Question about early 15th century armour

[zerostate]

I have a box of Perry English army 1415-1429 under construction (soon to be followed by a box of French) and have a question that will impact their painting. Did the English cuisses at that time encapsulate the upper leg or were they open at the back? I know that later English armour tended to enclosed, but am not at all sure for the period in question. From the miniatures it appears that they probably weren't, but wanted to check.

Thanks in advance.

[Charlie_]

Good question. This video might help perhaps... The armour is I think a little bit later than the 1415-1429 range, but still the first half of the 15th century, hence the great bascinet rather than sallet.



Skip to 16:30 to talk of thighs.

Interestingly, I have  noticed almost ALL of the Perrys WOTR range (and I believe most of the Agincourt range) don't have fully enclosed cuisses, and very few of them have sabatons (none of the bodies in their foot knights box do!). I actually asked them about this at Salute this year, and they said the English rarely wore sabatons or had fully enclosed cuisses, as they usually thought on foot. I nodded my head and said "Yes, that makes sense!" But afterwards I stopped and thought about it - surely if fighting on foot they WOULD take extra care to protect these areas? And other experts (such as in the video above) seem to say this is so. I wonder if the Perrys have got it wrong with this part of the armour??

[painterman]

Quick check in Capwell's 'Armour of the English Knight', he states that the English wore cuisses throughout the 15th century - based on the surviving funerary evidence - hope that helps.
Simon.

[zerostate]

Thanks Charlie_,  good video, reinforcing what I thought about having enclosed cruisses due to their preference for fighting dismounted.

This being a new period for me I only have Ospreys for visual reference. MAA The Armies of Agincourt does not show the backs of any men-at arm's legs except for Edward, Duke of Bar, who is in transitional armour, and wearing mail under his cruisses. Campaign: Agincourt 1415 shows everyone wearing non-enclosed variety with hose underneath. Sabatons appear optional in them.

Painterman - is that an enclosed all-round the thigh cuisse, or just a front and sides cuisse? That is the question

[FierceKitty]

I'm guessing a mounted opponent's foot is a more exposed target than an infantryman's, if you are yourself on foot.

[JollyBob]

I would echo the opinion that your foot would not be as much of a target if you weren't on a horse, and there is something to be said for the extra manoeuvrability the partial armour would afford if fighting on foot.

Also, would a lot of it not come down to expense? I can imagine a rich baron, princeling or such happily buying a full suit just because he could (the Gucci effect, as I believe Cap'n Blood calls it...), where a man at arms of lower rank would probably make do with whatever he could scrape together - see later examples from the WOTR era where armour was mainly on the upper body, and even later when you see pikemen with just one tasset on the side presented to the enemy...

I dunno, I expect we will all come back to the "Does it look good? Then do it!" conclusion these discussions always reach. 

[Arlequín]

While outside of the period, the illustrations in the Beauchamp Pageant (c. 1480) generally have part-armoured men with bare arms if mounted and bare legs on foot, alongside the fully-armoured guys.

The Perry explanation seems backwards too; fully enclosed thighs would be redundant when mounted and extremely uncomfortable, chafing and even possibly cutting-off circulation to boot. The other odd bits that developed for fighting on foot would also be uncomfortable and restrictive when in the saddle too; especially the variations of 'ass-armour' that developed (the technical term I believe).   

I seem to recall from somewhere that Mr Average either swung for the head and neck, struck down for the head and shoulders, or thrust at the torso, and indeed men appear to have gone for a helmet, torso defence and a collar/shoulder 'standard' in that order. The limbs seem secondary and the preference for arms or legs when all could not be protected, seems dictated by battlefield role. Hands and wrists also seem to have been protected before the rest of the arm too.