Matthew Amt wrote: | ||
Not to be dragging the thread off-topic, but any discussion of the Maciejowski Bible needs to based on the fact that it is a BIBLE, and the illustrations are simply depictions of Biblical stories with the characters dressed and equipped in a 13th century fashion. The battle damage shown can NOT be used as evidence of reality, since in most cases the Biblical text merely says "So-and-so slew so-and-so", with absolutely no reference to armor, weapons, wound location, etc. Lovely pictures, but don't read too much into them! This fellow with his spiffy stiff-shouldered surcoat gets dragged into a number of discussions like this, but to me it has always just looked like a surcoat! Sure, it could be lined and the fabric is clearly stiff enough to hold its shape like that. Two layers of heavy linen will do that. But if it were meant to be *protective* in any way, it would NOT stick out at the shoulders like that because he wouldn't be able to raise his arms. Rigid or semi-rigid body armor is always very narrow at the shoulders, to allow free movement. |
Me: Felt and heavy linen are flexible, and would not impair range of motion. Wings aside, as we are discussing over-armor for 13th C knights, discussing what may have been sewn between those upper surcoat layers is still on topic.
As discissed above, my reference book also shows that armor harness under the surcoat went only from beneath the nipple line to the waist. Full range of motion was of prime importance.
And I agree: Breast plates have very narrow shoulder harnesses, not visible at the shoulder of a surcote, but buckles would be visible at the sides because the arm holes of surcotes were cut very deep.
I will refrain from any further reference to the Macs Bible after this one response. I agree with you. The artist most certainly used artistic license in those Bible stories. He wanted to convery the supremacy of Judean armies over their enemies.