Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt

[Sir James A]

Let me rephrase my earlier statement. A "lower or middle tier knight", rather than "class". Poor choice of words on my part. I mean one of the less wealthy knights, yet still in the wealthy group; one with enough financial status to be a "knight" but not a "super knight" with all the "blinged out" gear and top-shelf everything. A guy who can pay for his horse and armor, but doesn't have the money for gold plating, etching and the intricate details. My squire might be using my old sword instead of his own custom made brand new sword, etc.

I had no idea there's actually an established income level to determine knightly status. That's a cool fact, thanks.

I simply can't afford to do a 14th century knight correctly.

^ that's what really throws me off with all this. Do you think that with your harness, Albions, and the other very high quality gear, that you wouldn't be a knight in period? Because I can't fathom every knight in period having better stuff than yours. Some, yes, but that was their career and they could sink their income into it; it's a hobby for us. I just can't imagine all knights having better everything than yours. I mean I completely understand not having the money for hiring squires, horses, and your own retinue of people; as far as a Living History portrayal, I'm lost on why you say you can't afford to do it correctly?

And it's not just me who thinks you are near the top of the hobby. You've seen the comments from the DoK folks. We're all over here drooling on our keyboards in jealousy, as Sir Wolf so eloquently stated .

[Ian]

I think you're ignoring one of my key points.  The most important being that I'm talking about an overall impression, not just arms and armor.  You're getting overly focused on martial kit.  A knight should have fineries in his soft kit that I can't afford to buy.  Even my very full wool gown with angel wing sleeves is definitely a gentleman's cut, but it's still the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to the wealthiest stratum of society.  Gold jewelry, gold buttons, precious stones, fine silks, brocades... these are the things a knight adorns himself with in his soft kit.  I wear silver buttons, fine wools, no stones, no brocades, modest jewelry.

Buying $70-90 / yard silk brocades, gold jewelry, way nicer shoes than I can make and precious stones to wear is  not in the cards on my budget.

So perhaps because it's almost impossible to know, I may qualify at the lowest tier of of the knight bachelor level of aristocracy, but I'm not entirely convinced.  It seems like it's very important to you that my kit be knightly in level.   So yes I will concede that my armor may be knightly in it's quality, but the rest of my impression falls short.

Here's a knightly soft kit, courtesy of Christian Cameron:

[Sir James A]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the soft kit aspect, it didn't even occur to me since you were in harness back at DoK 2012. The first thing I picture in my head with "knight" status is the armor, weapons, and horse. I'll certainly concede the soft kit aspect, no disagreement on that. Soft kit is a whole other set of items I rarely think about, since I rarely wear mine unless it's a renn fest or non-public hours at DoK

And back to the topic that I derailed... that's just an awesome scabbard and the enameled panels at the top are nice and cohesive with the plaque belt. Very cool.

[Ian]

Thank you, Jeff did a great job matching my plaque belt just from photographs!

No worries about the derailment.  I derailed it myself.  That was a more interesting discussion than looking at pictures of a scabbard anyway

Let me just say that I don't plan on giving up, I will slowly but surely keep chipping away at improving what I can as funding, time, and skill allows.

[Sir Edward]

Let me just say that I don't plan on giving up, I will slowly but surely keep chipping away at improving what I can as funding, time, and skill allows.

And here's where there is an enormous benefit to picking one specific point in time, and building up all of the accessories around that one impression.

I'm way too scattered, and too broad in my interests, to pull off something like this. It really makes me appreciate it all that much more to see folks like yourself, and Christian Cameron and others, doing such amazingly detailed and historically minded (and well rounded) impressions.

[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!!!

[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.

[Ian]

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.

Why?  Because it was 300 years earlier?  It may very well be true, but I'm just curious what you're basing that on.

[Sir Brian]

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.

Why?  Because it was 300 years earlier?  It may very well be true, but I'm just curious what you're basing that on.

I agree with Sir Edward’s perspective that in the earlier medieval periods the bestowing of knighthood was far less financially demanding. The below excerpt from ‘The Medieval Soldier’ by Vesey Norman, page 138 readily substantiates this.

By 1224 the shortage of actual knights was so great that all holders of knight’s fees were ordered to be knighted before Easter of 1225. This would almost certainly entail them being actually equipped as a knight, as did a similar order of 1234. This order was repeated at intervals throughout this century, very often immediately before an important campaign, usually on pain of distraint upon their property. This was not merely a method of raising money, as is shown by the fact in 1242 it was specifically stated that the fine was to be repaid to anyone who actually served in the army. By the end of Henry’s reign, apparently about four-fifths of those liable to do so had become knights.[sic]

It is also prudent to remember that many minor nobles had a multitude of sons where only the eldest would likely inherit the holdings of the father – i.e. the adage of ‘A heir, a spare and one for the church’. All those ‘extra’ brood were left with the choice of serving God or finding employment as a knight in the service of a more wealthy noble. Thus was the humble beginnings of our Order’s namesake.

[Ian]

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.

[Sir Patrick]

This was discussed on one of the "History of England" podcasts. The knight of 1066 would have had far less financial responsibilities than his counterpart in the 14th century. This is partly because weapons and armour had evolved to the point if being quite expensive, but a larger part if this had to due with evolution of feudalism and the increasing financial pressures placed on the knightly class.

In simple terms, once the Angevines lost their holdings on the continent, royal revenue was gutted. To make up for the shortfall, taxes skyrocketed. Suddenly, the amount of land a knight's grandfather held would not produce enough revenue to sustain his grandson's obligations. We increasingly see knights selling off bits of property to make good on short-term debts, but in reality only making their situation worse. To compound the problem, all land was subject to an inheritance tax which was arbitrarily assigned by the king. King John was notorious for extorting this tax at rates often higher than the land was worth/could generate.

While Magna Carta addressed some of these issues, the bottom line was the treasury of Henry II and Richard I would have been nearly 3 times as large as John, Henry III, or Edward I. During the reign of these three monarchs, the knightly class shrank substantially. People actively avoided the accolade because it just wasn't worth the financial burden. As a result, the knights that are left are really more like Barons and super-rich to boot.

[Ian]

Good stuff Sir Patrick!