what do we know about late 14th and early 15th c. Sabatons?

[Geoffrey the Younger]

Hi All,

So just what do we know about late 14th early 15th c. sabatons? Maybe more specifically plate sabatons.

There is the Chartre, childs armour with sabaton pieces. I think that is the only extant 14th c. piece. In the 15th c. the first that comes to mind are the ones in the royal armouries that are Italian and date from 1440s. After that there are a handful of things here and there.

What got me thinking was I am making some sabatons now, and we really don't have a whole lot of info on how the heel plate should attach, if there even was a heel plate??. Are all sabatons articulated on rivets or were some articulated with leathers? What are the extant sabatons, and are there some parts pieces floating around that I'm unaware of?

Do funeral effigy sculptures tell us anything about about some of these questions? for example depictions of heel plates and if they are attached by hinges or straps and buckles. How about artwork?

For starters, the Chartre sabatons don't have heel plates, or at least nothing has survived. There are lots of double holes in them, so they appear to lace on. They are articulated on rivets, and from what I can tell are missing 2 lames before they connect to the plate that covers the Tarsals.

The Royal Armouries Sabatons have a heel plate connected by a hinge, If my memory is correct the hinge is on the inside, strap and buckle on the outside. Dupras thesis has some great photos of it articulating -- which it does really well on rivets.

I also remember seeing a Sabaton in the Higgins. The photo I took doesn't show where it would attach. It appears to articulate on rivets and is not as shapely as I would have expected. I would think it should look more foot like.

Anyway, I would really like to hear what others have to say. If there are other sabatons out there (extant pieces) and what the medieval art tells us about construction -- heel plates attachment, and leathers or rivets?

Thanks,

--Jeff Wasson

[Kristoffer]

I dont know if the black prince is within your desired timeframe.




Then there are multiple st George effigys from that period showing off some spiff sabatons.



It appears that there are heel plates present and I think the st George effigys are detailed enough to give clues of how they attach if it would be possible to find detailed high res photographs of it.

[Kristoffer]

I have been looking at effigys and artwork and I cant help thinking that the heel is a separate piece that the spur is integrated with and is being held on by the strap that goes around the foot. I can see this in many, many effigys and brasses and in artwork, but it is hard to say if there is more to it and the details are just left out. However, the top of the heel plate seems to be following the spur like on the black prince effigy in a lot of art.

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cac ... _large.jpg
http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/20 ... 2%2025.jpg
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cac ... _large.jpg


This is the only detailed art I could find that seems to have the spur separated from the heel.

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/20 ... %20200.jpg

The man kneeling in this painting has some interesting sabatons and some rivets on the heel of the visible foot. However, the construction looks slightly weird to me and I get the feeling that the artist wasn't very detailed in his work. It would be interesting to see a higher resolution picture of it however.

http://armourinart.com/111/149/

[Rodney]

I know your sabaton patron and just had a peek at the progress photos minutes ago. Beautiful!

I have some sources saved on a thumb drive somewhere. I’ll take a look this weekend.

[Belemrys]

I know your sabaton patron and just had a peek at the progress photos minutes ago. Beautiful!

I have some sources saved on a thumb drive somewhere. I’ll take a look this weekend.

Ditto! Beautiful Sabatons!

[scott2978]

On period effigies it's extremely hard to tell how the heel plate is connected, if there is actually a heel plate at all. In pretty much all the effy and brasses I've looked at (and I was just looking at some in person last weekend for making rubbings) you simply can't tell if that's a heel plate or just a shoe - there is no border, no edge, no hinge, no buckle, no nothing. I'm almost inclined by this conspicuous lack of evidence to believe that there was no heel plate, that it's just their shoe which would explain why no effigies or brasses show any ways to connect one. Of course there are probably some that do, like the one Jeff mentions, but it sure makes me curious why none of the artwork or effy/brass shows any. Are the heel plates perhaps one piece, including the instep as well? If so, how the heck did they put them on? The hole doesn't seem big enough for a mailed foot to fit through. I wish I was closer to some good museums...

