Deborah Knowles help thread

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

Castle Quest

Castles In General & Medieval History

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Deborah Knowles help thread
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-03-2001 01:21 AM You've chosen Edward II reign for your setting-excellent the 14th and 15th centuries are my best periods.Because its obvious you don't know the antiquities of the period I'll end you a little help.You saw the film "braveheart" good! Now forget everything you saw-nothing in that film was accurate(in gereral neither hollywood or the BBC have any clue about the arms and clothing of the MA).
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-03-2001 03:05 AM ARMS:This reign was transitional in both clothing and armor-which is good for you as you can dress up your characters very uniquely!In England knights and squires carried "three points of arms" in the romance countries and england:a dagger/knife;a short sword[the sword worn on a gentleman's hip];and a longsword it's sheath/scabbard on the saddle.the longsword,which should not be confused with the sword of war,was mainly a thrusting weapon which was sometimes used like a lance and was mainly used while mounted[when used on foot it was nomally used spearwise,with both hands and the left hand gribbing the middle of the naked blade.The short sword(around three feet long) tended to become almost rapier like in this reign,with a very narrow and sharply tapering blade.The fashionable handles for it were a very swollen grip,more or less straight crossguard and a globular pommel[this is very over simplified].It was fashionably worn brought around the hip so that the sword was almost or actually hanging in front of the body with the sword crossing the body diagonally and the handles reting near the right hand[which would have allowed a very quick draw of these short swords the more they followed the popular fashion].Both the french and the german styles of girdles and sheathes were worn n england,in either case the sword girdles were very broad were studded with decorative "conches",had very long "tails" which extended well beyond the buckle,ended in a metal chape like a sword and this long tail was wrapped around the rest of the girdle.Don't bejewel any sword[ not a MA fashion] and don't have your characters wearing swords with their civilian dress.In general the well born did not wear a simple mai coat;but wore a combination armor starting with a linen padded gipoun which you can call an arming doublet;but the word "doublet" was not used.Over it a mail habergeon was worn with long sleeves and an attached hood,the most had hanging baglike cuffs.Mail hose were worn in the same manner as normal hose[which I'll describe later],over the habergeon was worn a "breastplate"which in this period denoted a complicated combination of scales sandswitched between to fabric covers.It had no sleeves and generally covered only the body and was buckled at the back[men at arms would have needed help putting it on and taking it off like the old style modern bras] over it was worn a very loose "surcoat".It was very much like a "dress" with the sides sewn together and a slit at front,and the three layers of armor were each progressively shorter.The surcoat had no sleeves,it might or might not have "coates of arms"on it,had the sword girdle worn over it,and also was itself girdled at the waist with a very narrow girdle which had a very short tail which did not extend beyond the buckle(which was faced like a cowboy buckle;but much smaller.The backskirt of the surcoat was normally shorter than the front.Ailettes covered with coats of arms were in fashion,and the mail coat was reinforced with strips of leather passing through the rings which gave it a "banded look" The helm had either a rounded top ending in a crest orwas of the old flat topped variety.The helm was sometimes of latton(brass),the kettle helmet was worn,as was a polet simple metal skullcap like a bowl and sometimes no helmet was worn at all.Gauntlets came into fashion made of a variety of materials and worn under the mail.The sleaves of the habergeon could end in mail gloves or mittens also.Both the rowel spurs and prick spurs were worn the first like our spurs the latter ending in a spike which could be used quite brutally against a horse's flanks.The targe/target was of the "heater" type shaped in outline like the bottom of an iron,it was normaly curved,and held on by a very board guige(leather shield belt,again with a buckle,girdle chape,and decorative conches or studs.The buckler was held by grip which was slated resting the buckler on the forearm.It was also of heater shape;but generally flat.Again very long winded;but as concise as I dared be.
duncan Senior Member	posted 01-03-2001 06:21 AM The "Clan Wallace" are a large group of professional reinactors led by the decendent of The William Wallace. This group owns and have researched all their weapons and clothing for a very accurate representation of the history they pertray. They were in the film Brave Heart as the extras. I've noticed Glaive that your email address is still not showing up, is there a problem?
