Well Tod has an excellent article about daggers doing the same thing on his website. Yes it is possible to have older stuff and still be within a period. Course the older the stuff, the less typical the armor becomes. A bacinet in the 1400s is perfectly plausible for your men at arms to have...but having a sugarloaf helm, while plausible to have seen use really does stick out. And I'm guess it's this sticking out that gets people riled up.

While certainly it is possible to have "recycled" older equipment, I think a person needs to think about what exactly they want to portray. We certainly know that people used outdated equipment, just as with today. At the same time, though, if your goal is to portray someone who is "typical" of a certain time period, then I think you need to scrutinize just how much leeway you have with this.

For example, if I were trying to portray the average person in the 1980's, and I wore a tie dye shirt, pin striped pants, wing tiped shoes, a plaid tie and a fedora, then everyone would say that I didn't look anything like a person from that era, despite the fact that all of those clothing items would have been available to me, and are even all from the same century. Sure, I could argue that someone in the 80's had a really eclectic sense of style, and it certainly is more than possible... but am I really being representative of that era, or am I just kidding myself?

It's easier to justify to oneself when you're portraying something several hundred years ago because we are far enough away that the mismatches aren't so obvious (or at least, not until we learn better). We may assume two outfits from the 15th century must automatically be interchangable, yet we wouldn't think the same thing about an outfit from 1907 and 1977.

In the end, it depends on what you're wanting to get out of making a kit. If it's just for fun, then you can make any concessions you want and can justify it anyway you want. The more you care about history, though, the more you're going to have to analyze and ask yourself, "just how plausible is plausible?"

Well it really comes down to two questions...

What era are you making this kit for?

and

Who are you?

Two generation old is still generally in the reasonable range for your low rank men at arms for examples. But for a noble would be cosidered just right out.

K, this is a bit of a wild tangent... In the original thread I specifically asked about references (obviously contemporary, although I didn't state that outright) regarding the use of out-of-date weaponry merely because the owner felt it was "lucky" or had some personal attachment to it and opted to keep it instead of newer, affordable equipment. I still haven't got any information regarding that question. The rest of this really isn't what I was asking about, but of course you're all welcome to have at it! I just wanted to make it clear what my original question was.

-Gregory

This kind of re-use of old equipment goes on even today. I remember seeing news-films from the Balkans during the nineties, where old ww2-era soviet T-34 tanks rumbled into action, and just a few weeks ago I saw a very recent photo from Afghanistan, where some tribal afghan warriors were carrying ww1-era British Lee-Enfields and German Mauser 98's. Those guns are nearly a century old. People use what ever is available to them. Old gear is better than no gear...

Medieval Armor From Rhodes. The armoury contained everything from the latest most up to date armour to armour that was nearly 100 years old at the time of the fall of the fortress ( fortress fell in 1522, the earliest surviving pieces date to the 1430's ) and everything in between. I find it hard to believe that the knights of the order and thier paid mercenaries were a single isolated inceedent.

I think people are somewhat talking about different (but related) things here. We can talk about:

1-Is it possible that people used outdated equipment?

2-Is it reasonable that I make a kit of someone using outdated equipment?

If you're talking about #1, then I think the evidence is insurmountable that, yes, people recycled old equipment. No question there.

If it is #2, then the lines become much more fuzzy. Harry Lindfors above gave a great example of Balkans in modern times using old equipment, yet it would seem very bizarre for someone in the British military to be doing the same thing. Going back historically, if you are making a kit and attempting to portray a "typical" person from an era, you need to ask yourself just what you want to portray. If you're portraying a farmer who's been forced to protect his land you'll have a certain line of standards that will be a kit portraying someone of nobility and wealth of the same era.

I think what alot of people have said on here is a good view of it, lords and knights would have had up to date gear while the poorer classes might have used outdated equipment. I can see a young man-at-arms wearing a 20 year old helmet instead of spending his money on a brand new helmet and using the money instead to buy, lets just say, a new set of gauntlets or whatever peice of armour needed repair.

But I can also see him discarding his 20 year old helmet in favour of a newer helmet scavanged off the battlefield.

I think most of the people with outdated gear would probably have scavenged newer gear off the dead if they were in a battle, the militia guarding the city might have kept their outdated gear through the campaign but after a battle or two I think the majority of poorer soldiers would have scavenged newer, more in-fashion gear.

Just my 2 cents, i'm not as knowledgable as other people on here, but it makes sense and it's what I would do if I were a medieval soldier.

Speaking as a Living Historian, it behooves us to have a kit that is dated to within a decade of our timeframe. This is because the public nearly always has a Hollywood idea of history. It is hard enough trying to convince them that yes, that is a real fire (yes, we get that question all the time) without having to explain the sugarloaf helm and type XII sword being older kit for a poorer gentleman compared to Sir Geoffrey's houndskull bascinet and type XVa longsword. It just confuses the public, who may remember all of 2% of what you tell them and that likely incorrectly, and we try to teach the most accurately known information. Yes, the use of older equipment occurred, more often as the less wealthy your were. Nothing says recycling like wearing granddad's armor to the hastilude.

However, if all you want to do is make up a kit for your SCA group, well have at it. If you want a Sallet with a linothorax and a rapier, then go for it.

Once an old renactor said to me. "Yes, the sword is out of time, but all that is past can be worn. Whatever is the future, no. Do not overdo it, the ancient Greeks and Romans, better hold off. "

I can be okay, but that the majority wearing the era it represents.
Judging by the number of swords that were built, there was always a shortage of weapons.
Perhaps the change of weapons was faster than two centuries for the majority.

I think class has much to do with this. The better off the more likely you'd be equipped with state-of-the-art armour and arms. That said some armour was being modified and used by men of relative wealth. We have to keep in mind that men at arms of the late medieval period were often not of noble or even gentle families. They were simply men who could afford to fight on horseback and in heavy armour (not even strictly complete harness). As well not all knights were rolling in cash. Arms, armour and horses were a major investment.... though we need not take this to represent all or even most knights.

In the 3rd or 4th decade of the 15th the Archbiz of York has a large number of COPs, Bascinets and mail..... all of which being intended for his own guard, not per se common riff raff, but men who he had to keep him safe and secure.

I'd be careful with effigies. We have no idea of what time period many are really showing, many having been simply dated by themselves. Of the hundreds of effigies I have examined I know of only a handful with firm dates.

The best way to do it is what Jonathan said, pick a decade or event and build from there.

RPM

Randall your comments are very welcome and I was hoping you would post on this Topic since it all started by a quote I posted from you. ;) :lol: :cool:

Also the quote from Maurizio is interesting:

Quote:

Once an old renactor said to me. "Yes, the sword is out of time, but all that is past can be worn. Whatever is the future, no. Do not overdo it, the ancient Greeks and Romans, better hold off. "

Do not overdo it is very much my point but at the same time don't avoid it completely, and as Jonathan explained it is necessary to keep things clear and simple to not confuse the public.

Well, I think the Topic is pretty much covered, so except for some specific examples or known examples from the historical records, if someone has some to refer to, I think the subject is just about covered.