How SCA armor compares to Historical Armor.
Feb 20, 2008 8:13:39 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2008 8:13:39 GMT
I put this question out to number of very knowledgeable people and got some very good responses that I wanted to share.
Sir Valgard wrote:
Hanover wrote:
Armorer Richard Blackmoore wrote:
I then asked the following question:
Wouldn't we benefit from lighter thinner armor that was heat treated for strength? I would think that the working with a thinner steel would be cheaper and easier. There must be some other reason for not tempering if it is not done.
Mitchell wrote:
Hanover wrote:
Gill wrote:
Prior to this I had asked a similar question specific to Helm standards. I posted those responses here:
/index.cgi?board=armour&action=display&thread=1176550660
Sir Valgard wrote:
In general, SCA plate armor is of heavier gauge and weight than medieval plate armor would have been. The exception being some pieces made out of spring steel and a few pieces made out of stainless steel. Plate armor for a knight was also normally custom fitted, not off the rack, and fit is as important in good armor as it is in a good suit.
The more important distinction from an SCA perspective is not how armor was different for different weapons forms, but how armor was different across the SCA's time period, because this is where the greatest variation comes. There are a couple of things that can be said, however:
You sometimes wore more armor when fighting from horseback. This could include larger pieces like a bigger shoulder harness or simply an extra piece of mail across your chest if your armor was a mail shirt. There is a lot of evidence that people who wore a great helm over a bascinet would often ditch the great helm when fighting on foot, but many manuscript paintings show people on foot with greathelms, so we don't know how common that practice was.
You don't get into different pieces for different weapons so much until the end of period, in the 16th Century. Then you get complicated garnitures (they have a good one in the Met) which is a suit of armor with interchangeable pieces used depending on what you'd be doing in it: it had short tassets and a fixed shoulder for jousting, different helmets for horse vs. foot combat. Long tassets for spear work on foot, etc.
It has been said that the best armor for SCA purposes is 14th century armor, because that most approximates what we already wear. Much of the fighting in the 14th Century was on foot even in wars, so it's flexible and fairly light, but a good suit of 14th Century armor will usually cover all the points SCA members are required to cover without adding something to it, like you do when you wear hidden leg and arm armor with Viking's, for instance (Yes, there are some 13th Century pieces that do this too).
The other big deal with armor is that, while very few of us wear mail nearly all of us should do so. Most plate armor in the 13th, 14th, and early 15th centuries was worn over mail. At some point they realized that they didn't need to do this but they still sewed mail into their arming coats at places like the arm pits.
Finally, there is the fact that in period when people fought like we do? (often referred to as a brouhard), with rebated weapons,?which could be not just dull swords but?weapons of wood?or whalebone or sugar cane, they did wear a period form of what we call "sport armor." This would often be boiled leather armor over padding, but in late period it could also include a breastplate that was perforated to make it lighter and breath better.?This was definitely a form of weapon specific armor.? (it is also what I wear)
The more important distinction from an SCA perspective is not how armor was different for different weapons forms, but how armor was different across the SCA's time period, because this is where the greatest variation comes. There are a couple of things that can be said, however:
You sometimes wore more armor when fighting from horseback. This could include larger pieces like a bigger shoulder harness or simply an extra piece of mail across your chest if your armor was a mail shirt. There is a lot of evidence that people who wore a great helm over a bascinet would often ditch the great helm when fighting on foot, but many manuscript paintings show people on foot with greathelms, so we don't know how common that practice was.
You don't get into different pieces for different weapons so much until the end of period, in the 16th Century. Then you get complicated garnitures (they have a good one in the Met) which is a suit of armor with interchangeable pieces used depending on what you'd be doing in it: it had short tassets and a fixed shoulder for jousting, different helmets for horse vs. foot combat. Long tassets for spear work on foot, etc.
It has been said that the best armor for SCA purposes is 14th century armor, because that most approximates what we already wear. Much of the fighting in the 14th Century was on foot even in wars, so it's flexible and fairly light, but a good suit of 14th Century armor will usually cover all the points SCA members are required to cover without adding something to it, like you do when you wear hidden leg and arm armor with Viking's, for instance (Yes, there are some 13th Century pieces that do this too).
The other big deal with armor is that, while very few of us wear mail nearly all of us should do so. Most plate armor in the 13th, 14th, and early 15th centuries was worn over mail. At some point they realized that they didn't need to do this but they still sewed mail into their arming coats at places like the arm pits.
