The Armour Archive

I speculate that the parasol used by the Pope and other medieval dignitaries may offer clues to medieval tent construction:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... n-and.html

If any of my readers have had a chance to view the underside of surviving ombrellinos from the Middle Ages or Renaissance, I welcome your comments. Or if you've seen any other depictions in the iconography of the period.

Ombrellinos are still part of Papal regalia, and one of the privileges granted to Catholic basilicas, although I don't know how the modern construction relates to the medieval.

I think this was the year of the tent. Jeff and I are talking again about our possible semi-rigid hoop with a bit of bracing for next time around. I can't wait to see what you come up with. We were thinking of not bothering to try to make it vettable for LBC, but your last two posts give me a bit of hope...

Stop that line of thinking this instant!!!

Because I've been thinking about this topic for a research paper, and I don't want anyone stealing my thunder.

The umbrella dates to pyramid building times, at the least.

Don't buy it.

Not gonna buy it. Gonna make it.

G- A little late for your purposes, but there's the 1623 Van Dyck portrait of Elena Grimaldi in the National Gallery in DC. Details.

A History of the Umbrella by TS Crawford (1970) claims there are couple of depictions of umbrellas in the Utrecht Psalter but I couldn't find them in looking through the ms. I did find this from the Concilium Constantiense by Ulrich von Richental, printed in 1483. Crawford found some 16th c English documentary citations of umbrellas and when they discuss the internal framework there is no reference to pavilion frames. I'd think that if the hub-and-spoke style of pavilion frame was familiar to audiences the authors would have drawn a parallel to them in describing the newfangled parasol.

I have a recollection of Stella Mary Newton discussing umbrellas in The Dress of the Venetians 1495-1525 (1989) but I don't own a copy and I read it over 15 years ago, so my memory may be imperfect.

Tracy

The Triumphs of Maximillian show some attached to the wagons.

The Papal Parasols seem to be pretty similar to each other. I guess they like tradition at the Vatican.

Tracy Justus wrote:A History of the Umbrella by TS Crawford (1970) claims there are couple of depictions of umbrellas in the Utrecht Psalter but I couldn't find them in looking through the ms.

It's teensy. Check out fol. 15v, left-hand side of the page.

If you can find the right word you might find something using bildindex or REALonline databases.

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

Tracy Justus wrote:A History of the Umbrella by TS Crawford (1970) claims there are couple of depictions of umbrellas in the Utrecht Psalter but I couldn't find them in looking through the ms.

It's teensy. Check out fol. 15v, left-hand side of the page.

Who is the angel trying to keep the sun off of?

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:

Karen Larsdatter wrote:

Tracy Justus wrote:A History of the Umbrella by TS Crawford (1970) claims there are couple of depictions of umbrellas in the Utrecht Psalter but I couldn't find them in looking through the ms.

It's teensy. Check out fol. 15v, left-hand side of the page.

Who is the angel trying to keep the sun off of?

I believe the figure is supposed to be King David, so it would fit with the idea of the parasol being something carried over VIPs

You would absolutely need some sort of support structure for a pavilion like that in the upper left hand corner of this:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/ma/tents ... 1.600.jpeg

Charlotte J wrote:You would absolutely need some sort of support structure for a pavilion like that in the upper left hand corner of this:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/ma/tents ... 1.600.jpeg

Unless the artist simply doesn't know how they are made and has seen omblellio and so he made some look like that. Oh the disasters of art.

You can explain a lot of things by "the artist didn't know what they were drawing". So yeah. It's a possibility. But I think it more likely that there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

This could be made with a ring around the perimeter suspended by ropes from the center pole.

(from Field of Cloth of Gold)
[img]http://www.greydragon.org/library/tentp ... ofgold.jpg[/img]

Pavillions with gables need an internal structure of some sort to them up.

Rectangular pavillions have internal structures as well, and they could be similar to the ones on ships shown in The Battle of Lepanto.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... o_1571.jpg[/img]

Charlotte J wrote:You can explain a lot of things by "the artist didn't know what they were drawing". So yeah. It's a possibility. But I think it more likely that there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

Absolutely. Related to this project I've been looking at modern patio umbrellas. There are a lot of different variations.

In the case of the MS Charlotte posted, the artist has gone out of his way to draw the tents three different ways. Why make extra work for yourself unless that range of variation is something you've seen in your daily life?

Galleron wrote: In the case of the MS Charlotte posted, the artist has gone out of his way to draw the tents three different ways. Why make extra work for yourself unless that range of variation is something you've seen in your daily life?

You just half made my argument and half cut your own.
I never said it wasn't something he saw in his life, if he's in Italy he may very well have seen an Ombrellio and thought it bore resemblance to pavilions. That assumes that he isn't just copying what he saw someone else done.
Secondly if we accept your assumption that he is depicting a reality that he has seen then the majority of medieval pavilions are not structured like an Ombrellio since they don't have that same shape.

Having fun trying it is all good and fun but if you want to make a real argument for it you need something other then a few random pictures and a theory.

I like this image for the ombrellino argument:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... igger.html

They sure do look and act like folded up umbrellas. Regarding the open question as to whether or not the artist is making up the engineering, I'm more inclined to accept this drawing as reality-based than not. The design is plausible, the context is realistic and non-allegorical, and the level of detail re: ropes and stakes, and various stages of assembly seems too high to warrant making it all up for a humble little drawing like this one.

I think I have one image of a central post with what may be a hub on it. Unfortunately, it isn't a complete hub, since the upper half is behind the canvas.

Tasha K wrote:I like this image for the ombrellino argument:

That is probably the image that is most contrary. There is no reason to think any of those have any sort of internal structure, infact as a group they that image makes one of the best arguments for just ropes.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... 3_0024.jpg

I like this image for the idea of some sort of structure inside a tent/pavilion. Yes, of course it could be artistic license. It all could be.

Like a lot of things, I think this area is one in which we do some educated guesswork. Certainly, it seems likely that many tents were held out by ropes and ropes only. But we also have illustrations that are otherwise very detailed showing tents with a specific shape and without ropes. We have tents that have round edges over the door, where there are no ropes holding it out. Maybe the ropes are just left out. But all of the time? I find it somewhat narrow to believe that with all of the designs of tents and pavilions, with different shapes, styles, and sizes that they all HAD to have the exact same way of holding them up, over the course of hundreds of years. During which time there are demonstrably other ways of holding stuff up over one’s head.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of the spoked wheel tent, because I think it ends up with a pointy shape that shows up rarely in illustrations. I’m a hoop aficionado, myself, given the smooth round shown so often. Of course, I know there are workability issues with that. I’ve just never seen a ropes-only tent give the same kind of silhouette as many of these illustrations.


There are very few things in this discipline that we can prove beyond a doubt. And I think we have very few “alwaysâ€

Piers Brent wrote:

Galleron wrote: In the case of the MS Charlotte posted, the artist has gone out of his way to draw the tents three different ways. Why make extra work for yourself unless that range of variation is something you've seen in your daily life?

You just half made my argument and half cut your own.
I never said it wasn't something he saw in his life, if he's in Italy he may very well have seen an Ombrellio and thought it bore resemblance to pavilions. That assumes that he isn't just copying what he saw someone else done.
Secondly if we accept your assumption that he is depicting a reality that he has seen then the majority of medieval pavilions are not structured like an Ombrellio since they don't have that same shape.

The majority of medieval pavilions don't have a convexly curved roof. But umbrellas and ombrellinos can take a lot of different shapes. They can have straight ribs rather than curved, for example. Umbrellas can even have a concave curve for part of the roof, in the case of what's commonly called a pagoda umbrella: the top part of the canopy stands proud of the ribs, supported by the long pole at the center.

Ah, the Round Pavilion question.

The simplest method of construction, of course, is ropes-only. It has the benefit in travel of having only a single pole to transport with the tent, or, possibly none at all, if you want to cut a tree down when you stop.

There are two artifacts about the ropes-only design that we can know for sure:

1) You will not have a truly round profile at the eave; You will have a polygon as the ropes can only provide support at the points of contact with the canvas.

2) The guy ropes are required and must extend away from the tent at an angle at least in line with the roof line, if not greater, in order to support the roof.

There is artwork that shows this sort of arrangement. There is also artwork that contradicts these artifacts.

The "spoked" pavilion also has an artifact about it that we know:

1) Like the ropes-only design, you can not have a truly round profile at the eve; You will have a polygon as the points of the spokes can only provide support at te points of contact with the canvas.

2) Guy ropes are not required, and if present need not follow the roof angle but may angle more sharply downward.

The "hoop" pavilion has the following artifacts:

1) It is the only design that can provide a truly round profile at the eve.

2) Guy ropes are not required, and if present need not follow the roof angle but may angle more sharply downward.

Steve

Does anybody have a larger, more detailed version of this?

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/tents/bologne.htm

Slightly larger:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/tents/bologne.jpg

Some interesting things in there. There appear to be some rope-only tents wavering in the breeze. But the rectangular tents are interesting - some have wiggly ropes, but the structure of the canopy is entirely intact.

Rectangles are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. You really can't hold one out well with simple splayed ropes.

Steve - Crow's feet can help with the round look, on a ropes only tent. FWIW.

But another thing to consider is that several images show the guy ropes coming from places other than the eves.

