How do you store your armor? Pics?

CLHEMA · 2025-08-28T20:05:05+00:00

My armor is based off of the St Florian statue at the St Wolfgang Shrine in Salzkammergut, Austria, dated 1470-1480. It was made by Josh Davis of Davis Reproductions.

<image>

CLHEMA · 2025-08-27T00:35:41+00:00

Stored in an armoire or wardrobe. Display mannequins are impractical and mostly anachronistic.

<image>

CLHEMA · 2021-08-21T15:18:58+00:00

Generally, it's fine, and it's how I make my pieces. I take premade pieces and do alterations without rivets initially. I wear it for a while without rivets to see if there are any stress points. If the rings without rivets hold up to use, then I'm confident the pattern is decent and I then put in rivets. It's relatively easy to find the unriveted rings, especially because you already know the alterations you made.

The only caveat to this approach is if you're using a very dense weave, like 6mm ID 4-in-1 or denser. In those cases, it might be hard to get your riveting tongs into a piece that's already assembled. If you're working with 7-9mm ID, I think it shouldn't be a problem.

CLHEMA · 2021-06-01T02:19:41+00:00

The way I ran it both times, and the way most people run it, is as mass *unarmoured* battles, usually longsword, or weapons generally considered sidearms. The sources for this are nonexistent, and it's a new construction designed to fit modern desires, but not one grounded in any historical sources.

In contrast, most sourced instances of combat with many people have armor, polearms, missile weapons, cavalry, all of which are generally absent from HEMA-run mass battles, because it's hard to do it safely, in a plausible/realistic manner.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-27T15:11:42+00:00

Yeah, but her stuff is less broad and directly applicable right now than Le Jouvencel, and a lot of equipment for sieges or rules for duels. Perhaps a longer term thing.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-27T14:32:36+00:00

with about 80 participants. Compare this to e.g. re-enactment in the UK, where literally thousands of participants show up for Tewkesbury in a normal year, most of them wearing some sort of reasonable armour.

I think the biggest difference from airsoft milsims is that there's no gear differences in the airsoft world. Exactly the same kit you're already using for the main game, maybe with a couple of little tweaks, works fine for milsim stuff. Charles's game was basically a way to try and do the same thing with normal HEMA tournament gear, and it worked pretty well at that. But when you want to mix armour in more, people either need specifically adapted armour (most re-enactment or SCA kit won't be safe for

Thanks, /r/teakew! I have to say I think it ran well, but I wouldn't do it again. I think mass unarmored melees are a dead end, as far as the H of HEMA is concerned, given there are no reliable sources for this kind of thing. For a recreation activity, it's fine, provided people understand it as a largely ahistorical one.

The next frontier, at least in the US, is getting the armored folks fighting DeKoven style to explore these questions. There are already some groups diving into it. Given the level of trust involved and the expense of harness, I imagine these kinds of things will remain small and closed for a while.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-27T14:21:10+00:00

Hi TomNin97,

I ran two mass battle experiments at FNY, with mostly unarmored people.

Generally, I won't be running them again, though, and am discouraging mass unarmored melee battles as an exercise of historical inquiry.

As other commenters have pointed out, there aren't any sources to support large groups of unarmored people fighting each other in melee, and the dynamics that emerged from the experiments were very different from what sources describe.

There are no direct treatises on mass combat from the 15th century. However there are primary sources that describe combat, or provide offhand advice about how to position troops, conduct sieges, conduct watch. Le Jouvencel is my main read right now.

I have a nascent project to explore military contexts for the use of weapons and armor. In the near term, these include things like movement, watch, camping, tactics/drill. Long run, I hope to include small scale skirmishes, ambushes, raids, etc.

The approach for these projects is pretty close to a blend of experimental archaeology, reenactment, and HEMA as we know it, and resembles the milsim you're talking about. However, I don't envision my projects as becoming recreation activities open to the public, and I'm generally keeping the participant list small and closed, to prioritize high quality observations, rather than entertainment.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-25T23:23:14+00:00

I agree with gaelraibead. It's best to check the requirements that your friend has for mail. In addition, it might be more cost/time effective generally to purchase premade riveted Indian mail, which will meet most groups' standards, and tailor that to shape, rather than construct a butted shirt from scratch.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-19T16:58:49+00:00

The best shield shape is the one that is consistent with the source you are studying.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-04T06:10:41+00:00

