Page 2 of 8

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:59 pm
by Jenn
The darker the colour the harder it is the maintain that colour hence why black is generally given as the most expensive colour although there is also kermes (red purple too but I wouldn't advise most people to be wearing that since it's associated with the church) - is possible to achieve.
Looking at Textiles and clothing 1150- 1450 Crowfoot et al pub Museum of London
Appendix the dyes - I have summarised
it says the most common dye that they found in samples that they analysised was the madder - which gives red/brown /bricky colours. This was present in 29% of all the samples
In a few cases in had been combined with blue to give a black - however madder black isn't the most stable form
In summary, the dyes in the textiles show a predominance of reds. Purples and blues are present in small numbers and also yellows browns and possibly black. There remains 37% where no dye was detected - these may have been dyed with woad or another dye that it is difficult to detect after all this time. Madder was the most popular colour.

What it is no saying is that they found lots of oak gall or other dyes that make black..now London could have been an exception but this seems unlikely.
I'll need to look through my books I have other evidence but domestic life calls

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:51 pm
by Ben_Fletcher
In the Will of one of the Lady Hungerfords (late C.14th I think) it is stipulated that the children of her servants are to be supplied with black clothing, or black cloth to make clothes.

She also has 4 women with torches stand around her body as it lay in the chapel.

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:35 pm
by Theotherone
I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone - I found it ages ago but either it or I is a bit dense for me to fully "get it". Chapter 4 is about the shift in colours of wool sold/bought in the medieval Flemish wool trade

http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5 ... pfourC.pdf

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:58 pm
by Jim Smith
Coming back to barbutes (and here I must declare an interest as a barbute wearer), is there enough evidence to say that the barbute was unlikely to have been present on the WoTr battlefield? I bought mine about six years ago and seem to recall that they were not commonly worn. They do seem to have got more popular recently though.

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:09 pm
by Dave B
I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:05 pm
by Jenn
Sorry to drag this back to colours for a moment..but there's also the sumptuary laws which whilst they whilst they do seem to have been broken often did forbid the wearing of darker colours for the lower orders even dyeing naturally darker wools with woad etc...
This would seem to add weight to the idea that black is for the rich.
Elizabeth did this again in 1574

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:21 pm
by Hellequin
Dave B wrote:I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..

I've just never seen one - not in illustrations, effigies, brasses. That leads me to believe they are used because they are available and of the time, rather than there being any positive evidence for their presence. That said, documentary evidence could be more reliable but again I've never seen it

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:10 am
by Glorfindle
Jim Smith wrote:Coming back to barbutes (and here I must declare an interest as a barbute wearer), is there enough evidence to say that the barbute was unlikely to have been present on the WoTr battlefield? I bought mine about six years ago and seem to recall that they were not commonly worn. They do seem to have got more popular recently though.


Same here, though i have had mine for nearly 9 years now, and as you say, they were not a very common helm back then, and to be honest, i dont think i have ever seen some one with the slits as close as mine, and this is the FIRST TIME anyone has even brought up them as a re-enactorism - wang - larp or any other name that people like to throw about to name inauthentic/out of period kit.
Hellequin wrote:
Dave B wrote:I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..

I've just never seen one - not in illustrations, effigies, brasses. That leads me to believe they are used because they are available and of the time, rather than there being any positive evidence for their presence. That said, documentary evidence could be more reliable but again I've never seen it


This could be put down to the fact that the head gear of choice back them seems to have been the sallet and as such almost anyone that could afford to have a picture painted, a effigy or some such would be able to afford to have the best kit in the most popular style of the time! Add to the the obvious problems faced with wearing a barbute and you start to appreciate why they would not be the most common piece of kit on the filed, for example, a full barbute tends to go quite a long way down the head, so your limited in your movement, mine is only a 3/4 length one, and that for me is perfect, but you dont have the neck protection offered by almost all other forms of helm, in fact about the only option i can find is to have a chain coif or something similar made to protect my neck as bevours are just not practical.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:18 am
by Fox
Hellequin wrote:I've just never seen one - not in illustrations,

We've discussed many times that pictures of English soldiers painted by English artists depicting WotR soldiers and painted in the second half of the 15thC are pretty scarce. And we also know that illustrations of the period are not necessarily acurately representative; for instance, often every soldier has identical kit.

