"The colour of armour" Topic

Let me run this past you.
Paintings may not be accurate representations of actual costume colour - black dye was expensive so black clothes were rare but black paint was not so we have people in black clothes.

I would like to see the same for armour. Every English Civil War primary reference that I have read (and there's only a few for this) mentions armour as shining. We also know the Victorians painted old armour black to preserve it.
So I argue armour was rarely black (despite all the formulae for boiling in oil etc.) despite the paintings. What we see is an artistic attempt to show metal.

Apart from cavalry I feel armour was very very rare anyway.

Comments?

Armor was iron. Iron rusts. Europe is a moist, humid place much of the year: it is surrounded by copious amounts of salty water. The medieval expedient to retard rusting while iron was stored was to grease it with animal fat (lard). This was wiped off when the weapon or armor was in use. It required daily cleaning to keep rust from starting the take-over. A common soldier or mercenary was not able to keep up with the maintainance of more than his weapons: ergo, realistically, if you want your medieval hordes to look right, you should paint the iron with the color which most closely represents how old the metal is (*chrome* for new, almost black for old), then douse it in a wash of sepia ink. Knights can sport uninked armor (pages or squires are scrubbing the pieces every day keeping the bad old rust away): the best (quickest) method is to use a somewhat dull iron or old steel color, then drybrush on a shinier metal over that: and thus no visible rust. All peasants or common grunts who have scavanged pieces from a battlefield should have more rust showing than clean iron. Weapons, on the otherhand, should show little (if any) rust generally. (The odd peasant with a truly rusty scythe would be a nice touch tho.)

MtM

Newly forged iron is covered in a grey/black oxide scale. It can be polished and coated with a wax/oil mixture to retard rusting, the colour of iron treated in this fashion will slowly darken over time. My guess is that on campaign armour would generally be dark with brighter highlights at teh friction points. Clothing would likewise be faded, dusty or grimy.

Fresh new recruits, knights just in from their holdings etc would have a shiny, clean, new look.

The shining armour references may also have been a bit romantic.

Don't forget the technique of "russeting". They would deliberately let the metal oxidize slightly to create a protective coating to prevent more serious rust. Perhaps a red/brown drybrush might show this nicely?

And....
It was a common practice to drop armor in a barrel of sand, and roll the thing around to scrub clean, then oil.

AND...
In the renaissance particulary, armor was sometimes given a protective STAIN, often using ink. I have only seen black ink in refrence to German/Swiss/British etc armor. I have seen refrences to red and purple and the like for Spanish/Italian armor. ALSO refrences to using a covering, sometimes felt on helmets. Not sure how to do this reaslistically, however.

Rocky

Steel is a more accurate description of the armour of this period and it does age differently than just plain old iron. Armour was kept oiled, waxed or greased to prevent rusting along with polishing, et cetera. Russeting was a process used to "cure" the metal to make it more, well, weatherproof. As was leavening the metal blackened from the forge to help resist rust - so yes, you would have armour that looked, from a distance, or up close new - black. But if it was never oiled and not kept up it would develope a very dark brownish hue that result from - yes you guessed it - rust. :-)

The idea of the dark reddish brown wash over the metal (even the "black") is a great suggestion! One that does work very well.

In the 16th C. you see the Bande Nere and the Landsknecht Black Legion all wearing armour painted black and black clothing with red accents, slits and fringes. Not to mention the fact that in the 16th C. there are records of corslets being painted black for 5 Ducets each because they had become "fowle and rustie" and had taken "salt water from the sea". Forms of lacquer and/or varnishes were also used to retard/prevent rust.

But again, the overall appearence would be dictated by the metal quality, the finish, the care and the age. REMEMBER: armour was not cheap nor was it readily accessable as, say, buying from a shop for reenacting. So some degree of care was taken of this equipment that was quite expensive and believed to help protect you and keep you alive. Something you would more readily see with a possible rusty background would be chainmail since it was very susceptible to rust and damp which was usually cleaned in a barrel of sand and vinegar. Tinning was also used to protect the metal plates.

