A cuirasse breastplate ... for review

[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.

.

[fernando]

Here is a chart on Brits height evolution ... and involution; to note how tall they were in the period when theses armor implements were used.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much for the elucidation (as always) and for breaking your original notice of not bothering us with exhaustive details. I am always glad when you are encouraged to do further research and share it here with us.
As one not particularly well versed in armor, it is good to have these pertinent (not exhaustive) details applied, and providing much better perspective.

While some of the hypothetical suggestions seem of course, somewhat out of place (i.e. dwarves), it is sometimes just broadening discussion to even remote possibilities for the sake of note. I would point out here that my mention of smaller display item was in concurrence with Victrix' note on miniature harness (=armor) as a possibility. The notion of 'damage' as well as apparent 'mounting' apertures may also lend to this idea as positioning such a piece to receive blows (much as in proving armor) does not seem far fetched.
I agree with the comment on the elements of armor being comprised of components that would better adjust to the wearers 'physique' and moveability. It was mentioned that the bevor (gorget and chin guard) above and tassets below would complete the coverage of the individual with this breast plate central.

I had indeed not seen your recent entries when I mentioned this topic and subject breastplate (avoiding the term cuirass in case of technicality) in the case of an unusually small katar on the ethno forum. I had not realized I had sounded so decisive in my comments which I thought indicated that the possible circumstances shown and discussed remained inconclusive.

As I had been focused on the katar, I simply thought of this discussion and brought it up as an analogy of similar circumstances in weapon size. It was not meant as a conclusive case as evidence of any presentation, and certainly not meant to cause you concern. Mea Culpa.

[Victrix]

This was written by Dirk Breiding, Department of Arms and Armour, Metropolitan Museum:

“Medical and anthropological research demonstrates that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, a process that, for reasons of progressively better diet and public health, has accelerated during the past 150 years or so. The majority of surviving armors from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries appear to confirm these findings.

However, when trying to affirm such generalizations from armor, a number of factors need to be carefully considered. First, is the armor complete and homogeneous (i.e., do all parts belong together), thereby giving an accurate impression of the height of the original wearer? Second, even a high-quality armor, made to measure for a particular owner, can provide only an estimate of its former wearer’s height with a margin of at least an inch or two (2–5 cm), since the overlap of the protections for lower abdomen (skirt and tassets) and thighs (cuisses) can only be approximated.

Indeed, armor comes in all shapes and sizes, such as armor for children or young men (as opposed to that for adults), and there are even armors made for dwarfs and giants (often found at European courts as “curiosities”). Moreover, then as now, other general factors have to be taken into account, such as differences in average body height between northern and southern Europeans for example, or the simple fact that there have always been people who were exceptionally tall or short when compared to their average contemporary.”

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Victrix

This was written by Dirk Breiding, Department of Arms and Armour, Metropolitan Museum:

“Medical and anthropological research demonstrates that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, a process that, for reasons of progressively better diet and public health, has accelerated during the past 150 years or so. The majority of surviving armors from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries appear to confirm these findings.

However, when trying to affirm such generalizations from armor, a number of factors need to be carefully considered. First, is the armor complete and homogeneous (i.e., do all parts belong together), thereby giving an accurate impression of the height of the original wearer? Second, even a high-quality armor, made to measure for a particular owner, can provide only an estimate of its former wearer’s height with a margin of at least an inch or two (2–5 cm), since the overlap of the protections for lower abdomen (skirt and tassets) and thighs (cuisses) can only be approximated.

Indeed, armor comes in all shapes and sizes, such as armor for children or young men (as opposed to that for adults), and there are even armors made for dwarfs and giants (often found at European courts as “curiosities”). Moreover, then as now, other general factors have to be taken into account, such as differences in average body height between northern and southern Europeans for example, or the simple fact that there have always been people who were exceptionally tall or short when compared to their average contemporary.”

Now THIS is a valuable and most pertinent reference!!! Thank you so much Victrix, very, very much appreciated.

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Now THIS is a valuable and most pertinent reference!!! Thank you so much Victrix, very, very much appreciated.

Not at all Jim. We all thank you, for sharing with us your wisdom and encyclopedic knowledge in these matters which you acquired through decades of research. This is very valuable to us indeed.

Separately on a different matter, in our inquiry it’s important for us to keep an open mind regarding ALL eventualities. It’s preposterous to think that “small” people would not have worn armour in the old days just because they are small. Curiously it seems that human diversity was much more accepted in the old days (pre 20thC?) and indeed even appreciated and celebrated.