ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Armoury => Topic started by: Ian on 2014-09-30, 02:19:17
-
Any of you in the DoK group may have seen this already but I will duplicate here for posterity :)
This is a scabbard done for my Albion Poitiers in the style of the late 14th century and early 15th century. The wood core and sewn leather wrapping were done by Ron Johnson. The brass work and enamel work were done by Jeffrey Hildebrandt at Royal Oak Armoury.
I didn't photograph it because it's still drying, but I made a quick tooled leather strap with a brass buckle that will pass through the staple on the back of the throat locket. This will wrap around the plaque belt to allow the sword to hang vertically as shown in the effigies.
Oh and don't tell anyone but I used a little trick to darken the scabbard leather and give it a more worn look... (black shoe polish, shhhhh). Although waxes were used to protect leather since the dawn of tanning leather so I don't feel bad :)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/15397201935_fa76e0b9df_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3895/15396870342_1f17931313_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/15210693527_4b028cdf23_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/15396871872_936afc4ddb_b.jpg)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2946/15374174926_2772570b05_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3889/15210452019_c3f079f6a4_b.jpg)
-
Very nice! That Hildebrandt is one talented fellow. I had no idea he took that kind of work. Thanks for posting this Sir Ian.
-
Awesome!!
-
8) 8)
-
Wow; the Poitiers by itself is always eye candy, but the plaque belt and scabbard really set it off. I am not sure I'd even want to stand next to Sir Ian at this point. The divide between well-off knight and poor soldier-knight couldn't be better personified than if we were to stand side by side. :)
-
Holy crap, that turned out nice! Fantastic!
-
Wow; the Poitiers by itself is always eye candy, but the plaque belt and scabbard really set it off. I am not sure I'd even want to stand next to Sir Ian at this point. The divide between well-off knight and poor soldier-knight couldn't be better personified than if we were to stand side by side. :)
Sadly, in the living history world, my kit is more that of a gentle-born indentured squire or household retainer. Unless you want to start investing in real gold adornment and fine silk brocades then knight is out of grasp. One of the biggest offending reenactorisms that we're almost all guilty of is assuming the mantle of a knight but wearing the armor and clothing of someone of much lower station. I simply can't afford to do a 14th century knight correctly. It is cost prohibitive. The 'poor' knight (outside the Holy Orders, and even then I suspect a lot of them were very well off, and perhaps some other unique circumstances) is a bit of a myth. But until we're all rich in real life, portraying the knightly class accurately is not easily done. Trying to portray the 1% of the Middle Ages without having the capital to do so may be an exercise in futility.
We always point out that distinction to patrons as well. One of the best ways to illustrate the difference between a bum like me and a knight is to look at our gauntlets. Here are my gauntlets with their fancy brass decoration which looks pretty nice when viewed in isolation. Now compare them to Sir Geoffrey's gauntlets, washed in 24k gold. Now who's the knight and who's the bum? ;)
Mine
(http://www.wassonartistry.com/images/armor/gauntlets/IMG_4911.JPG)
Tom's
(http://www.wassonartistry.com/images/armor/gauntlets/IMG_4643.JPG)
-
That is truly a magnificent scabbard to go with an exceptionally fine blade. :)
-
we all really hate you secretly.
-
we all really hate you secretly.
Oh, I never thought it was a secret.
-
we all really hate you secretly.
Oh, I never thought it was a secret.
;D ;)
BTW, I'd take those "poor man's" gauntlets off your hands for no fee. You deserve much better!
-
Sadly, in the living history world, my kit is more that of a gentle-born indentured squire or household retainer. Unless you want to start investing in real gold adornment and fine silk brocades then knight is out of grasp. One of the biggest offending reenactorisms that we're almost all guilty of is assuming the mantle of a knight but wearing the armor and clothing of someone of much lower station. I simply can't afford to do a 14th century knight correctly. It is cost prohibitive. The 'poor' knight (outside the Holy Orders, and even then I suspect a lot of them were very well off, and perhaps some other unique circumstances) is a bit of a myth. But until we're all rich in real life, portraying the knightly class accurately is not easily done. Trying to portray the 1% of the Middle Ages without having the capital to do so may be an exercise in futility.
I think the farther down you get in the medieval period, that's definitely true, especially once knighting became more a social status than military oriented title. I've heard in late period people would try to *avoid* getting knighted because of the financial outlays of it all. Early on, though? You'd have knights in a mail hauberk with a norman helm. I don't think there was a plethora of early armor decorations (engraving, gilding, etching, etc) so there wouldn't be a huge difference between poorer knight and wealthy knight armor; I think probably the quality of the metal, quality of workmanship, density of rings, etc... but given who made your harness, to say you're a bum is silly (although I'm pretty sure there was a hint of sarcasm there?).
