mid 14th century knight

[Medicus Matt]

Matt,

The issue is you are using the modern word 'pair' for a medieval word. Pair developed from Latin, paria or par which means equal or similar. Nothing about there only being two items that are used together.

Ahh, stupidly I didn't think to look at the etymology of 'pair'.
So, after a bit of digging, in Middle English (via Old French), 'pair' means any number of alike or equal things as you say (e.g. Chaucer using 'a peire of beads' to mean a set of beads).
However, as it applies to any number of multiples, it was used to refer to what we think of as pairs as well (that led me to the term 'brigander' which I'd not come across before..seems to be an early form of brigandine that did have a front and a back half).

Chaucer uses it in both senses in the Canterbury Tales.
"Som wol haue a peire plates large" (Knights Tale)
"And on hir feet a peire of spores sharpe" (Prologue)

In the Memorials of the Order of the Garter, you get this entry for 1354

Now, is that referring to two seperate 'coats of plates', or to two sets of plates, a front and a back set?


Interesting. Cheers Randall. Sorry for drifting off thread a bit everyone.

[Colin Middleton]

I'm not familiar with the term 'pair of plates', but then I tend not to look at 14th C resources much. However, many books quote brigandines as a 'pair of brigandine', which obviously derives from the same source.

I trust it being right Matt.

Best wishes

Colin

[Medicus Matt]

many books quote brigandines as a 'pair of brigandine',

But surely that only works if 'brigandine' is a name given to the plates rather than just being a name given to the garment because it was worn by 'brigands', doesn't it?
Today, I am mostly enjoying etymology.

[randallmoffett]

Matt,

Right pair simply can mean anything alike or in a set or series with two or more. It has become more limited as time as passed.

Now on to your passage, It seems as if it is looking at two pairs of plates, so two of the complete units of armour. Whether it is front or back or a one part one. By this time is is likely that the COP knights would wear would indeed be two parts, a front and a back, like the Hirschstein or Kussnach versions.

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... at52_A.txt

http://tgorod.ru/contentimage/kussnach/image3.jpg

Clearly the other single piece ones are in use during the 2nd half of the 14h, maybe even fifteenth but I have found little evidence for the knightly class and their betters using one piece COPs/POPs after maybe 1330,1340.

I would have to look up brigandines and see what the most common terms they use are.

RPM

[gregory23b]

Middle English dictionary

just for a range of brigs in pairs


(1420) Will York in Sur.Soc.4 397: Unum par de bregaunters
(1450) Wars France in RS 22.2 475: xx paire of briganders
(?1464) Acc.Howard in RC 57 441: A payr bryganderes kovered wyth crymsyn clothe.
(?1464) Acc.Howard in RC 57 442: A payr briganderes kovered wyth whyt leder. (
1465) Paston 2.155: j peyr of Bregandyrns [!] kevert with blew fellewet and gylt naile, with leg-harneyse; the vallew of the gown and the bregardyns [!] viij li.
(1465) Paston 4.142: A peyr brygandyrs

(1477) Will York in Sur.Soc.45 235: j par de bregandyns coopertum cum rubeo velveto. ?
a1500(a1471) Brut-1461(2) (Lyell 34) 86: Armed in a peire of brigaundynez. -?-
(1459) Invent.Fastolf in Archaeol.21 271: j payre Bregandines helyd with rede felwet. -?-
(1459) Invent.Fastolf in Archaeol.21 272: ij white payre of Brigaundiris.

[randallmoffett]

Gregory,

Thanks for that I was just going to look through a few of my books for pairs of brigs when I saw you already had.

Somewhat related question- Do you know if the Surtees Society volumes are online? I had been told they were but have not found them.

Randall

[Medicus Matt]

(1420) Will York in Sur.Soc.4 397: Unum par de bregaunters
(1450) Wars France in RS 22.2 475: xx paire of briganders
(?1464) Acc.Howard in RC 57 441: A payr bryganderes kovered wyth crymsyn clothe.
(?1464) Acc.Howard in RC 57 442: A payr briganderes kovered wyth whyt leder. (
1465) Paston 2.155: j peyr of Bregandyrns [!] kevert with blew fellewet and gylt naile, with leg-harneyse; the vallew of the gown and the bregardyns [!] viij li.
(1465) Paston 4.142: A peyr brygandyrs
(1477) Will York in Sur.Soc.45 235: j par de bregandyns coopertum cum rubeo velveto. ?
a1500(a1471) Brut-1461(2) (Lyell 34) 86: Armed in a peire of brigaundynez. -?-
(1459) Invent.Fastolf in Archaeol.21 271: j payre Bregandines helyd with rede felwet. -?-
(1459) Invent.Fastolf in Archaeol.21 272: ij white payre of Brigaundiris.

