| Author |
Message |
|
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
|
 Posted: Thu 22 Feb, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: the decline of the gothic armour |
 |
|
|
When exactly (in terms of decade) the gothic armour was significantly replaced by the maximilian harness (specially in German). And, was the maximilian armour really superior than the gothic one? (I know that I asked a similar question in another topic, but I would like to see more opinions about this issue)
|
|
  |
 |
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Feb, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check out this thread:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9302
I posted a lot of information from Claude Blair's European Armour Circa 1066 to Circa 1700 and The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons, edited by Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair, which includes some of the dates you may be looking for. It's certainly a start, anyway.
To add more to what I posted on the thread I linked to above, here's a few more excerpts from Blair's European Armour:
| Claude Blair wrote: |
In the end, during the closing years of the (15th) century, there was a general fusion of the two styles...
The 1460's saw the beginning of the true German "High Gothic" style...
The Gothic style remained in fashion in Germany until c. 1500, having reached its apogee in the 1480's...
In the latter part of the 15th century, a certain amount of interchange took place between Italy and Germany. The Italian Wars stimulated this process until, in the period around 1500, there was a general fusion of the two styles and thereafter armour followed roughly the same lines of development throughout Europe.
...the two main schools exchange(d) a number of features... |
While this is an over-simplification, since not all national and local features disappeared entirely, it helps to explain what happened to the "Italian" and "German" or "Gothic" styles.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Feb, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The two main "schools" that had the greatest influence on all European armorers were the Northern Italian and the German. The former was characterized by it smooth finish and round surfaces, while the latter was renowned for its Gothic styilization which showed particularly in elaborate curves ending in cusps, rippling, fluting, etc., and, when it reached its peak toward the end of the 15th century, in an elegant slenderness of line. Around the beginning of the 16th century there was a certain tendency for the two styles to blend, the typically rounded lines of the Italian armor being adopted in Germany while the German system of fluting was sometimes used in Italy.
From about 1510-30 the so-called Maximilian style of armor came into use, although it was not to get this name until some 19th-century collectors decided that the style must have been introduced by the emperor Maximilian. Its characteristic features were large rounded shaped and radiating flutings on all surfaces except the leg armor. The later examples had quite narrow flutes, set close together. This style was widely used, especially in Germany, although fluted armor never superseded smooth-surfaced armor, which always remained more popular in the rest of Europe.
Field armor A type of armor used by heavy cavalry in the 15th and 16th centuries. It was a complete suit of armor, matched by a horse armor with a steel-plated saddlebow giving additional protection to the horseman. Head protection consisted of a sallet with a separate bevor, an armet, or a close helmet; in the second half of the 16th century, a lighter helmet, the burgonet, with or without a bevor, was often preferred. |
Well, anyone could make a technical opinion about the advantages and disadvantages in both contemporary styles or/and judge which is the best?
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Feb, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: |
Well, anyone could make a technical opinion about the advantages and disadvantages in both contemporary styles or/and judge which is the best? |
I'm not sure one is "better" than another. That one evolved into another may indicate the later style was "better." It also could be a whim of fashion and nothing more. Or a combination of technical evolution and fashion.
The skill of the armourers likely increased as plate armour evolved which could make later armours (but prior to the decline) better from a manufacturing/functionality standpoint. But apply the same technological advances to older styles and it might change things.
As for when exactly Maximilian style replaced gothic, it could be hard to nail down a firm date, even a decade or two. Obviously, the Maximilian style wouldn't predate Max.  Also, some early harnessess attributed to him are gothic in style, some later ones are in "Maximilian style."
What I'd suggest is that you get some good books and do some more reading on subjects that interest you. Many of your questions require other posters to type lengthy responses, citing books from their own libraries. Why not cut out the middle man and go directly to good books on the subject?
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: | | Well, anyone could make a technical opinion about the advantages and disadvantages in both contemporary styles or/and judge which is the best? |
Do you mean choose between the Italian style of armour in the 15th century, and the German or Gothic of the same period? My answer would be "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other". Both served the purpose they were designed to; to protect the armoured warrior in combat. The German style may be more "elegant" to the eye, but that's really only a matter of opinion. I personally like the look of the Italian armour, since it looks like it would fit me better. A "Gothic" armour made to fit my rather broad size would lose some of it's slender elegance!
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
I'm not sure one is "better" than another. That one evolved into another may indicate the later style was "better." It also could be a whim of fashion and nothing more. Or a combination of technical evolution and fashion.
The skill of the armourers likely increased as plate armour evolved which could make later armours (but prior to the decline) better from a manufacturing/functionality standpoint. But apply the same technological advances to older styles and it might change things.
As for when exactly Maximilian style replaced gothic, it could be hard to nail down a firm date, even a decade or two. Obviously, the Maximilian style wouldn't predate Max. Also, some early harnessess attributed to him are gothic in style, some later ones are in "Maximilian style."
What I'd suggest is that you get some good books and do some more reading on subjects that interest you. Many of your questions require other posters to type lengthy responses, citing books from their own libraries. Why not cut out the middle man and go directly to good books on the subject? |
By the way, one didn't so much evolve into the other as the styles fused or merged. The Germans adopted the "burly" form of the Italian armour, while the Italians adopted features from the German armour. However, the Italian "form" seems to have won out, possibly implying that there was some inherent advantage in the "burly" form. Of course, it could have had more to do with fashion and personal taste than anything else.
