A cuirasse breastplate ... for review

[fernando]

Thanks much for your input.
Yes, i guess your'e right; even though 3 cm. in height make it a (proportionally) significant difference.
Possibly my guy was a shorty, even for the period .

[Jim McDougall]

Most interesting! I actually have heard of arms and armor for boys, but had no idea of armor for an infant. But then who knows?
The measurements on this cuirass seem remarkably small, even for the smaller size of men in medieval times. Even the notion of dwarves, which certainly existed leads to the idea of appropriately sized armor, but the anomaly of such a piece is notable.

What I wonder is if armorers of the times made display examples to show prospective clients, and to exhibit their skills. It does seem that such items were made of arms and armor both as novelties and to impress.

As mentioned, diminutive size of men in those times was not uncommon, and also, the upper part of the chest was often covered by the 'bevor' which comprised a cover for the lower face and upper chest. The helmet was worn over this component, at least this is what I have understood from what I could find.

Still it is hard to imagine a guy with an 18" chest.

[Victrix]

The breastplate seems too small for a man. It should be around 50cm in height. Are there any items for fastening or attachment for wearing the breastplate?Typically there would be slits in the steel for straps, or hinges on the side for the backplate in the case of cuirass, etc.

In military families children would wear arms (and armour) to prepare them for adulthood. Another possibility (although questionable) would be breastplate for a dwarf?

Final possibility is that this is a decorative item perhaps part of a miniature suit of armour. The many dents seem to indicate that the breastplate has been worn in practice however.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems a remote possibility that an armor for a dwarf could be possible, but it would seem such a novelty that it would seem duly noted and kept as such.

Could it be that as a model or exemplar of an armorers craft, the quality of the steel might be tested or shown to receive blows in the same manner as full size armor?

By striking the display with a hammer (or other tool or blunt object) the quality of the steel used by the armorer would illustrate its strength.

[Will M]

Smaller worn items tend to survive because larger people cannot use the item. Armour, cloth uniforms, belts etc. all the small ones tend to survive because they cannot be reused as larger pieces can be used and therefore damaged/worn out. It is a myth that people were all smaller then.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Will M

Smaller worn items tend to survive because larger people cannot use the item. Armour, cloth uniforms, belts etc. all the small ones tend to survive because they cannot be reused as larger pieces can be used and therefore damaged/worn out. It is a myth that people were all smaller then.

Thanks for responding Will !
That is a most reasonable observation, and such items would obviously have less chance of being worn 'universally' (uh, my uniforms from a 'few' years back not even close to being able to be worn again).

But as you note, people were not all small in those days...…...but this piece, and others seem awfully small.....also, where are the attachment slits or means as Victrix has mentioned?

On an aside, it seems that they found armor some years ago which they believed had belonged to Joan of Arc, and is was if I recall, smaller than typically male armor. I don't think it was ever proven though.

[fernando]

Gentlemen, i am spoiled with so much attention to my case, for which i am much obliged.
But having read all your notes my concerns, instead of being quietened, found no peace,which took me to "undo my cuff links" an make some little search for myself.
If we (re) reconsider CSinTX's example, only 3 cms. taller than mine. I hear some knowledged people saying that (even) a 5 cms difference is not such great a variation and still can be attributed to the realm of adults, whether those of lesser stature. Breast plates must accomodate human physiology. They can only reach down to about the lowest rib and bend at the waist, in order not to interfere with the possibility to fully bend, as in contemplating a context of episodes like falling from a horse.
Also we must not forget that most often these implements are only a part of front armor, having complements added to their lower section, like faulds and tassets. One example of "small" breastplate may be seen at the HIGGINS. Also note that its neck is not so "low cut" as in mine, so height measurements should take that into account.
Having so said, i would dare to discard the dwarf hypothesis, those who would not feel so comfortable wearing a 4 1/2 kilos (10 pounds) breastplate to add to their entire cuirass.
Concerning the approach that people were all smaller then is a myth, i am afraid that such is not the concept of documented history. We can (or not) aknowledge records in that men, in the last century, following a research over 18 million people in 200 Countries, have increased their height in 10-12 cms ... in a variable manner, of course.
Also noteworthy that man stature complexity is primarily linked with economic, nourishment, genetic and other so reasons. The principle that would explain why wealthy and better fed people are taller or better constituted than those close to poverty, would cause no surprise to spot an armored aristocrat knight outstanding among a platoon of armored pikemen. Another deal is Gravettians (Mamuth hunters) having been much taller than Mayas ... But that is digressing
Also we can read (and see) charts of man evolution of stature in much earlier times, drawn by prestigious scholars.
Also the probability that my example is a salesman display seems unlikely. You either exhibit a "miniature" or the "real size" thing; not an "approximate" one. Besides, this example has been much through a rather severe endurance to be a selling exhibit.

.