The Armour Archive

Sebastian -

I really don't know - maybe you have to bat your eyes just right? JT is my hero; I truly didn't expect for him to leave it there this long. Some days I post just to see if it is still there!

Back to the thread topic.................

Drachus -

You could go with a hood rather than a hat or coif. Nothing screams 14th century like a hood. Pattern is pretty easy to work out - basically squares and triangles. Several places sell them already made if you are sewing-challenged.

And definitely go ahead and get the pointy-toed shoes. Got some at Gulf Wars this year and I'll never wear tennis shoes to an event again (well, OK, unless it's raining and I still don't have pattens). I am in complete love with my shoes - I have decided that I must have a pair in every color. You don't have to go quite that far, but do get the shoes.

Gwyneth

Don't be sucked into that reenactor's myth that "in the 14th C. everybody wore a coif". Coifs start going out of fashion by about 1350 or so and by the 1380's they had become a vestigal part of the ceremonial uniform of the seargentry. I'm trying to remember where I read that.....(scrambles around checking references)

Ok, here it is in "Chaucer and Costume: The Secular Pilgrims in the General Prologue", LF Hodges, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 2000, pg.107

The coif, fashionable for all gentle[men] in the late thirteenth century by 1387 was worn only by some clergy, by helmeted knights (coif de toile), and by serjeants required to wear it in public, in court, and, by special privilege, in the presence of the king. A serjeant's coif denoted his extensive education in the law and his subsequent authority and rank; it was bestowed in a dignified ceremony followed by an elaborate procession and feast. Writing in the fifteenth century, Fortescue names the 'coif of white silk . . . the primary and principle of the sartorial insignia with which serjeants-at-law are decorated at their creation'.

Footnotes to this passage include Newton's "Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, Newton's "Medieval Costume in England and France, the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries"

So hood yes for late 14th C., coif no. For the lower/laboring classes coifs are OK to about the 17th C. Although hoods are almost de rigeur, the late 14th C. and early 15th C. is a period conspicuously devoid of headcoverings for men. Hats will become an absolutely essential component of fashion by 1430 or so, becoming more absurd and ridiculous with each passing year, but it looks like you're planning to do a "bare-headed" period.

Gwen

Murdock:

I can't stress enough how Important (yes, that is a capitol 'i') having a working mission statement, or at least a mission goal is. This can serve as your rallying point for everything you and your group decide to do.

For instance, my own group - Legio IX Hispana - has this as our stated Primary Goal:

THE GOAL OF LEGIO IX HISPANA

Our Initial Goal is the reconstruction of a full strength Centuria, to be the first Roman reenactment club ever to field such a unit comprised of members all from the same club. We are on schedule to attain that goal by early Summer 2005!

Who We Are
We portray a company of soldiers, common Roman soldiers, support Auxilia and civilians, all doing the same time period, presenting a large dynamic display. There are no officers and no fancy titles, no governors or senators or tribunes. We are common soldiers and the civilians who would have been associated with a Roman military encampment.

Where We Are
We are encamped in the northern part of Provincia Britannia, north of what will become that Hadrian's Wall public works project. It is the late 1st C AD. Let's see.... that should make it approximately March 15, the year 850 since the founding of Rome (97AD) round about 8:30 in the morning. . . or something like that!

Re-enactment Philosophy
The best way to describe what we do is engendered in the phrase "experiential archaeology". Our displays are dynamic, not static. We, via our portrayals, put Roman gear and equipment to the test.

As a re-enactment club, we are not content with static displays and the performance of basic field drills and parades before an audience. These activities are a great deal of fun and educational. Opportunities to educate the public are welcome, sought after and enjoyed by all.

However, we strongly believe that the gear we make or acquire is best portrayed and understood when it is used, used extensively, put to its physical limitations. We do not revere our equipment or treat it with kid gloves. The gear we make and wear is designed and intended to be durable, fully functional soldier's gear, just like the real stuff. If it bends - we straighten it, if it breaks - we fix it, if it's destroyed - we replace it.

The rest of the document can be seen here:
http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org/jun3.html

That's a pretty big goal, and I'd like to think we'll make it... who knows?