Hellequin wrote:...effigies, brasses....

...which represent a very small cross section of soldiers, trés posh ones.

This is actually what LENEL means. There does not appear to be any evidence, but nor is there good evidence where we might reasonably expect to see them (pictorially).

Dave mentions why its not unreasonable to suggest they might have been used in this country.

So, it looks like we have no way to know. To represent them might be inauthentic, but so might not representing them.
Tough call.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:09 am
by Jim Smith
I've certainly noticed far more of them on the field these past few years. Allegedly the barbute was the inspiration for the Gondorian infantry helmet seen in 'Lord of the Rings' - although I'm not sure if that is the reason for their growing popularity...

Mind you, the next kid ho asks me if I fought at Minas Tirith is going to be in trouble. :twisted:

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:59 am
by Ayliffe's Steve
I recall reading that there was no firm evidence to have ever put the barbute as being worn in the UK 'back in the day' ... my problem is that I cannot remember where I read it!! :oops:

Lovely helmet though, I really do like them.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:18 am
by Dave B
Given that it's a debateable one, and there are so many utterly undebatable shortcoming in reenactment though, I'd move to have it struck from the list of 'reenactorisms' and appended to the list of 'may be overrepresented compared to the more provenanceable forms' list.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:26 am
by Jenn
Absolutely however the foxtails?
the black shirts?
the bits of kit so out of period they could only have been given to you by your time travelling half-elf fairy god mother and you're only wearing 'cos you think they look cool.
And so much stuff (and please don't make fun of me this time) hanging off the belts - especially for women

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:01 am
by John Waller
Dave B wrote:I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..


Dave,
Which records? Would be interested to know. I have been looking at the Petty Custom Import Accounts from the 1480's and hope to produce a summary of armour imports sometime. Helmet types mentioned so far - sallets, archer's sallets, steel bonnets, helmets. The helmets were in the same cargo as sallets so are presumably a different type of lid. Sallets by far the most common mentioned type.

John

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:01 am
by Dave B
Absolutely.

And (pet peave coming up) kit that is accurate but stupidly high status for the context.

Whole groups full of noblemen archers and noblewomen stew stirrers.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:13 am
by GuyDeDinan
The trouble with period blacks is that they used iron in order to fix the colour, which means that your gucci black number is self-destructing from oxidisation the word go.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:23 am
by Jim
Dave B wrote:Absolutely.

And (pet peave coming up) kit that is accurate but stupidly high status for the context.

Whole groups full of noblemen archers and noblewomen stew stirrers.


...which leads onto the other authenticity issue of supposedly common soldiery, sporting rather fetching tents all of their own.

Personally I went the "slightly more noble" route because I have a big tent (necessary with better half and two kids to house) with drapes, proper bed etc., and full plate. Neither of which is the kit of a common soldier. So there was little choice really!

I think that's the reason lots of people go for the slightly higher status thing, it all stems from the armour and/or the tentage situation, the latter of which is driven by (sadly) real world necessity. It's another one of those compromises we have to make, I'm afraid.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:48 am
by Fox
John Waller wrote:
Dave B wrote:I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..


Dave,
Which records? Would be interested to know. I have been looking at the Petty Custom Import Accounts from the 1480's and hope to produce a summary of armour imports sometime. Helmet types mentioned so far - sallets, archer's sallets, steel bonnets, helmets. The helmets were in the same cargo as sallets so are presumably a different type of lid. Sallets by far the most common mentioned type.

John


Sorry John,

How is your statement contradictory to Dave's?
I'd say it supports what he says [that being: how can anyone confidently assert they are a re-enactorism?].

