Toy soldiers

I don't know how perfectly authentice this particular figure is, supposedly a 14th century knight.

After looking at this image, I have 3 questions.

1) Am I to assume there are metal stripes or splints behind the leather and rivets?
2) Where the rivets that proportionately large or is that just artist interpretation?
3) Is that period for greeves, upper legs, upper arms, etc?

Thanks for any help ahead of time.

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

It does however reduce the protection your hand recieves....

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

1. yes the rivets would normally affix metal or bone splints to the leather.

2. the rivets are that large and few because it is a toy and they need to be seen.

3. which period? leather armour was worn by those poor enough through most of the medieval period. It would not have looked like this totally inaccurate toy.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caliburnus:
ahh, I actually use my shiled that way round, I find it fantastic as i can use a short sword or dagger in the same hand quite easily.

It does however reduce the protection your hand recieves....

---

That's really interesting. I had no idea people actually did that. Now I have even more questions: Wouldn't your shield need to be the other way around when you're on a horse? Do you have multiple straps on the back to let you hold it either way? Isn't your heraldry sideways when you hold your shield like that? Is this a problem? Do you know if this is somethat that was done in period?

Sorry to bombard you with so many questions. I'm just a curious newbie.

Hm, I have to disagree in some points.
First, the helmet is 14th century, I think it's a common mistake people think backwards-pointed bascinets are later 14th only (and even if they are 14th); for instance see "Un itinéraire européen,Jean l´Aveugle, comte de Luxembourg et roi de Bohême 1296 - 1346", Image showing Battle of Muehldorf September 1322: backward-pointed bascinets. Painted Bascinets can bee seen in various instances, for example effigy of Sir Robert de Bois, ca. 1340,Parochial Church, Norfolk.

The knee cops are more or less 1320-1350 i would say, which fits the jupon as well as the helmet and shield. But there are also later examples in italian images.

The rivets in this example are really a bit off; splints themself offer hardly protection, though there are examples, as for instance the armour of Ludwig the Bayer, effify in Frankfurt, Main (combined with straps). Pure Leather protections in addition to chainmail is also possible for the Mid-14th, as can be seen at italien effigies and images, for instance in the Cathedral of Salerno.
It's also possible for a knight, und totally possible in that era of experimentation, since there is no such thing as "the knight", there are evidences of knights still wearing only a full suit of chainmail post-mid 14th.
Since there was a wide range from a rather "poor" ministerial to a high-nobility knight equipment also differed a lot, especially in that period and throughout europe.

There is unfortunatly nothing which indicates the region of this man at arms. The sword looks a little bit scotish to me.

quote:

---

leather armour was worn by those poor enough through most of the medieval period

---

I agree with Jens reagarding the use of leather. Many Italian effigies of the 14th century show liberal use of leather armour for the limbs.

I also think the helmet is very much of a 14th century style, although I would give it an Italian provenance due to it's shape and it's decorative edging.
Jens, could you post a copy of the reference you cite, "Un itinéraire européen,Jean l´Aveugle, comte de Luxembourg et roi de Bohême 1296 - 1346", Image showing Battle of Muehldorf September 1322?
I would love to see it.

The main points which I find incorrect about this figure are his greaves, upper arm splints, gauntlets and the dagging on his sleeves.
-The greaves are internally splinted. I have never come across that on any period example. They were always either externally splinted or half internal, half external.
-The upper arm splints, apart from having too few rivets, are wide and have splints around the inside of the arm, which I haven't seen in period examples. Normally only a thin strap goes around the inside of the arm. They have laces, but on the top of the arm, which is the most exposed part. So they are in fact also placed incorrectly.
-The gauntlets have metal plates in the cuff, but no indication of any on the fingers. That is probably due to inability to create such fine detail on a figure of that size.
-The dagging on his sleeves does not come from his jupon, which it should, but from some secodary garment worn over the hauberk. But there is no indication of such a garment where the mail shows at the bottom edge of the jupon. The sleeves are given the same colour as his gambeson, but the gambeson is worn uder the mail, and the sleeve goes over the mail. Very poor design!