There are a few other thoughts that tie in, that I'd like to share:

1. The most successful reenactment and LH groups that I know of, have a dedicated core of people who share a common vision, and who are able to get others to 'buy in' to that vision.

2. Groups that can't get their new members (at least a majority of them, anyway) to 'buy in' to that ideal/goal/whatever are doomed to continual shedding/splitting/schisms within the group.

3. Democracies are BAD! - Maybe not all the time, but I have seen more than a few groups go down the toilet because members

A. didn't feel bound to the original premise of the group (no 'buy in') and
B. had some sort of voting/control over what direction the group goes.

In my group, it is pretty clear what we do, and we make it clear that if you don't want to do what we're doing - that we'll try and find you a home with another group IF WE CAN, no hard feelings - but that trying to derail our goals or direction will lead you to the highway (buh-bye! and thanks for playing).

It is important to listen to your members - let them know that their input is important - but that you will act in the manner that YOU deem appropriate.

Maintain your sense of humor. Sometimes you'll swear that whole world is crazier than a sack full of assholes - and that many of the finest are in your group Deep breaths are good.

Learning to count to 20 in other languages is good too.

Having a place like the AA is a good place to vent - but generalities, NEVER details - since the things we write kick around the ol' Net forever... Family business is FAMILY business, and airing that business publicly is bad juju.

Regards,

Sasha Khan

'Hey buddy! Don't like what we're doin' - I got two boards, some nails and a pretty view with yer name on it!'

Hi Guys,

It is important to stress that you need to tailor your gear to your portrayal - soft kit and hard kit, if "LH" is what you really want to do. Your archers (and you need far more of them than 'billmen' - which may be a myth entirely, according to some researchers) need to have clothes of a cut and a quality that screams they are lower middle/middle class. They need to be visually distinct from your Men at Arms, who need clothes of a cut and quality that screams 'gentry', if not aristocrat - *out* of armour, as well as *in* armour.

You really aren't going to have a lot of gear that goes up and down the social scale that you can 'use' as an archer, then 'use' as a man at arms - if "LH" is your goal. WHat you CAN do is use the lower class stuff as loaner equipment for newcomers as you kit yourselves out.

Ditto to there really needing to be people playing archers - many more than men at arms (at least 3 to 1), and a distinction in the field (at least in front of the public) between them.

Nothing would look less like what you want to do than having six guys, standing about in bits of better quality kit mixed with worse quality kit, claiming to 'be working on being a man-at-arms', with only an archer or two in sight. 'Knights' are most visually convincing with horses somewhere about.

If you want to do what is seen by other era reenactors as living history or reenactment, then you really need one guy to dedicate himself to going whole hog with quality of kit (with or without the horse), to be the 'captain'. You need one clear chief, and many Indians (they are really more important than the chief) - you all can't be chiefs - and trust me, being a 'chief' can be a monumental and never going away pain in the ass - not some great honour. The "chief" has to put the group together, has to be continually motivating people forward, needs to be the one contacting people, needs to arrange events and insurance - *plus* he needs to have the kit to mark him out as chief.

In some reenactment groups, the field 'officer' is an elected position, while the commander of the unit may be seperated from the field portrayal. It is easy swapping around who is the "officer" when it is only a matter of a uniform coat, a sword, and rank markings, and maybe a different hat. When it is a case of the entire portrayal, including armour, it is not a practical proposition.

I am pretty dang busy these days, but ordinarily I would be hip deep in here, discussing whys and wheretofores. I think I can sum up my comments as follows:

1. Focus is key. I chose a portrayal which was set in an era I like, and for which there is sufficient research to support a medium-high fidelity portrayal. To wit: Jehan de Pelham, born into an esquire ranked family in Hertfordshire, England, in May 1350. I am 33, thus, the portrayal date is 1383. I'm intending some fuzziness in there, especially in my SCA play, but have a goal. And even in my more lenient SCA portrayal, it's limited to a ten to fifteen year window.

2. Cash and Skill are King and Queen. It won't just fall out of the sky onto you. If you are not a master or a journeyman at several different arts, then expect to be a patron of those who are. Neither path is better than the other, people can waste their time arguing whatever point makes them feel better--more efficient to realize diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

3. Know your limitations, and live within them. I'm not a horse guy. Never have been, though I can sit a horse and take it through a canter to a gallop and turn it and such, but that depends on the horse still, which should be an indicator of the shallowness of my experience. At 33 and in the Army I'm a little busy to have the kind of relationship which is proper with such an animal as a horse. So, my portrayal of an esquire will always be hamstrung. Unless I find some generous like-minded souls with an extra animal who of course I would compensate. I accept and understand this, but I'm going ahead anyway and not wasting time on things I can't change.

4. Realize the implications. Warning: vague intimations. The SCA offers something valid and good. Living History / re-enactment / interpretation / whatever offers something valid and good. The twain overlap some, but not most. Realize that if you split your effort and time between these two activities, there will be consequences. You have been told. We can get sidetracked and discuss, but lets don't and say we did. Navigate them deftly and have fun and don't get wrapped up in folly.

5. A Sobering Excercise is Laying It All Out. When I started the thread "Material Culture of a 14th Century Esquire," that was the first time I actually laid out what would be a semi-reasonable accounting of the field kit of an esquire on campaign, and the other trappings that a leader of a lance of men at arms and archers (less than a dozen such, probably 2 men at arms to 3 archer ratio) would have. And it's a LOT. When you lay it out, stick with what you can do, and think in terms of trying to carry it forward, or loaning it our, as has been said elsewhere. If you can't do an esquire--and if you do, think of what the Captain of a small company would need in terms of supporting the group with its trains, because that's what you'll be--do a man at arms. If you can't do a man at arms, do an archer. If you can't do an archer, do a camp follower or a sutler or a cook or a friar or some other civilian-military portrayal. For now. Don't let your pride keep you from a start.

6. Keep it all in perspective. This is all excess cash, time, and emotional capital. Don't squander it. Don't force it. Let it be as it is, but always strive forward if that is your bent. But don't settle if you can help it.

These things keep me straight. They might help others too. There is much that I of course haven't said, or missed, and your mileage may vary.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

Murdock, depending on where you decide to hold events i may be interested. I was part of the orginal discussion a few years back and started on getting a kit together before everything fell apart. Cet's made me most of a man at arms harness that should pass muster once finished(still need to do the breastplate and get a new aventail), and i can finish off what i need in terms of a soft kit from HE fairly easily. After that its all accesories. Only problem is that my harness is distincty germanic, so i would have to portray a mecenary in english service.

I've wanted to get into LH for quite a while, but i live in Colorado and have a work schedule that make its tough to attend events more then a days drive away. I also had all this 14th century stuff and everyone else was doing 15th century, and i just havent had the time or money to get a kit together for that period yet.

looking at Jehan's essay and suddenly thinking "holy crap!, i've bitten off more than i can chew"

OK we're all pesant's...

oh wait no
we're beggars!

Oh leperous beggers!!

OK i think we can afford that

Seriously his essay is exactly why i'm telling people to start with your clothes and personal items. We'll build from there, it's nigh impossible up show up and be a man at arms. I think we can show up and be believeable as archers and infantry.

Maybe a couple of mounted yomen.

I'm working on pirateing pieces of mission stements and standards from different groups to write up mine. I'm not good at making stuff up but i am ok at adapting stuff for my own useage.

The 2 things i really want to do. Have fun learning and playing medieval dress up! Look like what we say we are!

I'll flesh it out from there.

I'm shooting for the Sept "show" in Atalanta, small simple portrayl. A few of us in the best we have, as accurate as possible.

Murdock wrote:looking at Jehan's essay and suddenly thinking "holy crap!, i've bitten off more than i can chew"

OK we're all pesant's...

oh wait no
we're beggars!

Oh leperous beggers!!

OK i think we can afford that

Seriously his essay is exactly why i'm telling people to start with your clothes and personal items. We'll build from there, it's nigh impossible up show up and be a man at arms. I think we can show up and be believeable as archers and infantry.

Maybe a couple of mounted yomen.

I'm working on pirateing pieces of mission stements and standards from different groups to write up mine. I'm not good at making stuff up but i am ok at adapting stuff for my own useage.

The 2 things i really want to do. Have fun learning and playing medieval dress up! Look like what we say we are!

I'll flesh it out from there.

I'm shooting for the Sept "show" in Atalanta, small simple portrayl. A few of us in the best we have, as accurate as possible.

Hi Murdock,

Jehans list is for a 14th century Esquire, which is in essence a slight step down from a knight, and somebody who could be one if they so choose, as they could 'support the station'. There were numbers of people labled as 'gentry' below that rank, with a fraction of the money in England during the era you choose to portray.

You really need a 'chief' - somebody who is portraying a gentleman, to be the 'captain' of the unit, and a man at arms. "captain" is a vauge military rank in the middle ages, and might refer to the leader of a dozen mercenaries, or the leader of thousands - Jehans speculation that a captain must have more and better items than an esquire is not entirely supportable when this is taken into consideration.

The one thing about the gentry is that they fall into the same class as the greatest landed Earl - they are merely on the bottom rung of the ladder, while the latter is at the top. They were united by culture - the gentleman living in a style recogniseable to the landed Aristocrat as being 'one of us', although a poor example perhaps in said aristocrats eye of the class. There is a class difference between the gentleman, and the yeoman (who might be as well off as him), and the merchant (who might be much better off than him financially), and the gap is as great between them, as the gap existing between the gentleman and the Earl. Under normal circumstances, the yeoman or merchant would not be capable opf leaping that gap, whereas the gentleman can much easier rise within his class should circumstance allow.

These things are difficult for us Americans to understand as we live in a classless society, the only significant divider between citizens being wealth (which does not equate to a class barrier).

You need a representation of the gentlemans class to lead your unit. The mode of dress will be different than your archers /yeomen, the type of equipment they have will differ, and the quality of equipment will be higher. You don't need to be equipped like a great lord, in the style (and quality) of a von Matsch of Churburg, but you do need a fairly complete armour, with perhaps a visored helmet. Your archers need gambesons, not loads of plate - many of them might not even wear helmets. You need a stylish hat, perhaps with a broach - they need hoods. Your armour should perhaps be 'white' (not highly polished, mind you), while those of them with a few bits and pieces should perhaps be black from the forge.

The point is, there should be a distinct enough visual difference between the 'gentleman' and the archers/soldiers, that the casual observer notices the difference - if they don't understand them. In education, one thing to point out to the public is that there is a class difference, because we as Americans find such a thing fairly hard to fathom.

Chef's got my meaning exactly right. And of course he's right about the terms esquire and captain. I was thinking 25-50 Pounds income a year makes for an esquire, more or less, while 50 Pounds or more was a knight's fee--that's an overly simplistic definition based solely on one criteria, and there were social considerations, heritage of fame, and so forth to consider. And on top of that, it's easily proven wrong or mistaken, as many definitive statements are. My baseline for what I'm doing is an esquire of 30 Pounds income a year--a much wealthier fellow than I am.

I shifted a little from talking about the rank of esquire and the role of the captain of a group, but the role of each has similar implications: the burden of leaderhip rests on the leader, and because rank and station is bought and toiled for in our hobby, the person who has been doing it longer and has more, and is the center and provider, has to have the stuff, so it all sort of rolls up together. I'm just going to be by myself for a while, because I'm moving about, but I'll get better about moving into an area and trying to attract a group of interested folk as time goes on--I'm going to be moving about in three-year increments as is the style of the Army.

And these two roles are often linked together. I suppose that there could be a group structure where the actual leader prefers to portray an archer, and some-one else portrays the gentleman in the leadership role.

Regarding the offset between the gentleman and "his lads," the differences can be more than dress as well. A gentleman of the lowest rung of the second estate might try and offset his lack of panoply with bearing, and genteel behavior, because even though class-ism highly stratified society was the mode, there was still recognition of style and acknowledgement of the difference between base and noble behaviors. The "lads" would be highly embroiled in gambling, drinking, swearing, all manner of crude hygiene, rough sports and jokes on one another, and all the boisterous acting out that men of arms have had as their stock in trade through all times.

