Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Crusader armor and clothing Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next 
Author Message
Roberto E.




Location: Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2014

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:

So has the reenactor got it wrong? Not entirely. The problem, however, isn't so much that he's completely wrong, but rather, he's made a series of small mistakes which have made his kit considerably less accurate than it could be. The same goes for building a Templar kit using Osprey images or other images. What matters is, do you want to get it really right- or not?


Okay now I understand, thanks for that explanation.
Makes a lot more sense.
View user's profile Send private message
Roberto E.




Location: Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2014

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 10:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Is there evidence the Templars were wearing surcoats as early as the Third Crusade? I thought the dispensation to wear surcoats in war zones wasn't granted until 1240 -- 1248 for the Hospitallers.

Yep. Any illustration allegedly showing a Templar wearing a surcoat before 1240 has either been misdated or isn't depicting a Templar. Before this date they wore regular Cistercian monks robes over their mail.


How would this cistercian robe look?
Would it be white? Or another color?
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 12:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roberto E. wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Is there evidence the Templars were wearing surcoats as early as the Third Crusade? I thought the dispensation to wear surcoats in war zones wasn't granted until 1240 -- 1248 for the Hospitallers.

Yep. Any illustration allegedly showing a Templar wearing a surcoat before 1240 has either been misdated or isn't depicting a Templar. Before this date they wore regular Cistercian monks robes over their mail.


How would this cistercian robe look?
Would it be white? Or another color?


One problem we consistently run against is the terminology for the clothing, and the question of what items comprised the uniform. Sander Marechal has done quite a bit of research on the early Hospitallers, and has come to the conclusion that that the "uniform" consists of the mantle or cloak only. If the monastic robe (cappa clausa) was the standard dress of the Templars, why would they wear it over the hauberk rather than beneath?

At any rate we know that dispensation to wear the surcoat was eventually granted because the uniform (either cloak or possibly wide sleeved cappa) interfered with the violent motions required in combat.

Here's a pattern for an early 13th century robe/cappa/cowl attributed to St. Francis.
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/francis.htm

More images of tunics/robes associated with St. Francis.
http://floridafriar.weebly.com/1/post/2011/7/...art-i.html

The inclusion of a hood seems a matter of personal preference.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 1:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
If the monastic robe (cappa clausa) was the standard dress of the Templars, why would they wear it over the hauberk rather than beneath?

Wearing this kind of clothing under a hauberk is extremely uncomfortable. It is even worse when you combine it with some kind of aketon. If the Templars wore the cappa clausia with their mail then I have no problem with it being worn on the outside.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 2:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

When I fight in mail I remove tunic and replace with aketon. What you're saying makes sense, Dan, but I wonder why they would put the robe over the mail as an identifier if they have the cloak? I guess I'm beginning to agree with Sander on this issue regarding Templars and Hospitallers -- it's likely to have been aketon and mail, then cloak with cross on the upper breast, until the cloak is replaced with the surcoat. The robe / cappa might not have been worn in battle at all.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 2:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

We know that the dispensation for surcoats was given specifically because what they were wearing earlier was a hinderance in combat. It must have been significant or there would have been no need for this dispensation. Does the cloak significantly hinder one's ability to fight?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 2:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As for the cloak, it seems likely from 12th century material that it would have been of half-circle form -- clearly not as elaborately decorated as civilian or royal examples.

Late 12th, early 13th century:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/miscclok.html

1133-1134:
http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/coronation-mantle.html

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seems to me that the only reason to petition for a dispensation is if they were wearing the robes, not the cloak. The cloak does little to hinder fighting.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 7:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart,

Don't forget the mantle worn by Henry the Lion:

http://www.hubert-herald.nl/ImpRomOttoIV_bestanden/image033.jpg
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sun 12 Oct, 2014 9:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig,

Thanks for the reminder. Again, a half-circle cloak, though the décor is right for a Duke (Herzog) but too much for a Templar Monk. There is a Coronation picture in the Gospelbook of Henry the Lion dated to 1188, but he isn't wearing the mantle in it. The simplicity of clothing required by the Templars of its knights is in sharp contrast to the rich clothing worn by the nobles and bishops shown in that miniature.

http://diglib.hab.de/mss/105-noviss-2f/max/171v.jpg

For what it's worth, there are a few armor images in the manuscript as well, and the 1188 dating is pretty solid. Mostly mail without surcoats and back-laced chausses, of course, but also a few "fez" like helmets reminiscent of milk pails.