Daniel, as has been said already, it's a toy, and seems to have been researched poorly.

Dagging: Yeah, now as u mention it, that's kinda weird. The green cloth thingy worn under the hauberk isn't padded, and the mail comes from beneath this piece of cloth as far as the arms are concerned....

But as for the dagging, I was talking about the red jupon, worn ober the hauberk.
Oh ansd the shield..oh well

[ 01-30-2004: Message edited by: Jens Boerner ]
/Edit: You need to copy the url to your browser's address line and remove the blank, the Forum splits the url into two parts, guess it's too long for it

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

I thought that helmet was a 15th c velvet covered Italian Barbute. I have seen a photograph of the one it is taken from.

Lord only knows where the book is that has it. I will see if I can dig it up.

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

Fire Stryker, the helmet does look like a 15th c velvet covered Italian Barbute, although I personally think that such helmets already began being made in the later 14th century. This example here is from c.1320
<img src="http://home.armourarchive.org/members/erik/CB.jpg">

Note the shape is very similar, as well it is covered and decorated.

Thanks for posting the picture Jens. (By the way, it's a mirror image. They are using the swords in their left hands )
Notice one very important thing about that painting. The "back pointed bascinets" are only worn by the one side. On the victorious side, flying the banner with the eagle, there are no such helmets.
The reason for this I think is as follows, and this also counts for the depiction of scale armour here.
The victorious write history. In this case the painting has been made to represent the victorious army of the current king slaughtering the enemy. The enemy will not be depicted as being of kin, but will be portrayed as foreign and in a negative way, much as today. To do this they have made use of "foreign" armour, that of the east, scale and pointed helmets.

So you need to be very careful when interpreting art. It is common for "foreign" armour to be depicted. I believe those are in fact not bascinets, but a depiction of eastern pointed helmets which have come to look bascinet-like due to the artist not knowing how they really look.

Erik

As for scale armour and backward pointed bascinets, there are also other images, for instance in the holkham bible.

But thanx for the hint, gotta switch sides on this image

As for the interpretaion, well, since this battle was fough between habsburger and wittelsbacher, I really don't think so. At about this time for instance Otto von Orlamuende also wore a high-pointed bascinet.
But of course that's a point always to consider.

Tall bascinets such as those worn by Otto von Orlamünde certainly seem to have been common, even much earlier than the date of 1340 ascribed to Otto, but they don't have the point near the back, but more centrally placed.
The bascinets with the extreme cone shaped skull that had the point at the very back didn't appear till c.1380, although tall bascinets with the point near the back did come into use for some time prior to this date.
I wouldn't be too quick in placing them at the early part of the 14th century based on only very little evidence, but if you can find some convinving evidence, that would certainly be interesting.

It would certainly be nice to look through all the images of armour depicted in the source from which you had the picture. This would give a better indication of what these "bascinets" might be.
Unfortunately, the only reference is the title of the book in which the picture was published, and not the source of the picture itself.
Michel MARGUE (hg.) Un itinéraire européen. Jean l’Aveugle, comte de Luxembourg et roi de Bohême 1296-1346, Luxembourg 1996.

Jens, you state;
"As for the interpretaion, well, since this battle was fough between habsburger and wittelsbacher, I really don't think so."
I understand. I also thought it odd, but having seen other similar examples and there being such a difference between the two sides, I though it a likely explanation.

What I meant by 'poor' wrt leather armour was not that it was cheap. Leather was indeed expensive, something 'poor' knights could afford. Knights as a whole are 'rich' in comparison to the average person. Perhaps the person would want lighter than metal reinforcements. Perhaps he was down on his luck and had to sell the more expensive metal armour. There is no hard and fast rule. To each the best they can afford.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodcrafter:
However I have not seen any surviving 14thc helms with a central raised ridge and scrollwork decoration.

---

Neither have I.
Art from the 14th century does indicate such shapes having been used and I know of one example in art of decorative work at the point of a bascinet where a crest is attached. But it is not exactly good evidence for that style. The central ridge does make it unlikley to be a 14th century example.
Woodcrafter, do you know of any extant example of such a helm from the 15th century?

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