Main > The Armoury

Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt

<< < (7/10) > >>

Sir Patrick:

--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-10-03, 17:18:26 ---Sir Brian, that excerpt expresses that knights were in short supply.  It doesn't really express the wealth requirement of a knight other than mentioning being 'equipped as' one.  And they were probably drawing from the gentry, not the commoners.  Even William Marshal was the son of a minor nobleman, so let's not pretend he wasn't already well off.

--- End quote ---

I would say the Marshal had a leg up as far as opportunities for advancement, but I would challenge that he well off. When he had completed his training and had been discharged from William of Tankeville's house, Marshal's horse had been killed and William was so poor he had sold his knighting cloak so he could eat. He was contemplating selling off his sword when Tankeville found out and gifted his a new destrier.

Ian:
Yes, the very fact that he was gifted something worth a fortune shows how that class took care of itself.  And yes I will totally agree that in the early Middle Ages it was a different state of affairs.

Ian:
But you guys always have a knack for steering the conversation away from what I was talking about, the late middle ages :)

Sir James A:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2014-10-03, 14:00:49 ---
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.

--- End quote ---

Agreed. It's difficult to determine materials from effigies, since they aren't colored, but here's some period artwork as examples. They're all early 16th century, which I know is later than 14th century, but good artwork from those centuries is something I don't know much about...

Portrait of a Knight of the Order of St. Stephen
Michele Rosini (Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio) (1503-1577)


Relatively plain armor, no etching, no vast seas of gold; some brass or gold roped trim with leather edging.

Portrait of a Knight, Barthel Bruyn
Barthel Bruyn (1493-1555) (painted: 1531)


Simple fabrics, no rings, a gold necklace, a simple fur

A Knight of the Rehlinger Family
Unknown German Artist, 1540


Fancy Maximillian style, which would have been waning out of popularity in 1540. It's nicely etched and fluted, but no gold or jewels.

Portrait of a knight
Vittore Carpaccio, 1510


Still in schynbalds long after they went out of fashion, when even basic men at arms were wearing cased greaves; simple scabbard, simple cuirass with some rolling and recessed edges, and basic decoration on the rest.

A Knight with his Jousting Helmet
Giovanni Battista Moroni, 1554-58

Simple black clothing, and his helmet and the armor on the floor are very utilitarian with the decoration primarily being brass hinges / buckles / strap ends. He does, however, have one heck of a fancy crest. But I think this example is VERY comparable to Sir Ian's armor, with minor differences (roping, brass hardware).

Yes, there are many period armors that have all sorts of (to us) excessive decoration and all manner of fancy-shmancy stuff. But the vast majority of those that I can think of off the top of my head are literally Kings, Princes, Dukes and the upper-elites. There are plenty of surviving harnesses that don't show any of that adornment, and they are the majority, not the minority. Which is important, because armor of royalty was likely not worn as often as the knights who earned their wages in battles; King Henry had multiple sets of armor made for him that he never even wore!

Let's say out of 10 people on a battlefield, only 1 is a knight. The paintings of battles show the majority of them in full armor as similarly equipped; there aren't a hand full of them running around in parade armor. I think there's a tendency to over-romanticize and over-inflate the status and appearance of the more common knights. And the ones in the paintings are ones who had the money to spend on art work, which was probably a luxury that commoners didn't have in period.

Sir Patrick brings up some great points. I don't argue that knights didn't have a lot of money, and I don't argue that they didn't SPEND a lot of money. I think there's an over-emphasis on them spending a large sum of their money on armor fancy clothing to look excessively wealthy, rather than having to spend it on their manor / house / farmland, horses, stables, their retinue, and so on. I think my examples from the paintings show there were some knights who didn't look like they are featured on MTV: Cribs of Europe. :)

Ian:
There's nothing simple about black clothing, fur linings, silk, etching or gold.  That's 'spensive.  They're all showing off their status in those pictures.  I don't know how else to communicate the aesthetic of a late medieval rich person.  You have to look at the cut of the clothing, the materials used, the fabrics, furs, decoration.  It all forms a picture.  You can't look at any one thing in isolation or through a modern lens.

No one said they have to look like a modern hip-hop star.  But even from your own examples of Renaissance gentleman, you can see that my kit doesn't bare the details in fabrics, gold, decoration, or furs that theirs do.  Once again you're zeroing in on armor alone... I can't break you of that habit.

The last dude to a modern person looks like he's wearing simple clothing.  In period someone would be like "Holy crap!!! How did he afford pure black dyed silk and wool???"

Knights were also not common.  In Late 14th century England, the population was by consensus around 2.2M people.  There were by estimates less than 1,000 knights according to the research in Daily Life in Chaucer's England.  That's about 0.04 % of the population.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page