Oh, and the "Maximilian" armour doesn't seem to have had much to do with the Emperor Maximilian. He was interested in armour, but he doesn't seem to have had a hand in the design of the armour now bearing his name. According to Blair, this term was coined in the 19th century.
Hey Chad, I often suggest that members get more books, too, but there's a problem with that suggestion. I'm finding that a lot of the books in my own personal library are no longer available anywhere, and those that are have become rather costly. I think that's where the forums can serve to help spread the knowledge. I know I have a tendency to post long excerpts from my sources. It can be tedious at times, but I don't really mind. I know how frustrating it can be when the information isn't available.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Torsten F.H. Wilke
Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I find Richard's posts very informative, and helpful! Hopefully they will not be curtailed in the future...
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote: | | I find Richard's posts very informative, and helpful! Hopefully they will not be curtailed in the future... |
Who's said anything about curtailing them? No one.
I simply invited the original poster to check out books on the subject, rather than just trying to find info on forums. There's a lot of value to doing some bookwork on your own arther than relying on someone to do it for you.
Since this has nothing to do with the original thread, let's please get back on track.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Feb, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
I thought I would post a couple more excerpts from other sources, to supplement what I already posted. I believe both of these books are currently available (I suggest anyone that interested in purchasing these volumes should check out the bookstore here on myArmoury). They might not be perfect sources, but both have some useful information. They aren't as detailed as Blair, but they are both good overviews.)
This is from Armour & Weapons by Charles ffoulkes. It's rather old; first published in 1909, but ffoulkes spent a considerable amount of time studying arms and armour:
| Charles ffoulkes wrote: |
The next distinctive style to be noticed is called the "Maximilian". It can hardly be said that this new design was evolved from the Gothic, though of necessity there must be a certain similarity between them, at least in constructional detail. It is more likely, when we consider the individuality of the young Maximilian, especially as recorded in Hans Burgkmair's Weisskunig, and his interest in every art, craft, and trade, that it was a fashion made, so to speak, to order. The Maximilian Period of armour may be said to last from about 1500 to 1540. It is distinguished by the radiating fluted channels that spread from a central point in the breastpiece, closely resembling the flutings of the scallop-shell. |
And this is from Brassey's Book of Body Armor by Robert Woosnam-Savage and Anthony Hall. Again, this source isn't perfect, but it has some good general information, and some of the "sidebars" are interesting:
| Woosnam-Savage and Hall wrote: |
The most identifiable style of German armor in the early 16th century was that known as Maximillian, which lasted for about 30 years. It was named after the Emperor Maximillian (1459-1519), "The last of the knights", who supposedly created the style. Although this is probably not the case it is known that Maximillian was interested in armor, and in 1504 he set up a court workshop in Innsbruck, which would stay in existence into the 17th century.
In Maximillian armor nearly all the surfaces were covered with regular fluting (apart from the greaves), the ribs being closer together in later examples, and sometimes interspersed with embossed scale decoration. The corrugations not only added a decorative element, but also appear to have given the armor greater strength, and channeled or guided weapons points away from vital areas. The turned over edges of the armor were decorated with a pattern known as "roping", owing to its similarity to twists of rope. Horse armor was also decorated in this manner. Many Maximillian armors were built with mitten gauntlets, a style which covered the fingers with a larger plate, doing away with the need for individual lames to protect the fingers.
Although Italian armors generally remained rounder, they also included the use of fluting, especially in a spray pattern on the breast-plate. Gauntlets were also of mitten form. |
I hope this was of interest!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Isn't Ffoulkes the writer who made those patently weird reconstructions of various types of *cough* "chain mail?"
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Isn't Ffoulkes the writer who made those patently weird reconstructions of various types of *cough* "chain mail?" |
I believe, when ffoulkes talks about the "treillice" coat and "ringed" armour in Armour & Weapons, he's relying on Meyrick's even older work. Ffoulkes actually suggests that the apparent "trellice" coat may just be a representation of the quilting of a padded defence. He shows a few suggestions of the construction of "banded mail" (an idea that has now been discarded) in both Armour & Weapons and The Armourer and His Craft, but in the second work he mentions that the most practical suggestion is regular mail with leather thongs threaded through every row or every alternate row. Apparently, Oriental (?) mail was sometimes found stiffened in that manner.
He also shows possible depictions of "doubled" or "tripled" mail from effigies. It's hard to say whether or not the sculptor was showing something really in use, or just using a bit of artistic license when showing mail.
I did post the disclaimer that ffoulkes is an older work. However, his Armour & Weapons was recently reprinted, and may be readily available. His The Armourer and His Craft may also be currently available to those wishing to get some sort of resource, flawed as it may be, about armour.
I welcome anyone aware of other readily available resources lacking flaws to post that information on the forums. It would be to the benefit of the whole myArmoury community. Saying one source is better than another is fine, but many of these cited sources are hard to find, and on the pricey side when they are available.
Again, I tend to prefer Blair over ffoulkes, but there can be some valuable information in the older sources as well as the more recent (within the past fifty years) sources.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Feb, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to follow Blair on most aspects but in the end everyone has an opinion. I like some of the earlier works but the thing to remember it that some of the ideas they had were transitional to what we now know. The mail idea might have been a violet le duc idea that caught on sadly. Over all though it is the sources they dig up that is helpful and ideas to look at and develope or deconstruct.
I tend to think Max armour a blend of gothic and italian not one replaced the other, I do tend to like gothic more though.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic