Richard III & the Car Park

[Errata]

I think prom attire means specifically, pastel-colored tux, and ruffly shirt, with a satin cummerbund that doesn't necessarily match the tux (but should match the main color of your date's dress).

Unless you are a lesbian. Then, you should have the most standard-issue, Cary Grant-James Stewart-Charles Boyer tux you can find, with patent leather wingtips. And Brylcreem.

(Seriously, don't ask me: my friends and I were way too cool for the prom-- we went to an Ingmar Bergman movie, and then a coffee house, instead.)

10 proms. Don't ask me why, but I went to 10 proms. On three dresses. Well, technically four because one of my friends asked me to dress like a hooker so everyone would think he paid for his date, so I borrow a patent leather minidress for that one. Fun times...

[RivkahChaya]

Unless it's a prom, and then formal means a tux or a slutty dress.

I think prom attire means specifically, pastel-colored tux, and ruffly shirt, with a satin cummerbund that doesn't necessarily match the tux (but should match the main color of your date's dress).

Unless you are a lesbian. Then, you should have the most standard-issue, Cary Grant-James Stewart-Charles Boyer tux you can find, with patent leather wingtips. And Brylcreem.

(Seriously, don't ask me: my friends and I were way too cool for the prom-- we went to an Ingmar Bergman movie, and then a coffee house, instead.)

[Errata]

I know someone who is a professional violinist, and owns an array of formal and semi-formal wear. He was once invited to a wedding by someone he didn't know all that well (which makes you think "gift grab," but whatever; his mother was friends with her mother), and the invitation said "formal," so he wore formal wear. None of the other male guests did, and the bride actually lectured him during the reception for "dressing up" like the groom. He is gay, and apparently, she thought he was trying to make fun of heterosexual weddings, or something. If someone goes to the trouble of actually putting "formal" on the invitation, you think they'd mean it. I've been to a lot of weddings, and I've never seen that before. I've seen "informal," but never "formal."

Rookie move. "Formal" now means church attire. Right below that is something called "Snappy Casual" which I guess is like what you wear to a bar. But unless it says "Black Tie" or "White Tie", what used to be called "Formal" is not appropriate. Unless it's a prom, and then formal means a tux or a slutty dress.

[RivkahChaya]

It's like wearing a tux shirt and tails with jeans. It happens ( a lot here. ugh).

You mean those ruffly shirts? If it's a "tux[edo]" jacket, then it is short, and does not have tails, by definition. (The jacket with tails is called a "tailcoat," in the US.) Any time "formal" or "white tie" is specified, it means "tails," rather than "tux." Tuxedo jacket is work with black tie. I have not watched all those Cary Grant movies for nothing.

As far as the redneck weddings, yes, it's pretty awful when they have Tuxedo jackets in pastel colors, and ruffled shirts, for a wedding at 11am. Even worse, when the groomsmen and ushers are dressed like that, but then the groom is in white tie and tails.

I know someone who is a professional violinist, and owns an array of formal and semi-formal wear. He was once invited to a wedding by someone he didn't know all that well (which makes you think "gift grab," but whatever; his mother was friends with her mother), and the invitation said "formal," so he wore formal wear. None of the other male guests did, and the bride actually lectured him during the reception for "dressing up" like the groom. He is gay, and apparently, she thought he was trying to make fun of heterosexual weddings, or something. If someone goes to the trouble of actually putting "formal" on the invitation, you think they'd mean it. I've been to a lot of weddings, and I've never seen that before. I've seen "informal," but never "formal."

[Errata]

I regret to say that that flies in the face of all the books I have consulted - the osprey again (not that old as a book) shows a fighting man IN FULL PLATE and dates it as 1410. I don't know what else to say.

