How common it was for a knight to wear a white belt and was it permitted for non-knight to wear white belts?

I found this discussion but I am not sure how credible the information is
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006...s-and.html

Thank you.

I know Will McLean (he's in my LH company LaBelle Compagnie and co-author of "Daily Life in Chaucer's England") and he is quite thorough in his research on the subject. I believe he knows what he's talking about.

Will is an amazing researcher; I doubt he puts forth any opinion without some serious thought. I have used the same argument in the past talking about groups who copy the SCA regalia rules; they have nothing to do with some historical precedence it has to do with SCA culture. There are references to white belts in knighting ceremonies but they are time and place specific not a common or regulated culture.

I have a manuscript image of a knighting in the early 14th century and the kngiht is wearing a black sword belt with silver parts and spurs not chain at all.

Yes I agree, this seems accurate to me. If you read some of the period sources such as The Ordene de Chevalerie (which he mentions), as well as Geoffroi de Charny's book of knighthood and chivalry, the white belt is mentioned only in passing as just one of many symbols used during the ceremony. I think it could be argued that the gilded spurs were more emphasized.

It was not consistent across region, and did not stay static over time. However, around 11th to 12th century, a knight (not just a generic man at arms) would be presented with a sword and belt as part of knighting if it signified a recognized office by a Monarch or powerful noble. "Belted knight" comes up in 11th and 12th period texts in the context of honor and tournament participation when it was exclusive. Geoffrey Plantaganet (prince and future Monarch) was "belted"/knighted in 1127 so that he would be eligible to participate in the tourney at his own wedding celebration. Similar situations existed in other cases (Baldwin's of Hainault.) No special ornate qualities are attributed to the belts or swords. It is how they achieved or were presented with them (an office or signification of authority) that seems to have had the significance, in my opinion.

Hi Jared,

Jared Smith wrote:

It was not consistent across region, and did not stay static over time. However, around 11th to 12th century, a knight (not just a generic man at arms) would be presented with a sword and belt as part of knighting if it signified a recognized office by a Monarch or powerful noble. "Belted knight" comes up in 11th and 12th period texts in the context of honor and tournament participation when it was exclusive. Geoffrey Plantaganet (prince and future Monarch) was "belted"/knighted in 1127 so that he would be eligible to participate in the tourney at his own wedding celebration. Similar situations existed in other cases (Baldwin's of Hainault.) No special ornate qualities are attributed to the belts or swords. It is how they achieved or were presented with them (an office or signification of authority) that seems to have had the significance, in my opinion.

Do you have any references linking this with knightood itself, rather than with admission to a particular order, or mark of favour from a monarch?

I am currently reading Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience by Michael Preswtich, wherein he talks about knighthood in that time as being more of a social rank than membership of an order in the way we think of it today. He even talks about people who hold a certain amount of land being forced to become knights.

I happen to have the book in front of me so I'll quote some of the relevant bits from pages 15 and 16

Quote:

In England, in contrast to the continent, knightood was not purely hereditary. The elevent-century knight might be a man of low social standing; the very fact that the English applied the word cniht to the armed and mounted Normal soldiers suggests that they were see as followers of no great status, not as leaders. The term knight, or [i]miles[/u], was one wihich could safely be applied to a wide range of men, from substantial landholder to landless retainer. In many contexts the word meant little more than mounted soldier.

Quote:

The business of making men knights in a formal ceremony was almost certainly initially confiened to the highest ranks of society. [...] In 1147 King Stephen 'ceremonially girded with the belt of knighthood his son Eustace'.

Quote:

The criteriaon used in the thirteenth century to decide whether or not a man should become a knight was primarily financial, though this did not mean that a night was not expected to play his part in war. In 1224 an order required everyone who posessed a knight's fee to become a knight by Easter of the following year. The criterion was not a satisfactory one, and when a similar order was issued in 1241, it was laid down that anyone in posession of land worth £20 a year should be knighted.

The notion of there being specific regalia for knights in general, or there being clothing or accessories restricted to knights only, is a SCAdianism where the victorian romantic notions of knighthood, rather than history, were the formative force in the culture.

There is regalia associated with certain orders of knighthood, but regalia associated with a knightly order (e.g, the order of the garter) is different from having regalia associated with simple knighthood.

In high medevial imagery, (Maciowski, manessa, and so on) sword belts are almost allways white.
The same goes for crossbow belts.

At least one preserved sword belt from the period was made of white buckskin. The way belts hang in the pictures also sugest that medevial belts where made of skin rather than leather; A modern belt is stiff, whereas medevial belts hang straight down from the buckle; There is a reason belt stiffeners where used.

Posibbly, buckskin is better for broad belts, or more easily available in the required quantity. In either case, a "white belt" might be a term for sword belt.

