The Armour Archive

The armored codpiece is a very understudied thing. We joke about them, but we don't really understand them.

I've started collecting images on a pinterest board here.

If anyone has experience, insights, or images; please contribute here.

Thanks!
Mac

Wow, I know many of the paintings an never realised the guys are wearing a codpiece

It seems it is not very common to wear them in combination with a brayette

Christian Wiedner wrote:Wow, I know many of the paintings an never realised the guys are wearing a codpiece

It's surprising, isn't it!?

A lot of those images come from the Gothic Codpiece page that Tom B. started.

I think this one is one of Tom's best catches.



Mac

This is one of the things on my projects list.
In the next few months I plan on making myself a new mail brayette of the boxer as opposed to brief style.
My hope is to incorporate a codpiece based on the armour/statue from the house of armourer Hans Grünewalt in Nuremberg.


This is presumed to be the original


This is the modern copy that is now on display

Mac, good call to start a new thread.

Tom B. wrote:This is one of the things on my projects list.
In the next few months I plan on making myself a new mail brayette of the boxer as opposed to brief style.
My hope is to incorporate a codpiece based on the armour/statue from the house of armourer Hans Grünewalt in Nuremberg.


This is presumed to be the original


This is the modern copy that is now on display

On a copy, it seems to me codpiece is over cuisses and its different on original, so it may be not right.
I was thinking lately about how it should be done, maybe codpiece should be flared to get under cuisses, or have a hem, because codpiece and cuisse curvatures would nicely guide a thrust just between them.
If Im blithering, feel free to ignore.

Gordon Thompson wrote:
On a copy, it seems to me codpiece is over cuisses and its different on original, so it may be not right.
I was thinking lately about how it should be done, maybe codpiece should be flared to get under cuisses, or have a hem, because codpiece and cuisse curvatures would nicely guide a thrust just between them.
If Im blithering, feel free to ignore.

The modern copy is also a good deal shallower than the presumed original. Perhaps that was some sort of subconscious modesty on the part of the guy who made the modern statue.

The thing about a shallow groin protection (I'm thinking about the traditional sports cup) it that it uses your junk as the padding. On the flip side of that, a deep cup is more trouble is any part of the anatomy escapes under the edges.

A deep codpiece with a flare to increase the bearing surface against the lower abdomen sounds like a good solution. We have a rather extreme example of that with the famous codpices of Henry VIII.

In this example from his fully enclosed armor in the RA, we can see how that flare has become a series of articulated lames the bear against the upper thighs.



A slightly more abbreviated version of that is this one, from one of Henry's later armors. Unfortunately, it is shown upside down.



Now... that said, I'm not at all convinced that our articulated Gothic example has any sort of flared edge. In this image of that same armor I think I can see the (wearer's right) edge of the codpiece, and it does not seem to flare.



Mac

Take a look at this statue from the Met, note the articulations are overlapped in the opposite direction from most (maybe all) of the other examples.

Gordon Thompson wrote:
On a copy, it seems to me codpiece is over cuisses and its different on original, so it may be not right.
I was thinking lately about how it should be done, maybe codpiece should be flared to get under cuisses, or have a hem, because codpiece and cuisse curvatures would nicely guide a thrust just between them.
If Im blithering, feel free to ignore.

The shape of the copy is certainly different that the "original", it is much flatter.
A couple of notes of caution about the positioning of the cod piece.

1. On the "original" when looking at the two different photos we have, it becomes apparent that the cod piece and maybe the legs are in slightly different positions. This means that their positional relationship to each other can not be trusted.
2. Another thing to keep in mind is not to over think things. I have a tendency to do this. You are right about the the glancing thrust but would the resulting injury be any worse with the cod piece than without? My assumption here is that in either case mail would be worn underneath.

This image may shed light on the development of the articulated Gothic codpiece. The guy in the blue brigandine has a similar sort of construct covering his groin as he has on the back of his neck.



These articulated neck guards are pretty common in art, but this it the only example I know of where that construction has been used for the groin. Note, that it differs from the classic DPU in being worn right against the body, rather than being part of the fauld. It's pretty easy to imagine how a thing like this would be improved by giving it more volume. The resulting codpiece may or may not benefit from the flexibility, and may just retain the construction as a sort of atavism.

Mac

Tom B. wrote:Take a look at this statue from the Met, note the articulations are overlapped in the opposite direction from most (maybe all) of the other examples.

I think we need to be open to the possibility that some of our apperently articulated examples may be fluted instead.

We seem to have a parallel line of development of codpieces which appear to be one piece (or at least not horizontally articulated) constructions.





Mac

These are not rare in the early 15th century, especially among the English; the French example is the most clear.

Some more images from the RA to take a look at:

Codpiece (1540)of King Henry VIII

1520 Greenwich

More 16th century examples

*cough* Gratuitous "Blackadder" reference.

James, I would read those brasses as a conventional pointed fauld like on the Pistoia Altarpiece. If the leathers were nice and flexible you could try pulling one of those back and hanging it from the back of the fauld (the leathers in mine are a bit stiff).

Sean M wrote:James, I would read those brasses as a conventional pointed fauld like on the Pistoia Altarpiece.

Like Sean, I'm drawing a distinction between laminated groin defense which hangs from the fauld and laminated groin defense which is worn attached to the body.

The problem that brings up, of course, is what to do about a similar distinction in solid defenses. It's clear that most 16th C armor codpieces simply hang from the fauld, while a few are worn close to the body. Those that attach to the fauld are (as John V, suggested in another thread) really just a sort of bessegew to fill the place that is otherwise left open to fit the saddle. The closely worn examples are more like a modern sports cup.

So... it comes to terminology. I think we need to distinguish among all these types of groin defense. Do we have any suggestions?

Mac

Certainly, there are the Pistoia hanging bits like this Scottish example (Alexander Stewart d. 1405), which has a lot in common with English armour; anybody know when the effigy was carved? But I could swear I saw an English sculpture that showed an actual laminated cod, so I put it up. The French example is harder to explain as a hanger, with those things that look like points where they are, instead of straps and buckles. No luck so far on that English effigy...

I have not seen any English effigies where the groin defense was not clearly attached to the fauld. That doesn't mean there are none, but I have not seen them.

On our French example, it looks like we are supposed to see those things as straps coming through integral buckles.



Zooming in on the image here shows that there are straight lines across the tops of what I take to be slots, and one of them seems to have a line that may be a buckle tongue.

He's also got integral buckles on his greaves; which makes that interpretation for the DPU even more likely.

Mac

Good one, Mac! Now how did I miss that one... not that he doesn't have more than a few images on his Flickr account...

James Arlen Gillaspie wrote:Good one, Mac! Now how did I miss that one... not that he doesn't have more than a few images on his Flickr account...

I'd been keeping my eyes open for a good image of Poincinet de Juvigny since around 1985, and was very pleased to see Roel R's pics. We live in a remarkable age.

Mac

I thought I knew him pretty well, seeing as he was one of the sources for the Jeanne d'Arc movie I was working on in '97, but I know him a lot better now.

Mac wrote:
The problem that brings up, of course, is what to do about a similar distinction in solid defenses. It's clear that most 16th C armor codpieces simply hang from the fauld, while a few are worn close to the body. Those that attach to the fauld are (as John V, suggested in another thread) really just a sort of bessegew to fill the place that is otherwise left open to fit the saddle. The closely worn examples are more like a modern sports cup.

So... it comes to terminology. I think we need to distinguish among all these types of groin defense. Do we have any suggestions?

Mac

What do y'all think?

Shall we have a sort of typology here?

What should be call the different types of groin defenses?

Has anybody got a better name for the type that vulgar people call a DPU?

Mac

Mac wrote:Has anybody got a better name for the type that vulgar people call a DPU?

Uh oh. You've done it now. I'll start with "goolie guard".

Dan Howard wrote:

Mac wrote:Has anybody got a better name for the type that vulgar people call a DPU?

Uh oh. You've done it now. I'll start with "goolie guard".