Warmest regards Errata

Phil

Okay. I see where we are differing. I was taught, rightly or wrongly, when I was an Art History major to not treat artwork other than photography as a factual representation of a moment in time. Which accounts for the differences in various armor styles at Agincourt. Often the French are depicted in gold full plate. Which clearly they didn't have, because gold makes for crap armor. Ask Henri II (which still gives me the shivers). And clearly most of these artists weren't there, and were basing their images on what they thought a king looked like, what they thought French knights looked like, etc. But on the other hand, barring very descriptive personal accounts, it's all we have to give us a glimpse as to what it was like. So, having been sort of raised on this stuff, I have always taken a real world view. Which is why Braveheart just makes me sad the way he flails about with a meter sword, which is not how you use a meter sword. But my real world view assumes that a: people then know what I know now about arms and armor deficiency and b: that they cared. Now I know they knew about the shortfalls of armor, because they corrected it. And I assume that people took the best of whatever was around them. I know that some did, compromised with plate mail because they have been dug up in a few places, and there are one or two effigies that show that. I see it as a safe assumption that Henry V did the same, and some illustrations show that. But some don't. And unfortunately, the giant heraldic tabard covers up most of the interesting bits that would prove one way or another. So I think that's where we differ. I make an assumption based on some personal accounts, and what I know the flaws of both kinds of armor to be, and what the accepted fix at the time was. But you are correct. It doesn't mean he didn't strap on the full plate for battle. I'm just predicting a behavior based on information I have. It's like wearing a tux shirt and tails with jeans. It happens ( a lot here. ugh). It's just not how you usually see a tux put together in art. They could wear the full tux. They just don't. Because often they are rednecks.

[Phil H]

The effigy you referred to of Beauchamp is absolutely full plate armor. Like I said, it did exist. They paraded in it. But practical fighting in it had issues. It's sort of like how there aren't statues of Vietnam Soldiers fighting while stripped down to their underwear, which happened. They are always in full uniform, even though we know that pieces got ditched depending on how hot it was. Real warfare means some things get edited for functionality. However, the Branaugh Henry V's armor was about 100 years too old. Which is the brigandine armor. So Henry V certainly had a full set of plate armor. I doubt he wore all of it in actual battle. I think he combined plate and chainmail, thus plate mail.

I regret to say that that flies in the face of all the books I have consulted - the osprey again (not that old as a book) shows a fighting man IN FULL PLATE and dates it as 1410. I don't know what else to say.

Brannagh's film was wholly inaccurate in terms of costume. Olivier relied heavily on illuminated manuscripts, but the armour has always looked pretty good to me - given that he was making the film in wartime.

But there is the possibility that Richard started in plate mail, especially with the whole exile pawning things to get around part of his life. I just don't know how many opportunities he had to get in the full plate before Henry Tudor.

Leaving aside his exile c 1460 (as a child), Richard fled to Burgundy with his brother in 1470/71. From then on, with Edward IV restored, Richard was among the richest men in the country. He had plenty of money and resources to acquire plate armour.

He took part in the invasion of France in 1475 and commanded the invasion of Scotland in the early 1480s. For both, I suggest, he would have needed the most modern equipment. In short he had 15 years or so (half his life) between exile and facing Henry Tudor.

That his changing spinal condition may have required frequent modification of his suits of armour is always possible, but I see no problem in that. He was King - it would also probably not have required adapting the whole suit to changes in his shape.


Warmest regards Errata

Phil

[Errata]

Well, Errata, your remarks fly in the face of every reconstruction I have seen of Henry V.

Buit while I know something about armour, I am no expert. Let's agree to differ. Richard III certainly wore plate at Bosworth.

Phil

Edited to add:

I now have beside me my copy of Osprey's "Henry V and the Conquest of France" (1998). Illustration F (by Graham Turner, a re-enactor as well as an artist) shows three knights, including Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, the latter based on his gilded effigy in Warwick Church. I know it well. He is in full plate and that must date to no earlier than the 1450s, not much later either.

I think that somehow we agreeing and it seems like disagreeing... Every contemporary illustration of Henry V I have seen he is wearing plate mail (which is not plated mail. Different beast). Which is, as best I can tell from medieval illustrations consists of helm, spaulder, vambrace, gauntlet, greaves and sabatons. I can't tell if there is a cuirass or cuisses. But the difference between plate armor and plate mail is that plate armor attaches to other pieces of plate armor, beetle like in it's protection. Plate mail consists of some key plate pieces attached to or worn over chain mail. So instead of of a spaulder connecting to a brassart, it is worn over chain mail to the upper arm is protected by chain and not plate. And then the next piece of plate would be the vambraces. Because plate armor had gaps, you could wear a suit of armor over a suit of chain, or just wear pieces of plate over chain so you aren't about 500 lbs. So technically it isn't "plate mail" its "plate and mail" a combo of both, but shortened it ended up as plate mail.