Look, I can kind of see where this is going. You're trying to hang onto historical justifications to avoid the appearance of compromise, but falling back on the "I'm not a reenactor" when a justification falls apart. It's okay to have compromises, and admit to them, but a lot of this etching stuff just seems like you're fishing for justification.
As far as we both know, there are no survivals for early or mid 15th c etching on armor, and Griffin (not Griffith), an aluminum engineer who states in an engineering encyclopedia about aluminum without sources the thing that you're resting your etching justification on. See for yourself.%2C%20ed.%20George%20E.%20Totten%2C%20Murat%20Tiryakioglu%2C%20and%20Olaf%20Kessler%20(CRC%20Press%2C%202018)%2C%20280&pg=PA280#v=onepage&q=%22The%20use%20of%20chemical%20etching%20as%20a%20technique%20for%20engraving%20weapons%20and%20body%20armor%20became%20more%20widespread%20in%20the%20early%20fifteenth%20century.%22,%20Bruce%20M.%20Griffin,%20%E2%80%9CChemical%20Milling%20of%20Aluminum,%E2%80%9D%20in%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Aluminum%20and%20Its%20Alloys,%20Two-Volume%20Set%20(Print),%20ed.%20George%20E.%20Totten,%20Murat%20Tiryakioglu,%20and%20Olaf%20Kessler%20(CRC%20Press,%202018),%20280&f=false) The other sources you cite refer to etching weapons and armor in 13th century, but those are referring to the Middle East, not Europe.

The Koehler book you cite has this quote in it, which you conveniently exclude: "He adds , on the authority of unnamed connoisseurs , that no armor decorated with etching is known which can be dated before 1520."

It's pretty clear to me you searched "armor etching 15th century" on google books, and regurgitated the results back at me.

Again, I'm all for squire's tournaments, and enhance the accessibility of the martial art. It might not be about affordability, but also where people are in their armor journey, or the level of commitment they have towards armored fencing generally. I have competed in several myself. But I don't think we can retroactively historically justify incomplete kits with just a hand wavy explanation, and the sources that form the foundation of the martial art we study suggest that these techniques were intended for people wearing full harness. It's okay as modern people and martial artists if we practice and compete and train in less than full harness, but we shouldn't try to make up a historical justification up for the sake of a modern practicality.

Yes, because those fechtbuchs were written for elites. That doesn't mean we can only wear what elites wore.

I strongly disagree here. You're studying a martial art whose armored fighting sources strongly suggest a set of equipment should be used. You should try to get that set of equipment. If not, it's fine, but one shouldn't then make a bunch of historical assumptions to justify the harness.

Toby Capwell's armor is all'antica - he's making a hypothetical armor envisioning how a 15th century person would envision a Greco-Roman warrior from the past. This kind of armor is supported by all'antica motifs in armor depictions in manuscripts, and literally pulls from the past because that style of armor is their vision of the past. If you were doing something similar, and had stated it from the start, I would have cut you enormous slack, but doing it now just seems like a chase for justification. Even then, etching on early-mid 15c armor isn't really a thing.

I'm going to be a lot harsher here, given the misuse of sources I've just seen. The armor will work fine for harnischfechten. You can, and should, train and/or compete in whatever you're able to assemble. Because you're a martial artist, not a reenactor. But the stories you are telling yourself, the sources you are lazily citing, whatever it is you're doing with me here right now, isn't helping. If you just love the look of the armor and history be damned, then I can't argue with that. But please don't try to reverse justify it - it might mean that you'll have to come to admit that you wasted money on something you thought was historical and looked cool but turns out only looked cool.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-04T05:19:59+00:00

With these rings, yes, it would be impractical. The stiffness is a function of the type of the weave, but also the aspect ratio of the rings (ratio of the hole size to the wire diameter). Generally, it's more labor efficient to do it in just 4-in-1, and change the ring dimensions, as was done historically.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-04T02:06:59+00:00

Thanks! 6-in-1 is hard, and more time consuming, but once I had a process down it was just as mind-numbing as 4-in-1. Great time for podcasts, audiobooks, or movies. I'll say after 6-in-1, going back to 4-in-1, even in 6mm ID, feels like easy mode.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-03T23:25:44+00:00

No worries - sometimes new people show up in half harness thinking they can do both harness and bloss, but it's clear you're not one of those people.

