The Armour Archive

I see lots of pics of SCA fighters wearing tabards. I should be able to make 1 practice a month in the SCA and was wondering about usage of tabbards in history.

When were they used in history? For how long? and what type of soldier used them? Common soldiers? or only officers and knights?

Since my persona will probably be late period Landknecht (1550+) or possibly Swarze Reitter, would a tabard be appropriate?

Thanks for any info that can be spared.

JvR

Depends on context. Most SCA tabards are based on the idea of this sort of fighting surcoat, where the heraldry represents the person fighting:
http://larsdatter.com/mens-surcoats.htm
And since you're looking them in a tournament combat context, that's good & appropriate.

In some cases, what you're talking about (soldiers, etc.) -- especially Landsknecht-era soldiers -- are wearing some sort of livery, which is more of a symbol of what country (or what side) they're fighting for. You'll find examples of this if you scroll down to the bottom of the page at http://larsdatter.com/livery.htm
In an SCA context, this would be appropriate for a group of people fighting for one side or another in a war.

Thanks. Since I will be trying to take up SCA fighting, I want to make myself a tabard and hopefully fight alongside my shire some day. I would be proud to wear the tabard even if its not historically correct for my persona.

Tabbards proper as heraldric garments are very late. They develop by the first third of the 15th century, and essentially, they remain in the same form today. They are a very specific heraldic garment, and the term isn't interchangable with earlier surcoats, cottes, or gippons, a tabbard is a very specific type of heraldic garment. By the time they appear, they are not used by common men at arms or soldiers, but are generally restricted to the peerage, and heralds and pursuivants as symbols of their office.

The early surcoats, which Karen points out, have their basis ultimately in civil garments, and could be used for heraldic display. They also could be made out of rich materials, with no heraldry on them at all, and be worn over armour, as a display of wealth or station, and they could be worn by men much lower down the social scale, in the livery of their lord.

Most baronies will supply you with a tabard if you're willing to fight for them, or atleast provide you with instruction on a pattern.
Depending on your period, you might want a surcoat or cyclas to be more spiff-tacular. Of course some periods and locations a tabard or surcoat is as anachronistic as wearing a caveman wearing a watch.
-Cian

chef de chambre wrote:Tabbards proper as heraldric garments are very late. They develop by the first third of the 15th century, and essentially, they remain in the same form today. They are a very specific heraldic garment, and the term isn't interchangable with earlier surcoats, cottes, or gippons, a tabbard is a very specific type of heraldic garment. By the time they appear, they are not used by common men at arms or soldiers, but are generally restricted to the peerage, and heralds and pursuivants as symbols of their office.

The early surcoats, which Karen points out, have their basis ultimately in civil garments, and could be used for heraldic display. They also could be made out of rich materials, with no heraldry on them at all, and be worn over armour, as a display of wealth or station, and they could be worn by men much lower down the social scale, in the livery of their lord.

So if I read you right, its later period? When did it start? History wise, not SCA.

For SCA, you say its restricted to peerages. I see plenty of pics of guys wearing them on the field and they clearly aren't knights and laurels. Or were you talking about historically?

I have read so much conflicting info on them. Some sources say it was very common for foot soldiers and even regular citizens. Some like you say its later and only for elevated people.

I do appreciate the info, I am just having a hard time putting it all together.

Cian of Storvik wrote:Most baronies will supply you with a tabard if you're willing to fight for them, or atleast provide you with instruction on a pattern.
Depending on your period, you might want a surcoat or cyclas to be more spiff-tacular. Of course some periods and locations a tabard or surcoat is as anachronistic as wearing a caveman wearing a watch.
-Cian

As far as historical accuracy, would a Landsknecht or Swarze Reitter ever have worn one?

For the late 16th century, perhaps a cassock or short livery gown would be more suitable than a tabard.

JvR wrote:As far as historical accuracy, would a Landsknecht or Swarze Reitter ever have worn one?

I've perused hundreds and hundreds of Landsknecht woodcuts nad haven't seen a tabard persay. A waffenrock is a great choice if you're looking at something to simply 'throw over your armor'.

JvR wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:Tabbards proper as heraldric garments are very late. They develop by the first third of the 15th century, and essentially, they remain in the same form today. They are a very specific heraldic garment, and the term isn't interchangable with earlier surcoats, cottes, or gippons, a tabbard is a very specific type of heraldic garment. By the time they appear, they are not used by common men at arms or soldiers, but are generally restricted to the peerage, and heralds and pursuivants as symbols of their office.

The early surcoats, which Karen points out, have their basis ultimately in civil garments, and could be used for heraldic display. They also could be made out of rich materials, with no heraldry on them at all, and be worn over armour, as a display of wealth or station, and they could be worn by men much lower down the social scale, in the livery of their lord.

So if I read you right, its later period? When did it start? History wise, not SCA.

Read the bolded text in your quote of me for the answer

For SCA, you say its restricted to peerages. I see plenty of pics of guys wearing them on the field and they clearly aren't knights and laurels. Or were you talking about historically?

I always address what was done historically. Most SCA heraldic tabbards aren't even proper tabbards at any rate.

I have read so much conflicting info on them. Some sources say it was very common for foot soldiers and even regular citizens. Some like you say its later and only for elevated people.

Again,. I pretty much laid out the historic reality. By the time the garment that is properly known as a tabbard developed, its use as a display of arms was restricted to peers and heralds. Be choosey about what you read, especially on the internet, there is good information out there, and for every bit of good information, there is a ton of crap, and bad information recycled, and regurgitates, with people quoting one another or unknown sources.

I do appreciate the info, I am just having a hard time putting it all together.

No problem, Proper books on heraldry are expensive. The ones generally available, and having broad use are introductory glosses, or encyclopedias of modern usage, for the most part. The SCA, for instance, concentrates on, and bases its usage on English heraldic usage, which is in some instances quite different from continental usage.

If you are ever interested in picking up some rarer, or more specialized heraldic texts, check out "Heraldry today"
http://www.heraldrytoday.co.uk/'

Which can be a treasure-trove of such books. They are on average, however, as cheap as a good armour catalog, so be warned. In example, here is one on my wish list

"ARMORIAL DE LA NOBLESSE BELGE du XVe au XXe siecle. Edited by Paul Janssens & Luc Duerloo. 1992/4. 4 vols. An enormous work giving details of the Letters Patents issued by all the Kings of the Netherlands & Belgium, with a blason of arms & details of the titles. Marvellously illustrated with 3406 arms in colour on 685 plates, arranged as an Ordinary. Hardbound in dust-wrappers. New copy. [263] £295.00"

JvR wrote:

Cian of Storvik wrote:Most baronies will supply you with a tabard if you're willing to fight for them, or atleast provide you with instruction on a pattern.
Depending on your period, you might want a surcoat or cyclas to be more spiff-tacular. Of course some periods and locations a tabard or surcoat is as anachronistic as wearing a caveman wearing a watch.
-Cian

As far as historical accuracy, would a Landsknecht or Swarze Reitter ever have worn one?

There use, as heraldic garments, was restricted to Noblemen and heralds, so the answer is no.

Very good info. Thanks Chef.

I guess basically most folks wearing tabards in the SCA are using it in an SCA centric fashion, ie covering up plastic armour and such. Not for historical accuracy.

I am torn between wanting to be fairly accurate, but also want to just play SCA.

JvR wrote:Very good info. Thanks Chef.

I guess basically most folks wearing tabards in the SCA are using it in an SCA centric fashion, ie covering up plastic armour and such. Not for historical accuracy.

I am torn between wanting to be fairly accurate, but also want to just play SCA.

You got it..Most people I see wearing tabbards are doing a crappy job of covering crappy armour. The sad part about it is many of them (that I have seen) fall into an era were they would have actually worn a proper surcoat, but choose not to because they say it's a pain to get into and out of...

The Waffenroc would be the thing for you as noted above...If you want to show association with the Barony, use the Baronal colors on it...

JvR,

Chef is technically correct, but only because he holds a very hard line on terminology.

When most people, especially those within the SCA, refer to a tabbard or surcoat in relation to martial wear, they are referring to a general type of cloth garment worn over armor that displays either personal or group heraldry. The tabbard which Chef refers to as a later development is what is more often called a herald's tabbard. The words, whether correct or incorrect, are used interchangeably.

I can't speak regarding Landknecht, but as far as the 14th century goes they were definitely in regular use. Here are some illuminations and effigies that show surcoats.


BL Royal 16 G VI Chroniques de France ou de St Denis 1332-1350


BnF fr 2813 Grandes Chroniques de France 1375-1380


Bodleian 264 Romance of Alexander 1338-1344


Eberhard I Von der Mark 1308


Hugh Hastings 1340


Peter de Grandisson 1358

This is just a sample, there's plenty more evidence among effigies, brasses and illuminations. But, there isn't as much evidence as far as I have found that shows groups of people fighting under a territory or lords device.

--Richard

So basically everyone wearing the same tabard or surcoat just didn't happen?

I do appreciate the info. Those pictures look like they each have their own colors and designs. Not all uniform like in the SCA where entire groups use the same on the field.

Still maybe it happened. If I find any info on if I will share it.

I probably wouldn't mind wearing a group tabbard, if it actually happened in history. I know the SCA isnt a re-enactment org (neither is Adria for that matter). I just still have this little bug in me wants to avoid perpetuating a false assumption of what people did in the middle ages. Sure there is tons that we do as a modern society is obvious, some things are just unavoidable. I think I just want to do my part to do what I think is right.

Still though, I may get over myself and just play the game the way it is and celebrate pink sticks, uniform blaze orange tabards and just let it go.

Are there any resources on how to make a simple but period correct tabard or surcoat? Most of the ones I see online for the SCA are pretty generic and I don't know if they are even correct.

Are there any resources on how to make a simple but period correct tabard or surcoat?

See Richard's post just above yours. The surcoat, jupon, or whatever terminology was in fashion for the garment of a particular era was for the knight and bore his arms or colors. I believe his men-at-arms and other retainers would wear clothing appropriate to their station that might be of the same colors as their liege lord. This does not mean that all his men-at-arms and retainers would don copies of their lord's surcoats.

The idea of a bunch of warriors all throwing a rectangular-shaped ponchos over themselves with identical livery is an anachronism.

I wonder how groups of knights and their men-at-arms did fight together and identify each other?

Steve

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I wonder how groups of knights and their men-at-arms did fight together and identify each other?

Again, see http://larsdatter.com/livery.htm (especially the bottom half of that page).

You might also like to see http://livinghistory.co.uk/forums/viewt ... =10&t=2825 (I forget, you may need to log in to see the images) for 15th century re-enactors in their groups' liveries as well.

There's more discussion on this in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1861263716?ie=UTF8&tag=suggestion-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1861263716">Medieval Military Costume</a>, with lots of illustrations.

thanks everyone for the help. This has been much more informative than I anticipated.

WRT "tabard" and "surcotte"

Richard de Scolay wrote:The words, whether correct or incorrect, are used interchangeably.

This may be an interkingdom anthropology issue, but that is not the case where I'm from. Tabards (in the East) are long rectangles with a hole cut in them for the head and held together by a belt. I can't find anything really related to it in the historical record (regarding the context in which it's used SCA-wise).

When folks refer to surcottes (or surcotes or surcoats or however one might spell it) around the East, they're referring to something more garment-like, usually closed on some portion of the sides, whether by lacing or by sewn seam. The garment examples you posted, at least the ones with martial context, would be much more likely called surcottes (or jupons, perhaps). Some folks call some of the earlier 14thc examples a "cyclas", though I thought that term had been retired. Not sure, though.

I personally prefer to keep the terms separate precisely because of the SCA-centric idea of a "tabard" -- it's so a-historical, it's best to quarantine it terminology-wise to avoid further confusion. If you have a bunch of stuffy purists running around talking about "surcottes" in reference to their 1325 rig, we don't want someone thinking they are referring to the dreaded SCA fabric sandwich board.

Can you tell how I feel about "tabards", SCA-style?

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I wonder how groups of knights and their men-at-arms did fight together and identify each other?

Steve

Excellent question.

Okay, boys and girls, I can't make you go to http://larsdatter.com/livery.htm ... but I can throw up things like these and say, "LOOK. HERE."

http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=024942
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=063277

Here I go, leading a frickin' horticulture again.

These images are from the Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and as such are late 15th century imaginings of earlier medieval crusades, from centuries before. It's remarkable that the tabards that they're wearing as livery seem to resemble what appears in late medieval contexts, though a bit more uniformly than what we're used to seeing from masses of soldiers in other illustrations, either from the 15th century or from the Crusades or whatever.

It should also be noted that this is less of a one-size-fits-all rectangular thingamajiggy than what we're used to seeing in SCA contexts as a "y'all come fight for us and wear this over your armor so you look like a uniform army of soldiers." But I will say this -- if I had an army, I'd want to have 'em dressed like these guys, but wearing my badge and colors, of course.

Yeah, that's just what I need ... a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude, all of my very own ... sigh, I guess I'll have to put that on my wishlist, too.

Again, lemme reassert my recommendation for <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1861263716?ie=UTF8&tag=suggestion-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1861263716">Medieval Military Costume</a>, which has an interesting array of the different sorts of garments that were used in these sorts of contexts, in various redrawn illustrations as well as modeled by re-enactors. It's written in a very introductory sort of tone, and it's not always good about citing sources, but it's a danged interesting survey on the subject.

Tasha K wrote:Tabards (in the East) are long rectangles with a hole cut in them for the head and held together by a belt. I can't find anything really related to it in the historical record (regarding the context in which it's used SCA-wise).

The Romance of Alexander shows several types of tabard/surcoat. Stitched sides, laced sides, single tie sides and open sides. The ones with open sides are pretty darn close to "the dreaded SCA fabric sandwich board".

Tasha K wrote:Some folks call some of the earlier 14thc examples a "cyclas", though I thought that term had been retired. Not sure, though.

From what I've read, cyclas is the term used for surcoats that are short in front and long in back.

So If I were to go about making one, What would I look for at The Fabric Store?

I have heard Trigger or ?Duck? lined in poplin?

Is there benefits of one or the other, something better? Durability? How about Breathability/heat retention?

Thank you
Adler

Richard de Scolay wrote: The Romance of Alexander shows several types of tabard/surcoat. Stitched sides, laced sides, single tie sides and open sides. The ones with open sides are pretty darn close to "the dreaded SCA fabric sandwich board".

I'll grant you there could be historical cousins, but I doubt the average sandwich-board-wearer of the SCA has any clue about them. I think the sandwich boards could go a long way to being less blecky to my eye if they were made from wool, linen, or silk instead of trigger and cotton broadcloth and the like. And if they were combined with a cohesive, head-to-toe kit in a recognizable historical time frame in which such a design is documentable. But, I'm a killjoy that way.

Richard de Scolay wrote: From what I've read, cyclas is the term used for surcoats that are short in front and long in back.

Hm. My guess was that it was a reference to the long armholes that descend down almost to waist level, much like the female version of the "cyclas". I.e. a proto-sideless surcotte.

My big hate with the average SCA tabard is that a lot of the time people don't even put minimum effort into them. They're more often than not shapeless, have completely unfinished edges, are all torn up, ill fitting, etc. I love seeing big groups of fighters all wearing the same colors and heraldry but sometimes people do an incredibly crappy job of it.

Karen Larsdatter wrote:Here I go, leading a frickin' horticulture again.

(As in, 'You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.')

Isabella E wrote:My big hate with the average SCA tabard is that a lot of the time people don't even put minimum effort into them. They're more often than not shapeless, have completely unfinished edges, are all torn up, ill fitting, etc. I love seeing big groups of fighters all wearing the same colors and heraldry but sometimes people do an incredibly crappy job of it.

I'm totally with you there. I forget who I was talking with about this a few years ago - IIRC, it had something to do with a queen (in the SCA) who cared a lot less about "periodicity" than having everyone look like they were all in the same army, by compelling them to wear the exact same thing over their armor.

When I couldn't find historical justification/evidence, and expressed that this would end up being a massive amount of effort (on the part of a small group of tabard-makers) to make everyone look equally bad, regardless of how much effort the fighters themselves might have put into their "look" (or their unit's), the idea was dropped.

(I did put it a bit more diplomatically than that, I think ...)

There are several illos at http://larsdatter.com/livery.htm that show individual soldiers (whether they are meant to represent commanding officers, or other notable figures, it's not always easy to tell) wearing their group's symbol or badge on an outer garment; in some cases, it's kinda subtle (IIRC, a few of them just have it stitched onto one leg of their hose). This sort of representation might be especially nifty for a fighter who wants to indicate his affiliation with a particular kingdom or group, but isn't part of a unit that wants to all dress as if they have received matching livery.

Karen Larsdatter wrote:Okay, boys and girls, I can't make you go to http://larsdatter.com/livery.htm ... but I can throw up things like these and say, "LOOK. HERE."

http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=024942
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=063277

Here I go, leading a frickin' horticulture again.

These images are from the Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and as such are late 15th century imaginings of earlier medieval crusades, from centuries before. It's remarkable that the tabards that they're wearing as livery seem to resemble what appears in late medieval contexts, though a bit more uniformly than what we're used to seeing from masses of soldiers in other illustrations, either from the 15th century or from the Crusades or whatever.

It should also be noted that this is less of a one-size-fits-all rectangular thingamajiggy than what we're used to seeing in SCA contexts as a "y'all come fight for us and wear this over your armor so you look like a uniform army of soldiers." But I will say this -- if I had an army, I'd want to have 'em dressed like these guys, but wearing my badge and colors, of course.

Yeah, that's just what I need ... a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude, all of my very own ... sigh, I guess I'll have to put that on my wishlist, too.

Again, lemme reassert my recommendation for <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1861263716?ie=UTF8&tag=suggestion-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1861263716">Medieval Military Costume</a>, which has an interesting array of the different sorts of garments that were used in these sorts of contexts, in various redrawn illustrations as well as modeled by re-enactors. It's written in a very introductory sort of tone, and it's not always good about citing sources, but it's a danged interesting survey on the subject.

None of the two images in the link you have posted would be described by a late 15th century person/clerk as a 'tabard', They are fitted, and sleevelss, and would be described in a French source of the day as either a paltot or merely liverie. BY the late 15th century (actually, by 1450), the word had come to mean a VERY specific object.

BY the time that chronicle was written, what would be described in English as a tabard, and in French more likely a cotte armour, had evolved into a very regulated display, as being what is seen on the equestrian figures in the Grande equestre of the toisson d'or, or on the participants in the mounted melee , the defining elements of which are it being open on the side (although some small sampling is laced closed), and in having sleeves, and in being a short helmline.

The word begins in the early 14th century to describe a loose class of civilian/civil overgarment, but by 1450, it has changed in language to mean a very specific thing - by the late 14th century, being regulated to a heraldic display, and by the mid 15th century, being a very specific form of military display.

Thus a tabard isn't a tabard, the terms change through the course of 100 years, to come to mean a very specific thing, which meaning they retain from then, to today. The loosness of use in the term, specifically to a heraldic display, top mean 'any heraldic garment' is a reenactorisim.

I think a big part of the confusion here is a matter of terminology.

Many people tend to think of any heraldic over-garment as a tabard when they should be speaking of surcotes, or cyclas, or arming coats . . .

For my own part, I use "tabard" almost exclusively for the ceremonial garment worn by heralds, and "surcote" as a catchall for any garment worn over armour to conceal it, or to dress up one's kit, or to show loyalty, etc.

Of course, I am a herald, too; so I'm a bit biased on that term.

Wow , so much info.

Is it that many in the SCA just dont know ? or don't care? I know its really not a historical organization as much as its a private club to play a medieval game. Which is fine as long as its pointed out to spectators that much of what the org does or displays is NOT historical. It just looks that way.

It seems then that the SCA has its "tabard" usage entirely wrong for the most part. Well as far as identical armor coverings / sandwich board style covers.

I am going to withhold from making one then. I don't want to perpetuate a falsehood. Still lots of good info here. Looks like I may be purchasing some books.

Edited to ask. Whats up with the SCA "tabards" with semi sleeves? Is it a totally SCA creation? the big flappy rectangles hanging off the shoulders. the historical pictures I am finding so far look different.

edited to add

I guess since its his children they can wear the same. The tabards also look like what I was asking about. Sandwich board with square flappy sleeves. It seems the SCA is using this style? just in huge numbers not documented historically..
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/p/pourbus/pieter/portgall.html

I think it's probably just that they are easy to make in large numbers and don't require a lot of skill to put together. And I think there is an element of the SCA sometimes being slow to change because of the 'this is the way we've always done things!' mentality. With the internet being hugely pervasive there's not a lot of excuses anymore for being unable to find basic information on how to make stuff, what to make for when, etc. The best way imo to get people to do something different is to do it yourself then teach anybody who is even remotely interested how to do it themselves. Most people in my experience are willing to at least listen provided your approach does not make you sound like a huge jerk who is out to ruin their fun and tell them how much they suck.

I agree. I think most people want to do it right and would be willing to do so as long as the teacher isn't an ass about it. I bet a class on tabards would be a good class for heralds or laurels to teach at events. I think a huge misconception could be cleared up and tings would change in time.

As for me, it looks like my persona would not have ever worn one. I certainly am not royalty or nobility. So I guess leading by example will be out of the question since I wont be wearing one. Or maybe leading by example in my case would be not wearing one.

Still however, I did learn a lot and am glad I asked the question. If I get into SCA fighting and make some wars, on one hand I would be proud and honored to wear a groups livery (as the SCA does). On the other hand I know its not historically correct and would feel guilty perpetuating a falsehood, well historical falsehood anyway. I would be torn between I guess.

I am not worried about covering up my armour. I think it looks rather nice so the tabard issue wasnt for covering armour anyway. Not many people in black and white 3/4 harnesses out there. I am sure folks would recognize me in melee.

There are a lot of factors at play.

The bottom line is, people want a way to designate what team people are on.

Authentic heraldic livery is impractical or impossible to make because it would not be appropriate for all the eras the SCA covers. So, the generic "heraldic poncho" is made in an attempt to have a medievalesque heraldic means of displaying what team people are on.

I guess tape on the helms is the best we can do.

Steve

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0001/bsb00016005/images/index.html?id=00016005&fip=12.163.124.12&no=243&seite=278

Something along this lines, in the proper colors could be a sort of 'livery' if you wanted.

I do recall that for a long while along the Scottish and English border, it was law that soldiers were to wear badges on their chest. The Cross of Saint Andrew for Scotland and the Cross of Saint George for England. A handy way for telling friend from foe when battle broke out.