Dan Howard wrote: |
"Riveted" does not equal "Historical" |
Bruce Tordoff wrote: |
Essentially, there has to be a 'Scale of Authenticity', where common sense prevails. The knowledge and discretion of the items owner should dictate the level of 'Inaccuracy' tolerable for the specific given situation. What is an acceptable standard for a museum or lecture full of academic historians may not be for an audience of 10year olds and vice versa. |
This has been a very interesting thread to follow. I'm inclined to agree with Dan's OP and Bruce's theory as they are not mutually exclusive, but mutually supportive!
My thought process involves what I want and what I can actually have. I want a hauberk as Dan describes, accurate to the extreme. I want to feel the weight, look at the rings under a microscope, know the metallurgy, and test it against various weaponry. I want the real thing.
Alas, there seems to be only a select few makers (one?) who produce what can be described as "historically accurate mail". I cannot afford the real thing. I can afford butted mail as Bruce describes. I can get a rough idea of the feel, weight and mobility afforded by this non-historically accurate alternative. At a distance of ten feet it looks kinda-OK to the trained eye and awesome to the untrained eye. I think the point, as Bruce touched on, is to capture the attention of the untrained eyes around us. Once you have that attention, explain that your mail isn't exactly correct, and why.
From personal experience I know that those 10 year olds (and 40 year olds) will start an endless stream of questions about your armour and weaponry. Maybe enough of a spark is lit that they will take an interest in weapons and armour that could lead to a time consuming passion that we are all familiar with :) or even a professional career in the field :!: The more personally vested and professional individuals in the field we have, the better understanding we will all have of our chosen passion. Who knows what future excavations and analysis will provide for the advancement of "mail knowledge"?