Main > The Armoury
Armstreet new harness
Sir Ulrich:
I am somewhat guilty of the "Mix and match" stuff, as I reenact the 13th century and I used plate shynbalds and knee cops instead of maille chausses and wore a modified visby coat of plates over my maille. I did read however some of the visby armor dated from about 1290 and was long obsolete and I have seen period art with knee cops and shynbalds of those dating from the 1250s so I think it's fine to use it in the year 1300 like I was doing at DoK 2. Sure both of these were used on higher ranking nobles but my medieval persona is higher ranking anyway due to my quartered coat of arms. I am however working on trying to find a solution for my chausses, already sealed the back with rings now to attach some soles to the bottom so I can put them on. After that I am switching to chausses rather than schynbalds and knee cops, and I am never wearing my coat of plates over my maille again, it was WAYYY too heavy being 16 gauge and having added back plates for SCA combat, i'd need a 20 gauge one with no overlapping plates similar to Joe Metz's one.
Ian:
--- Quote from: Gareyth on 2014-01-29, 05:46:29 ---That said - and I admit you're obviously much more knowledgeable than I - seems to me folks could also keep in mind that surviving examples are not exhaustive, and there are certainly precedents for what appears to be fantasy-inspired or decorative armor pieces, even if worn only ceremonially or intended mostly for display, especially in later periods.
--- End quote ---
While surviving examples are not exhaustive, for the purposes of living history we cannot just fill in the gaps without historical precedent if we want to be representative of the things we know existed. When surviving examples fail, which they often do for anything pre-15th century we have manuscripts, artwork, effigies, and brasses to tell us what was used. Effigies and brasses are of particular importance because of their level of detail, and significantly lower chance of artistic shortcuts like you'd see in manuscript illuminations and paintings. In the absence of any of that evidence, we have nothing and can't just 'suppose' what would have been.
Think of Living History this way. If you were a professor preparing a lecture for a group of students on Medieval History, would you intentionally teach them things you know to be false, or that you couldn't point to a source document or another historian's work to show that what you're teaching is likely without thorough research? No history professor worth his PhD would tell a group of students "This might have been because it looks cool to the modern aesthetic and it might have been possible." That's what we're doing every time we try to justify what 'might have been,' without any supporting evidence.
There are plenty of examples of fanciful ceremonial armor, like half the stuff Emperor Maximilian made and shipped out to his buddy's all over Europe for example. However, these things while not purposed for the battlefield and quite exotic looking are also functional works of art that most modern armorer's couldn't even hope to duplicate except for a vague outside resemblance. So be very careful if you want a reproduction of something like that for living history purposes because chances are it wouldn't even come close to doing the original justice. There are a few guys out there who have done excellent repros of the Horned Maximilian helm, but they're expensive to say the least :)
Sir James A:
Gareyth, there is always the option of just soft kit, or earlier/simple armor at Days of Knights. I'd say maybe 15% or 20% of the participants are in armor, and the rest are not. Soft kit is much easier to do something historical, as it is cheaper, easy to buy off the rack from a few places, and clothing styles didn't change as much and as quickly as armor styles did (given my limited clothing knowledge anyway).
Ian:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2014-01-29, 16:17:56 ---Gareyth, there is always the option of just soft kit, or earlier/simple armor at Days of Knights. I'd say maybe 15% or 20% of the participants are in armor, and the rest are not. Soft kit is much easier to do something historical, as it is cheaper, easy to buy off the rack from a few places, and clothing styles didn't change as much and as quickly as armor styles did (given my limited clothing knowledge anyway).
--- End quote ---
A good point. Days of Knights, despite its title, is not just about fully armored impressions. The vast majority of people who have participated the last two years do soft-kit only impressions, or just some components of armor as would be seen by a non-noble man-at-arms. I'm going to disagree that clothing styles didn't change as quickly as armor did, because martial and civil style was very much interrelated, especially during the later middle ages (14th and 15th in particular). They often drove each other's change. But it's still much easier to pull off a decent soft-kit.
Historic Enterprises can get you in a very DoK acceptable soft-kit for a couple hundred bucks, cap-a-pie, including accessories. There's also no requirement for an encampment.
Sir Martyn:
Good LH intro for the unwashed, thanks Ian. Yes, those Maximillian armors are wild. Saw some of his jousting armor (think it was etched) in Ljubljana last year. He and Henry VIII really went all out. Didn't hurt they could afford to, of course :)
Also appreciate all the helpful comments/excellent input from others as well.
While encampment isn't required, we'd like to participate and I hope if we make an effort to conform as close as possible to guidelines and be ready to highlight and explain where we may fall short that we'll be welcome.
I have gone back to the smiths for their take on this, but given materials, techniques and style I'm going to try and research the range of compatability of my harness with the central european field harnesses of the period it acknowledges.
Any thoughts on that here also appreciated, of course.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version