That's my perception.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

Class is an interesting and important thing to consider. Although I completely support the idea of the head honcho looking the part, I'm not so sure I agree completely with Chef when he says "There is a class difference between the gentleman, and the yeoman ... and the merchant ... and the gap is as great between them, as the gap existing between the gentleman and the Earl." (but maybe I misunderstand what Chef is saying).

The 15th C. saw a tremendous blurring of lines between the classes- not so much between earls and yeomen, but certainly between the petty gentry and the well-to-do-merchant class. Daughters of well to merchant fathers provided access to important and sometimes essential monies to poor but titled gentry.

A good example of the blurring of the lines is provid in Rene's Book of the Tournament. In the section exlaining the judging of the crests, Rene' describes how the helms with their crests are to be arranged for review, and the punishment to be meted to anyone who has spoken ill of ladies 'in that case the malefactor will be well beaten, so that he feels it in his shoulders, and so that he will not in the future speak ill of the ladies, as he did before.'

Rene' goes on to say-

And besides the complaints of the ladies, there are certain other more serious offenses and worse than speaking ill of women, for which the punishment that follows is due to those who have committed them.

The first case and the most serious is when a gentleman is found to be a liar and to have broken a promise, especially in a matter of honor.

The second is when a gentleman is a usurer, and manifestly lends at interest.

The third case is when a gentleman marries a wife who is a commoner, and not noble.

Of these three cases, the first two cannot be remitted, because one must have rigorous justice at a tourney, and they are so dishonest and outrageous that if anyone is found to have committed them, after he has been notified, his helm is cast to the ground.

It is noteworthy that the first two cases are so 'dishonest and outrageous' they cannot tbe remitted, yet the offense of having a common wife is not.

Rene' concludes-

Note: If there comes someone to the tourney who is not a gentleman in all his lines of descent, but who is a virtuous person, he should not be beaten the first time, except by princes and great lords, who, without hurting him, should beat him with their swords and maces, and this should always be considered to be an honor. And this will be a sign that because of his great goodness and virtue, he deserves to be at the tourney, and from then on no one may reprove him for his lineage in any place of honor where he is found, at the tourney or elsewhere. There too he may bear a new crest, or change his arms if he wishes, and keep them thereafter for himself and his heirs.

In my mind, here's the important social bit that supports the idea Jehan proposes. If a man is virtuous and conducts and presents himself appropriately, he is not to be excluded due to his lack of lineage either 'at the tourney or elsewhere'. It is clear that after being judged worthy and formally "beaten" the man moves up in class, aquiring arms for himself and his heirs. As silly as the comparison may seem to some, this is the idea behind the movie "A Knight's Tale", borne out here in Rene's "Book of the Tournament", written in 1460.

That having been said I have no idea if this blurring applies 50-80 years prior.

Gwen

...One has to remember that to participate in Rene's tournament, a gentleman had to have 4 quarterings of arms (all his grandparents had to be armatigeous). The participant might marry a 'commoner' (invariably trading pedegree for wealth), but his daddy had better not have, or he wouldn't be participating. (Renes commentary aside - try finding examples in fact where this happend, rather than Rene's ideal theory.)

I don't believe Rene's book of theory on how tournaments ought be conducted (in France, in 1460) has as much bearing on the class system in another country, seperated by at least 100 years (they want to do early to mid 14th century, Poitiers being the named cutoff). The thing to research would be mid 14th century English society, not mid 15th century France.

While it is certainly an interesting phenomenon that the Middle classes sought to emulate their 'betters', and even married into another estate (keep in mind it was hotly debated whether the child of such a union was indeed to be considered 'noble' at all), it does not do anything to clearly convey the simple idea of a class structure to a general public to which the idea is completely foriegn. It is ahistorical to have a military unit completely composed of commoners with no officers (it is also equally unrealistic to expect Murdock or someone else to kit themselves out realistically as a 14th century knight, with all the attendant equipment, hence my emphasis on the lower echelons of the gentry, who made up the bulk of professional men-at-arms at this date anyway)

If public education is a part of the groups goals, and the general public at the general level of knowledge regarding things Medieval is being considered, I think it is far better to have some clear depiction of class differences rather than muddying the waters by having a uneccessarily complex social structure depicted by the group.

