Helms, Greaves and Gauntlets...

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

So you're saying that GURPS weights for sabatons include greaves as well? If that's the case, then the legharness weights are more than twice what they should be...

GURPS gives weights for sollerets, whatever that is...
Well, something is overweight, that's for sure... if it's one or the other, or if it's a little of both I'm not sure.

Truth be told, it's a little confusing. Boots protect the feet and the shins, sometimes nearly up to the knees, while shoes only cover the feet proper under the ankle. So with boots we have "waist weight". Logically the boots should be adding their DR to the lower part of the leg, but we don't see that happening even on unarmored characters.

If we do consider only the feet proper, then sabatons would sufice and only a light mocasin need be used as padding, then yeah... gauntlet weight sounds very plausible. And the logic thing to do is never to wear boots, but only hardened leather shoes of the same hardness of boots and atribute greaves to part of leg-armor.

Edit I've corrected some values, in particular... sabatons over shoes to 3 lbs (still heavier than gauntlets, but shoes are heavier than gloves) and included a new "shoes (over boots)" option at 4 lbs.

[ArmoredSaint]

On a related topic, whenever I've wanted to represent the thigh-high riding boots one sometimes sees in medieval illustrations, I always go with the DR 1 GURPS shoe and DR 1 leather leggings.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me on. Are you saying that shoes worn under sabatons would be heavier? If that's the case, what is it that makes you think so?

Like I said, I could be wrong, but I have never heard of anyone claiming that sabatons would be worn over anything other than a heavy leather shoe, nor that mounted stirrup knights would wear soft moccasins instead of hard heeled shoes/boots...

It isn't easy to find good realistic artistic depictions of shoes, possibly because it's hard to draw feet and who depicts the bottoms of people's feet anyway, but as an example in this painting the kneeling knight clearly has a heel:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...harlemagne.jpg

I would expect shoes for mounted knights would have heels, since anyone riding a horse with stirrups wearing shoes sans heels would be at a significant disadvantage vs. a knight with heels.

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

The medieval practice seems to have been to wear a "patten," an oversole, with other footwear if a heavier sole was called for. I see little evidence for heavy "workboots" in the period, and even less evidence that any such thing was worn beneath sabatons.

I didn't say anything about "workboots", I'm talking about a shoe which would be worn for both walking and riding, meaning they have heels for riding.
Heels were developed independently by all civilizations and by all historical stirrup riders from the Mongols to the Arabs from the Huns to the Franks, once they got around to using stirrups that is. *grin*

[ArmoredSaint]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Like I said, I could be wrong, but I have never heard of anyone claiming that sabatons would be worn over anything other than a heavy leather shoe, nor that mounted stirrup knights would wear soft moccasins instead of hard heeled shoes/boots...

Okay, so where have you seen anyone offer evidence that sabatons were worn over hard-heeled shoes/boots?

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It isn't easy to find good realistic artistic depictions of shoes, possibly because it's hard to draw feet and who depicts the bottoms of people's feet anyway, but as an example in this painting the kneeling knight clearly has a heel:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...harlemagne.jpg...

I don't see a heel there; I see the strap of the sabaton or spur crossing under the bottom of the sole.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I didn't say anything about "workboots", I'm talking about a shoe which would be worn for both walking and riding, meaning they have heels for riding.
Heels were developed independently by all civilizations and by all historical stirrup riders from the Mongols to the Arabs from the Huns to the Franks, once they got around to using stirrups that is. *grin*

But the author of the website I referenced says otherwise, and his bibliography is extensive.
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc.../shoe/APP3.HTM

Depictions of the sort of shoe that men wore while in armour are not diffcult to find. Since sabatons were not always worn, we may see plenty of detail of the shoe in many of these. Paintings of men kneeling in harness are easy to come across in particular.
http://flickr.com/photos/roelipilami...7603168542128/
http://flickr.com/photos/roelipilami...7603168542128/
Note the absence of any heel, and indeed, the resemblance to "moccasins" that this man wears with his full panoply.
The lack of heels in arming shoes is apparent in sculpture, too.
http://flickr.com/photos/roelipilami...7602380085948/
Here, the sculptor had the opportunity to render a heel had there been one in reality. The shoe's sole is carefully executed, as is the spur strap crossing under the foot, but there is no raised heel at all.
http://flickr.com/photos/roelipilami...7602380085948/
Here, too.

There is no reason to believe that works of art which are otherwise faithfully and realistically rendered to the point of depicting individual rivets in the armour would omit the shoe's heel.