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-07-2001 02:35 AM Duncan,no problem;but I disagree about the accurracy of brave heart,for example,Mel's claymore is clearly of a 15th century type,that had no existence in W.Wallaces time.We also see the english in uniforms! I may be wrong;but was not mel dressed in the same kilt pattern that Liam wore in rob roy[spelling?]-without being a member of the same clan?
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-07-2001 04:17 AM CLOTHING:again very much a transitional period.Flemish fashions became the universal fashions in western europe.This was the reign during which buttons were invented and worn! Its the period of the cotehardie and particolored clothing(two colored). MEN:wore a linen shirt,over which they dawned a gipoun or pourpoint,and over that the cotehardie,their legs were covered by a pair of full leg length hose which were held up by being tied near the waist to the brayer of their breke(not called by the plural braies as is commonly used today).The shirt and breke were both linen undergarments never made of cotton(which too expensive).The shirt was longer than our undershirts,reaching down to about mid-thigh and had long sleaves.The breke was very baggy[its always shown with large folds] was tied at the knees with the baggy extra fabric hanging over them.They had their fabric folded over itself at the waist to form what looks like a broad belt/cummerbund(never seen the word spelt),this "belt" had wholes slit in it and serving as "belt loops" for the brayer-which was a linen belt/drawstring which alternately passed inside and out side the breke.The breke often had a linen purse hung on it,as well as, the hose. The gipoun which was sometimes called the pourpoint was the ancester of the burgundian "doublet" It was a padded and had an outer face which was of an expensive woolen or worsted cloth and comtemplories critics often griped about it being mad of silk.It covered the same parts of the body as the shirt an had its long sleeves slit to the elbow and was worn buttoned to the wrist.Finally,over the gipoun was worn the cotehardie,these were generally pullover outer garments,wth elbow length sleeves,which had a roughly arm length flap hanging down from them.They were girdled by a very slender[about little finger breath] girdle,with a short end which did not extend past the buckle and was almost always black.from it it was fashionable to wear a diamond shaped purse over the front of the body and a knife horizontally thrust through it. Optionally over this they wore a surcoat which was either open at the sides like a poncho or sewn up at the sides to the waist and open above the waist with a the shoulders covered and most of the arms above the elbow.In either case they were belted at the waist and normally had attached hoods. The chaperone came into fashion with the cotehardie.Basicly it was a detached hood which covered the head and shoulders to about mid upper arm.It had a face hole,and a long tail like a stocking cap called a liripipe.This was fashionably very long hanging down to about mid back or wrapped around the head with the tail then brought over the head and passed under itself and pulled tight.Rarely it was also worn on top of the head through the face opening[this was the normal way to wear a chaperone in the burgundian and late flemish fashions;but was abnormal this early] Men also wore a double pointed chaperone like a jester's hat;but fashionable rather than silly at this time! a short pointed hood and a simple white linen coif. An extremely short circular cloak covering the same are of the body as the chaperone;but with out a hood and with the a slit folded back over itself to form a collar. The fashionable male their hair in a bob with an elaborate curle-they must have spent more time on their hair than a modern Bimbo! Being again over long I'll skimp on the females! They wore the same three or four layers of clothing as the males.Shirt(called a chemise for women by modern writer;but always called a shirt in ME) a kirtle and cotehardie all long enough to trail in the mud! Females normally wore neither the coif or chaperone during this reign;wore instead a whimple and veil,a whimple without the veil or a very big face wholed hood.They wore their hair in a double braid with both braids brought forward and tied together at the forehead.These females wanted to "shameless show their hair" and if a veil was worn with the wimple it was pushed back so these braids could be seen.over the hair,veil or feminine chaperone was worn a metal fillet or a silk snood(head band).Note:they did not ride side saddle during this reign! Deborah-sorry for the first drafts!Males dressed just as brightly as females during the MA-it was not until the domination of spanish fashions inthe tudor period that men dressed in dark colors normally.
duncan Senior Member	posted 01-07-2001 07:51 AM It is hard to tell the difference in a movie that is true and those two plaids used are not the same. Also, is it the Sword or the hilt you have doubts on? [This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-07-2001).]
