Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt

[Ian]

Any of you in the DoK group may have seen this already but I will duplicate here for posterity

This is a scabbard done for my Albion Poitiers in the style of the late 14th century and early 15th century.  The wood core and sewn leather wrapping were done by Ron Johnson.  The brass work and enamel work were done by Jeffrey Hildebrandt at Royal Oak Armoury.

I didn't photograph it because it's still drying, but I made a quick tooled leather strap with a brass buckle that will pass through the staple on the back of the throat locket.  This will wrap around the plaque belt to allow the sword to hang vertically as shown in the effigies.

Oh and don't tell anyone but I used a little trick to darken the scabbard leather and give it a more worn look... (black shoe polish, shhhhh).  Although waxes were used to protect leather since the dawn of tanning leather so I don't feel bad

[scott2978]

Very nice! That Hildebrandt is one talented fellow. I had no idea he took that kind of work. Thanks for posting this Sir Ian.

[Sir James A]

Awesome!!

[Sir Patrick]

  

[Sir William]

Wow; the Poitiers by itself is always eye candy, but the plaque belt and scabbard really set it off.  I am not sure I'd even want to stand next to Sir Ian at this point.  The divide between well-off knight and poor soldier-knight couldn't be better personified than if we were to stand side by side. 

[Sir Edward]

Holy crap, that turned out nice! Fantastic!

[Ian]

Wow; the Poitiers by itself is always eye candy, but the plaque belt and scabbard really set it off.  I am not sure I'd even want to stand next to Sir Ian at this point.  The divide between well-off knight and poor soldier-knight couldn't be better personified than if we were to stand side by side. 

Sadly, in the living history world, my kit is more that of a gentle-born indentured squire or household retainer.  Unless you want to start investing in real gold adornment and fine silk brocades then knight is out of grasp.  One of the biggest offending reenactorisms that we're almost all guilty of is assuming the mantle of a knight but wearing the armor and clothing of someone of much lower station.  I simply can't afford to do a 14th century knight correctly.  It is cost prohibitive.  The 'poor' knight (outside the Holy Orders, and even then I suspect a lot of them were very well off, and perhaps some other unique circumstances) is a bit of a myth.  But until we're all rich in real life, portraying the knightly class accurately is not easily done.  Trying to portray the 1% of the Middle Ages without having the capital to do so may be an exercise in futility.

We always point out that distinction to patrons as well.  One of the best ways to illustrate the difference between a bum like me and a knight is to look at our gauntlets.  Here are my gauntlets with their fancy brass decoration which looks pretty nice when viewed in isolation.  Now compare them to Sir Geoffrey's gauntlets, washed in 24k gold.  Now who's the knight and who's the bum? 

Mine


Tom's

[Sir Brian]

That is truly a magnificent scabbard to go with an exceptionally fine blade.

[Sir Wolf]

we all really hate you secretly.

[Ian]

we all really hate you secretly.

Oh, I never thought it was a secret.

[Sir Rodney]

we all really hate you secretly.

Oh, I never thought it was a secret.

  

BTW, I'd take those "poor man's" gauntlets off your hands for no fee.  You deserve much better!

[Sir James A]

Sadly, in the living history world, my kit is more that of a gentle-born indentured squire or household retainer.  Unless you want to start investing in real gold adornment and fine silk brocades then knight is out of grasp.  One of the biggest offending reenactorisms that we're almost all guilty of is assuming the mantle of a knight but wearing the armor and clothing of someone of much lower station.  I simply can't afford to do a 14th century knight correctly.  It is cost prohibitive.  The 'poor' knight (outside the Holy Orders, and even then I suspect a lot of them were very well off, and perhaps some other unique circumstances) is a bit of a myth.  But until we're all rich in real life, portraying the knightly class accurately is not easily done.  Trying to portray the 1% of the Middle Ages without having the capital to do so may be an exercise in futility.

I think the farther down you get in the medieval period, that's definitely true, especially once knighting became more a social status than military oriented title. I've heard in late period people would try to *avoid* getting knighted because of the financial outlays of it all. Early on, though? You'd have knights in a mail hauberk with a norman helm. I don't think there was a plethora of early armor decorations (engraving, gilding, etching, etc) so there wouldn't be a huge difference between poorer knight and wealthy knight armor; I think probably the quality of the metal, quality of workmanship, density of rings, etc... but given who made your harness, to say you're a bum is silly (although I'm pretty sure there was a hint of sarcasm there?).

Comparing yourself with Tom, in my opinion, is saying "Tom is the upper crust 1%, and I'm down here with people at the poor upper 3% of society".

