Main > The Armoury
Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt
Chuck G.:
I suspect that there is one area, however, which few Knightly re-enactors ever meet: riding and *owning* a warhorse (or, indeed, a horse of any kind). The only person I can think of off the top of my head who could (and likely does) meet all aspects is Jeffrey Hedgecock. Thus, even if you could pull off the finery, high end armoury, and the like, most of us still could not afford a horse.
Alas. At the end of the day I would advise not to worry about it over much.
Lord Dane:
That is gorgeous work Sir Ian!! Beyond quality craftsmanship. Royal Oak must have charged you a-lot though. They are not cheap. And Chuck was just kidding about hating you secretly. We'll just admire your toys openly to lower your guard then rob you blindly of your custom medieval goodies in the open. Guys, get the rope!!! ;D
Henrik Granlid:
I would like to add to the discussion of Knightly or Not.
What seems to be the divide between opinions is not a right or a wrong side, but rather an old and a new side, let me explain.
When we look at a kit such as that of Ian's amazing getup, we all look at it with modern (although trained) eyes and we go "Yup, knight", because it fits all of our ideals of what a knight "should" look like; I mean, he's got the top quality sword, he's got the expensive harness from an outstanding blacksmith, he's got the maille and the surcotte and he's even got the great looking brass details.
It looks, to us, as if he stepped right out of a silver altar found in an english church or as if we see him in a vision of historical, romanticised and knightly battles.
But, here's the thing.
For all intents and purposes, no matter how much modern romanticism we apply to it, Sir Ian's kit is not the kit of a medieval knight.
And this is not because the quality is low.
It is because he is not bedecked in gold and jewels and silk brocades worth more than all of his regular clothes combined. It is because his gauntlets do not have a garnet inserted into golden sockets on each of his knuckles and his plaque belt is not hand chiseled out of gold, inlaid with hand-dyed, molten glass enamel.
Note that the man only has one ring, not nine or ten or twelve golden rings with etchings and gems and precious stones in them. Where is the necklace of gold and the golden bracelet?
To the modern eye, he is a knight, because he has everything we tell ourselves a knight should have. Sir Ian's kits are the spitting image of a romanticised knightly figure with top quality gear to back that up.
But put him next to the true historicals and you'll notice that, even if he can match their quality blow for blow or even best them, the extra cash that brings a well equipped man at arms to the level of a knight simply isn't there.
It's the same when you look at somebody doing War of the Roses or any late 15th century reenactment. They dress themselves from head to toe in gleaming armour and we call them knights, but really, compared to the stuff a true knight of the times would wear, they are merely Spears (men in armour trained on horseback to lance, fielded as foot captains at a 1:10 ratio of Spears to Archers during the War of the Roses.)
scott2978:
I really like where you guys are coming from and I totally agree. I wish there was a cheaper way to get there though.
Sir Edward:
We also have to remember to look at it within the context of the specific period as well. The gold and jewels and finery all pertain to a 14th century knight, but if you go back to the 11th century, the bar was probably a little lower.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version