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-08-2001 03:19 AM the handles were certainly 15th cen. and the whole sword looked like it-I only saw the film once and was not specifically watching for antiquities.The observation about the kilts was not mine but female's-I assumed she was right as she's very bright and notices clothing much more then I do.
duncan Senior Member	posted 01-08-2001 06:42 AM On the movie sword the quillions and quatrefoils are right for the 13 cen. era, could you be thinking of the later downswept type from closer to the 15 cen. and later? The country of Scotland seems to feel very strongly {and i stress strongly} that the sword they have in a musemum was indeed Wallaces, and the replica used in Braveheart was taken from that early Claymore. [This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-08-2001).]
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-10-2001 02:33 AM I need to watch the film again to post an intelligent reply-my femme bots got it and I'm hounding her for it;but she says she does not know where it is!
deborahknowles Senior Member	posted 01-24-2001 01:45 PM Glaive, thanks for "blinding me with science"! I've printed it all up as it is too much to take in in one sitting. By the way, when was the side-saddle invented and what clothes did ladies wear for riding when they rode astride? ------------------
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 01-29-2001 05:02 AM hi,I don't know that one;but it existed in the 14th century.Side saddles were rare most females even when they were in fashion rode the normal way and there were no special riding clothes;but women like men were likely to wear boots when riding.As for that sword she's got the video hidden in her closet=the needle inthe hay stack.
duncan Senior Member	posted 01-29-2001 05:07 AM As for that sword: Take my word for it being what i stated. [This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-29-2001).]
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 02-01-2001 02:26 AM I need to see the cursed thing again;but I still think your wrong about it Duncan!
duncan Senior Member	posted 02-01-2001 06:44 AM In that case G go to your local library. In the reference section you will be able to find very good books on edged weapons and even medievalism. Here are a few of the books that are in my study and some of them are still available in the library. SWORDS AND DAGGERS FREDERICK WILKINSON EDGED WEAPONS EDWARD WAGNER STONES GLOSSARY I'm a third {3} generation sword and blade maker G. I wouldn't be very good at my craft if i couldn't tell 13th c from the 15th. Since my blades are hand forged useing hammer and anvil the price can be very high. The knifes depending on the type of blade get turned no less then 25 times and the swords have gone over 200. I use the sandwich process of a softer inner core with a hard outer which gives the blade flexibility and a sharp edge. Useing my knowledge of metallurgy i have created some interesting metals for the hilts when a customer wants something different. Sometime ago i turned down a job to inlay with gold a blade in the medieval way useing hydrargyrum, i didn't care for the health risks. I'm now able to work at my favorite profession since i retired early. That is when building the project doesn't take up my full time. ------------------ Megan and Ralph CASTLE DUNCAN If you have built catles in the air your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them. H.D.Thoreau
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 02-10-2001 06:49 PM hi,Duncan,been there done that;but I think oakeshot should be even on a short list of basic studies book lists,H.R. Ellis Davidson's "the sword in anglo-saxon england and laking should be read too to start with;but none of the standard works will give you more than a basic understanding that you'll have to expland by yourown study. Back to my bane! First swords of war were not very common weapons in britain during the reign of longshanks,having a then very rare sword type which later became a very popular one used by a popular folk hero is itself fishy.As for the argument from authority,I've little respect for museum curators to start with-I've seen them label arrowheads "knives",display composite bows strung backwards[not to mention having any bow displayed strung is idiocy].
Philip Davis unregistered	posted 02-11-2001 12:54 AM Glaive 203's argument is mutually contradictory. He dismisses authorities but says his information is from books (ie Texts written by authorities). I have worked in museums and am absolutely certain that mistakes occur.I've also read a large number of books (some of them not sci-fi novels) and am equally sure that mistakes occur in these, that new evidence superceeds previously perceived wisdom and that some currently perceived 'truths' will be found to be inaccurate. In the end there is no way to be absolutely certain of the validity of what anyone says. As a rule of thumb it is best to trust those who tell you clearly who they are and where they got there information from. ------------------ And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis
Glaive203 Senior Member	posted 02-11-2001 05:23 AM lol! everyone starts the study of any subject by reading the experts all of who disagree on certain points.One then goes on to study the evidence oneself and discern who's right and create new theories original to oneself.I did not say my knowledge came from books;only that I've studied all the books of the experts.
Philip Davis unregistered	posted 02-11-2001 05:08 PM My point remain. Glaive203 does not fulfil my criteria for judging the worth of what someone says. It may be that what he writes is accurate but I have no reasonable and quick way to judge this. I dismiss books which do not give the authors qualifications or reasonable biographies. I dismiss website that don't follow the same criteria. I don't dismiss the work of amatures if I know that is what it is. Glaives posts in this forum had consisted of long descriptions which generally give catogorical statements of how thing were in the past. It is only after being challenged by Duncan that his has given any references to printed (and therefore confirmable sources). Now I know that the past was complex and that there are very few set way things were done in the past, and I have elsewhere stated my views on people who interpret the past in this sort of limited, concrete fashion. Now, normally, I'm happy to let this sort of thing go by. If Deborah Knowles, or anyone else, is willing to accept the uncollaborated word of someone (who does not identify themsleves) that's their buisness. However, when someone say something as rude and arrogent as "As for the argument from authority,I've little respect for museum curators to start with" I'm of the opinion that the need to be put in their place and shown up for what they are; Rude, arrogant and very, very poor historians. ------------------ And the astronomyours beheldyne the constellacions of hys bryth by thare castle, and foundyn that he sholde bene wyse and curteyse, good of consaill Secreta Secretorum Visit Castellarium Philippis
duncan Senior Member	posted 02-11-2001 05:28 PM I find that you "studied" the books i gave as a reference Hard to beleave, considering that two out of three were taken out of the US public Library sometime ago and are classed as RARE. Also, how have you read "ALL" the books writen by the experts when most are no longer in print and others are in very private librarys where i'm sure you do not have access to. Every one is entitled to their own opinion no matter what its validity and to make their own assumptions until it affects others.
wurdsmiff unregistered	posted 02-12-2001 12:48 PM One of the greatest errors that can be made in the study of history is generalisation. To generalise you give the impression that all similar situaions are dealt with in the same way, that all accepted facts are immovable and that no variation occurred. Life has never been like that, though the common feature of Glaive 203's numerous mails in this and other topics has been to generalise. This is not just evident in his aptitude to discern who's right , but in the apparent attitude to authorities, the media, and other cultures in general. As Philip says some of the data provided may be correct, and I should point out that his previously stated suspicions about the Wallace sword (above)are reinforced by the very curators whom he dismisses and who are responsible for the display of the sword. They give an honest critical analysis of the legend in their display, and ironically support his suspicions. However to dismiss whole groups of professionals by his generalisations is as unforgivable as is his tendancy to draw conclusions about other cultures from limited knowledge, a point illustrated in previous topics. [This message has been edited by wurdsmiff (edited 02-12-2001).]
duncan Senior Member	posted 02-12-2001 03:39 PM In the matter of mistakes being made by curators and others. I did not speak with the museums personel but with some in different departments partaining to the Scotish sword on display. I felt what was expressed to me was valid since it came from those who knew more about the subject. My discription of the sword is correct for the presumed years as stated and it will remain a point of contention between many people for a very long time to come it seems.
wurdsmiff unregistered	posted 02-13-2001 08:16 AM I'm sure it will Duncan, the sword is beleived to have been renovated in the middle ages, though is considered to date from around the correct period. It is the connection with Wallace which is scrutinised, but then in a case like this it is the symbolism which gives the item it's importance.