Main > The Armoury
Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt
Sir Patrick:
Agreed they were not common. "History of England put them at 800 at one point, down from just over twice that two generations earlier. As I stated earlier, the 14th century knight is rich (he'd have to be just to maintain his station). Even if he was out of favor and on "hard times" he still would have put on the best possible showing bc the hunt for more land (and by extension more power and money) would have demanded it. In short, his mom would have gone naked to ensure he looked the part.
As far as understated clothing goes, here's an analogy: In my wedding picture I'm wearing a black tuxedo with a black bow tie and white shirt. Brad Pitt has on the same outfit at a red carpet. Wanna bet his cost a hell of a lot more?
Sir Patrick:
One more aside about the declining numbers if knights. Throughout the early feudal period, a knight or other nobleman could exempt themselves from their required military service by paying a "Scootage Tax". During the reign of King John (who was desperately short of funds for his campaigns to win back the Planagent continental holdings), the king preferred to collect the Sootage rather than obtain the service, after discovering he could hire more Routiers than he could field knights for the cost. As a result, magnates realized it was cheaper to pay the Scootage than to employ household knights (and by extension get ALL the revenues from the knight's parcel of land, about 30 acres). Medieval downsizing/outsourcing.
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-10-03, 17:58:08 ---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.
--- End quote ---
It's not a habit, it was easier to find period pictures of knights in armor than without. :)
I know solid black (or bright) clothing was expensive back then because it was a "first" dye and others of lesser financial means would have their clothing dyed in the same diluted dyes. What I was trying to specifically address with armor paintings is the below post... it's just not accurate to what I see.
--- Quote from: Henrik Granlid on 2014-10-02, 22:55:55 ---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?
--- End quote ---
Yes, silk brocade with gold thread is still expensive and a status symbol, whereas black wool no longer is. If a pair of black wool chausses in period was the equivalent of $14,000 today due to dye, cut, material, etc, yet we can spend $100 for an item of similar quality, does that make our appearance wrong / inferior? We have cheap deep black wool. We have cheap fur. If the gold and brocade is not what an *actual* period portrait is wearing... are we trying to compare the amount of money spent on items or compare appearances?
It's like you said, without a modern eye, our dark black clothing and custom made armor would be a show of wealth, rather than "yeah I saw those on a website from some place in India". Is the impression wrong when it looks substantially similar but costs much less than it would have historically? That's where I'm confused; for armor, soft kit, tent, etc.
Ian:
I'm not sure where you're going with this.
To reproduce those kits requires modernly expensive items. Gold is still expensive. Fur is still expensive. You can't line a coat in cheap rabbit pelts and expect it to last, fur suitable for clothing is still expensive, especially in the quantities required. Silk is still expensive. Gems are still expensive. Etched armor is still expensive. Fluted armor is still expensive.
Those are just some of the elements in every single image you posted.
According to payrolls, the lowest end knights of the 14th century made about £40 a year. A skilled craftsman post-plague when labor was more expensive made about £5 a year, and a laborer about £2. So the least wealthy knight made 8X more than skilled workers.
If you translate that to today, the median income in the US is about $51,000/year. If we equate our median worker to a skilled worker of the middle ages, a low-end knight pulls in about $400,000 a year. He could afford some luxuries.
And a rich man in period would be more likely to show off his status, as evidenced in all your own images. I can't help you see gold, fur and silk as expensive by today's standards if you don't want to. But they are certainly part of the 'uniform' of the rich in period.
Henrik Granlid:
We look at paintings of battles and we see scores of srmoured soldiers, clad head to toe charging acrosd the field on destriers. We see even more men on foot in similae armour.
They're not knights.
Not by the medievl definition of a person required to bring with him a force of outfitted men at arms and foot soldiers.
What we see, the brunt of the metal-force, those aren't knights, those are men at arms.
As for the paintings previously linked:
1. Note the articulation of at the top of the breastplate, that's 3 lames or more, along with the articulated gorget, the smocked silk collar (and cuffs) and the incredibly fine maille.
2. Pure black wool and LOTS of it. A thick silver or golden chain around his neck, a long one at that. Broad furs.
3. Out of fashion or not, armour with that fine fluting (seriously, it's amazing) and etching will neither be cheap, nor found on men at arms. Also note the articulating parts and the closeness of them.
4. Simpler though it may be, there's pure black wool on the cap, the shoulders are finely articulated and very thoroughly fluted. Again in work that would be expensive as hell. Also unsure of what the furnishing on the katzbalgr is made of.
5. Black silk-velvet on the doublet under the arming cote, well fitted trpusers and an extravagant ammount of feathers on the helmet. The armour in itself has excellent articulation (as seen on the fingers) and there is nothing basic or soldiery about it. Not to mention it is a Joust-harness, meaning it is likely fully enclosing in a way field-armours almost cannot be.
Edit: Also, what tells us that all extant armours are for knights? The churburg ones were from an armoury, I.e. What you give to soldiers who need to be armed to go with the knight.
I think our major problem is that we might be speaking of different things.
I.e. Knight as a guy on horse in full armour.
And
Knight as a nobleman who brings guys on horses in full armours with him.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version