Perry Agincourt Archers News

[former user]

the graham turner links are very useful information, THX a lot.

I shall be curious to see how the combination of the two periods as chosen by the Perry release turns out to represent the continuum of the material culture 
I am sure they will be magnificently painted

[Arlequín]

Armour also takes a while to be made as you can imagine so in an emergency such as a civil war (rather than a planned military campaign in france for instance) there isn't the time to visit flanders, southern germany or northern italy to have them measure you up and get the armour made from scratch.

They had wax or plaster casts made of their various body parts and these were sent to the armourer, who would then make the armour to fit those. If you put on weight, grew taller, or whatever, you had new models made. Of course such a bespoke service cost a fair bit of money.

Local armourers could of course produce armour in 'the style of' the fashionable centres of production, but these were also usually areas where the steel used was of superior quality too, which could not be mimicked so well. Some 'off the peg' armour, which we have come to term 'munition' quality, was actually made from iron or very poor steel (even by the standards of the day).

I always prefer to link the price of armour with buying a car. There are the top of the range Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Porsches, the mid-range Lexus, BMW and Jaguars, various family saloons and hatchbacks and of course the knackered old second or third-hand bangers. The comparative prices for these today are approximately equivalent to the cost of armour in the middle ages in real terms.

A lot of old armour was handed down, gifted or sold and re-modelled, which is why it is common to see archers etc. in the 1450s wearing c.1390 'knights' bascinets with the visors removed. The obvious problem with hand-me-down steel suits, brigandines and the like, is that they may be too small, which occasionally results in the mention in muster rolls of people who had items but were "unable to wear it".

It's the classic 'wargamer's-eye view' to think there would have been a hard cut-off in styles of armour mid-way between the end of the Hundred Years War and the start of the Wars of The Roses... snip ... it would have been a gradual evolution.

You know you're beginning to sound like me? 

[Stuart]

Thought I'd add my 10p!

David et Bethsabee tapestry, Flanders, executed in the 1520's, here a variety of styles and ages of armour are represented in a group of cavalry, there is absolutely no doubt that older armour prevailed for as long as it offered protection and remained of use;

[former user]

no, I don't think 16th C tapestries fulfill documentary function about 15th C warfare

[Stuart]

Aww shucks, there goes my light cavalry boxed set !

The example used was religious rather than reportage / depiction of war one might find in a wood cut or drawing but in that while series contemporary fashions are depicted so why go to the bother of depicting lighter armed / lower standing cavalry in older armour?

It's a religious subject but the depiction in contemporary style was executed to demonstrate the current resonance of the message.

Other tapestries are indeed depictive of the era they represent or a gaudy almost fantasy depiction of the subject so caution is necessary.

As an aside it's something I've wondered about tombs in the Tudor era which depict knights in much older armour; is this because that's what they wore, or to depict them in their prime or because it was the only style the sculptor could do - was it relevant to the sculptor to accurately depict the armour if the deceased or just to use any style to indicate to the beholder that there lies a noble knight?

[Stuart]

Sorry to go off period, I just meant that the practice continued, or rather I believe it did.

I'll get back in my box

[former user]

there is no universal explanation for that
as a general line, artists would either depict what they knew and had seen (if they were interested in accuracy of any kind), or invent fantasy costume. with the revived interest for antiquity from 15th C on, artists might strive to do better research, if the artefacts in question would be available.
So, for depicting medieval battles, the armoury collections would be a point of reference, for antiquity it would be sculpture collections.

for earlier artists, I can only speculate - if they would not see actual war, they would see processions and tournaments. In manuscript illuminations of the middle ages, knights have often attire that was worn in tournaments only, in spite of war being depicted

EDIT:  I don't see any wrong in a decent discussion  
in the example You are showing, the artist probably consulted the same collections of elaborate armour we have access to nowadays

I had hoped someone with real armour knowledge could have brought some light to this interesting subject. I however suspect, that Alan and Michael Perry, prolific reenactors of the late medieval period for many years, have a very thorough knowledge of this period in particular, so probably had good reason to choose these distinct period-sets for different boxes. Again speculation, but I would expect that combination of evolving armour pieces would rather run along the styles that were evolving in this particular time, and not necessarily along age aspects

[former user]

I would assume so - since during WotR witnessed the extinction of many nobility lineages, the ascendant families would probably have felt the desire to retro-root their social status

[Arlequín]

I would assume so - since during WotR witnessed the extinction of many nobility lineages, the ascendant families would probably have felt the desire to retro-root their social status

There were not so many as popularly believed. The noble family extinction rate was not significantly higher during the WotR than before or after it.

As for tombs, one of the reasons for antiquated armour was that the effigys could be bought many years before the death of the person. 15th Century people were a practical lot and were also quite accepting that death could come at any time. It was not uncommon therefore to have your tomb, plot, or whatever, all bought and paid for as soon as you could afford it.

The Tudors themselves promoted their 'regal' lineage when they could be seen as little more than successful bandits.

All aristocracy were little more than successful bandits if you go back far enough. 

The point is a fair one though... certainly the following century, the efforts of the 'nouveau riche' to to give their freshly granted right to bear coats of arms some 'history', is frankly embarassing.

[former user]

not more or less embarassing than any attempt to justify power through nobility.....
(oh, sorry, I just realised in Britain this is political.... but I would prefer constitutional monarchy anytime  )

[dm]

Imagine armour would have been used as long as it was useful enough to protect the wearer in combat but imagine fashions both in terms of looks would have dictated some of the rapid changes in styles in the 15th Century.

Armour was designed to protect the individual who wore it first and foremost in combat and all of the features seen in a full harness were all part of this design process. I imagine poorer nobles would have worn armour from previous generations if it fitted and was serviceable enough to be worn on the field.

Armour was however part of social display that expressed status and standing within society and the wealthier nobles would no doubt have tried to keep up with changes in styles and fashions of the day...so they 'looked the part' both on and off the field. I cannot however see anything wrong in using some of these armoured foot miniatures in early Wars of the Roses scenarios and maybe even some of the later ones

[Arlequín]

You are of course correct and social display was a principle factor in those who could afford it buying the latest styles. There would also appear to have been a mini-industry in 're-fashioning' items to approximate the latest styles too... a sort of 'bootleg' designer armour market.

I do have visions of the more stylish chevaliers mocking those who were unable to afford the latest fashions though.   

[Stuart]

Medieval military costume, Embleton; image of landsknecht captain in 1480's harness, ' this example is perhaps a little old fashioned for 1515, but for all but the very rich armour that still functioned and fitted was too valuable to be discarded for mere fashion.'

Again a later period but the notion is relevant.

I think as wargamers we are fed a notion that periods were distinctly seperate. Numerous sources state that the majority of the field at Flodden wore armour of their forbears, in the case of the Scots some very old armour.

Think not only about wealth but also status; a man at arms, retainer, yeoman, light to medium cavalry, all are likely to feature some older pieces.

It seems bizarre to consider that all of the knights at agincourt wore white harness or indeed all of the foot knights at Flodden were in Maximilian harness.

Sorry to labour a point over and beyond a great new boxed set but I say mix them up a bit for a more convincing feel.

[Captain Blood]

Sorry to labour a point over and beyond a great new boxed set but I say mix them up a bit for a more convincing feel.

Amen

[former user]

Sorry to labour a point over and beyond a great new boxed set but I say mix them up a bit for a more convincing feel.

yes please!