Comparing yourself with Tom, in my opinion, is saying "Tom is the upper crust 1%, and I'm down here with people at the poor upper 3% of society". :)
Back to DoK 2012 I tried to remember to say my armor *looks* like what a lower or middle class knight may have worn, but that the upper tiers would have roping, recessed borders, etching, gilding, and other embellishments. It's an important distinction. I think the same would go for their other items; fancy woodwork instead of utilitarian, fancy tableware, and so on?
-
Early on, though? You'd have knights in a mail hauberk with a norman helm. I don't think there was a plethora of early armor decorations (engraving, gilding, etching, etc) so there wouldn't be a huge difference between poorer knight and wealthy knight armor; I think probably the quality of the metal, quality of workmanship, density of rings, etc...
Think of Sutton Hoo and some of the other fancy Saxon and Viking helmets. Very highly decorated to depict status, and these are even earlier than Norman knights. You also have to consider the impression as a whole. When those higher status Normans wore their regular clothes, you can bet they were much fancier than their retainers' clothing. I also agree with you that the overall quality of the maille and helmets mattered.
but given who made your harness, to say you're a bum is silly (although I'm pretty sure there was a hint of sarcasm there?).
Comparing yourself with Tom, in my opinion, is saying "Tom is the upper crust 1%, and I'm down here with people at the poor upper 3% of society". :)
Exactly, and that's the difference between a knight and a gentleman squire. We're both 'wealthy' but even though I'm obscenely wealthy compared to a villein on my lord's manor, I'm not 'Knight wealthy.' So of course while I was being sarcastic about being a bum, I was not being sarcastic about not being truly knightly either in overall impression.
Back to DoK 2012 I tried to remember to say my armor *looks* like what a lower or middle class knight may have worn, but that the upper tiers would have roping, recessed borders, etching, gilding, and other embellishments. It's an important distinction. I think the same would go for their other items; fancy woodwork instead of utilitarian, fancy tableware, and so on?
What's a lower or middle class knight? That's the fallacy. Especially in the late middle ages and early renaissance where we reside.
-
Sutton Hoo is a great example, that's what I'd call the upper 1% tier. I can't picture every single knight running around the battlefield with that level of quality, and I think it's ceremonial? It's the "roped, etched and gilded" level of intricacy.
Lower or middle class knight, to me, would be somebody who doesn't have the income / finances of the top tier. Knights weren't on salary or all paid the same, there had to be a decent margin between income of the lower and higher stratas of that social class. Especially when taking ransom and things like that into consideration. I know some knights had castles and became duke / baron / etc. But not every knight had a castle, nor did every knight have a group of 20 people in his retinue (I might be wrong on this?).
Given that separation of wealth, even as the upper crust, I think they'd have different levels of equipment; granted, at a knightly level, not peasant level, but would they all have identical or substantially similar harnesses? We can see differences in equipment on the effigies even in the same time frame, sometimes the same year. I guess we have different thoughts on what "knightly wealthy" was, exactly.
I've also horribly derailed your thread, sorry. Want me to split it off into a separate topic?
-
It's not too much a matter of opinion. In England during the 14th century, a gentleman whose lands brought in an income of at least 40 pounds per annum was expected by law to become a knight.
So was there a difference between a 40 lb / year knight and a Duke? Of course. But that minimum barrier to entry still meant there was no such thing as a 'poor' member of the knightly class. Even the poorest knight was still obscenely wealthy compared to the masses. It's how society was set up. The three estates and all that. Those who fight were intended to be rich.
The aristocracy, of which knights were all members generally ranged in income from 20lb/year to over 12,000 lb per year the at high end of the most elite landed, titled nobility. That accounts for 1% of the population. Another 1% were clergy, and the other 98% were everybody else.
So when you say lower or middle class, you're talking about the lower portion of a fraction of the top 1%, not the implication that so many make that there were knights who barely had a cottage to call home, and no servants.
And even then, the lower portion of the 1% were likely gentle born squires, or men-at-arms, they couldn't afford to be Knights Bachelor, much less Knights Banneret. And yes, you're absolutely right when you say some people avoided being knighted because of the military responsibility that came along with it.
