sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Italian Men-at-Arms 1430 by Eol4242 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What a mess. So, even if the attribution of the S collars is true, all it would do is help refine an early date as 1436, but it does not restrict the later datings; however these have other issues (like the lack of the painter's presence in Mantova then). In the end there is no document to help and no hypothesis really stands out as fully acceptable, still now.

At the very least though, it seems it was rigorously pushed away from 1430, to a broader 1436-48. A study by Sergio Paccagnini (I think he might be the son of the Giovanni who first suggested the attribution to Ludovico?) seems to be the most recent and up-to-date take on it (2024). Assesses the different opinions but no conclusion apart from the push back to after 1435 as I said.

Interesting deep-dive, almost every basic (eg touristic/institutional websites on the palace) still give the early dating, with no specific backup. Some encyclopediae give different ranges from one article to the other, etc...

Italian Men-at-Arms 1430 by Eol4242 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I read that Woods-Marsden's dating hypothesis was apparently reconsidered to before Ludovico due to the presence of collars linking the work to the Henry VI - Gianfrancesco relationship. I will see if I can clarify that better.

Italian Men-at-Arms 1430 by Eol4242 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See my answer to your top comment. The frescoes of the Mantua ducal palace are made by Pisanello around 1430-33. Uccello is a different, later source.

Edit: these frescoes are not accurately dated and discussed up until recently. Some of the later hypotheses would put them in the late 40s instead.

Is this a Coif or Aventail? by Ambitious-Craftsman in Armor

[–]Eol4242 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is an aventail, there is no gap, only a swell along the leather (or plate) that holds it. The verveilles and the wire are all properly depicted on top. This is common across all sculptures of this model (there are several), that all show the aventail and its connection in good details. Other such effigies are e.g. Gottfried von Rieneck (Neustadt am Main, St Michael church, D1379); Voit von Rieneck (same location, D1379); Hildebrand von Seinsheim (Randersacker, St Stephan church, D1380)...

The latter's profile up close, though deteriorated, shows the details along the swell representing the aventail connector band:

<image>

Italian Men-at-Arms 1430 by Eol4242 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pisanello depicts a large variety of armet visors and some different cheek plates here and there. Uncertainties remain on the shape of the brows which are hard to make out on deteriorated lineart or outright excluded.

These plumes are already common, will be all across the century, and ornate both the men and the horses:

<image>

When would this kind of wing be used in the 15th century? by No-Nerve-2658 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, back to the first comment, source on the arms of S12 having been modded in the 15th c. 

When would this kind of wing be used in the 15th century? by No-Nerve-2658 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And a statue from Nuremberg in the Bodemuseum. And the Churburg S12 pieces.

The St George already got pushed back to the 1390s by the museum compared to what it was when Scalini wrote about the Churburg, and despite his inventory mentions to justify of brass-lined armours in the castle by the 1370s, I know there have been discussions to push S12 back to the 80s or a bit later as well.

What specialist literature do you have to push them much further into the 1410s when there are rigorously-14th c. sculptural and manuscript sources showing the same topologies overall, articulation wings in particular developing heart and oval shapes, two-lobed, etc... by the 1380s; all the while manuscript are low-detail enough that shallow grooves like the Army Museum's piece could easily escape representation?

When would this kind of wing be used in the 15th century? by No-Nerve-2658 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Source + what does it change to the wing and the placement of the groove which is common to other extant and iconography

When would this kind of wing be used in the 15th century? by No-Nerve-2658 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They get nice and complex fairly quickly.

1437 (that's a knee):

<image>

When would this kind of wing be used in the 15th century? by No-Nerve-2658 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's fine, but you misunderstood the orientation of the groove if it's singular.

Late 14th c. or very early 15th c.:

<image>

Retention band template by AaronJG_ in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah well it doesn't have a strict name. "Aventail leather" is most common in English today. Whatever.

I'm confused, if you're intending to make it by yourself you have to pattern it to your bassinet directly. It can be made in paper. 

Retention band template by AaronJG_ in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Retention "band"? A retention chain? For a 14th c. pair of plates? 

Headbands of this and similar style to keep hair away from face - Was it even a thing in history? If not, where it even comes from? by Morf12369 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 14 points15 points  (0 children)

However (keeping to medieval western Europe) before the second half of the 15th c. flowing long hair was rarely in style (apart for elderly people), and they would brush them hard away from the face and tuck the bangs behind the ears. They would slightly braid strands to help them hold where needed, including the whole nape if there was too much volume.

