Historical Accuracy of a 14th plate gorget?

[Sir Brian]

During this season at MDRF when I was discussing my harness with Sir Barchan, he told me that my
Mercenary Tailor 14th century gorget was not appropriate for the timeframe of my harness – i.e. 1340ish.
I was a bit taken aback since I was reasonably certain that plated gorgets were plausible even
during the late 13th century and I informed him as such including the point that the Mercenary
Tailor version was resembled more of brigandine style than solid plate. I vaguely recalled a reference
to an obscure document dated around 1294 referring to the purchase of sixty plate gorgets but
couldn’t recall where I read it. Fortunately a related discussion took place on the My Armoury Forum
last year and one of the replies provided the precise reference! 
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=13672&highlight=gorget

What is more a web search for the source of that information provided this link with a great many
excerpts from the referenced book…I will provide the link but it may have to come back off if Sir Ed
deems it to be a copyright infringement. 

European Armor 1066~1700, Claude Blair
http://www.13c.ru/texts/blair.pdf

btw, the above link is a great reference source for helms, crests and surcoats!     

[Sir Edward]

It's not copyright infringement to merely place a link, so I think we're OK.

I'll have to take a look at these, this will be an interesting discussion!

[Sir Edward]

I remember that discussion on myArmoury, actually. They're right, the design that was mentioned in the OP is really more a 15th C design, not the 13th that it claims to be.

Looking at the PDF, it sounds like what they're describing in the early 14th and back into the 13th are more like simple bevors, lacking the complex curves of the later designs, much the way great helms of the period did not have the complex curves of the later bascinets. So which gorgets of a sort existed, it's hard to make the claim that form-fitting plate gorgets made of multiple pieces would have existed at the time.

However, since the one you're using is more of a brig style, I don't know, since nothing really seems to speak to that one way or the other. I can say that none of the effigies I've seen from the time seem to have that, as they seem to progress from mail coifs straight into aventails on bascinets.

Of course, as the document mentions though, it's hard to know what they wore underneath, since the effigies and drawings only show the outer layers.

[Sir Brian]

However, since the one you're using is more of a brig style, I don't know, since nothing really seems to speak to that one way or the other. I can say that none of the effigies I've seen from the time seem to have that, as they seem to progress from mail coifs straight into aventails on bascinets.
Of course, as the document mentions though, it's hard to know what they wore underneath, since the effigies and drawings only show the outer layers.

Your opinion coincides with my thoughts exactly.  I don’t wish to disrespect Sir Barchan, but I think he was mistaken. If I wore the typical bascinet with aventail then my gorget wouldn’t even be visible. 

[Sir Gerard de Rodes]

Interesting.  
It really depends on how strict you want to be in your authenticity.

As our group specialises in the period from the mid to the late C14th we do come accross similar quandaries too. Some members buy kit just to find that it is far too late for our chosen period  
As we have seen no references or evidence that gorgets where worn we try to say away from using them.
We tend to use cerveliers and bascinets with aventails or mail coifs. The mail aventail is sometimes worn over a gamboised aventail so affording extra neck and shoulder protection. We find this also gives the destinctive wide, tapering neck shape seen on many effigies of the period, most famously;
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/canterbury-cathedral-photos/xt-4310.jpg

 If our members still choose to wear a gorget, for it`s extra protection, then they usually wear it under their jupon/tabard.
Some (including myself) even often use a mail mantle or standard, but once again the period of these is usually under question so I`m not too sure of the authenticity of these;
http://www.sgfnet.co.uk/owainglyndwr/OwainGlyndwr09/Owain%20Glyndwr%202009/content/DSC_0286_large.html

The way I look at is that a lack of evidence for their existance isn`t necessarily evidence of the lack of them. It makes sense that some form of neck and shoulder protection was required as these areas are vunerable to heavy blows, but what is obvious is that any extra protection must have generally been hidden. It may have taken the form of plates attached to the COP/Brigandine or in the form of seperate plated protector like yours.

I personally like your gorget but if you are bothered what others think then I would suggest that, untill you have evidence of the gorget worn over your tabard, you wear it underneath   That should keep the authenty nazis off your case  

G

[Sir Wolf]

ya its one of those things thats ehhhhhhh. I don't know of any off handed references (paintings etc) that show a gorget for your time frame. there is still too much mail and bassinets covering the neck area to be sure. a padded collar or mail over a padded collar I think you would be safe historically.