[Rodney]

... Anyway, I would really like to hear what others have to say. If there are other sabatons out there (extant pieces) and what the medieval art tells us about construction -- heel plates attachment, and leathers or rivets?

Thanks,

--Jeff Wasson

I’ve been unable to find a good source for you.

The effigies and artwork I found are frustratingly silent on the subject on heel attachment for your period. Either the heel is apparently omitted or the detail is simply glossed over.

[Ernst]

Are all sabatons articulated on rivets or were some articulated with leathers?

There is a stained glass scene of the Resurrection in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin and St. Nicholas, Wrangle, Lincolnshire which could show one of the sleeping guards with what appears to be plates riveted to leathers.

Wrangle Church Sabaton 001 (227x300).jpg (94.2 KiB) Viewed 1735 times

Wrangle Church Sabaton (390x201).jpg (97.93 KiB) Viewed 1735 times

[Kristoffer]

Ernst

It looks very similar to the heels in this picture



On the picture of the kneeling man, it appears to be a rivet on the side of the heel. On the person in the back, no such rivet can be seen. What troubles me is that it looks like one piece wrapping the heel and going around the foot, like a shoe that you stick your foot into. The heel plate can not be very high if you need to stick your foot into the sabaton like you would do with dutch clogs.

This style however differs from the effigys of the black prince. It looks to me that this is a simpler version of sabatons, perhaps an inprovement of the scale sabatons that can be seen in a lot of art from this time.

I have a hard time believing that they would go from feet covered fully with maille and/or scale to something that gives less protection. I have not seen any art that shows a foot that is covered with plates and no plate on the heel, instead having maille there wich would be the natural step going from maille to plate. Therefor, I personally believe there is a separate heel plate thats being held on by the same strap that holds the spurs. I also dont believe that the high end armours, like the black princes, would be less protected then cheaper armours from the same time. The more important you believed you were, the more protection you sought after.

These are of course only my unprofessional guesses.

[PartsAndTechnical]

I dont think for a second we would find the heel unprotected...if that is the idea. Its completely contrary to the evolution of the lower legs protection.

I think the better way to answer this question is to examine the foot in motion as it walks, because regardless of how creative any attachment points might be, if a man cannot walk correctly....or move with ease, its a failed piece of protection.

Having said that the greave during this period is significantly shorter than it will be by the second quarter of the century. This naturally suggests a higher sabaton.

And if the sabaton has that height, it stands to reason a hinge would connect the heel and front plates.

[chef de chambre]

Why wouldn't the heel being unprotected be possible? For a LOT of Europe, and through the 15th century, the solution was a patch of mail tied to an arming boot, covering from the arch to the toes, and that was it.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

All the 'gothic' sabatons made by Lorenz Helmshmid had no heels. Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien 1/2 ('gothic' in style) has no heels. The Thun Sketchbook shows early 16th c. designs with no heels.

[PartsAndTechnical]

I was interpreting the aforementioned as just shoes alone....which, if horsebound, and legs dangling about the level of a man on foot.....makes a nice and devastating target

But I defer to you later 15th century folks for that period...not full acquainted...dont the greaves extend to the ground basically forming a heel in the greave, so to speak?

[chef de chambre]

No, they do not, until several decades into the 16th century, as a general rule.

[Tom B.]

There are some nice images in La queste del Saint Graal

[PartsAndTechnical]

Well I still submit that leaving ones heel unprotected is both foolish and illogical.

I propose, rather broadly, that we are missing something.

We know that the foot and leg do not heal efficiently as other parts....a nick on the heal can spell amputation or worse.

Im also not entirely convince we are seeing "the back of a pair of shoes" ...mail at least holds water.


This isnt like the underside of the foot where armour is illogical if walking is intended. The heel is still very exposed to a blow or slash.

