Main > The Round Table
Historical Accuracy of a 14th plate gorget?
Ian:
--- Quote from: Joshua Santana on 2013-01-18, 20:22:42 ---A metal gorget would be unlikely under the aventail. But it is a good idea.
--- End quote ---
A metal gorget under an aventail would render the aventail useless. There's no reason to have a maille aventail over a plate gorget. The plate gorget would suffice on its own, the maille would just break if smashed against rigid plate beneath. I believe that maille aventails were for the most part worn either on top of, or attached to a padded aventail, much like the combination of haubergeon and aketon at the time.
Once plate gorgets start to appear, the aventail goes away, as can be seen with the emergence of the white harness and with it the Great/Grand Basincets ca. Agincourt that use a rigid neck defense.
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2013-01-19, 00:40:57 ---i personally think he is wearing a padded aventail under his mail aventail.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. Mail without padding, especially around the neck, seems borderline suicidal.
--- Quote from: Ian on 2013-01-23, 16:52:30 ---Once plate gorgets start to appear, the aventail goes away, as can be seen with the emergence of the white harness and with it the Great/Grand Basincets ca. Agincourt that use a rigid neck defense.
--- End quote ---
Excellent point! The only thing I can think of is the Italian harnesses where they had a mail standard attached to the bottom of the armet. I've always wondered what they had underneath of that, since it's very close-fit and wouldn't have much space for padding, and I haven't seen any extant harnesses in that style with a collared plate gorget either.
Joshua Santana:
Exactly, Sir Ian is correct on the Agincourt Great Bascinets and why padded collar gorgets were more likely added underneath the mail aventail. Glad we are on the same conclusion!
SirNathanQ:
My take on historicity is this, I won't do it (almost always) if I can't find SOME evidence from the period for every thing but the most miniscule (or hidden ;)) details.
Looking through effigies, discriptions, and artwork, one can find evidence of almost anything, especially in the 14th century, and if one is willing to cross a regional border.
For the issue at hand (4 years ago to the OP...) I would label it a very beleivable historical plausability. No concrete evidence, but a few textual references, and conforms with the stylistic and practical elements of armour at the time.
Also we must remember that a gorget could be anything from a brigndine shaped rigid defence, or little more than a glorified scarf. Terms were relative and flexable in the period.
Ian:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2013-03-07, 03:59:59 ---My take on historicity is this, I won't do it (almost always) if I can't find SOME evidence from the period for every thing but the most miniscule (or hidden ;)) details.
Looking through effigies, discriptions, and artwork, one can find evidence of almost anything, especially in the 14th century, and if one is willing to cross a regional border.
For the issue at hand (4 years ago to the OP...) I would label it a very beleivable historical plausability. No concrete evidence, but a few textual references, and conforms with the stylistic and practical elements of armour at the time.
Also we must remember that a gorget could be anything from a brigndine shaped rigid defence, or little more than a glorified scarf. Terms were relative and flexable in the period.
--- End quote ---
But Nathan, we all know that there's absolutely no chance of anyone ever having traded with a neighboring region or country, the MyArmoury Gods have already ruled on this controversial matter... (for those unaware, it's an old joke)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version