Main > The Round Table

William Marshal Effigy in Temple Church.

(1/2) > >>

Timothy:
Hi All,

I was reading this article and was also taking to a few other people. Can someone (ALL OF YOU) who know the armor of this period please take a moments to tell me if the armor in the drawings are right for the period. The argument seems to be that the author of this work, Catherine Armstrong, was not familiar enough or at all and came to the wrong conclusions and that the proof for Gilbert is sound and the circumstantial evidence points to it also being William senior.

Thanks

Timothy


http://catherineaarmstrong.com/a-case-of-mistaken-identity.html

Sir William:
I've done more than a little research on the Marshal, but it was on his life and times, not his death or effigy.  I have seen pictures of what is commonly known as his effigy but I've not yet been able to view it up close (or as close as they allow).

I did not read through this with a focused eye, I just wanted to get the gist of it and from what I gather, her point could have merit given her examples.  She seems to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the progression of armor, and we are talking about a matter of a few decades as Gilbert died less than 25 years after his father did; there were some advancements in armor but nothing earth shattering.  That won't occur for another fifty years from then.

The knee length hauberk, coif with the donut commonly worn when wearing an early great helm and mitten gauntlets all suggest a date firmly within the Marshal's time.  I wonder at the 'leather chausses' she noted on other, later effigies - or seemed like leather (maybe an early version gamboissed cuisses??), or could have been artistic license.  I still haven't seen an extant example of the mailled glove with fingers, but have read a reference or two- that's an interesting project in and of itself, but I digress.

It seems like you're leaning toward debunking the author- but without being able to do as she did, I can't call it one way or the other; but if I had to just based on what I just read and what I know (which admittedly isn't much, I was and am much more interested in his life), I'd say she makes a rather convincing argument.

Sir James A:
It is a few centuries before my primary time of interest, so unfortunately I can't give any kind of useful opinion on it. Just posting to let you know that I saw the question. :)

Sir William:
You're taking flak for your Blankenshield.  lol

Sir James A:

--- Quote from: Sir William on 2014-03-07, 20:30:41 ---You're taking flak for your Blankenshield.  lol

--- End quote ---

Well, a little cross-forums fun.... but yeah. It's an old joke. It used to be like Beetlejuice. Say his name 3 times and he would appear. I said it twice in my first post. Nobody has said it a third time. Curious if anyone will, and who will even know the reference if they do. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page