I have come across no evidence to support the notion that armoured men wore anything but what you term a "mocassin" with their armour, either with or without sabatons, prior to the very late 16th century. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

Okay, so where have you seen anyone offer evidence that sabatons were worn over hard-heeled shoes/boots?

I recall reading several references to it, but again, I could be wrong.

As a little kid I grew up seeing the heels under the sabatons on the statue of this Portuguese medieval hero on the way to grammar school every day:
http://www.eb1-candosa.rcts.pt/image...dosa%20009.jpg

I see heels in these paintings of medieval Portuguese knights, you may not:
http://fotos.sapo.pt/0OeSfqR4IVnVHlOkLaZN/x435
http://www.enciclopedia.com.pt/image...10102dnuno.jpg

12th century moors:
http://www.enciclopedia.com.pt/images/3f19.jpg

I'm currently in the process of moving, so I'll see if I can dig a few up which are verifiable once I can get at my reference books. Unfortunately most of my stuff is in English and the Brits revised so much history and most of their writings are all so anglocentric on top of being revisionist, especially the Victorian hobbyists, that trying to get real info from a real source is hard.

Sometimes a pre-Victorian like Richard Hayklut have some passing references:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JnU...um=2&ct=result

I off-hand googled some other references to high heels:
http://www.shoeinfonet.com/about%20s...rn%20boots.htm
http://www.walk-in-high-heels.com/hi...igh-heels.html

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

I don't see a heel there; I see the strap of the sabaton or spur crossing under the bottom of the sole.

See what your wife thinks, to everyone else I've asked they see that heel area as clearly a heel.

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

But the author of the website I referenced says otherwise, and his bibliography is extensive.
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc.../shoe/APP3.HTM

And yet in that website he makes it seem like heels were invented in Western Europe in the late 16th century, which not even getting into chopines and peronis, is wrong in general and is almost a century late in regards to actual European shoe fashion itself, something which would be clear if he'd referenced any of June Swann's books instead of simply quoting from a conversation with her.

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

Depictions of the sort of shoe that men wore while in armour are not diffcult to find.
[...]
The shoe's sole is carefully executed, as is the spur strap crossing under the foot, but there is no raised heel at all.
[...]
There is no reason to believe that works of art which are otherwise faithfully and realistically rendered to the point of depicting individual rivets in the armour would omit the shoe's heel.

Which are all very convincing, and as I mentioned I could very well be wrong on this issue, no disrespect intended, it's just something I remember differently.
Then again, this type of art was also used by Victorian "scholars" to revise the historical record and introduce things like armor with inch wide ring mail links, or chainmail as the Victorians would say. *grin*

[Gudiomen]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that both things are true, instead of one or the other?

I mean you both present evidence of healed, hard soled footwear and soft, mocassin type footwear. Rather than arguing that one is right and the other some sort of historical mix up, I'd rather make room for both hipothesis.

I've updated the list to include both options, because frankly, they make sense. I ride horses with some frequency and I'd hate to do it with soft soles, I have done it barefoot though, even in filp-flops and tenis-shoes and it all works decently well, although heels offer greater "locking" for the foot on the stirup not having heels doesn't defeat the purpose of stirups (you can still use them for support, standing on saddle and bracing, it might be a little unconfortable if you're a heavy man or in armor without hard soles, but most of the time you're not being supported by your feat anyway.

I have absolutely no problem acomodating both hipothesis, it even provides more variety and fun for the game.

[ArmoredSaint]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

As a little kid I grew up seeing the heels under the sabatons on the statue of this Portuguese medieval hero on the way to grammar school every day:
http://www.eb1-candosa.rcts.pt/image...dosa%20009.jpg

But this is a modern statue of Nuno Alvares Pereira. It was made in 1968, and therefore cannot support the position that heels were worn with armour in the middle ages and Renaissance.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that both things are true, instead of one or the other?

Fair enough.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ArmoredSaint

But this is a modern statue of Nuno Alvares Pereira. It was made in 1968, and therefore cannot support the position that heels were worn with armour in the middle ages and Renaissance.

I understand that, I was simply explaining - sort of psychoanalytically - why it's something which made an impression on me.

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that both things are true, instead of one or the other?

Quite fair.

[Gudiomen]

Ok, so how are the hands and feet armor looking now that I've updated them?

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

BTW in the armor listing you have a common Portuguese to English typo, it's Brigandine with a d for the armor (Brigantina).

Brigantine with a t is for the ship (Bergantim).