[Mac]

...and yet, there were those who would rather put their trust in a pair of red shoes. Clearly, there is something about the trade off of protection and convenience that we are not understanding fully.




Mac

[Gerhard von Liebau]

...and yet, there were those who would rather put their trust in a pair of red shoes.

Or illustrators who thought red shoes looked smart?

-Gerhard

[Ernst]

...mail at least holds water.

Like a sieve

[Mac]

...and yet, there were those who would rather put their trust in a pair of red shoes.

Or illustrators who thought red shoes looked smart?

-Gerhard

Gerhard,

I think there are too many examples from different sources for that to be the only answer. It seems like it was not at all uncommon for otherwise fully armed men to go without sabatons.

This one comes right to mind.



Keeping to the St. Geo. theme, there's this one. (Black shoes this time)




..and this one.



Mac

[Kristoffer]

There are some nice images in La queste del Saint Graal

Lots of interesting art there. There are clearly examples of maille, scale, plate and red shoe heels so anything goes during this period it seems. I have seen many examples of what appears to be a heel composed by lames that go around the heel and ends where the spur starts. How this is done mechanically one can only guess without any more clues.

This picture at first looked like a greave going down covering the heel like a 16th century one, however when looking zoomed in closely it more looks like paint smudge on the heel from the greave.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/m ... l/2-17.jpg

[Gerhard von Liebau]

Gerhard,

I think there are too many examples from different sources for that to be the only answer. It seems like it was not at all uncommon for otherwise fully armed men to go without sabatons.

I was being facetious, Mac. I just don't see the point in trying to understand the "trade off" between convenience and protection that you speak of, particular because artistic representations really tell us nothing about the rationale behind such choices (hence, my previous post). Is it not enough to suspect that sometimes folks bothered to put their sabatons on, sometimes they did not, and that artists commonly rendered both?

-Gerhard

[Mac]

Having just looked a a couple hundred images from the time period specified in the original post, I am going to say the not wearing sabatons is "not unheard of", rather that "not uncommon". It looks like it is more likely if fighting on foot than on horseback. Strangely, I found that the horsemen most likely to not wear sabatons in the period from 1375 to 1425 are heroic figures. St George seems to go without, and so do Arthurian characters.

Here are a few images of armed men without sabatons.

[Mac]

Gerhard,

I think there are too many examples from different sources for that to be the only answer. It seems like it was not at all uncommon for otherwise fully armed men to go without sabatons.

I was being facetious, Mac. I just don't see the point in trying to understand the "trade off" between convenience and protection that you speak of, particular because artistic representations really tell us nothing about the rationale behind such choices (hence, my previous post). Is it not enough to suspect that sometimes folks bothered to put their sabatons on, sometimes they did not, and that artists commonly rendered both?

-Gerhard

I am going to put more faith in the idea of artistic interpretation than I had heretofore. It's looking more like the red shoes (or any other color) rather than sabatons on a mounted knight is an indication that he is St. Georg, or Sir Galahad, or some other worthy of legend.

Thank you for making me look at a bunch of pictures. What I saw was not what I thought I was going to find.

Mac

[Gerhard von Liebau]

EDIT: I really have no reason to be playing devil's advocate... Just procrastinating on other work. I see many reasons to be wary of using such a random element of artistic depictions to cast judgment on the reality of using (or not using) sabatons in combat. The conclusion you make regarding saintly/legendary figures may hold water concerning the artistic motifs popular among guild/professional illustrators of the era, but among the many other representations you posted above there remains much to ponder, Mac. To my eye, none of it seems to give a sense of reality (e.g. dismounted and dying Kings and Roman legionaries being depicted without sabatons, but many other random figures having them).