But that being said you've said your not into the 100 percent club so if your happy with your kit than keep it If not, ditch it for a standard(mail collar)

[Das Bill]

If you want to get technical, I don't think there's any evidence for that type of gorget at all from any period except the modern period. The style is sort of a "what if" style that was invented by modern reenactment and SCA, I believe, so that they could put throat protection on harnesses that otherwise wouldn't use them.

[Sir Brian]

The below is an excerpt from the European Armor 1066~1700 by Claude Blair link in my OP.

The last decade of the 13th century also saw the introduction of a
plate defence for the chin and neck (gorget* or bevor). A French document
of 1294, for example, lists no less than sixty gorgières de plate
along with other plate armour,8 while the de Nesle inventory of 1302,
also French, includes two gorgerets de plate.9 The earliest illustration of
this defence I have been able to trace appears on the Spanish effigy of
Don Alvaro de Cabrera (M.M.), which was executed shortly before
1314 10 (149). It consists simply of a solid cylindrical collar extending
to just below the nose and carrying a short cape that just covers the
points of the shoulders. This last is covered with rosette-shaped studs,
presumably the heads of rivets securing plates on the inside. A similar
bevor with the plates clearly marked on the cape is depicted on an
effigy of c. 1330 at Coulommiers, France, while scoop-shaped bevors
sloping up to a point in front and apparently made in one piece are
shown in an English MS. of 1326-711 (16, C). This second form,
usually worn with a kettle-hat, is frequently illustrated in Spanish
art throughout the whole of the 14th century but is rarely found elsewhere.
Despite the absence of representations, references to plate bevors
are, however, common in 14th-century texts everywhere in Europe.

And this link is to a picture of Don Alvaro de Cabrera’s effigy, which looks to be a full bevor as described.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C8mXukZi5V8C&lpg=PA23&ots=KJkK3bGmog&dq=effigy%20of%20Don%20Alvaro%20de%20Cabrera&pg=PA23&output=embed

The way I look at is that a lack of evidence for their existance isn`t necessarily evidence of the lack of them. It makes sense that some form of neck and shoulder protection was required as these areas are vunerable to heavy blows, but what is obvious is that any extra protection must have generally been hidden. It may have taken the form of plates attached to the COP/Brigandine or in the form of seperate plated protector like yours.
I personally like your gorget but if you are bothered what others think then I would suggest that, untill you have evidence of the gorget worn over your tabard, you wear it underneath  That should keep the authenty nazis off your case 

I had hoped that Allan Senefelder would have interjected his thoughts by now since he made my gorget. 

But nonetheless I will keep wearing it as I currently do because I am convinced that there is enough
tangible evidence that plated gorgets were utilized well within the period of my harness. As far as
the technical merits of the TMT design, I also find it to be compellingly plausible and would likely be a
logical progression for providing much more protection for the neck and shoulder as Sir Gerard has
pointed out.

So the best I can surmise is that there is not enough physical evidence to either confirm nor deny
that the essentially brigandine style gorget of TMT was ever utilized. In the worse case since my
harness is at the height of the transitional period I could always claim it to be an armoring dead end! 

[Sir Matthew]

While I can't speak for sure of the historical accuracy of your particular gorget, Tim at Red Falcon Armories (who made my leg armor and will be making the rest of my 14th century kit when I get the money together) has told me that brigandine style gorgets appeared sometime shortly after the brigandine body armor.  According to him they remained popular well into the 17th century due to their relatively good protection value vs. weight and movement restriction.  The style that he makes is more similiar to my brig body armor, steel plates covered with leather on the inside and outside, the plates are smaller rectangular plates, not the larger ones like your gorget has.  We had a brief discussion on gorgets since I am working on 16th century padded armor to be worn in conjunction with a gorget and possibly pauldrons.  I was slightly shocked when he suggested a brig style gorget would be more appropriate for me than a plate style.  According to him, most soldiers wore brig. styles, only wealthier officers wore plate style and those were most commonly worn only on ceremonial armor or for ceremonies as a symbol of rank..  In battle, the preference, according to him, seems to be for brig styles.  I am not sure where he got his information, but as a professional armorer I would tend to trust his opinion, especially since I have seen him refer people to other armorers for styles of armor that he isn't particularly familiar with or good at making.  I think that this brings up an interesting point though, the effigies studied may not reflect the actual battlefield look or armor worn by the various knights.  Also, these do not necessarily depict what is worn for those of us looking to portray a common soldier.  As has been said before, a lack of depiction or mention in sources does not necessarily mean that the item in question can be ruled out, rather it may be that it was assumed to be common knowledge and thus not worth mentioning.   