As for a belted knight, ornamented belts where the major form of personal jewlery in the high middle ages. 13th century dress was otherwise quite sobre compared to the later centuries.
A gold studded belt could litterally be worth a fortune, and so could be a very prestigious gift.

Hi Elling,

Elling Polden wrote:

In high medevial imagery, (Maciowski, manessa, and so on) sword belts are almost allways white. The same goes for crossbow belts. At least one preserved sword belt from the period was made of white buckskin. The way belts hang in the pictures also sugest that medevial belts where made of skin rather than leather; A modern belt is stiff, whereas medevial belts hang straight down from the buckle; There is a reason belt stiffeners where used.

I'm not sure what you mean by "buckskin", that's a term that has various connotations including brain-tanned hide. When you see white leather in medieval contexts that isn't artistic license you are probably seeing a representation of Alum tawed hide, most likely calf or goatskin. Is this what you mean when you say "skin rather than leather"?

For the non leather geeks among us "leather" technically means hides that have been tanned in solutions of tannins. Skins treated with brains, oils, or alum aren't technically leather. They're still skins. This distinction is rarely used outside of technical works though.

Alum tawed hides have very good tensile strength combined with excellent flexibility which makes them ideal for belts and straps. They have the down side that if you saturate them with water you can wash out the alum, leaving you with rawhide but treating the skins with oils and fats can minimise this at the expense of having a really bright white.

What I meant was that the belts look as if they where thin and soft.
In the imagery, white leather could also show untanned leather, which would strictly speaking be light brown. However, reproduction of colour in the manuscripts is often dictaded more by the available inks than actuall colours in use.
However, the black/white combo seems to be the norm in several manuscripts, so it could probably be a thing.

John W. Waterer wrote in his book, Spanish Leather, p. 20, "Alumed leather was known to the Romans as 'aluta', and the makers of it as 'alutarii' (In mediaeval England the process was known as 'tawing', and the producers were called 'whitetawyers', but the earliest Ordinances, although for the most part written in Norman French, often had a Latin preamble in which the term alutarii was used) . .. "Sandals of white alumed leather were found by Wainwright at Balabish (2nd millenium B.C...." His information about guadameci is quite interesting. Apparently white and red alum tawed 'leathers' out of Spain were quite popular all over Europe for garment use, although his quote makes it clear that such industry also existed locally, at least in England.

I also wonder if anyone has questioned the use of the word "white" here. I believe that in period, it didn't always mean the color we think of today. For instance, white armor essentially meant bright steel. Perhaps in some contexts, white belts might simply have been plain, unadorned, uncolored material?

Hi Elling,

Elling Polden wrote:

What I meant was that the belts look as if they where thin and soft. In the imagery, white leather could also show untanned leather, which would strictly speaking be light brown. However, reproduction of colour in the manuscripts is often dictaded more by the available inks than actuall colours in use. However, the black/white combo seems to be the norm in several manuscripts, so it could probably be a thing.

I would be surprised to find them using rawhide for anything like that (assuming that's what you mean by untanned leather). It would rot very rapidly when wet and is very rigid when dry.

Soft leather isn't necessarily thin leather either. For example the alum tawed goatskin I have is a lot more soft and flexible than veg tanned cow leather of comparable thickness (not that they'd be using cow for belts in period) and I have a veg tanned goatskin that is amazingly soft and flexible. Both are strong enough for strapwork though. The deerskin might have a bit of a tendency to roll up but it would be fine in terms of tensile strength.

Hi Jared,

Jared Smith wrote:

Elling Polden wrote: What I meant was that the belts look as if they where thin and soft.. There are a couple of archeology articles around that reinforce that idea. There was an English site (scabbard making location, 12th century Bergen I think if I remember it right) that had a large number (300 or so) finds of sheath remnants. The leather strips found were thin, and not very wide. It is harder to tan thick leather than thin, and I suspect the premium thicker pieces were saved back then for equestrian tack. Due to deterioration, we can't say how flexible these were, but thin strips are generally easier to oil and condition to be supple.

Interesting. Do you have any information on the conditions in which the leather scraps were found and the actual thicknesses of the pieces?

Determining the original thickness of archaological leather can be extremely difficult if it has spent a long time in the ground (see Stepping Through Time by Goubitz et al for more information) but based on things like the strap fittings in Dress Accessories medieval belts did seem to be thinner than what we use for belt straps today but medieval pit-tanned leather is a quite different material in many respects to modern vegetable tanned leathers, and they used calfskin for thinner things, not split-down cowskin that most modern veg tanned leather is so for the thickness they got a lot more strength.

Suppleness is more a function of the tannage, the currying, and the animal the skin came from than of thickness.