All over Froissart:
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... 3_0024.jpg

Another nifty example:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... igger.html

ETA: Romance of Alexander:
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... er/83v.jpg

Steve - Crow's feet can help with the round look, on a ropes only tent. FWIW.

True, but only to an extent. And you will still have a polygon regardless of the number of points of contact.

But another thing to consider is that several images show the guy ropes coming from places other than the eves.

This is true, and, if accurate, points almost certainly to some kind of internal structure. On my hoop pavilion, the guy ropes, when used, come out from under the valence, just as the walls themselves do. In practice, however, I never use guy ropes with my hoop pavilion; The walls themselves serve to secure the pavilion.

Steve

Ropes are Ockham's razor.

The problem with the round shape argument is that it is the kind of thing that people would perceive and draw even if it isn't perfectly round.

Piers Brent wrote:

Tasha K wrote:I like this image for the ombrellino argument:

That is probably the image that is most contrary. There is no reason to think any of those have any sort of internal structure, infact as a group they that image makes one of the best arguments for just ropes.

None of the ropes attach at the rim of the pavillion, they are all above it. If they are rope-only, wouldn't the canvas drop straight down from where the ropes come out of the canvas instead of continuing on for half a foot or more?

Piers Brent wrote:Ropes are Ockham's razor.

The problem with the round shape argument is that it is the kind of thing that people would perceive and draw even if it isn't perfectly round.

But if there was an ideal of roundness or or straightness, and it could be achieved with technology known and used for other application, why should it be summarily dismissed?

You also have tents with dormers and with protruding doorways. There's some sort of structure there. Why is it impossible in other applications?

Baron Alcyoneus wrote: None of the ropes attach at the rim of the pavillion, they are all above it. If they are rope-only, wouldn't the canvas drop straight down from where the ropes come out of the canvas instead of continuing on for half a foot or more?

Park, pavilions have that edge around the bottom. That is exactly what they look like.

Charlotte J wrote: But if there was an ideal of roundness or or straightness, and it could be achieved with technology known and used for other application, why should it be summarily dismissed?

You also have tents with dormers and with protruding doorways. There's some sort of structure there. Why is it impossible in other applications?

Well there are two questions there, yes certainly some aspects of certain decorative tents would need a certain amount of structure.
That does not mean that tent had an internal structure other then those bits.
As you know could have been is not was. It isn't dismissed its sum does not equal the claims. I'm all for being proved wrong, but I want evidence that isn't iffy.

More tenty goodness here:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... abel/Tents

Including documentation of hoops in Henry VIII's pavilions

Piers Brent wrote:

Charlotte J wrote: But if there was an ideal of roundness or or straightness, and it could be achieved with technology known and used for other application, why should it be summarily dismissed?

You also have tents with dormers and with protruding doorways. There's some sort of structure there. Why is it impossible in other applications?

Well there are two questions there, yes certainly some aspects of certain decorative tents would need a certain amount of structure.
That does not mean that tent had an internal structure other then those bits.
As you know could have been is not was. It isn't dismissed its sum does not equal the claims. I'm all for being proved wrong, but I want evidence that isn't iffy.

You know that when it comes to explaining what was, what would have been, and what could have been, I agree with you.

In this case, we have enough images that aren't possible with the one and only current theory of ropes. Given the number of "impossible" tents, it seems to be an educated guess that there may have been some sort of other support. Given other structures, other objects with fabric and support, and descriptions like Galleron posted, it's not an unreasonable educated guess. Smoking gun? Maybe not. But how often do we ever have one of those?

I think that the people posting on this thread are rather well versed in the difference between "they would have" and "they could have", and are intellectually honest enough to transparently discuss the education behind the guess. This is not a typical "if they'd have had it, they'd have used it" discussion.

Brent, I'm more interested in how the material is attached and accordions in and out from a central pole. Judging from the various states of assembly and disassembly, the style depicted in the image behaves very much like an umbrella that is at rest, i.e. collapsed. The ropes and pegs are integral, which implies that they are the mechanism for expanding the roof. This, to me, is umbrella-like, though not strictly so, obviously, for the probably lack of rigid spokes emanating from the top of the central pole.

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

Steve - Crow's feet can help with the round look, on a ropes only tent. FWIW.

True, but only to an extent. And you will still have a polygon regardless of the number of points of contact.

But another thing to consider is that several images show the guy ropes coming from places other than the eves.

This is true, and, if accurate, points almost certainly to some kind of internal structure. On my hoop pavilion, the guy ropes, when used, come out from under the valence, just as the walls themselves do. In practice, however, I never use guy ropes with my hoop pavilion; The walls themselves serve to secure the pavilion.

Steve

Galleron - forgive me if this is intruding too much on your thread. But I'd love it if Steve would post some pictures and more descriptions of his hoop tent. Perhaps a new thread?