Back to DoK 2012 I tried to remember to say my armor *looks* like what a lower or middle class knight may have worn, but that the upper tiers would have roping, recessed borders, etching, gilding, and other embellishments. It's an important distinction. I think the same would go for their other items; fancy woodwork instead of utilitarian, fancy tableware, and so on?

[Ian]

Early on, though? You'd have knights in a mail hauberk with a norman helm. I don't think there was a plethora of early armor decorations (engraving, gilding, etching, etc) so there wouldn't be a huge difference between poorer knight and wealthy knight armor; I think probably the quality of the metal, quality of workmanship, density of rings, etc...

Think of Sutton Hoo and some of the other fancy Saxon and Viking helmets.  Very highly decorated to depict status, and these are even earlier than Norman knights.  You also have to consider the impression as a whole.  When those higher status Normans wore their regular clothes, you can bet they were much fancier than their retainers' clothing.  I also agree with you that the overall quality of the maille and helmets mattered.

but given who made your harness, to say you're a bum is silly (although I'm pretty sure there was a hint of sarcasm there?).

Comparing yourself with Tom, in my opinion, is saying "Tom is the upper crust 1%, and I'm down here with people at the poor upper 3% of society".

Exactly, and that's the difference between a knight and a gentleman squire.  We're both 'wealthy' but even though I'm obscenely wealthy compared to a villein on my lord's manor, I'm not 'Knight wealthy.'  So of course while I was being sarcastic about being a bum, I was not being sarcastic about not being truly knightly either in overall impression.

Back to DoK 2012 I tried to remember to say my armor *looks* like what a lower or middle class knight may have worn, but that the upper tiers would have roping, recessed borders, etching, gilding, and other embellishments. It's an important distinction. I think the same would go for their other items; fancy woodwork instead of utilitarian, fancy tableware, and so on?

What's a lower or middle class knight?  That's the fallacy. Especially in the late middle ages and early renaissance where we reside.

[Sir James A]

Sutton Hoo is a great example, that's what I'd call the upper 1% tier. I can't picture every single knight running around the battlefield with that level of quality, and I think it's ceremonial? It's the "roped, etched and gilded" level of intricacy.

Lower or middle class knight, to me, would be somebody who doesn't have the income / finances of the top tier. Knights weren't on salary or all paid the same, there had to be a decent margin between income of the lower and higher stratas of that social class. Especially when taking ransom and things like that into consideration. I know some knights had castles and became duke / baron / etc. But not every knight had a castle, nor did every knight have a group of 20 people in his retinue (I might be wrong on this?).

Given that separation of wealth, even as the upper crust, I think they'd have different levels of equipment; granted, at a knightly level, not peasant level, but would they all have identical or substantially similar harnesses? We can see differences in equipment on the effigies even in the same time frame, sometimes the same year. I guess we have different thoughts on what "knightly wealthy" was, exactly.

I've also horribly derailed your thread, sorry. Want me to split it off into a separate topic?

[Ian]

It's not too much a matter of opinion.  In England during the 14th century, a gentleman whose lands brought in an income of at least 40 pounds per annum was expected by law to become a knight. 

So was there a difference between a 40 lb / year knight and a Duke?  Of course.  But that minimum barrier to entry still meant there was no such thing as a 'poor' member of the knightly class.  Even the poorest knight was still obscenely wealthy compared to the masses.  It's how society was set up.  The three estates and all that.  Those who fight were intended to be rich. 

The aristocracy, of which knights were all members generally ranged in income from 20lb/year to over 12,000 lb per year the at high end of the most elite landed, titled nobility.  That accounts for 1% of the population.  Another 1% were clergy, and the other 98% were everybody else.

So when you say lower or middle class, you're talking about the lower portion of a fraction of the top 1%, not the implication that so many make that there were knights who barely  had a cottage to call home, and no servants.

And even then, the lower portion of the 1% were likely gentle born squires, or men-at-arms, they couldn't afford to be Knights Bachelor, much less Knights Banneret.  And yes, you're absolutely right when you say some people avoided being knighted because of the military responsibility that came along with it.

To put it in modern terms, it would like comparing it to the 1%'ers here in the US.  While the richest of the 1% of the population controls like 90% of the wealth or whatever it is these days.  Even the poorest 1%'er still makes us look like 'bums.'  And even the poorest 1%'er can afford some of the finest luxuries in life.  So too in the Late Middle Ages was the wealth distribution so skewed that even the poorest knight was by no means not RICH.  So yes, you can still portray a knight on the low end of the spectrum, but that low end is still in the top 1% of all the wealth in whatever nation you're talking about, and there's still a minimum level of luxury required to accurately portray someone of that status.