If Murdock and friends were interested in educating onlookers regarding the details of the social structure of mid 14th century England, and the onlookers made further inquiry after seeing there was a class difference, then that is the time to unload the information to them. I think it would bore the average onlooker out of their tree. I myself always run the edge of 'information overload' when interpreting for the Higgins, and it is a really tough call, based on guaging an audience and deciding what level of information to give, and how much of it to give, before they lose interest or become overwhelmed. Sometimes you get people who ask you questions geared to a graduate level - after the presentation, and sometimes you have an audience full of 5 - 10 year olds, who just can't absorb that sort of data, who are more interested in knowing "what would happen if a tiger jumped on you mister?" The interpreter has to be prepared for both. Keeping the group structure simple makes it easier for the less knowledgable in the group to explain it when asked a question unexpectedly from the public, and maybe makes things clearer in their own minds, to help them in their own quest for understanding.

At any rate, I think it is important when interpreting to the public to give them bites of factual information, made readily digestible, and entertaining as possible. You give too much, or go into too much depth, and you lose them - that is what I have found to be true in the last 6 years at any rate (by trial and error, not due to my spectacular abilities at interpretation).

I think this particular angle of discussion has gone well beyond what Murdock was looking for, and perhaps we should steer back to helping him, rather than digressing further.

Murdock -

It is a question to ask yourself Murdock - If you are doing "LH", then interpreting history to the public is a large part of that activity.

1. What topics do you want to cover? (simple end being 'we are a military unit, known as a lance, composed of XYZ people, armed with XYZ weapons, and this is how we fought . Complicated end being 'In the mid 14th century, society in England underwent a number of changes due to a number of factors, one of the largest factors being the Black Death thinning out the population, which created pressures regarding wages, rents, real values of property... ect, ad nauseum)

2. The topics you cover in interpreting you should be comfortable enough with to be able to casually discuss (easy when you stick to a simple focus) with an onlooker. You need to be sure of your facts as well - never make them up. It's better to say "I don't know" than make something up off the cuff - leave that to Ren Rats.

You don't have to know everything to interpret - you don't have to be a scholar of renown to do so. What you have to do is to have an area of knowledge you are comfortable enough with, and familiar enough with the facts regarding same, to be able to talk about in some depth to the interested observer - and to have the wit to stop interpreting when you stray into topics you are unsure of.

chef de chambre wrote:...One has to remember that to participate in Rene's tournament, a gentleman had to have 4 quarterings of arms (all his grandparents had to be armatigeous). The participant might marry a 'commoner' (invariably trading pedegree for wealth), but his daddy had better not have, or he wouldn't be participating.

Bob, can you please show us exactly where in Rene' that this is stated? I thought I was very familiar with the text, but I've not been able to find this reference.

Rene's Tournament Book

I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression yhat the quarterings did not have to be, father, mother, paternal grandmother and maternal grandmother,although thats the way the quarters usually were displayed.I think If for example your father had 4 quarters you would be ok, even if your mother was a commoner. I thought as long as you could come up with four arms bearing familes in your family tree you would be ok. Not really sure though. I know it got to the point where people espesially in the German states liked to show 8 or 16 even 32 quarters on their arms in the 18th and 19th centurys. It was so confusing and silly (you needed a magnifier to see the charges LOL) that most of the old nobility went back to the original paternal arms unquartered ......Otto

Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:52 pm Post subject: Reference to Rene'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chef de chambre wrote:
...One has to remember that to participate in Rene's tournament, a gentleman had to have 4 quarterings of arms (all his grandparents had to be armatigeous). The participant might marry a 'commoner' (invariably trading pedegree for wealth), but his daddy had better not have, or he wouldn't be participating.

Jeffery wrote: Bob, can you please show us exactly where in Rene' that this is stated? I thought I was very familiar with the text, but I've not been able to find this reference.