-Gerhard

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Mac, the interesting thing about that second image from the bottom is that the king who is getting smacked in the visor with a falchion-like weapon and the fellow doing the smacking are both wearing sabs, but most of the fellows behind them are in shoe leather. Years ago, I got in an argument with someone regarding the prevalence of plate sabatons, and ever since have noted what people wore on their feet. Shoe leather was very common in many 15th c. depictions in all contexts. I think inventories are the best way to get an idea of actual practice. My private suspicion is that sabatons that actually fit right (and we all know how aggravating shoes that don't fit right can be) were quite expensive for the protection you got. In my researches regarding Jeanne d'Arc, I was impressed at how many of her compatriots took wounds to the feet, such as Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, at the Battle of the Herrings. I don't know how much weight to put on it, but his statue, interestingly enough, has no sabatons. Never mind, modern statue.

[chef de chambre]

Joan of Arc lost a squire to not wearing sabatons, having his foot pinned to the ground by an arrow, and in crouching down to remove the arrow, on lifting his visor to see what he was doing, being struck in the face by an arrow.

I think James is correct, that good sabatons were expensive, and the protection they offered in contrast to the cost meant a lot of people didn't wear them, or went for a mail patch laced to the arming shoe/boot as a cheaper solution about as effective. One will note that many stirrups of the 15th century offer some protection to the foot.

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

Yes Bob, stirrups and I'd also say, even more so spurs, offer at least some protection to the heel. It would be difficult to cut the back heel of someone wearing metal spurs. Other types of injury would be possible but that is still 'some' protection for the heel. Its a perfectly sensible place to leave unarmored when cost and comfort are factors.

[Talbot]

If you look at my database of effigy data for Germany you will find a distinct preference there for wearing shoes rather than sabatons. The purple color represents shoes.

[PartsAndTechnical]

This is one of those threads that drive men mad.

I cannot argue with hints at statistical fact....but I also cannot deny the reality of having good working feet.

Are we missing some symbolic nature of depicting a knight a sabaton-less?

Was there a stigma? A sense of lessoned manliness ? Religious underpinning?

....something that might hint at why men avoided them?

The only logic I can back is the foot vs horsebound vs expense...... Could we say that those who did have moderately full harnesses AND likely fought on foot were less financially endowed, generally speaking?

But as to why effigies shoe sans sabatons is curious if not unnerving.

[PartsAndTechnical]

...and yet, there were those who would rather put their trust in a pair of red shoes. Clearly, there is something about the trade off of protection and convenience that we are not understanding fully.




Mac

I think I see a bridadine pattern up close...

[Ernst]

Where? Certainly not one on the red or green shoes.

[chef de chambre]

Preponderance of evidence, and extant artifacts backing the evidence, seems to make the survey Talbot did to be a reasonable representation or reflection of reality.

[Lucian Ro]

To attack this from a different perspective, however anachronistic, maybe ask actual jousters if they use sabatons and whether or not they hinder their riding ability? I realize that todays jousters use different armour and saddles, but might there still not be a basic undertanding by those that push for more authentic harnesses and riding styles (although I'm sure even ahistorical riders could answer this) as to whether or not this type of footwear impedes their riding ability?

[PartsAndTechnical]

Wait a minute..... That makes sense.... Conditional necessity !

Think about it.... Jousting is a low risk to foot scenario since the aim is much higher.

Foot combat shares a similar low foot risk condition.

And unless I'm drastically mistaken the majority of the images depicting knight sans sabatons show those two situations.

And logic suggests only when the knight engaged foot borne soldiers was that risk increased to his foot

Now what I'd be curious to see is if effigial art tended to focus on activities of a more knightly vs knight nature (hence making sabatons moot)

While preference is the key, it is clear that a foot can be hacked off under the right conditions.....I propose it is those conditions that bear more truth as to when sabatons might be worn or excluded; I highly doubt they weren't kept in the proverbial trunk, just in case combat with foot soldiers arose. But it would stand to reason that a knight might not view them as an integral part of the suit, rather as an an accessory when the moment or conditions arose.