The effigy you referred to of Beauchamp is absolutely full plate armor. Like I said, it did exist. They paraded in it. But practical fighting in it had issues. It's sort of like how there aren't statues of Vietnam Soldiers fighting while stripped down to their underwear, which happened. They are always in full uniform, even though we know that pieces got ditched depending on how hot it was. Real warfare means some things get edited for functionality. However, the Branaugh Henry V's armor was about 100 years too old. Which is the brigandine armor. So Henry V certainly had a full set of plate armor. I doubt he wore all of it in actual battle. I think he combined plate and chainmail, thus plate mail.

As for Richard, I agree he was wearing full plate at Bosworth. I think the foot soldiers were wearing plate mail. But there is the possibility that Richard started in plate mail, especially with the whole exile pawning things to get around part of his life. I just don't know how many opportunities he had to get in the full plate before Henry Tudor.

Oh, and I thought this might amuse you.

http://www.geekologie.com/2011/07/medieval-armor-it-really-sucked-to-run-i.php

[Phil H]

Well, Errata, your remarks fly in the face of every reconstruction I have seen of Henry V.

Buit while I know something about armour, I am no expert. Let's agree to differ. Richard III certainly wore plate at Bosworth.

Phil

Edited to add:

I now have beside me my copy of Osprey's "Henry V and the Conquest of France" (1998). Illustration F (by Graham Turner, a re-enactor as well as an artist) shows three knights, including Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, the latter based on his gilded effigy in Warwick Church. I know it well. He is in full plate and that must date to no earlier than the 1450s, not much later either.

[Errata]

Surely Henry V wore at least some plate at Agincourt - certainly all my sources suggest he did. I cannot, I must admit vouch for whether there was a metal cuirass (or equivalent pieces) under his heraldic surcoat, but arm and leg armour (plate) is shown on the Black Prince's effigy (1370s) and was around a generation or two later as well. That is how Henry's brother Thomas (Duke of Clarence) is shown on his tomb. he died in battle, at Bauge c 1420.

By Richard's day, Milanese (Italian) and German full plate armour was available and used by the nobility in the Wars of the Roses. The Wallace Collection has a famous example. There are some other suits in the Royal Armouries. Changes were coming in - the close helm replacing the salet - but full plate was available.

Every source I have assumes Richard III wore full plate. Aristocratic effigies show the person concerned in full plate, incluing Sir John Cheney, the six foot eight inch giant Richard struck from his horse at Bosworth. All recent illustrations by credible military artists show the same.

Sorry to disagree.

Phil

I'm sure Henry V wore some plate. Gauntlets, sabatons, maybe a cuirass. But not full plate. Frankly, he wouldn't have needed it. His archers made an eloquent point about how a cuirass of the time did not protect them from longbows. As a knight on horseback fighting amongst foot, the immediate danger is a slash, not a stab. Which mail works perfectly well for.

The problem with 14th-early16th century plate was not that it was unavailable, or even rare. It's that it had big gaps at the neck., the groin, under the arm, at most joints really. In the 16th century they added pieces that cover the joints, making something of a seamless whole, but that wasn't available yet for Henry or Richard. So it was a judgement call for an actual warrior, do you go with plate with gaps, or plate/mail with no gaps. I'm absolutely certain that when these guys paraded about to show themselves to the people, they wore the plate. It's very impressive. But If I were Richard, and I knew someone was going to be slinging arrows at me, I'd go with the plate/mail. If I was going to joust, or even fight horseback to horseback, I'd go with plate.

But Richard might have stuck with plate, assuming that the shortcomings would be solved by being on horseback. Which they were to an extent, since aiming up into the gaps is hard. And image is not unimportant, so he might have decided imposing plate was the way to go. I only bring it up because he had an option, one that could potentially affect his movement. But like I said, I think he wore plate because he was stripped fairly quickly, and that doesn't happen with mail.

[Phil H]

Surely Henry V wore at least some plate at Agincourt - certainly all my sources suggest he did. I cannot, I must admit vouch for whether there was a metal cuirass (or equivalent pieces) under his heraldic surcoat, but arm and leg armour (plate) is shown on the Black Prince's effigy (1370s) and was around a generation or two later as well. That is how Henry's brother Thomas (Duke of Clarence) is shown on his tomb. he died in battle, at Bauge c 1420.

By Richard's day, Milanese (Italian) and German full plate armour was available and used by the nobility in the Wars of the Roses. The Wallace Collection has a famous example. There are some other suits in the Royal Armouries. Changes were coming in - the close helm replacing the salet - but full plate was available.

Every source I have assumes Richard III wore full plate. Aristocratic effigies show the person concerned in full plate, incluing Sir John Cheney, the six foot eight inch giant Richard struck from his horse at Bosworth. All recent illustrations by credible military artists show the same.