To put it in modern terms, it would like comparing it to the 1%'ers here in the US. While the richest of the 1% of the population controls like 90% of the wealth or whatever it is these days. Even the poorest 1%'er still makes us look like 'bums.' And even the poorest 1%'er can afford some of the finest luxuries in life. So too in the Late Middle Ages was the wealth distribution so skewed that even the poorest knight was by no means not RICH. So yes, you can still portray a knight on the low end of the spectrum, but that low end is still in the top 1% of all the wealth in whatever nation you're talking about, and there's still a minimum level of luxury required to accurately portray someone of that status.
-
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 ;).
-
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:
(http://cottesimple.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/christian-in-finery.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.)
-
I really like where you guys are coming from and I totally agree. I wish there was a cheaper way to get there though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Good stuff Sir Patrick!
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
But you guys always have a knack for steering the conversation away from what I was talking about, the late middle ages :)
-
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.
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)
(http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/189910/1/Portrait-Of-A-Knight-Of-The-Order-Of-St.-Stephen.jpg)
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)
(http://www.royal-painting.com/largeimg/Bruyn,%20Barthel/51287-Bruyn,%20Barthel-Portrait%20of%20a%20Knight.jpg)
Simple fabrics, no rings, a gold necklace, a simple fur
A Knight of the Rehlinger Family
Unknown German Artist, 1540
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0n9IExEpmh8/TA6RlBU4ftI/AAAAAAAAWxM/FfIFG3W0gdA/s400/A+Knight+of+the+Rehlinger+Family+unknown+german+1540.jpg)
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
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/11/61/21/11612111af586947ff2e74f5855b3d9f.jpg)
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
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/53/92/66/539266aed25c9d10793717e10bda228c.jpg)
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. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And I think that you can absolutely use modernly made medieval materials (black wool, silk brocades etc) to recreate something that was more expensive in period, for me, that is a given.
But you will still end up dumping a whole lot of money into a kit once you go for the real deal that looks more historical rather than some website in India.
Prime example: a breastplate from Albert Collins runs about 1200 usd, a single piece raised helmet runs at least 3000.
Jeff Wasson and Platener might be cheaper, but they are by no means cheap (and they don't hand file the finish).
Basically, the higher up the scale you go, the closer you get to a historical analogue and the more expensive it becomes. Same goes for fabrics, decorations and other such things.
Portraying a medieval knight can be done with polyester cloths, plastic jewelry, mass produced Indian armour pieces and a cheap sowing machine, but it can also be done in a 25.000 dollar harness (made more expensive with gold edgings, etchings, fluting and inlays), a professionally tailored soft kit made from 150 dollar/m silk fabric (a modern suit costs about 3-4000 dollars to have made by pro tailors, so somewhere around there, it is a month's wages for him/her after all). Hand crafted jewelry, even if downplayed, for at least a few hundred.
Say some of the soft kit is made with cheap wool, that won't knock too much off the price.
You're basically looking at a 30.000+ investment before accounting for the albion swords, the horse, the handmade medieval saddle etc.
Portraying a medieval nobleman that is a knight can be done on a budget, but it is down to the individual how proper such a portrayal is and how far one is willing to go. Sir Ian is simply saying that, to him, he cannot call himself a knight proper simply because he cannot invest what it would cost to take it to the next level. And historically, he would probably be right.
However, practically, and to a lot of us, he is for all intents and purposes recreating a knight and doing it well. Just not to himself, and I can see where he is coming from.
-
^^^ +1
-
And I think that you can absolutely use modernly made medieval materials (black wool, silk brocades etc) to recreate something that was more expensive in period, for me, that is a given.
But you will still end up dumping a whole lot of money into a kit once you go for the real deal that looks more historical rather than some website in India.
Prime example: a breastplate from Albert Collins runs about 1200 usd, a single piece raised helmet runs at least 3000.
Jeff Wasson and Platener might be cheaper, but they are by no means cheap (and they don't hand file the finish).
Basically, the higher up the scale you go, the closer you get to a historical analogue and the more expensive it becomes. Same goes for fabrics, decorations and other such things.
Portraying a medieval knight can be done with polyester cloths, plastic jewelry, mass produced Indian armour pieces and a cheap sowing machine, but it can also be done in a 25.000 dollar harness (made more expensive with gold edgings, etchings, fluting and inlays), a professionally tailored soft kit made from 150 dollar/m silk fabric (a modern suit costs about 3-4000 dollars to have made by pro tailors, so somewhere around there, it is a month's wages for him/her after all). Hand crafted jewelry, even if downplayed, for at least a few hundred.
Say some of the soft kit is made with cheap wool, that won't knock too much off the price.