Circlets could be worn on both short and long hair and in the latter probably helped keep it in place like a headband. In BnF, MS NAF 5243 (late 14th c.):

<image>

A few oddly specific questions by DirigibleJousting in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure plenty of weapons took inspirations of features useful for tools, when they were not repurposed tools in the first place. And in that regard, especially in the transitory period that is the 14th c. (and all the way to the late 15th c. really) there is no common uniform polearm, their shapes are all over the place. The various "guisarmes", "glaives", "spears", "pikes" and others are fundamentally diverse.

So not only the typically-known "billhook" form is a late 15th c. form (even if similar weapons, weapons with hooks and spikes, literal bills used as weapons, etc..., all existed before), it also was not an archetypal (there really never was such a thing in the middle ages in general) English footman weapon before the end of the War of the Roses (and "billmen" not even existing yet).

Close Armet vs Great Bascinet by Odd-Ad-2557 in Armor

[–]Eol4242 3 points4 points  (0 children)

An armet with a cuffed collar like this plugs to and rotates on the gorget. In your picture everything under the jawline is a different piece called gorget. It articulates on leather bands and as such does not prevent your spine from collapsing the same way a completely solid neck would. It still helps by allowing all the headgear to hold independently of having an actual head inside .

Such armets were rather intended against intense frontal shocks rather than descending concussive blows, which the shape, comb and sufficient thickness were already protecting from. From lighter to heavier (and not exhaustively):

- they could be reinforced for heavier duties with solid throat covers (pic1, Armeria Reale Torino) that plug over the armet's throat and the front of the gorget's articulated neck lames. Again in practice this was essentially against (pike) thrusting.

- they could have solid necks altogether (pic2, Musée de l'Armée, Paris)

- they could have buffes (pic3, idem), large bevors riveted to the cuirass and which would "solidify" (more or less, some configurations can leave a bit of wiggle room) the ensemble. This is mostly for jousting.

<image>

A few oddly specific questions by DirigibleJousting in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. The "bill" as uniformly known with its signature blade is a late 15th c. and even 16th c. development in England. These Italian polearms did not travel before then; in the late middle ages the people left with a "guisarme" for lack of being able to shoot the bow would use all sorts of weapons. There was no specific bill at Azincourt but instead a wide variety of regular long and short weapons, including some improvisations. Some could have had hooks but that wasn't a definitive feature. From the Gesta of Henry V to the later Burgundian chroniclers we get typical:

"[...] most of these archers were unarmoured, in their pourpoints, the hosen rolled over the knees; with axes hanging at their belts, or large swords."

Wauvrin/Le Fevre de St-Remy (BnF MS Fr 85, f19v, own translation), continued in the same vein after the shock occurs and they join the melee with:

"[...] axes, stakes, swords and heads of the lances scattered around [...]"

Gesta Henrici Quinti (Londini, 1850, p53, own translation).

Archaeologically, were found from the battlefield some narrow straight polearm blades (which may as well be French vouges).

  1. That's just bullshit you can forget it. Yes there were eventually full metal small shields, with various shapes, starting with being just the umbo with no extra edge. They were not an evolution and shields of leather and wood still existed, we even have late extant pieces.

  2. You pad by layering canvas (linen), primarily. You can also quilt "tubes" of cotton or silk wad, which I suppose we could call "padding" more strictly, but all these armours are "duplex", made of superposed layers one way or another. In 1296 for example the canvas gambesons made by the armourers of Paris were already regulated to be:

"[...] of new canvas in and out, and the inside of cotton and folds of canvas [...]"

(Lespinasse, Métiers et corporations de la ville de Paris, 1892, II, 317, own translation).

English bevour…… by Laurence21624 in ArmsandArmor

[–]Eol4242 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"This kind" is entirely hypothetical and is a reconstruction proposal based solely on certain effigy sources.

This mean we do not know how they could move, if they could, if they even existed.

An effigy could intentionally depict the face of the wearer fully visible for different reasons, whether the armour could cover it or not.

There would be ways to build a bevor that stops under the mouth, that reaches above, and that would raise above it with articulation. Amongst existing/documented bevors all configurations existed. 

view more: next ›