Sorry to disagree.

Phil

[Errata]

Wasn't Henry V reputed to be able to VAULT into the saddle in full armour. Given the high cantles on the saddles of the period, that would be impressive!!

I think we need to be very precise though in referring to these matters. Armour in 1300 was VERY different from that in use in 1485, and jousting kit was again different to the equipment used in war.
...
You may be correct about Richard, given his condition, but I remain uncertain of the use of a crane/hoists or sling would have been in general use. Unlike todays "re-enactors" these men were trained from boyhood to use armour etc and to ride.

Interesting discussion,

Phil

Forgive the editing. It's for brevity, not to alter your words.

I highly doubt Henry V could vault into the saddle unless he had an exceptionally short horse. We still have cowboys and cowboy stuntmen here, and a friend of mine gets called in to movies to vault into the saddle because it's not a common skill. And Dave has to vault forward from the rump. In jeans. I've never seen anyone do it from the side, although it's the Indian Rope Trick of stunt horsemen. The side vault is supposed to resemble a cartwheel.

But he likely could mount very quickly. If he was exceptionally athletic, or just terribly coordinated, he may have used the method I described earlier, where you throw yourself in the saddle and just sort yourself out, which could be described as a vault.. sort of.
I'm going to try to describe this move, so bear with me.

Basically you grab the horn and cantle and haul yourself up, pretty much bellyflopping into the saddle. with the left hand still on the horn. The you essentially spin yourself around until you have a leg on either side of the horse, facing forward of course, and then just put your legs down, find the stirrups, and sit up. And it happens quickly. Much less quickly in plate,

And it is important to note that armor was different that classic suit of armor Henry VIII made popular. Well, the German lapped the Brits in terms of plate, so they had it earlier, but thats Germans. Henry V didn't wear plate, Olivier's performance notwithstanding. He wore leather and mail. He may have had a form of mail and Brigandine. Leather brigandine was popular in the Middle ages, but was replaced by mail. They have found pieces of mail brigandine, but without records theres no telling how popular it was. Though it was found on a presumably common soldier in the east, so it could have been very prevalent. Either way, Much more flexible. A little pinchy, and rough on the hair.

And Joust armor is much heavier, not for any combat reason, but because the heavier the armor, the more likely you are to stay in the saddle after a hit with the lance. It's why joust armor was never battle armor. And foot armor was never knight armor. You can't wear foot armor on a horse. Well, you can, but it would be painful and your legs would be sticking out at a 45 degree angle.

The question is what did Richard wear? Because he and his brother were at a bit of a crossroads. In their youth, chain and plate was better than the full plate at that time. At that point, full plate still left some gaps in protection. But full plate was much better and was certainly used by Henry VII during his reign. Plate and chain gives protection and mobility, full plate gives protection and mass. Richard got his start as a warrior, not a guy on parade. Were I him, I would have stuck with chain and plate. It's known, he doesn't have to get used to it during troubles times, he is instinctively aware of it's limitations. New plate could cause problems. It takes a bit to get used to. But the speed with which he was stripped at Bosworth, I think he was wearing full plate. As much of a pain it is to put on plate, putting on chain is so much worse, and nigh impossible to get off of someone who is not actively cooperating. Theres a lot of wriggling and shimmying involved with mail.

If he wore new full plate when he was used to plate and chain, it may explain why he got pulled off his horse. And why he lost his helmet. He wasn't used to full plate. And more importantly, neither were his squires. If the squires aren't solid on what they are doing, things don't get buckled, and things fall off. Or he might have worn plate all his life, and it played no part in his death. 50 years before his birth, mail and plate. 20 years after his death, full plate.

[Steve S]

I certainly think the plate/arming doublet of 1485 had less "drag" than the mail/gambeson of 1314..........

[Phil H]

Wasn't Henry V reputed to be able to VAULT into the saddle in full armour. Given the high cantles on the saddles of the period, that would be impressive!!

I think we need to be very precise though in referring to these matters. Armour in 1300 was VERY different from that in use in 1485, and jousting kit was again different to the equipment used in war.

In 1300 (take Bannockburn as a case study) the knight's armour was still heavily comrised of chain mail and leather, as well as pieces of plate. By 1480 were are talking of suits entirely of enveloping plate, but with technology advanced to a point where weight, how it was distributed and flexibility were (as I understand it) very good.