Jeffery,I dont think its in Rene's work, but I've read the that somewhere. Getting to senile to remember where.....I think it was regulated at least for a time in England, and I think France. Although in Germany and Italy they often held tourneys for the "middle class" nobels need not apply LOL.....Otto

Edit #1.2

The short preliminary version (and yes, all of this is stolen from other Groups, Like LeBelle and Novea. LaBell is the 14thCentury bomb! Thought they seem to have communication problems they are exactaly what i wanna do. Hence i am ripping off their standards like mad!)

Working name is "Chevauchée, "
Period (to be more defined as input comes in from folks) Crecy to the Death of Ed TBP. What are interested people interested in doing? I'm leaning more and more toward the Poitiers end.

Basic Portrayal:

Military and support personell of English army during the HYW while fighting in Frace during the listed period.

I thought "support personell" sounded better than camp followers. Women could be the wives of the troops, washer women.

I'd also love to see craftsmen like a smith, fletchers, tanners ect.

Members must have some basic knowledge of the period, IE Major historical personages on either side, both military and civilian. Major events that are contemprary with the war. Major dates in the period covered. Personel information (name birthday Saint Day home town profession ect)

Mission:
To educate the public about this often misunderstood, misrepresented, and mythologized era;

To further our colleagues and our own understanding of this period;

To use current and new scholarship in an experimental archaeology setting;

FOREMOST!!

To have fun. Our primary means to this end is living history, but as opportunity allows we will embrace reenactment-focused events so long as they do not compromise our level of authenticity

Gear:

The Basics
Basic clothing for a man consists of a shirt and braes of linen; headgear (such as a hood, preferably of wool); a tunic (preferably of wool); hosen; and shoes.

Basic clothing for a woman consists of a shift of linen; headgear (such as a head wrap or a veil and wimple); a kirtle (usually of linen); a gown (preferably of wool); hosen and shoes.

Basic personal gear consists of a belt (with pewter, tinned iron, or copper alloy fittings that include a buckle and strap end at the very least); a purse or a bag to hang from your belt; a bowl and drinking vessel (wood and ceramic are typical); a spoon (wood, horn, or pewter); a knife in a leather sheath (for a man, this could be his dagger); and a container for your goods (a cloth bag is sufficient).

You may find a second layer of clothing, spare hosen, a pair of pattens (wood- or leather-soled "overshoes"), and a cloke useful, as some of our presentations occur in seasons when cold and/or rainy weather is likely

Since we are in the Southeast I would suggest linen most of the time. It's been mentioned that down here 95' temps with 95% humidity is common from May- Sept.
Lighter weight wools would be great for cooler parts of the year.

Basic Accessories

Girdle
Your basic girdle (belt) should be 1 inch wide and long enough to go around your waist, loop over itself, and dangle a bit . The stuff of the belt may be leather or tablet-woven fabric (if you have woven stuff, check to make sure the pattern is okay). It should have a metal buckle and a metal strap end. Pewter alloy is the cheapest available metal, but copper alloy fittings will do for the buckle and strap end. There are many designs. Check with us. The company tries to keep some suitable buckles in stock for resale to newcomers.
Many belts were decorated. Methods include tooling, punching, and the addition of metal belt mounts. Check with us before embarking on a decorative scheme. We also have access to a number of suitable decorative mounts of pewter, just the thing for spiffing up a commoner’s belt.


Purses The simplest purse is a small leather bag. Cut two pieces of supple leather about 6 by 8 inches. Place the grain sides face to face and sew them together on three sides. Turn the bag inside out so that the stitching is inside. Cut several pairs of slits along the open end of the bag as per the illustration. Thread two cords or flat strips of leather through the slits so that the loose ends of one cord or strip emerge at the opposite side from those of the other cord or strip. Knot them, and you have a cross-drawing closure for the purse. An optional third cord or strip can be sewn into the seam near the mouth of the bag or passed through the edgemost slits to provide a hanging cord for the bag. See the picture on the right for how it is worn on the belt.
Simple girdle purses seem to come into fashion near the beginning of the Hundred Years War and remain a typical style throughout, though newer designs come into fashion in the latter part of the war.