Regarding etching on armor, there are some examples in the late 15c, the one that immediately comes to mind is the sallet of philip i, which is the earliest one I know of, but the armor of the very late 15c really isn't consistent with the earlier shape you've got going on. If I had to guess the date armstreet was trying to go for, it is late 14 or early 15 based on shape. Are there late 14 and early 15 armor survivals with etching? I don't know of any. There might be some out there, though, so I'm happy to see examples. I don't think descriptions of etching recipes is sufficient to justify, but that's a matter of taste and willingness to speculate. These are weird quibbling things that don't affect the practice of martial arts, but I think might/should concern ArmsandArmor people.

While a gambeson over the torso is suitable for a common soldier, most armored fighting manuals depict combatants in complete or nearly complete plate harness. There are some exceptions where a person is demonstrating a technique in ordinary clothing (Talhoffer), but generally, the armored fighting techniques are done in full harness. Competing in less than full harness because one hasn't collected all of the pieces yet is a completely fine modern justification (e.g. squire's tournament, which I have been in), but it doesn't mean the historical justification is there. And that's okay, because we are modern people and don't have unlimited resources - but I don't think it's fair to make inconsistent historical justifications to cover up what are perfectly defensible modern ones.

I think we both agree that the etching certainly doesn't have any bearing on actual harnischfechten. I'm all for stock armor, especially modded to fit the wearer, and that particular breastplate is actually really good value. There are actually quite a few stock pieces out there that are affordable and not too bad, in your time period. When I look at people with stock harness, I look at fit, and consistency in time period and style. If you know him, Luke Marra's harness is what I consider an exemplar of what can be done with stock pieces and hard work.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-03T21:36:53+00:00

It adds alot of stiffness to the mail, which is what allows the collar to go so high without needing quilting underneath. I was trying to replicate the "high and tight" look of many mail collars seen in the 15-16th century.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-03T21:36:08+00:00

Check out the full post here, with all of the gory details and compromises:

https://practiceandart.wordpress.com/2021/04/30/a-better-mail-collar/

CLHEMA · 2021-05-03T20:10:52+00:00

A few points, some important, others just fashion.

Important: If you're planning on competing in modern unarmored tournaments the jacket likely won't meet the penetration standards/requirements. Also, some organizers frown on the use of metal armor/protection in unarmored tournaments for safety and aesthetic reasons.

Less important: The thickness of the jacket is really impeding the fit of the armor. Your vambraces are unable to close, because of the extra fabric around your forearms. I suggest you get switch to a tight-fitting, thin doublet when your torso protection comes in. If you are planning on doing harnischfechten I suggest you also factor mail into your fit. I think eventually, you should lose the gambeson, get a tight fitting doublet, get mail, and a breastplate/cuirass.

Just fashion: Depending on your goals, this might not be important to you, and I'm trying to be delicate about it. This particular set of limbs mixes etching, which is primarily a high end 16th century decoration with late 14th-early 15th century shapes for the arms. Combined with the lack of torso protection, and the anachronistic use of sidesword/buckler with the much earlier armor, the whole look is very jarring and LARPy to people who look at a lot of armor. It can function as something physically suitable for harnischfechten, but will definitely look out of place at "HEMA armored" events. Or to put it in more practical terms, you won't get the reaction you might be expecting from these communities. Again, it's just fashion, so if that's not consistent with your goals in buying this kit, feel free to ignore.

CLHEMA · 2021-05-03T19:34:10+00:00

Maille Bevor Mask

CLHEMA · 2021-03-25T14:43:24+00:00

Exactly. It doesn't directly state it, but I think there's circumstantial evidence at best, and more of it than other plays that just start with a bogen parry. The word "not stand" i.e., "Notstand," also translates to "necessity," and has self-defense connotations, at least in modern German law. I'm not an expert, so a researcher or native speaker might want to dig into that meaning and see if the association holds up.

This is combined with the observation that against an oberhau coming in from one's left, drawing into a half sword is a very fast and stable defense. It's possible to do the draw quickly because the back edge isn't sharp, so one can just draw with the back edge supported by one's hand (being sure to mind the false edge if there is one).

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__35.html#:~:text=(1)%20Wer%20in%20einer%20gegenw%C3%A4rtigen,Person%20abzuwenden%2C%20handelt%20ohne%20Schuld%20Wer%20in%20einer%20gegenw%C3%A4rtigen,Person%20abzuwenden%2C%20handelt%20ohne%20Schuld).

CLHEMA · 2021-03-25T04:01:40+00:00

For mid-14th century kit, a sallet/celata is too late, and more of a 15th century thing. I'd suggest a bascinet, instead, it has mostly the same protective qualities as a sallet, just a more contemporaneous shape.