You're basically looking at a 30.000+ investment before accounting for the albion swords, the horse, the handmade medieval saddle etc.
Portraying a medieval nobleman that is a knight can be done on a budget, but it is down to the individual how proper such a portrayal is and how far one is willing to go. Sir Ian is simply saying that, to him, he cannot call himself a knight proper simply because he cannot invest what it would cost to take it to the next level. And historically, he would probably be right.
However, practically, and to a lot of us, he is for all intents and purposes recreating a knight and doing it well. Just not to himself, and I can see where he is coming from.
You nailed it Henrik.
There's so much I've wanted to say on this thread but you guys have all said it before me :)
But I'm curious... Sir Ian, what is your intent? Are you actually trying to reach that pinnacle of historical accuracy some day, is that even a goal for you? Due to what it takes, I'd never even considered going for it, and it makes me curious to know whether someone with your pedigree of historical accuracy is going that way or not.
-
Henrik, that you for articulating it the way you did. I think that was an excellent explanation.
Well Scott to answer your question in a long-winded way, I really never intended this thread to imply that it was something I needed to do. I merely wanted to point out that even though my impression may appear nice to modern eyes, there's still a gap between that and the historical reality. I meant it more as a teaching point of "You think that's nice? In period it would have been REAAALLLY nice." And then the rest of the thread happened :)
I also didn't intend for anyone to get the impression that I'm not happy with my kit. I'm pretty darn happy about how my kit is fleshing out. I'm very happy portraying a gentleman squire at the LH events I'm able to go to with my club.
Is it a goal of mine to reach that level? Sure. But it's so far off right now that it would be a multi-decade long endeavor considering all the things that go in to this. A complete impression is so much more than even armor and a full soft kit. You have to consider the appropriate pavilion, painting the pavilion, furnishing the pavilion, appropriate storage containers, flatware, stoneware, glassware, little accessories, art, decoration, tools, banners, etc... it's such a grand undertaking when you consider that every little detail within that grand scope of items is under the same historical scrutiny. And it's not like high end LH clubs get that stuff overnight either. They're also constantly acquiring, re-examining, improving and changing over the course of decades themselves. It's a living breathing process that never really ends.
As I improve my crafting and sewing skill I fully intend to always correspondingly improve my kit to match. Will I ever reach that level? Realistically, probably not on my own. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to seek constant improvement where I can make it. I don't care if I ever reach that level, but I find the journey so rewarding and fun that I don't see myself getting off the path any time soon. Moreover I'm incredibly humbled and thankful for the opportunity to get to practice this and learn from some of the people who I would consider at the absolute top of this game. I just love learning, improving as I learn, and sharing what I learn!
-
I don't really have anything pertinent to add to this discussion, but I just wanted to say that I've been quietly following it and soaking up some really good info.
But shoot...at this early stage, I'd be happy if I can get together a passable middle-class burgher setup. I think I'm a long way off yet from silk brocades, gold jewelery, warhorses, and manor houses. ;)
-
I remember reading a thread on Armor Archive historical forums from a gentleman who was attempting what you describe Sir Ian. If you really want to be top of the game, you need more than armor, more than soft kit, more than horses (plural!) more than Pavillion and accouterments - you need people. Servants, squires, retainers... and all the armor, kit and civil items for those people as well. So I agree the full-on impression is a daunting goal, and quite literally beyond reach for a single individual.
I've been thinking of what my own answers would be if I were asked the same questions, and I realize I don't have a very well defined goal. Because of how I got into this, an extension of sword collecting into armor collecting, and an extension of armor collecting into more of a full impression, and the realization that the full impression includes so many little details that I have to pick and choose, and the final realization that I need a goal in order to know what details are highest priority.
But I don't want to further hijack the thread to talking about me. Thanks for answering my questions, I appreciate it.
-
Wow, the thread really took off after I last posted. I just haven't had the time to be on the forum much these last few days (and still don't).
But yeah, I just wanted to point out the typical mistake we all make of assuming the entire period was the same about everything. The word "knight" has its origins in meaning "servant boy", and the earliest knights didn't have a formal title, but rather, anyone who could afford a horse and knew how to fight could colloquially be called a knight. It took time for it to gradually become more formal, with greater duties and financial requirements. At the other extreme, in the 16th century, it had little to do with horsemanship, and was instead a title of lesser nobility, whose responsibilities were mostly financial. But that's what's fascinating about the 14th century, is that it's at a bit of a tipping point. It's early enough in the period that knights were still mounted warriors, and late enough that they were also obscenely wealthy, and very important people.