Finally, there is the fact that in period when people fought like we do? (often referred to as a brouhard), with rebated weapons,?which could be not just dull swords but?weapons of wood?or whalebone or sugar cane, they did wear a period form of what we call "sport armor." This would often be boiled leather armor over padding, but in late period it could also include a breastplate that was perforated to make it lighter and breath better.?This was definitely a form of weapon specific armor.? (it is also what I wear)
Hanover wrote:
That being said, remember that SCA armor standards are "chainmail" despite what you are actually wearing. Which means in terms of SCA combat, the person wearing 100 pounds of stainless plate armor has the same technical protection as someone wearing 10 pounds of helmet, gorget and cup.
Historically tho, someone wearing plate armor would have to be dragged down to the ground and a blade rammed into open spots (armpits, visor, etc.) to do damage as opposed to someone wearing chainmail which couldn't effectively absorb blows from a sword, mace or axe.
Personally I wear a 14th century stainless suit because when its on
me, I don't notice the weight since it was made specifically for me
and hugs the right spots to distribute the weight properly.
Historically tho, someone wearing plate armor would have to be dragged down to the ground and a blade rammed into open spots (armpits, visor, etc.) to do damage as opposed to someone wearing chainmail which couldn't effectively absorb blows from a sword, mace or axe.
Personally I wear a 14th century stainless suit because when its on
me, I don't notice the weight since it was made specifically for me
and hugs the right spots to distribute the weight properly.
Armorer Richard Blackmoore wrote:
Remember too that for the armours that tended to survive that we can examine, these tend to be 15th century and later and by that time, often a single armour was composed of pieces made by several different armourers or a single armourer and a number of assistants, they also often farmed out parts of their work to essentially subcontractors specializing in particular component or production process. There are wide variations in weight and thickness, even in pieces coming from the same exact armourer in the same decade. Then throw into the mix the fact that very little armour made prior to 1600 exists compared to what was actually produced, that we are to a large degree guessing. Especially regarding 14th century and earlier armour, which is what the bulk of the SCA fights in. There are big differences between historical field (real battle) harness and tournament harness in some cases in the 15th century and later. You can look at what appear to be virtually identical armets in a museum and one will weigh almost twice as much as the next, something you can't tell from an illumination. Not to mention that most of what museums have on display in terms of medieval armour tends to be harness that was expensive back in the day and belonged to someone of importance, it is probably a good guess that the owners with more money had better quality armour. So much of what we are seeing, may not be wholly representative of what the 'average' knight wore, we just don't know.
The other factor is that where most SCA armour is made from a single sheet of uniform modern steel, with no attempt made to thicken or thin portions of it on purpose in terms of making a portion of the armour stronger. This is not always true, some armourers will use raising techniques instead of dishing to avoid an overly thin and therefore more easily damaged section on SCA armour. But that isn't the norm, for economic production reasons. A lot of historical armour varies in thickness on purpose, as they would make portions thicker where the perceived threat was higher. The front center of a breastplate for example or the front of a helm may be ridiculously thick on jousting armour, but thinner on the sides and back. The same holds true for field harness, armour was often thicker in select spots.
As a very broad generalization, I think it is fair to say that a lot of SCA armour is much, much heavier and thicker than corresponding real pieces of field harness (though prior to the 15th century there is often little or no difference between tournament armour and field armour) and sometimes tournament harness. The reason is that much of SCA armour is made of fairly soft mild steel or other materials that are also not hardened by modern armourers and if we made mild steel cuisses in a light gauge they get trashed quickly. SCA fighters often want/expect their harness to last a very, very long time while subjected to regular weekly abuse and to still be
very protective (cuisses, gauntlets & helms in particular), so they are
often much thicker than historical pieces of similar design for the field.
We also tend to make helms heavier in the SCA and overly large, so that we can fit in more padding than historical pieces and let the helm's mass help protect us from impact.
Many historical gauntlets and leg harness pieces that survived are quite light. The gauntlets especially. It makes me think they were simply more careful about letting their fingers get hit than we are.
With spring steel armour still expensive but becoming more available by the day, a lot of pieces can be made lighter and thinner and take years of SCA abuse. It gets us closer to a historical weight. Though I suspect we will always make helmets heavy on purpose for the aforementioned protection.
Not all historical armour was heat treated by the way and some is the rough equivalent of modern 'mild' steel. But only a limited number of surviving pieces have been scientifically tested with modern methods, so we have to guess a lot. By the 15th century some good armour is still made with older methods including being essentially wrought iron, others are more sophisticated (Most but not all of the Helmschmied pieces tested by Alan Williams for example were hardened by quenching, were tempered and the
material was banded steel) For an excellent attempt to deal with the subject of knightly armour materials composition & treatment, I'd suggest you refer to The Knight and The Blast Furnace, A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period by Alan Williams. I don't agree 100% will every single one of his conclusions, I think he got most of it right and it is an excellent book.