Again, armour was a very expensive thing and depending upon whether we are aling about the 15th, 16th, or 17th century; knights or the common foot soldier, this will dictate to some degree the overall care. Waxing, greasing, oiling, tinning and painting were all used to preserve the knight's armour, not to mention the simple act of carrying it in a box or bags when travelling on campaign and only wearing it to fight in, come to mind as well.

After this, I need a nap. :-)

Erudite comments, I use Humbrol 53, gun metal. Looks OK with drybrushing with rust and steel. Gives that distressed campaigning look. (No chocolate soldiers for me!).

Brilliant - as was some armour. I have a problem with steel/iron armour- the way it was made up to the 1770's. It needed a lot of charcoal - a substance in limited production. So where did all this armour come from. Remember at this period(s) the average spade was of wood with an iron shoe - iron was a rare item.

Some superb answers.

For exampl: Isebrok & Lymbricke (Innsbruck & Limburg - north of Brabant.) In 1517 2541 lbs. of steel plates arriving from these places in England. Furthermore, we find records of steel arriving in England from Spain as well, along with the iron (taking about 41 lbs of iron and 6 lbs of "whisp streel" to make a suit of quality armour)arriving from England, Spain and the aforementiond cities. With the charcoal being locally and rather easily produced which, interestingly enough, was also used in black paint.

Russo is right,Romans used to put segmentata in a barrel of sand and roll it around.Armour had a sheen of sorts,but not the chrome of 80,s ivanhoe movies.

Personally, I like painting medievals with a touch of imagination. Shiny armour looks good especially on small scales, when more realistic finshes (rusty/sealed/dulled) tend to make the unit look a little dull. Same goes for the clothing colours, I tend to brighten those up a bit over the earth tones/faded fabrics that may have clothed the mass of soldiers back then. Larger scales can take more realism.
One technique I like is to use a rusty coloured wash on an figure that has not been undercoated, then polish the 'metal' with some wire wool or the edge of a scalpel. This also tends to put a few nicks and scratches into the armour. The finish can be sealed with varnish (something our medieval friends did not have!) and looks 'right'. This can be quite time consuming, (and possibly quite toxic, so take care with the filings!), but worth trying. The flesh, leather and cloth etc can be painted in after 'polishing' the metal. Thinking about it, upainted metal minatures are possibly about the right shinyness/colour to start with. I have got some on the go at the moment (levy billman types) where I just used a wash without polishing. Looks ok, but a bit dull (25mm foundry).

Charcoal by the way--- this was relatively easy to produce and was quite a substantial industy in southern England.

Kent and Surrey and Sussex in particular had large forests of trees that were 'coppiced', cut back after a few years, to produce regular sized staves for charcoal burning. The industy petered out with the discovery and mass mining of mineral coal.

Keen to disagree with charcoal being easy to get - the amount of wood felled for boats, ships, homes, tools, etc. meant a shortage by 1600. Otherwise the race to find an alternative (cf Dudley) would have been silly. I am a lot anglocentric here. What of other countries? Skannian has suggested other supplies - the Swedish origin of iron was important 1700 - 1750.

Beginning of another idea.

The wood used for charcoal is not the same as that used for boats, you crop it and grow some more. The staves used for charcoal are quite small, you could get both your hands round them, taking only a few years to grow. This is not disimilar to modern forestry. Old growth timber for ships and buildings, I agree, was in great shortage and the British navy had surveyors go out to find trees, and had special plantings of oak trees to produce the long straight timbers needed.

The size of the timber used in charcoal production is fairly critical by the way, you can't use any old wood. It needs to be stacked carefully and small, regularly sized pieces are easier to use. Because you are after only small sized timber, it is a renewable although not unlimited resource.

Thanks Major Blunder - I base my views on the complaints of the late17th. and early 18th. Centuries - these encouraged experimentation with coal.