Randall Moffett wrote: |
Richard,
John de Botiler looks like some pretty antiquated armour for the time period. Are they sure his effigy is contemporary with his date? By that decade in the 14th most english effigies have more..... armour. It is of course possible to have been mainly in mail but I would imagine most knights would have more armour by the inventoires I have seen from the opening of the 14th. It may be worth looking at the gothic eye website has fantastic archive or effigies from this era. RPM |
Randall,
Antiquated armour was definitely used by the "fringe" areas of Europe, including the areas of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. You tend to see much more mail in use in these areas up to the mid 14th century. Note that the de Botiler incised slab is from Glamorgan, Wales. His "lighter" equipment could reflect what was used in Wales at the time. Someone had suggested to the English at one point that they adopt the lighter equipment of the Welsh raiders so they could more effectively counter the guerilla-type tactics used by the Welsh.
There is a Welsh effigy in a photo in the Osprey Campaign book Poitiers 1356: the Capture of a King that is apparently of 14th century date, but the warrior wouldn't look out of place on a late 13th century battlefield. He wears a gambeson over a mail hauberk, with padded gauntlets.
The Scots also tended to use antiquated armour compared to their English neighbors. The effigy of Sir James Douglas in Lanarkshire is contemporary with the incised slab of de Botiler, circa 1335. The earl is shown in rather simple equipment consisting of a mail coif with a circlet or arming band to support a helmet, a mail hauberk an mail chausses. He has long, voluminous surcoat, and a belt decorated with metal plaques or round stiffeners. He carries a rather large shield for the date, which may indicate a lack of plate armour.
I think we may be used to seeing only the top-of-the-line armour on the brasses and effigies of the great lords. Many warriors had to make due with less. actually, even with the English brasses and effigies, you can sometimes see varying degrees of plate worn with mail. The Hastings brass, for instance, shows the lower legs protected only by mail at the same time that hastings' contemporaries often adopted demi-greaves (like on two figures in the compartments alonside Sir Hugh) or full greaves (the figures from the monument of lady Percy in Beverley Minster, died 1330, apparently show both). There was more variety and variation even in each country than is sometimes realized.
I have no reason to doubt that armour shown on the de Botiler slab was indeed used at the given date.
By the way, I have looked at the Gothic Eye web site in the past. It does have a decent amount of images.
EDIT: I just tried to find the Gothic Eye web site. It apparently no longer exists or, if it still does exist, exists under a different name.
Quote: |
By the 2-3 decade of the 14th almost all the major parts of armour more or less existed. Many parts had been around for fifty years before that (poleyns, couters, greaves, gorgets {though it may be some other rigid materials often}, Coat of plates, gauntlets, etc. By 1320 inventories of knights rarely do not list a healthy supply of plate bits. Blair states that you rarely come across one w/out a COP after 1320. By the 1330's it is required wear for Men at Arms by Edward III. |
England may have been a bit behind the continent when it came to the general adoption of plate armour. In Armies and Warfare: the English Experience by Michael Prestwich, the author claims that Jean le Bel commented on the old-fashioned nature of English armour in 1327. They apparently had no or little plate armour at that date, at least as observed by le Bel, and wore only antiquated hauberks topped with great helms.
Of course, more plate was added as the 14th century progressed, and by the time of Poitiers most of the knights and men-at-arms would have been protected mostly by plate. Some of this plate was obscured by the coat armour or jupon, making it hard to pin down it's exact shape.
William Knight wrote: |
Also, the Met suit is reconstructed, but not very accuarately, so it'd be a poor guide to how armour looked (the fauld of solid plates and the funky one-piece spaulders are particuarly dubious). |
William,
I was presenting the Met armour as more of a general guide than a guide to the details. Perhaps I shouldn't have included it, since the details are questionable. I wanted to include something other than period art, so maybe I got a bit too carried away.