Ah.... thank you, Dan!

I guess I should have made it clearer that I was looking for a name that was less vulgar, rather than more so. As such, I think we need to rule out "nad tasset", "scrote shield", "junk-shot deflector", and "nob fauld" as well.

Mac

I just say "I am wearing a breast and a pointed fauld of 7 lames." That seems to be how Datini and his clerks talked about armour. It gets tricky in the mid-15th century when they introduce weird floppy things like tassets though, but that is after he died so its not my problem

From a practical point of view, there is a difference between breeches of mail, which are designed to be there even if a nasty person tries to pull your armour out of the way, and dangly bits which stop chance strikes but can be moved out of the way once someone has you pinned. There is a High Medieval source about someone who survived because he had sewed his mail hose to his hauberk and an enemy just could not find a way to the soft squishy bits.

I like the connection to besagews!

Will McLean found rules for a deed of arms which mentioned that people could "extend their plates" and exchange their visor between the mounted portion and the dismounted portion. Edit: Jean de Verchin, Seneschal of Hainault, 1402, in Enguerrand de Monstrelet, and the challenger found nobody willing to face him.

Dan: Jewel case? Codpiece literally means "junk protector" ...

Mac wrote:
What should be call the different types of groin defenses?

Privates Security?

Mac wrote:Ah.... thank you, Dan!

You are very welcome.

I guess I should have made it clearer that I was looking for a name that was less vulgar, rather than more so. As such, I think we need to rule out "nad tasset", "scrote shield", "junk-shot deflector", and "nob fauld" as well.

Spoil sport.

Sean M wrote:Dan: Jewel case? Codpiece literally means "junk protector" ...

I always go for a literal translation if I can, so "junk protector" works for me.

Bollocker?

Testicular Testudo? Has a nice ring to it.....

Oh, dear..... I knew this would happen.....

Mac

Why do we need a polite name? Is it for the kind of clients who don't want to hear that the first breast you made them was not curvy enough and their waist will need to be taken in a bit?

People wear these so their enemy can't stab them in the bollocks, and there are only so many ways to say that without saying that. "Fauld extension" is OK but runs into problems by the mid-15th century with fore-tassets and hinder-tassets and bollock-tassets.

Sean M wrote:Why do we need a polite name? Is it for the kind of clients who don't want to hear that the first breast you made them was not curvy enough and their waist will need to be taken in a bit?

People wear these so their enemy can't stab them in the bollocks, and there are only so many ways to say that without saying that. "Fauld extension" is OK but runs into problems by the mid-15th century with fore-tassets and hinder-tassets and bollock-tassets.

Is "bollock tasset" a real 15th c term?!

If so, then let's use it.

Mac

Is this closer to what you were thinking of James?

From Toby's article in the Journal of the Armour Research Society

Mac wrote:Oh, dear..... I knew this would happen.....

Mac

Yes, it's all your fauld.

Mac wrote:

Sean M wrote:Why do we need a polite name? Is it for the kind of clients who don't want to hear that the first breast you made them was not curvy enough and their waist will need to be taken in a bit?

People wear these so their enemy can't stab them in the bollocks, and there are only so many ways to say that without saying that. "Fauld extension" is OK but runs into problems by the mid-15th century with fore-tassets and hinder-tassets and bollock-tassets.

Is "bollock tasset" a real 15th c term?!

If so, then let's use it.

Mac

I actually don't remember any 15th century text which says tasset at all, although I am sure there are some (Blair cites an unpublished inventory from 1439 in London with fore-tasses and hind-tasses, but I can't find the word in my usual dictionaries of medieval English and French- I don't have access to the paper ones though). There is so much evidence to be sorted until about 1410 and so many things I don't understand about armour in my period.

Edit: aha! A document from 1454 has "[2 pairs of old] curas [lacking 2] hynde tasse [and one] fore tasse, [8 s.]."

The only medieval person I am pretty sure was talking about these is the Seneschal of Hainault who said "extend our plates" (ralonger ses plates) for "put on our DPUs."