Nice on Jorge.
All of which backs up what I said earlier, that 'brigandines' (note always in the plural) refers to the plates (the detail of the covering cloth always being referred to seperately) rather than the whole garment. So referring to the whole thing as just a brigandine is incorrect?

[Benedict]

For what it's worth, I'd understood that a "pair of plates" was the precursor of the "coat of plates", popular in southern Europe (Spain and Italy) in the later thirteenth century, using hardened leather. I had the impression of two pieces covering the front of the torso (though that may just be my imagination). I'd understood the "pair of plates" being fairly rapidly (within a couple of generations) phased out or replaced by the more widespread "coat of plates" which used more, smaller pieces, in metal, giving greater flexibility and probably a harder exterior.

I think I came across this in David Nicolle's 'Crusader Warfare' v1 (western Europe and Byzantium - the narrative book published a year or two ago rather than the picture-filled brick), so please correct me if I've misremembered or misunderstood.

However, given the definition of "pair" as 'a set' rather than 'two', I wonder whether a "pair of plates" couldn't have been/become a synonym for a "coat of plates". Given that the "pair of plates" is supposed to have been derived from Islamic 'hard' armour (ie lamellar or banded armour) and the're depicted under surcoats (do we know what they look like?), I'm wondering if the difference is in the terminology and its interpretation, rather than the actual armour.

Could it be that they start off as something very close to lamellar worn under a surcoat and rapidly get riveted to the surcoat, becoming a 'coat'. Do we have any examples or pictorial evidence which might help? If I'm talking cobblers, please say so!

[randallmoffett]

Benedict,

The main issue is that it does not seem to be the case and as far as I know there is no evidence for such a transition.

Lets start with the terms- The term Coat of plates seems synonymous with pair of plates, and of the few phrases used for these armours, it is likely the least likely used. It was used basically in the late part of the 1st quarter of the 14th to the 4th quarter. Pair of plates is used from the 13th to the 15th. No one I know of has ever provided evidence these were different articles.

The earliest is during the late 12th early 13th we have evidence from WIlliam the Breton that Richard of England had some nature of plate defence on but more important is the battle of Bouvines where he describes the German force as having some 'iron plate' armours on that leave only an opening at the arm pit. Very pair of plates esque but lacking real helpful detail. The earliest evidence of any help in text I have seen is from the Patent Rolls of Henry III and they are called iron girdles. A relatively accurate description, sad it did not stick. At this point it is hard to say what it looked like or its design as we only have a basic idea of what it was. Medieval peoples simply had many terms for similar items.

Personally I do not follow Nicolle's Plates development as he always makes Europe a dependent technology where there is little to 0 evidence it did. In Europe the design likely seems to start with something like the Sleeping Guard statue or St. Maurice plate lined surcoat then sometime in the last decade or two in the 13th switched to an independent article. The plate structure of the earlier plates of the 'pair of plates' were rows of smaller vertical ones not large horizontal ones. We have no evidence for horizontal plates until later on, perhaps 1320s or give or take a decade. And the fact that it seems a fairly normal transition of wider plates does not need outside influence and we see the pairs of plates being the more common terms for them in England seemingly indiscriminately.

Like millions of items in out common use that have several terms we use to describe them. I think there is little evidence for the development of terms pair of plates to coat of plates. The issue is not one of different armours as the term pair of plates starts before then out lives that of coat of plates. I know of no evidence for there only being two plates at the front or of the use of leather for them as all the examples I have seen, some posted above, indicate iron.

Once again these things are common, The King of France orders some 5,000 of them to outfit his army in the 1290s. We have loads of textual and artist evidence available and from what seems to be out there the transition seems to go armoured surcoat with rows of vertical plates of iron to a independent armour with the same vertical plates structure to horizontal plates on garments of either one or two segments, front and back. I used to think that the one segment horizontal plate system was an older one over the two part but realized I had a few single segment ones well into the 14th on knights. But generally that moves the transition from what I have seen. Some day when I have time I will write an article on it.