I think we've already established the over representation of some aspects (for any period) is general re-enactorism, but beyond that I see nothing any of us could be confident about.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:02 am
by Dave B
Jim wrote:Personally I went the "slightly more noble" route because I have a big tent (necessary with better half and two kids to house)


I simply keep the doors of my large but plain tent shut, there's nothing to say there aren't 8 gunners sharing it, rather than 1 small family. OK, it's still not perfect as we still have too many tents for the number of soldiery, but to my mind its better.

Still, I appreciate what you are saying about compromises. I've no intention of giving up washing or developing rickets.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:35 am
by Fox
Go on, get rickets.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:48 am
by Jim
Fox wrote:Go on, get rickets.


I thought he said he had no intention of giving up developing rickets. :wink:

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:49 am
by Dave B
The symtoms of Rickets in an adult include stunted growth, bad posture and poor muscle tone. i think I'm authentic enough thanks.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:57 am
by Jim
Dave B wrote:The symtoms of Rickets in an adult include stunted growth, bad posture and poor muscle tone. i think I'm authentic enough thanks.


QOTD :lol:

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:25 pm
by John Waller
Fox wrote:
John Waller wrote:
Dave B wrote:I must admit I'm a bit baffled by the confident assertion that they are a reenactorism. They were common in italy in the late 15th, we know from records that lots of armour was imprted from italy..


Dave,
Which records? Would be interested to know. I have been looking at the Petty Custom Import Accounts from the 1480's and hope to produce a summary of armour imports sometime. Helmet types mentioned so far - sallets, archer's sallets, steel bonnets, helmets. The helmets were in the same cargo as sallets so are presumably a different type of lid. Sallets by far the most common mentioned type.

John


Sorry John,

How is your statement contradictory to Dave's?
I'd say it supports what he says [that being: how can anyone confidently assert they are a re-enactorism?].

I think we've already established the over representation of some aspects (for any period) is general re-enactorism, but beyond that I see nothing any of us could be confident about.


Fox,
I'm not contrdicting Dave in any way. Just asking for his sources.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:48 pm
by Fox
John Waller wrote:Fox,
I'm not contrdicting Dave in any way. Just asking for his sources.


Of course. Sorry. :oops:

I was reading a tone into your reply that wasn't there.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:50 pm
by Ian Macintyre
Jim Smith wrote:I've certainly noticed far more of them on the field these past few years. Allegedly the barbute was the inspiration for the Gondorian infantry helmet seen in 'Lord of the Rings' - although I'm not sure if that is the reason for their growing popularity...


I used one in my last year of re-enactment as they gave better facial protection for relative visibility than any other helmet. Simple as that.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:54 pm
by John Waller
My initial analysis of the 1480-81 London imports of helmets shows the following totals:-

Sallets 440
Archer's Sallets 181
Steel Bonnets 94
Steel Skull 1
Helmets 2

Excluded from these figures are sets of complete harness which I assume comes with a helmet?

More when I have time.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:09 pm
by zauberdachs
Drinking Horns (apart from a few examples as ceremonial vessels)

Split hose in the earlier style (i.e. tie at the front and don't reach all the way up to the hips/waist)

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:20 pm
by Jim
Ian Macintyre wrote:I used one in my last year of re-enactment as they gave better facial protection for relative visibility than any other helmet. Simple as that.


Funnily enough those are the exact reasons my first helmet was also a Barbute.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:32 pm
by Fox
zauberdachs wrote:Drinking Horns (apart from a few examples as ceremonial vessels)

Do you really see that anymore? It's been a while since I've seen a WotR re-enactor with a horn.

Probably too many pottery drinking vessels though, not enough wooden drinking bowls.... (old disproportionally too many/too few problem)

zauberdachs wrote:Split hose in the earlier style (i.e. tie at the front and don't reach all the way up to the hips/waist)

We looked at this a lot before , and you do see very occasional examples in illustrations even quite a way into the 15thC.
There are way too many though, and not enough full length split hoes (almost none in fact, everyone seems to go for full joined hose instead).
Again its the too many/too few thing.

I've corrected my wardrobe this year to exchange joined hose to full split hoes for most occasions.