Main > The Round Table
Historical Accuracy of a 14th plate gorget?
Das Bill:
--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2009-11-04, 14:24:05 ---see the way i see it is there isn't any real evidence at all for them. we know in our modern thinking think "hey what about my neck etc" and have access to so much different stuff we think it should have been common knowledge for them in the time. I haven't seen any period 13th/14th c gorgets, plate or leather, brig etc. so in my personal opinion I don't think they were there. the argument of just cause there not found argument doesn't really work for me either. just my opinion. :) you don't really even see them in 15thc. more bevors and mail standards than anything else. but like i said i think the gorget works for Sir Brian's look and I really like it and think if he likes it then keep it :)
--- End quote ---
I tend to be in complete agreement. Now, it only matters if historical accuracy matters to you. If it doesn't, then don't worry about it.
--- Quote from: madmanpsu ---While I can't speak for sure of the historical accuracy of your particular gorget, Tim at Red Falcon Armories (who made my leg armor and will be making the rest of my 14th century kit when I get the money together) has told me that brigandine style gorgets appeared sometime shortly after the brigandine body armor. According to him they remained popular well into the 17th century due to their relatively good protection value vs. weight and movement restriction. The style that he makes is more similiar to my brig body armor, steel plates covered with leather on the inside and outside, the plates are smaller rectangular plates, not the larger ones like your gorget has. We had a brief discussion on gorgets since I am working on 16th century padded armor to be worn in conjunction with a gorget and possibly pauldrons. I was slightly shocked when he suggested a brig style gorget would be more appropriate for me than a plate style. According to him, most soldiers wore brig. styles, only wealthier officers wore plate style and those were most commonly worn only on ceremonial armor or for ceremonies as a symbol of rank.. In battle, the preference, according to him, seems to be for brig styles. I am not sure where he got his information, but as a professional armorer I would tend to trust his opinion, especially since I have seen him refer people to other armorers for styles of armor that he isn't particularly familiar with or good at making. I think that this brings up an interesting point though, the effigies studied may not reflect the actual battlefield look or armor worn by the various knights. Also, these do not necessarily depict what is worn for those of us looking to portray a common soldier. As has been said before, a lack of depiction or mention in sources does not necessarily mean that the item in question can be ruled out, rather it may be that it was assumed to be common knowledge and thus not worth mentioning.
--- End quote ---
I suspect that's a lot more hearsay than fact. :)
Sir Brian:
Believe me I’m very content with my harness being within the ninety percentile group and for all practical purposes that much is even an excess since I only utilize it for renfaire garb for now. ;)
Then again well intentioned and civilized divergence has always been an incentive for me to delve deeper into the research material. It is the company and opinion of such an esteemed gathering as on this forum that helps me solidify a vague and possibly contentious concept into a more precise perception for which I am grateful for all who participates in this discussion. :)
If I was to summarize, my opinion of all historical accuracy conceptions (and in some cases preconceptions) it would simply be that no one should ever make the claim of an item being 100% historically accurate unless they invented a time machine and travelled back to the period in question and fabricated that item utilizing all the methods, tools and materials of the time period, otherwise all other claims of historical accuracy really are just subjective. ;)
Dragonlover:
Is that "subjective" or did you mean "bullsh*t? ;)
Sir Matthew:
I think I tend to agree completely with Sir Brian's last statement of historical accuracy, unless you can actually say you were there via some means of time travel, it is impossible to say for sure 100% that an item is period accurate or not. I have put alot of effort into my Elizabethan soldier kit, and have recieved many compliments on it from people who are familiar with the period, but I would never say that it is 100% accurate. The best I would say is that it is as accurate as I can find in source material and discussions with other reenactors. As for where Tim got his info, I can not say and would hate to speculate, though I do know that he does alot of SCA work.
Sir Brian:
--- Quote from: Dragonlover on 2009-11-05, 23:46:12 ---Is that "subjective" or did you mean "bullsh*t? ;)
--- End quote ---
The terms are directly proportional and interchangeable as well as varied in its application contingent upon geographical and societal influences. – Damn I think I just broke my thesaurus! :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version