http://diglib.hab.de/mss/105-noviss-2f/max/015v.jpg
http://diglib.hab.de/mss/105-noviss-2f/max/016r.jpg
http://diglib.hab.de/mss/105-noviss-2f/max/074v.jpg
http://diglib.hab.de/mss/105-noviss-2f/max/172v.jpg



 Attachment: 232 KB
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2 fo016r-1.jpg
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo016r-1

 Attachment: 227.48 KB
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo016r-2.jpg
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo016r-2

 Attachment: 148.95 KB
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo074v-dtl.jpg
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo074v-dtl

 Attachment: 181.19 KB
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo172v.jpg
HAB Cod. Guelf. 105 Noviss. 2° fo172v

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The helmets are very interesting. Initially I thought their appearance might have been an artistic idiosyncrasy, but then I noticed more normal looking nasal helmets. Are there other attestations of them in medieval art?
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 8:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I posted an inquiry on Armour Archive concerning that. The only similar examples which readily springs to mind are from the Guthlac Roll.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...p;t=174417

Life of St. Guthlac, BL Harley Roll Y 6 2r, 1175-1215
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=..._y_6_f002r

EDIT: Found another -
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/5507/18902/

Unfortunately the BNF doesn't have a color version of that one online.

So we have effectively 4 helmet styles for the 3rd Crusade:
- conical (with and without nasal)
- hemispherical (some taller, some fluted)
- Phrygian peaked (conical leaning forward)
- Fez (with its flat top)



 Attachment: 38.07 KB
BL Harley Y6 2r-fez hlmt.jpg


ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Kai Lawson





Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 589

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 10:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Regarding the 'milk-pail' helms: are there any similarities in either the places depicted (where the pail-helms are shown) or in the places where the manuscripts are made? In other words, are we seeing a depicted regional style from the place of manufacture or from the place depicted in the art? I wonder if these helms gave rise to some of the flat-topped helms later on...
"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Roberto E.




Location: Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2014

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 11:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So for the years of Richard the Lion heart, Mail armor with a white cloak seems like the most appropriate wear for a knights Templar? Also for the mail leggings, back laced leggings would be more historically accurate it seems from the manuscripts you guys have provided.

So what I understand is that it would be a gambeson under mail and just a cloak on top.

As for the helms, can anyone expand on this and why this "evolution" began? or if it even is such a thing. I have similar questions to those of Kai.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 12:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kai Lawson wrote:
Regarding the 'milk-pail' helms: are there any similarities in either the places depicted (where the pail-helms are shown) or in the places where the manuscripts are made? In other words, are we seeing a depicted regional style from the place of manufacture or from the place depicted in the art? I wonder if these helms gave rise to some of the flat-topped helms later on...


In a word, no. We have depictions from England, Saxony, and Genoa, and a life of a saint, allegorical figures and the guards at the sepulcher, and a warrior from a city history. The only connection seems to be temporal -- 1175-1215.

The idea that these are the origins of the great helm is worth consideration.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roberto E. wrote:
So for the years of Richard the Lion heart, Mail armor with a white cloak seems like the most appropriate wear for a knights Templar? Also for the mail leggings, back laced leggings would be more historically accurate it seems from the manuscripts you guys have provided.

So what I understand is that it would be a gambeson under mail and just a cloak on top.

As for the helms, can anyone expand on this and why this "evolution" began? or if it even is such a thing. I have similar questions to those of Kai.

I don't agree. IMO the strongest argument can be made for them wearing the full-length Cistercian robes until 1240.

A gambeson is standalone armour and quite thick. An aketon is worn under armour. It isn't much heavier than regular clothing.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Roger Hooper




Location: Northern California
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 4
Posts: 4,393

PostPosted: Mon 13 Oct, 2014 3:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I came across a tomb effigy of Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, participant in the First Crusade, who died in 1134. It definitely showed him wearing a surcoat. I was about to say, "Aha, a 12th century example", when I found out that the effigy was made 100 years after he died.

Why would they do that 100 years later for Curthose of all people?

t's in Gloucester Cathedral.



 Attachment: 95.79 KB
curthose1.jpg


 Attachment: 98.9 KB
curthose2.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 6:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
Imagine, for example, if a reenactor from the year 2050 wanted to re-enact a person from 1910. The person decides he wants a "kit" that will include formal wear and accessories. So he goes and buys a watch. However, the watch has a digital display, rather than being an analog watch. In addition, the reenactor has a suit tailored in a style he thinks is appropriate to 1910. However, the suit he has made tapers near the waist area, making it more form fitting. While the suit looks good, the reenactor hasn't realized that really tapered, form fitting suits are more appropriate for post-1950s, when the style was developed. Further, he buys a hat made approximately in the right shape for 1910, but the hat is made using a fabric that did not exist at that time.