The other factor is that where most SCA armour is made from a single sheet of uniform modern steel, with no attempt made to thicken or thin portions of it on purpose in terms of making a portion of the armour stronger. This is not always true, some armourers will use raising techniques instead of dishing to avoid an overly thin and therefore more easily damaged section on SCA armour. But that isn't the norm, for economic production reasons. A lot of historical armour varies in thickness on purpose, as they would make portions thicker where the perceived threat was higher. The front center of a breastplate for example or the front of a helm may be ridiculously thick on jousting armour, but thinner on the sides and back. The same holds true for field harness, armour was often thicker in select spots.
As a very broad generalization, I think it is fair to say that a lot of SCA armour is much, much heavier and thicker than corresponding real pieces of field harness (though prior to the 15th century there is often little or no difference between tournament armour and field armour) and sometimes tournament harness. The reason is that much of SCA armour is made of fairly soft mild steel or other materials that are also not hardened by modern armourers and if we made mild steel cuisses in a light gauge they get trashed quickly. SCA fighters often want/expect their harness to last a very, very long time while subjected to regular weekly abuse and to still be
very protective (cuisses, gauntlets & helms in particular), so they are
often much thicker than historical pieces of similar design for the field.
We also tend to make helms heavier in the SCA and overly large, so that we can fit in more padding than historical pieces and let the helm's mass help protect us from impact.
Many historical gauntlets and leg harness pieces that survived are quite light. The gauntlets especially. It makes me think they were simply more careful about letting their fingers get hit than we are.
With spring steel armour still expensive but becoming more available by the day, a lot of pieces can be made lighter and thinner and take years of SCA abuse. It gets us closer to a historical weight. Though I suspect we will always make helmets heavy on purpose for the aforementioned protection.
Not all historical armour was heat treated by the way and some is the rough equivalent of modern 'mild' steel. But only a limited number of surviving pieces have been scientifically tested with modern methods, so we have to guess a lot. By the 15th century some good armour is still made with older methods including being essentially wrought iron, others are more sophisticated (Most but not all of the Helmschmied pieces tested by Alan Williams for example were hardened by quenching, were tempered and the
material was banded steel) For an excellent attempt to deal with the subject of knightly armour materials composition & treatment, I'd suggest you refer to The Knight and The Blast Furnace, A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period by Alan Williams. I don't agree 100% will every single one of his conclusions, I think he got most of it right and it is an excellent book.
I then asked the following question:
Wouldn't we benefit from lighter thinner armor that was heat treated for strength? I would think that the working with a thinner steel would be cheaper and easier. There must be some other reason for not tempering if it is not done.
Mitchell wrote:
Of course! And some of our better armorers (Maestro Roberto, MasterCet, for example) do that.
Hanover wrote:
Translate that to "It costs a lot more money."
It also rusts a lot faster than other types of steel, so you have to
take much better care of it than something like stainless.
It also rusts a lot faster than other types of steel, so you have to
take much better care of it than something like stainless.
Gill wrote:
Not only does tempering take extra time, it also takes extra equipment and has risks involved.
One needs a heat source large enough to evenly heat the entire piece being tempered (think about how wide and long a breastplate or backplate is) and then, the real economic risk in the process: The
piece warps and/or cracks during quenching. If the piece warps, it
must be annealed and reshaped (extra time), but if it cracks it
usually has to be thrown away and started over (seriously extra time).
Armoring businesses already turn little if any profit trying to keep
their prices reasonable. The armorer I know has to charge more for
tempered pieces to mitigate the risks described above which makes his armor more expensive and therefore less appealing to the average SCAdian looking for mix-and-match armor.
One needs a heat source large enough to evenly heat the entire piece being tempered (think about how wide and long a breastplate or backplate is) and then, the real economic risk in the process: The
piece warps and/or cracks during quenching. If the piece warps, it
must be annealed and reshaped (extra time), but if it cracks it
usually has to be thrown away and started over (seriously extra time).
Armoring businesses already turn little if any profit trying to keep
their prices reasonable. The armorer I know has to charge more for
tempered pieces to mitigate the risks described above which makes his armor more expensive and therefore less appealing to the average SCAdian looking for mix-and-match armor.
Prior to this I had asked a similar question specific to Helm standards. I posted those responses here:
/index.cgi?board=armour&action=display&thread=1176550660