel layer underneath when I looked at it last, but it's hard to see all of what's going on from that angle. Besides, don't you see lots of knees and elbows depicted as gold-colored metal in ms. both before and after 1400?

Sure- So you've got a little challenge: to find a way to protect the crook of the arm. You can either flare the top of the vambrace and curl it over, which thins the metal, or add a little lame on, which doesn't thin it. If you've spent a few hours shaping the vambrace you might want to avoid any risk of cracking it by adding the lame instead of doing the roll? Does that make sense?

As for a pic of the crack on the Churburg #13 vambrace, unfortunately I wasn't pushy enough to take pictures. It's small, and usually hidden by the fan in all the pictures. I think it's on the left arm.

Does anyone else find it strange that all of the early extant arm harnys have short open upper cannons? Where are the long, closed, hinged, upper cannons that one sees so very frequently in the art of England, France and Germany? Arms of the type which have survived appear less frequently in art , and their existence is more often than not rather implied than depicted, hidden from view by mail sleeves falling to the elbows. ( see Van der Weiden's St George, Van Eik's soldiers of Christ, Campin's soldier at The Crucifixion, and of course all the Italian knights depicted by Bellini etc.) I can think of only one example off the top of my head where such a short open upper cannon is unambiguously depicted; and that is on the effigy of Jean lll de Ribeaupierre. this is depicted as an anonymous 18th c. drawing in Paul Martin's Armour and Weapons, 1967. The dating of this effigy to Jean's death in 1362, tends to muddy the water a little, since most of the extant arm harnys are clearly, as Doug Strong says, on the "shiny side of 1400".
Of course, it's all about small sample size, and the vagaries of chance preservation; but somehow I''d be happier if we had any survivors with long closed upper cannons.

On another topic, to wit, hinges and fastenings. It seems to me that the aesthetic of early full plate armor, is one of smooth unsullied surfaces. As if the the armorer (or perhaps more importantly,his customer) simply did not want to see the mechanical details. The hinges are internal. The straps and buckles emerge from one slot, make only a brief appearance in the light of day, then disappear down another slot. The rivets are peened up neatly on the outside.

Internal hinges are a little more difficult to do than external ones, and hinges made integrally with the plates are positively devilish.

Those little slots for the strap and buckle are a pain in the ass to make.

Peening articulating rivets on the outside of the armor, while making the heads big enough to do their job, leaving them loose enough to move, and making them smooth enough that their edges are not sharp, and (oh by the way) not messing up the polished surface, is a lot of trouble.

I'm sure that as soon as aesthetics no longer required it, the armorers were more than happy to oblige, by putting the hinges and fastenings on the outside, and peening the articulating rivets on the inside.

Mac

Does anyone else find it strange that all of the early extant arm harnys have short open upper cannons? Where are the long, closed, hinged, upper cannons that one sees so very frequently in the art of England, France and Germany?

Perhaps because the surviving arms are all of Italian manufacture, and designed with Italian fashion sense to go under a short haubergeon sleeve and without a spaulder?

You're right, of course, Klaus. Our statical sample is based largely on three hordes; Chalcis, Rhodes, and Churburg. All largely Italian.

I guess I'm just pissy because our understanding is so colored by the few survivors.

Mac

Clermont wrote:

Sure- So you've got a little challenge: to find a way to protect the crook of the arm. You can either flare the top of the vambrace and curl it over, which thins the metal, or add a little lame on, which doesn't thin it. If you've spent a few hours shaping the vambrace you might want to avoid any risk of cracking it by adding the lame instead of doing the roll? Does that make sense?

Okay...I did understand you. I do something very similar.

-----------------

Mac wrote:

Does anyone else find it strange that all of the early extant arm harnys have short open upper cannons? Where are the long, closed, hinged, upper cannons that one sees so very frequently in the art of England, France and Germany?

Yes! Drives me nuts. Especially with regard to the spaulder attachment. ...however maybe the integral attachment of the upper cannon to early spaulders was the reason that it was simpler to update the arms by just attaching a new rerebrace that might be met with those pecular post 1400 long spaulders. In other words, the preservation of a nicely formed vambrace and cop assembly may have proven more worthy to salvage and update as upposed to the rather 'flatish' rerebrace which was ....as I understand it....integrally attached to early spaulders. Those post 1400 spaulders appear to descend more, so lose the rerebrace and replace it....OR...cut it down.

------------------

To interject here a few thoughts. Im not very comfortably with assigning super strong regional uses to a lot of late transitional and early white harness armour primarily because I suspect far more fluidity in trade and usage. Manuscript images, which are probabaly out best (and worse) forms of 'interpretive primary' evidence seem to show a wide range of harness variations being used. I can back the horse of manufacture, but not necessarily exclusive regional usage.

Mac,

I am equally frustrated by the lack of the "cased rerebrace" and the lack of integral spaulders-- both of which are so evident on English effigies of the late 14th and early 15th centuries.

I have cataloged a few more arms than are commonly known but none are published in any of the usual literature. Essentially they are all of the type that is so well known.

There is one archaeological excavation from Italy that had an integral spaulder but floating rerebraces-- more like what would have gone with Chartres than Churburg. I have also found an archaeological excavation in Poland with what may be integral spaulders but they are so badly preserved it is impossible to tell.

As to the "cased" rerebrace I have only cataloged a single excavated plate that is probably the "door" that would have covered that which is uncovered on all those Italian arms that survive.