Randall

[Benedict]

Randall - that's exceptionally helpful! Thank you!

I think I need to get the Visby armour book and learn some more about this subject. Very interesting!

[julesheath]

So i'm getting a stron impression here that I need to get a coat of plates. Do you think it would be possible to make? I have experience with leather and metal. Any advice would be appreciated.

[Colin Middleton]

Should be straight forward. Aren't they just curved plates rivited to a canvas or leather backing?

Just be careful how you fasten them closed, you you could end up with it getting quite uncomfortable.

[randallmoffett]

Jules,

Possibly. If you do pre 1360s than it is very likely. Depending on social group maybe even 1400 plus. A couple questions that might help. What social class and what decade?

I have made some 2-3 dozen COPs/POPs and there are a few things that are a bit tricky on a few of them right. You need to be able to resize the model you like to yourself. We can help out though. I can even point you to some decent patterns and show you some more originals for research help and inspiration.

I have evidence of velvet, canvas and leather used for the foundation layer so pick your poison.

Randall

[julesheath]

Jules,

Possibly. If you do pre 1360s than it is very likely. Depending on social group maybe even 1400 plus. A couple questions that might help. What social class and what decade?

A good question. Based on what people have said so far and on the little research I've done, I reckon a 1340s knight would be good. I'm not planning on joining any societies, but I reckon that period would allow me to build up to something decent. I've already got a maille shirt (half sleeve) and have made some padded legs. I've got a Gambeson, but i don't really think it's suitable and it makes me feel like the Michelin man (like this one but without the high collar http://www.theknightshop.co.uk/catalog/ ... c0235a6dcc). I'm hoping I'll get some more money When we come around to doing it again next year, but in the meantime I want to try and make whatever I can, as I have some experience working with leather and metal. I've been asked to help out at a local special school who are putting on a summer fete and I might also be going to some of our Primary feeders.I had a great time and am really looking forward to doing it again. The authenticity thing is more for my benefit than anything else. I want to do more than just fancy dress.

[randallmoffett]

Jules,

1340s is the period I do so I will do everything I can to convince you to do it. That said if you are really limited on time, funds or the likes it might be easier to look at some other troop types that might be easier to get your gear together and look period.

In 1340s you have a load of soldiers that are employed by the English king.

Mounted

Knights- of knightly families and usually some of the best armed and armoured, i.e. aketon, mail, COP, bascinet, gauntlets, couters, poleyns, shield, armourial surcoat, pennion with arms and some amount of limb armour.

men-at-arms- may or may not be of knightly families but could just as easily be a commoner who is well off. Think well of burgher for example. still well armed and equipped. Similar to knightly but lacking the heraldry and likely some of the gear. In the 1330s Edward III orders MAA to have aketons, COPs, gauntlets and bascinets, lance and shield so there are some minimum requirements.

Hobelar- seems to be some form of mounted infantry and/or light cavalry. Bascinet or palet, aketon, COP or haubergeon and often gauntlets.

Mounted Archer- I assume to be for mobility over using the bow in the saddle. I have seen no inventory for a mounted Archer but here is a general one from the Patent Rolls for arhcers. aketon, bascinet and some actually require COPs and Gauntlets.

Footmen

Armed men- Think Men at Arms but on foot.

Archers- The same as mounted archers above.

Footmen- sometimes nothing, often aketon and bascinet.

Now you may notice that mail often seems to be missing. I am not sure why Edward II and Edward III seem to prefer the COP over haubergeon or hauberk . They show up often in inventories so I think we can assume that mail shirts could replace some amount of plate armour like COPs and such, even be used in conjunction with them.

Now what ever you do you likely will need an aketon. Seems to be more common than anything but perhaps bascinets. After this would be COPs I'd think. If you have one and want to feel less bulk many can be tailored. If you can find someone with a decent to heavy sewing machine you can do it. If not hand sewing works as well. Simply put it on inside out and have someone pin it in as close to you as you can. Take it off and mark it along the pins then sew.

Do not forget you'd need some cloak or something if you are on campaign and soft kit. And cooking, eating equipment.