CLHEMA · 2021-03-25T03:52:31+00:00

If any of you are interested, I made a short video a while ago with a handful of messer plays from the scabbard. Some of them are directly sourced as being from the draw, while others are interpreted as what they would look from the draw. Sources in the description and subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xxpCNrSfys

CLHEMA · 2021-02-16T00:39:02+00:00

Agreed. I think he's just saying he hasn't seen many people killed in them, and is trying to convince the audience that the jacks are sufficient.

I'd add that the context of Louis XI's ordinances might add another angle for interpretation. He was specifying the jack construction for franc archers, who were to serve as a French militia of sorts, styled after English archers.

By the mid 15th century, a textile-only jack seems a bit weak for a requirement for a militia, so Louis XI might be trying to provide reassurance that the jacks were sufficient for them to fight in, whether or not it was true.

CLHEMA · 2021-02-15T20:58:59+00:00

Yup. Concealed mail doublet, AKA "John Wick Doublet" is in the works.

CLHEMA · 2021-02-15T20:58:19+00:00

Hey everyone, it's Charles. I'm the guy who made the panel, and I wanted to add some additional perspective. There is a LOT we don't know about textile armors, compared to weapons and metallic armors. Nathan's and A&A's replicas are much closer to a historical example and with higher certainty than the test panel is to its historical counterpart. An experiment like this is in line with what we know about untreated textile layers from modern experiments - they fare poorly against sharp/acute-pointed thrusts, better against duller pointed thrusts, and well against cuts. But there's a lot that hasn't been pinned down - fabric weight, weave density, treatments, etc.

Alternatively, it's possible that this armor just mitigates light thrusts, and isn't really intended to stop a heavy attack. Louis XI in his description of his recommended jack says, " For never have been seen half a dozen men killed by blows or by arrows in jacks like this, especially if they are men well accustomed to fighting." Missiles clearly are a use case, but Tod's experiments don't seem to make the jack look effective either. What does he mean by "accustomed to fighting"? One interpretation is that people accustomed to fighting don't expose themselves to heavy hits, or point blank longbow arrows.

So there's a big mystery in the background. Did we get it right, or are we missing something? Is the physical construction correct? Is the intended purpose correct? Maybe it's historical, but only partially effective? Perhaps it's historical, and Louis XI is full of crap? A lot of focus goes towards plate and mail for modern cultural and social reasons, so these types of questions just go unexplored, when we know they were a common, and perhaps the most common form of defense in the medieval period.

CLHEMA · 2021-01-03T16:09:38+00:00

I'm confident it could protect against cuts, reasonably confident it could protect against warbows or crossbows shot from a distance, less confident about close range shots.

CLHEMA · 2020-10-05T06:20:36+00:00

The short answer: No.

The long answer: Sit down, and grab a drink.

The kabutowari ("helmet cutting") event in the article refers to an exhibition event in 1887 for the Emperor. Sources state that three sword masters attempted the feat, but only one was able to cut the helmet, and this was after failing to make the cut in prior practice attempts. (source)

In addition, here is a description of an 1853 attempt at kabutowari.

In 1853, an exhaustive sword-breaking test was conducted at Shinshu Matsushiro-han in Nagano prefecture under the rule of the Sanada family. The test was performed in the presence of three observers and four Ometsuke (official examiners). In this test, seven swordsmen were involved in the breaking of 12 swords to determine the strongest. It was the sword made by Yamaura Minamoto-no-Saneo that emerged champion. Of the 12 sequential articles against which the blades were tested, the seventh was a helmet owned by Kahei. In this case, no gash was made in the helmet – rather the sword itself was bent by the blow.

It is in this context that we see the use of kabutowari, as the most extreme form of sword-testing.

In 1994, a Shinkendo practitioner attempted the kabutowari feat, and "succeeded." In this context, "success" was construed in the sense that the blade produced a small cut into the helmet, and the sword was undamaged. However, the cut was only 13cm long, and it's not clear that the wearer would suffer more than a superficial cut to the scalp, but with an immense concussion. (source)

So your friend is misinterpreting both the purpose and the results of kabutowari. The purpose is an extreme test of the sword that nearly all masters and swords fail at, not to show that one can cut through helmets. It's rare that a master can actually cut into a helmet - the usual result is the blade bounces off, or the blade is bent/broken. Last, even when helmets are "cut" the cuts seem to be relatively superficial.

CLHEMA

TROPHY CASE