Later, and for the tilt, it gets heavier again - for war, I suspect, to reflect the arrival of gunpowder on the battlefield. For the tilt you have those very thick, bolt-on plates and arm pieces. Some of Henry VIII's surviving suits - and I discount those intended for foot-combat - have deep skirts that would have impeded movement.

You may be correct about Richard, given his condition, but I remain uncertain of the use of a crane/hoists or sling would have been in general use. Unlike todays "re-enactors" these men were trained from boyhood to use armour etc and to ride.

Interesting discussion,

Phil

[Errata]

I don't recall any period illustrations of these, Errata.

C15th plate armour is usually considered flexible and light enough to allow pretty free movement. I have seen a combat at the Royal Armouries in Leeds were the two "knights" in full armour of this period, fought with poleaxes, fell, rolled, got up etc with great agility and no help.

If you could point me in the direction of the sources on which you are relying, I might understand better where you are coming from.

Phil

Well, I don't have any illustrations either in point of fact. I have a photograph taken by a friend in Jerusalem of a hoist apparatus outside a stable that was built into the old walls during the Crusades. I put in an email to him for further information, since he sent it to me with a smart ass comment on it as a joke. Not as a historical aside. So I'll let you know what he says, but I had a prof tell me that the women of a keep used them as swings. And my best Jouster friend says they date back to the late 1300s, not for men in armor, but for fat lords with ulcerated thighs. Not unlike Henry VIII.

As someone who has worn armor, I can attest to the fact that it is not terribly limiting in normal motion. Putting your arms straight up in the air is problematic, and if you get a bunch of drunk jousters together they challenge each other to do the splits in full armor (don't try. Just don't.) There are two major movement problems with armor. The first is being able to gauge the amount of space you take up in armor. And you learn, sort of, but as best as I can tell they never get past the part where they are always just a little to close, or grabbing or hitting things a little to hard. Clearly you lose sensitivity. The second problem with armor is lateral movement. You want to hold you arm straight in front of you, fine. Straight out to the side, you are fighting quite a bit of resistance. The splits challenge is funny because it causes the armor to pinch in really hard. In a crotch like area.

The purpose of the hoist wasn't because armor is so heavy or so stiff. It's because after trying to put your foot in a stirrup five times, and then failing to swing your leg over because a pinch or accidentally kicking the horse makes you lose momentum, the horse gets damned testy. I mean, I've seen guys take 10-13 tries to mount a horse (a strange horse granted, but still). And they can do it, even throw themselves in the saddle and sort things out later if they have to. But then the horse tries to rid itself of the rider. So the hoist is to keep horses calm. Modern jousters use Clydesdale or Percherons. I mean, a big horse is a good thing, but they are picked for temperament. I've seen fireworks hit Clydsies in the side and they didn't even twitch. An out of control horse in the list is lethal. I imagine if it was a warrior, it would have time to run off it's nerves before things got critical. A jouster has maybe ten feet to gain control of his horse before he could seriously die.

But if Richard suffered back pain, which he likely did, he may have used a hoist. (Well a sling. Same principle. The hoists in old pictures are the harness/winch affair. Slings are a strip of cloth you sit on and then the arm swings out and dangles you next to or over the horse.) Meaning he didn't mount from the ground, and wouldn't notice how much harder it was to get his foot in the stirrup.

[Phil H]

Sorry, Bridie. I for one had completely overlooked you post.

Is there any documentation that Richard III passed through or even stayed in Southam, Warwickshire? A friend of mine is insistent that he did and that The Bull's Inn was his hostelry of choice. I'll owe him a few pints if he's right!

I am unaware specifically though I will double check the itinerary of his post Coronation progress.

Richard did building work at Warwick Castle - a (then) very modern artillery work which still exists. His wife was a daughter of the previous earl of Warwick (Kingmaker) and as Richard probably grew up in the earl's household he may have stayed in the castle or the area in his youth.

His brother George, Duke of Clarence, inherited the castle - he married Isabelle, Warwick's other daughter. The Bull (a Black one for Clarence) was George's heraldic symbol, so the inn may have been named for him. The association with his late brother might have attracted Richard or those planning his journey.

According to Kendall, in 1483, Richard was at Reading on July 23, then travelled to Oxford. From there he travelled to Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Worcester, and then to Warwick which he reached by August 8. After that he moved on to Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham.

Checking against a map might indicate whether Southam lies on any likely route he might have taken.

Hope this helps,

Phil