Sorry this is rushed but I might be gone this weekend and wanted to get back to you.

Hope this helps and keep me posted if you have further questions.

Randall

[Chris T]

The usuage is not dead yet, either! After all we still wear a pair of trousers.....

[julesheath]

Thanks Randall, that is very helpful. I think for the next two events I'm involved in, I'm just going to have to make do. I'm pretty sure I'll be the only one that is unsatisfied with the result. After that it looks like my main priorities are going to be an Aketon and a Bascinet. I'm going to have a go at making a coat of plates and might even try to make some of the other armour. I have just under a year til the next school event so I can afford to experiment. What would be really helpful now would be some pictures as I've seen loads of different aketons, but don't really know what would be suitable for the 1340s. The same goes for a lot of the other items as well, it would be nice to have some pictures to base my creations on.

[randallmoffett]

Here a few things that might help.

As for an aketon/gambeson-
Look at the Serjeant's Armour.

http://www.medievalrepro.com/Armour.htm

That said you'd want it more form fit and buttoned up the front if you wanted to wear it under armour as a man-at-arms or knight. Into the late 13th or early 14th at least we have evidence for the use of pull over types like his serjeant is in.

As for COPS/POPs
Best place to start, wisby.
http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoa ... index.html

If you are doing a knightly impression make sure to look at the other two I posted.

And some patterns that might be of use.
http://www.armourarchive.org/patterns/

Hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any further questions.

I could post some pictures of my kit piece by piece but I do not have it completely done or many pictures of it.

Randall

[julesheath]

Thanks Randall that's brilliant. If you could post pictures of your gear when you get a chance, that would be great. I think if I can I'm going to try and portray a knight, just because it's something that the kids will understand and appreciate more I think. It could take a while to get to where I want to be, but as long as I keep moving in the right direction. The Armour archive site is great and very encouraging. I actually have access to a forge at work so I might have a go at making some armour.

[randallmoffett]

I will when I can. I will try getting some done soon.

If I were you then I'd do a COP/POP first. I do not know if you have experience with metal working but if you could do a bascinet that'd be great. Might be a good use for the forge.

Besegews at the armpit or shoulder or elbow is easy and quick as well.

Randall

[julesheath]

I've got a bit of experience with metal, enough to do the COP I reckon. I'd love to ave a goat a bascinet, but I think that might be a bit too ambitious. What are besegews?

[CraigofYork]

basegews are the small circular plates that protect the opening at the front of the armpit, they are often decorated and fluted later in the 15th century

[Darren Mac]

I made my coat-of-plates using sizes gained from a Wisby pattern. I found that the dimensions of the plates had to be enlarged to fit as they were originally for a much smaller body type. I rivetted the plates to a velvet-covered thick leather base. It's a lovely piece of kit to fight in.

[randallmoffett]

Darren,

I agree very much with that assessment. It is always sad (sometimes somewhat funny) when people simply copy the original and it is too big or small. Very important to understand how the armour fits.

I am looking at some effigies from the 1330s-1350s and wondered what everyone though made up the plates below the navel on the pairs of plates of this time? Should I do full horizontal lames like slightly later faulds or many vertical or horizontal ones. Some thing I need to figure out before I start cutting out my new COP. I saw some large scale like ones before, but as far as I know there is no real evidence. Though the Bavarian plates does seem to go down to the top of the hips.

Randall

[Grymm]

Thanks fo the responses folks, very helpful. I'd definitely like to pickup the osprey book and if anyone could point me in the direction of some more pics that would be great. Cheers

More first third of the 14thC but English.



Bits left behind at Wisby (Possibly coz they were NFG or a bit old fashioned even for the Scandi sea tramps
http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/titles/wisby/wisby.htm
and some reconstructions
http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoa ... index.html

[julesheath]

Thanks, that picture's great. I don't know what those big squares on his shoulders are called, but I'd love to see a picture of the real thing.

[Stuart Quayle]

Those square things on the knight's shoulders are called ailettes, they were usually made of stiffened parchment, painted leather, or wood and hence don't normally survive.

The ailettes are not thought to be a shoulder or neck defence, but purely identify the knight in battle by the coat of arms which they bear.

Regards
Stuart Q

[bonnacon]

Jules, PM'd you