[Sir Wolf]

see the way i see it is there isn't any real evidence at all for them. we know in our modern thinking think "hey what about my neck etc" and have access to so much different stuff we think it should have been common knowledge for them in the time. I haven't seen any period 13th/14th c gorgets, plate or leather, brig etc. so in my personal opinion I don't think they were there. the argument of just cause there not found argument doesn't really work for me either. just my opinion. you don't really even see them in 15thc. more bevors and mail standards than anything else. but like i said i think the gorget works for Sir Brian's look and I really like it and think if he likes it then keep it

[Das Bill]

see the way i see it is there isn't any real evidence at all for them. we know in our modern thinking think "hey what about my neck etc" and have access to so much different stuff we think it should have been common knowledge for them in the time. I haven't seen any period 13th/14th c gorgets, plate or leather, brig etc. so in my personal opinion I don't think they were there. the argument of just cause there not found argument doesn't really work for me either. just my opinion. you don't really even see them in 15thc. more bevors and mail standards than anything else. but like i said i think the gorget works for Sir Brian's look and I really like it and think if he likes it then keep it

I tend to be in complete agreement. Now, it only matters if historical accuracy matters to you. If it doesn't, then don't worry about it.

While I can't speak for sure of the historical accuracy of your particular gorget, Tim at Red Falcon Armories (who made my leg armor and will be making the rest of my 14th century kit when I get the money together) has told me that brigandine style gorgets appeared sometime shortly after the brigandine body armor.  According to him they remained popular well into the 17th century due to their relatively good protection value vs. weight and movement restriction.  The style that he makes is more similiar to my brig body armor, steel plates covered with leather on the inside and outside, the plates are smaller rectangular plates, not the larger ones like your gorget has.  We had a brief discussion on gorgets since I am working on 16th century padded armor to be worn in conjunction with a gorget and possibly pauldrons.  I was slightly shocked when he suggested a brig style gorget would be more appropriate for me than a plate style.  According to him, most soldiers wore brig. styles, only wealthier officers wore plate style and those were most commonly worn only on ceremonial armor or for ceremonies as a symbol of rank..  In battle, the preference, according to him, seems to be for brig styles.  I am not sure where he got his information, but as a professional armorer I would tend to trust his opinion, especially since I have seen him refer people to other armorers for styles of armor that he isn't particularly familiar with or good at making.  I think that this brings up an interesting point though, the effigies studied may not reflect the actual battlefield look or armor worn by the various knights.  Also, these do not necessarily depict what is worn for those of us looking to portray a common soldier.  As has been said before, a lack of depiction or mention in sources does not necessarily mean that the item in question can be ruled out, rather it may be that it was assumed to be common knowledge and thus not worth mentioning. 

I suspect that's a lot more hearsay than fact.

[Sir Brian]

Believe me I’m very content with my harness being within the ninety percentile group and for all practical purposes that much is even an excess since I only utilize it for renfaire garb for now. 

Then again well intentioned and civilized divergence has always been an incentive for me to delve deeper into the research material. It is the company and opinion of such an esteemed gathering as on this forum that helps me solidify a vague and possibly contentious concept into a more precise perception for which I am grateful for all who participates in this discussion. 

If I was to summarize, my opinion of all historical accuracy conceptions (and in some cases preconceptions) it would simply be that no one should ever make the claim of an item being 100% historically accurate unless they invented a time machine and travelled back to the period in question and fabricated that item utilizing all the methods, tools and materials of the time period, otherwise all other claims of historical accuracy really are just subjective. 

[Dragonlover]

Is that  "subjective" or did you mean "bullsh*t? 

[Sir Matthew]

I think I tend to agree completely with Sir Brian's last statement of historical accuracy, unless you can actually say you were there via some means of time travel, it is impossible to say for sure 100% that an item is period accurate or not.  I have put alot of effort into my Elizabethan soldier kit, and have recieved many compliments on it from people who are familiar with the period, but I would never say that it is 100% accurate.  The best I would say is that it is as accurate as I can find in source material and discussions with other reenactors.  As for where Tim got his info, I can not say and would hate to speculate, though I do know that he does alot of SCA work.

[Sir Brian]

Is that  "subjective" or did you mean "bullsh*t? 

The terms are directly proportional and interchangeable as well as varied in its application contingent upon geographical and societal influences. – Damn I think I just broke my thesaurus!