I'd take issue with this comparison, since tailoring manuals for lounge coats have included a section on the "fitting lounge" since the 1890s. The fitting lounge had significantly more waist suppression than the usual boxy design and a lower gorge line -- both features that presaged the "modern" shape of the lounge/business coat from the 1920s onwards. Of course, there were some significant differences from the lines of 1950s/60s tailoring (when the slim line became more popular once more after the boxier slhouettes of the 1920s-40s), especially in that the shoulders of the pre-WW1 lounge coat were cut narrower and less structured, not to mention that the outer end of the shoulder seam was somewhat lower (not at the top of the shoulder but a few inches behind it) and that the buttoning habits were different (a "casual" look in 1910 would most likely involve only the top button being fastened on a three-button coat, not the middle). So while it's not hard to distinguish an Edwardian/late Victorian fitting lounge from a fitted coat in the 1950s/1960s "Mad Men" style, the fitted waist wouldn't be the primary diagnostic criterion.

It's worth noting, too, that some vintage/historical materials have simply become unavailable. The kind of silk plush traditionally used for top hats is no longer being produced and new top hats today have to be made from a different material. As a result, reenactors and living historians of the "top hat" era are stuck with the choice of either wearing a modern hat made of a not-strictly-historical material or risking damage to a potentially fragile and/or historically significant antique.

There are always limits to how much accuracy we can achieve. Almost nobody can afford 100% accuracy by wearing hand-sewn clothing made out of hand-spun, hand-woven, hand-fulled and hand-dyed cloth. I, for once, wouldn't dismiss the Armstreet tunics merely for being cotton since honestly the difference isn't all that obvious as long as there's no burn test involved -- although I'd still draw the line at using no synthetic or synthetic-blend fabrics (so I'd take 100% cotton, cotton-linen blend, or cotton-wool blend but not cotton-polyester or wool-acrylic blends). I still wouldn't recommend them due to the overly prominent crosses, but take those out and put the tunic through the wash several times to fade the colours and soften the surface texture and it might end up being a serviceable garment for the general period in question. Of course, I don't know how exactly accurate the cut is since Armstreet doesn't name the specific historical inspiration for their tunics, so I'd still agree with the notion of getting the wool or linen gown from Historic Enterprises for twice the price since at least I can be more confident of appropriate documentation for the cut they've chosen.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 6:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
It seems to me that the only reason to petition for a dispensation is if they were wearing the robes, not the cloak. The cloak does little to hinder fighting.


I've "fought" a choreographed fight in a cloak during a fantasy camp event for kids, and again in a Jedi cloak/outer robe at a Star Wars event; in both cases the cloaks were a significant hindrance to the mobility of the arms and the shoulders, not to mention that they tended to snag or catch the tip of my weapon. My partners and I ended up having to specifically arrange the choreography to minimise these risks. Outside stage-combat situations, I've worn cloaks and long robes on camping trips and yes, they're often a bother when I'm handling camp duties, so much that I usually chose to face the cold and take the cloak off temporarily if the task wouldn't take a long time to finish. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars found cloaks bothersome enough to be worth requesting a dispensation to wear surcoats instead.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 1:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
It seems to me that the only reason to petition for a dispensation is if they were wearing the robes, not the cloak. The cloak does little to hinder fighting.


I've "fought" a choreographed fight in a cloak during a fantasy camp event for kids, and again in a Jedi cloak/outer robe at a Star Wars event; in both cases the cloaks were a significant hindrance to the mobility of the arms and the shoulders, not to mention that they tended to snag or catch the tip of my weapon. My partners and I ended up having to specifically arrange the choreography to minimise these risks. Outside stage-combat situations, I've worn cloaks and long robes on camping trips and yes, they're often a bother when I'm handling camp duties, so much that I usually chose to face the cold and take the cloak off temporarily if the task wouldn't take a long time to finish. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars found cloaks bothersome enough to be worth requesting a dispensation to wear surcoats instead.

The Templar cloak was just a semi-circle of cloth. I suppose it should be called a cape or a mantle. It doesn't hinder fighting.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Crusader armor and clothing
Page 7 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum