FireStryker Living History Forum : Spauldrons?

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	FireStryker Living History Forum » History » Arms & Armour » Spauldrons?

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Spauldrons?

Gen d'Arme
Member
Member # 60

posted 01-08-2001 06:17 PM

Here's one for you - Spauldrons? (ha,ha) I've been looking at various 15th C. shoulder defences. Apart from the obvious, so called - Italian and German style pauldrons and spaulders, there seemes to be the possiblity of a hybrid! - a cross between pauldrons and spaulders. On page 116 of AAMK there is the tomb effigy of the Burgundian noble Dierick Van Der Merwede. His shoulder defences do not seem to be full pauldrons. In the new book on the Rhodes collection there seemes to be a surviving example although it is supposedly from the 1490's that seemes to be similar to the above mentioned - half spaulder, half pauldron, with pointing holes in the top similar to spaulders, with a rondell attached to one and missing from the other and a slight back shoulder covering bigger than a spulder. It appears to be illustrated in quite a few period manuscript ilustrations. The big question is: Is this what it seemes to be, and are there any more pieces of surviving evidence? Any help and evidence would bemuch appreciated!
Thanks -
Pieter

Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

Armadillo
New Member
Member # 108

posted 01-09-2001 01:30 AM

Gen d'arme,

The distinction in terminology between spaudler and pauldron is a modern one. The distinction was made I believe by Claude Blair in "European Armour". It seems that at least prior to the late fifteenth century the two terms coincided.

According to most all of my resources, 'Spaudler' is in fact the correct spelling for this term. I have found this referred to only as 'spaulder' amongst those who discuss on the internet and I am not sure where this spelling originated. Does anyone know? Even the book that everyone has as a reference refers to the defense as spaudler, that reference being AAMK.

There are in fact two examples of spaudlers with attached fan or besagew in existence. One pair on No. 18 at Churburg and the other more developed example in the Royal Armouries, Leeds (III. 1305). These examples range from 1430-1450. The example at Leeds has a pierced stud for the attachment of a reinforce.
http://www.geocities.com/orracle1/armour/rapauldron1.gif

[This message has been edited by Armadillo (edited 01-09-2001).]

Registered: Jan 2001 | IP: Logged

Gen d'Arme
Member
Member # 60

posted 01-09-2001 08:00 PM

Thanks there Armadillo! interesting picture. It looks if my eyes do not deceive me almost like a munnition grade, correct me if I'm wrong please. I'm going to have to check the other one out!- Thanks!! The big reason I'm asking is because of the theory of the possibilty of a distinct Flemish or Franco/Burgundian style of armour. The type I'm asking about - if it is indeed a type of it's own, seemes if I'm not mistaken to appear on what has been atributed to be Flemish or Franco/Burgundian; The Van Der Merwede tomb effigy (page116 AAMK), The above mentioned pieces in part of the Rhodes collections, that are thought to be Flemish or North-West European; Numerous period illustration (agreed on not being the most reliable sources however)Any more in-put, would really be appreciated - How about some input from all you armourers - Jeff?, Mac?, Anyone?? What are those arm-defence thingies?

Pieter

Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

Jeff Johnson
Member
Member # 22

posted 01-10-2001 10:07 AM

I've had the same question about what to call a couple of other shoulder defenses.

What's the commonly accepted modern typology for the difference between Pauldrons and Spaulders?

Is it:
- spaulders are conformal to the shape of the top half of the upper arm
- they articulate down the upper arm
- they don't overlap the breastplate
- All of the above.

Imagine an armor scholar applying a typology to armor as Oakeshotte did to swords. We could have lengthy, obscure discussions about how a Type IIa1 Cuirass goes with a type IX shoulder defences & a Type XIIA arms, unless the rerebrace is type XIXXX, or it's Tuesday....

Jeff Johnson

Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged

Gen d'Arme
Member
Member # 60

posted 01-10-2001 06:28 PM

Well, As bizzare as that may sound, JeffJ - I think it might just work better than the sloppy half-a**ed deffinitions that we have with armour - "Italian" or "German" how bloody stupid can you get - One would swear noone else knew how to make armour! it boggles my mind that with all the research that has been done we can't even come up with a typology, since there seemes to be difficulty with national or district- typology identification of armour. As far as I know - what is described as spaulders only covers the upper half of the upper arm/shoulder, does not overlap the breastplate and is typically (note: typically!) German. Pauldrons seem to cover the entire shoulder and shoulder-blade and seemes to overlap thye breastplate (unlike spaulder) These seeme to be Italian and German (as described). There seemes to be this "demi-Pauldron" - a smaller miniaturised type of pauldron that could also be an oversized spaulder. As far as setting a typology is concerned - It might be better than numbering certain pieces out of certain collections such as Churgburg or the Wallace-collection etc... This would encompass all collections. I think Oakeshotte had the right idea.

Pieter

Registered: Oct 2000 | IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

Hop To:

Copyright � 2000-2009 Wolfe Argent Living History. All Rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission of the content providers. Individual rights remain with the owners of the posted material.