So I've thought about commissioning a new harness of the period 1370-1375; the most advanced armours had full arm and leg harness with fans, and a globose breastplate with umpteen faulds. Now, to keep the weight down and minimise the dents it would get if it was mild steel, I have approached a friend about making it out of carbon steel.

He has worked with carbon steel before, though I suspect I will be pushing harder than other clients, and he has sourced 1.2mm and 1.6mm 1070 sheet, and 2.0mm 1050 sheet for bits that need a lot of raising and finishing. My questions:

- what are your general thoughts on carbon vs. mild, in terms of plate thicknesses for various parts (especially for high-impact jousting)

- I intend to get the pieces shaped and articulated, and do the heat treatment and finishing myself over the next year or two. I know heat treatment, having made swords proffessionally for the last 18 years. What is the ideal hardness for armour? Blue, or harder? Blue-grey, or that getting too soft.

- How do you avoid or minimise warpage? I have read about using cross-bracing to keep the plates in shape for quenching. Is this the way to go?

The Romance of Alexander (finished by 1344)shows leg harness that could be fully articulated (though it is hard to tell as the details are ambiguous). But several carved panels from the church of St Nicholas, at Hugenot, France (dated by David Nicolle to 1350-1355)show full leg harness, with fans on the knees, doubled lames above and below the knee, and sabatons.

Full arm harness is shown as early as 1349 on the tomb of Hugh Despenser, and hourglass gauntlets also appear on monumental brasses, for evample W. de Aldeburgh (c.1360) and commonly from 1380.

Breastplate and faulds are more problematic, since most effigies show them covered so the design can only be surmised by the waisting appearing on the effigies. The earliest that clearly shows it is the silver panel in Pistoia Cathedral, Italy, from 1371 or 1376, which shows a breastplate with a central ridge (impossible to know if it was intended to have a back plate as well, since another panel shows a breastplate held by cross-straps at the back), and five faulds at the front.

The hourglass gauntlets I totally agree with.

I had a good look through my image archive and came up with plenty of full limb armour in the 1360's as you said, although only with the small round fan and without any indication that the lames were articulated on rivets, but some evidence that they still used a cloth backing type articulation, at least where more than one lame was being used above or below the couter. That is, an articulation similar to that used on the lames of a fauld. See the effigy of W. de Aldeburgh, Aldeborough, Yorks c.1360.
I don't know if a date has been assigned to the tomb of Hugh Despenser. The date of 1349 is the date of his death.

As for the plate leg armour with poleyns articulated on rivets with a lame above and below, I have as yet no evidence of it's adoption in England until well after 1372.

If the date is not so critical, I would certainly think that moving it to 1376-1380 would be much safer for justifying the articulation of the poleyn.

I don't agree with your use of the Romance of Alexander (Bodelian MS 264) to suggest anything like full plate leg armour with poleyns articulated on rivets. I see cloth knee padding with a poleyn strapped or riveted (over or onto) it.

The St Nicholas reliefs are certainly an interesting, and totally unique example, of some very complex knee articulation. I really don't know what to make of them. I have as yet not read that they may have been reworked later, which was not unknown. This work of art is just too isolated an example that it would be dangerous to use it to justify poleyn articulation on rivets for an English night, especially when we just don't see that on effigies until well after the date suggested for the St Nicholas examples.

If you look at the Pistoia figures, the one to the left of the breastplate wearer seems to me to be wearing a solid backplate under a covering, with a single wide culet. The waist and smooth lines suggest it is not part of a coat of plates. Though another possibility would be hardened leather.

The figure you metion on the Pistoia alterpiece certainly does appear to have some form of back armour. Looking at the other figures, it could be part of a leather cuirass or a corazzina. It certainly isn't very clear.
The backplate is a real problem. You are unlikely to be able to provide proof for it. Many have already looked.
What you do it up to you. If you cover it with a jupon, you will certainly look the part of an English knight.

The splint cuisse on the Romance of Alexander miniature is a good indication that the colouring is not perfect. Splints seem to have been either internal or alternating external and internal. The former would show no metal, the latter would show only the metal strips, the rest would be cloth or leather. The fact that the cuisse we see on p74 is all blue, even below and between the splints, which appear to be externally mounted, shows that the artist most likely made an error.
As it is, you are certanly correct that they look to be wearing full plate leg armour. We know that full greaves were around quite early in the 14th century, some possibly made of metal, others of leather. Metal poleyns were the norm, and splint cuisses, possibly even plate cuisses were also known from before 1350.
So the elements are all there, but the articulation is not. It looks to me from what I have seen, that the poleyn was often attached to the cuisse or to a cloth backing worn over the knee joint. The schynbald or greave was most likely seperate as they are often shown worn under the cloth that is worn over the knee. This can be seen on Bodelian MS 264 fol.43v.

I know I'm being a thorn in your side, but I like to see people base their armour on a sound foundation.
I guess you have three choices regarding the leg armour. Change to a later date, find examples of English effigies that clearly exhibit what looks like rivet articulated leg armour, or get yourself some leg armour correct for the earlier date.

I have no idea what you could justify for back protection to go with a breastplate, other than just mail.

Erik

If I'm looking at my armour being in the 1376-1380 period, it sounds like I'm on safe ground with the details I'm planning.

Since the Romance is about 40 years earlier than this, it is largely academic, I've just been trying to find out when all the components and details originated, to be sure it is justifiable for my chosen period. I hadn't known about the German backplate from 1377, so that is all good to learn. Do you have an English-language source for pictures of it?

If the elbows on the BP effigy show the articulation rivets, that's great. At least you know they used them by then. I have no idea why they were not shown on the knees. It could be beacuse they had used leathers, who knows. The sourcing of components from different workshops is certainly a possibility, although less likly given his status. I get the feeling that those who could afford it would wear matching armour pieces, often ordered at the same time from the same workshop. That's certainly the case with the later suits and possibly also with some components of the Churburg armour from the 14th century.

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

Anyway, back to Beringer. You will find the effigy if you follow the subfolders;
Sakralbau - Kloster - Nebengebäude - Kreuzgang.
There are several effigies there.
To go directly to Beringer go here; http://www.bildindex.de/fotos/mi/089/55/a/MI08955j10a.jpg

Erik:
Based on my reading of Scalini's work on Churburg he strongly suggests that the 14th century armour at Churburg was not purchased "en suite" but rather purchased over time. He backed this up with evidence from castle records of purchases. This does not mean that nobody purchased armour as a suit but at least some people of their rank must have bougt it piecemeal.

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

Doug Strong
doug-strong@comcast.net

http://armourresearchsociety.org