We have also tried some fancier and more elaborate designs of composite construction which appear to have been more common than a cursory look at medieval illustrations would lead one to believe. Several fragments of such girdle purses have survived in the archaeological record. Talk to us if you think you'd like more than a basic purse.


Bag In order to create a bag for your stuff, you can simply make a larger version of the simplest belt purse. For such an item linen is as suitable as leather. Or you can go for a satchel style bag such as is commonly seen on pilgrims in medieval illustrations.

Sheathed Knife
Whittle tang knives remain common in our time period, but the shift to scale tangs is well underway. We suspect that whittle tangs are in greater use among the commons.
Sheaths for knives are almost always simply leather and hang from thongs that pass through slits on the sheath. See the picture at the right for a back view of a typical sheath hanging from a belt. Sheaths for military knives often have metal throats and chapes. (Rondel daggers are a notable exception.) Some throats have rings on the sides but most do not, so attachment of the hanging thongs (sometimes chains) to the scabbards remains a research problem, but we have some guesses and extrapolations.

or Dagger
In the 14th century, the basilard (A) is apparently the most common form of civilian wear dagger (hence suitable for commons) but shows up considerably less often in military contexts.
The rondel (B) appears in the later 14th century and is almost exclusively depicted with military costume. It is believed to be a weapon developed for dealing with armored men.

The "sword-hilt" dagger (C) is a long-lived form. As with the rondel, iconography associates it with military costume.

The ballock (D) appears throughout the 14th century but its popularity increases dramatically in the 15th century, supplanting the basilard as the most commonly depicted civilian form by the end of the Hundred Years War.

Details of construction and decoration of daggers vary, so research what you want or get an established company member to guide your purchase.



Miltary portrayals:
The Common Archer

For such a fellow, you also need a warbow; a bow bag of woolen cloth; 3 arrows; a cloth arrow bag; 24 arrows; and a side arm (with scabbard if appropriate) such as a sword, long dagger or an axe.


The Well-Arrayed Archer

To portray such a man, you need more stuff, specifically: a helmet of leather or iron, possibly with an aventail; a body defense of quilted cloth or of mail; a full sheaf of real 24arrows in your arrow bag; spare bowstrings; a sword with scabbard; a buckler; a dagger or heavy knife; a bracer; and a houce (a loose sleeveless overgarment for bad weather).

Mounted Archer
For a chevauchée, the English recruited mounted archers almost exclusively. These mounted archers rode about while on campaign but they fought in battles on foot. They were armed and equipped as other archers, although possibly better, as their pay was better. They may also have worn heavier stuff, i.e. more armor, as they didn't have to walk all their stuff around. We don't actually expect our reenactors to have the horse, but spurs and implements of horse care improve the portrayal.


Soldiers/ Sergantry:

Other military portrayals could cover a wide range. The extremes, (peasant spearman and knight-in-all-but-name) should be avoided. Rather, we encourage the ‘mid-range’ warrior, who would have a good set of equipment, though not as complete or up-to-date as that of the knight. Basic requirements are:

Basic civilian clothing plus:

Gambeson

Helmet

Spear, pole arm

Again, this is the bare minimum, and members are encouraged to do more research and/or consult with a senior member concerning how to add to it. This impression is easy, wide-ranging and customizable, and all members are encouraged to have a basic soldiers kit.

Gambesons : I've really thought about this one. There is not real good source for really period gambesons out there. The best out there will have to do i suppose. I'd rather see hand made ones, maybe from Klaus as he gets going. No visible machine stitching would do. I'll at this time alow Revival gambesons with modifications. Remove the shoe string points, properly secure the buttons, handsew over the visible seams.

When better comes along we'll phase them out.

as an aside....Gweneth did you get any better pics of the gambesons you made? I can't tell much from the pics you posted? How much would you charge on one if i bought materials?

All soldiers must wear livery consistant with English soldiers of the period.
The cross of St George on the left breast on many (if not most) common troops, Green (right) and White (left) party colored cote's on troops from Flint and Cheshire for ex.

Helmets should be bascinets and appropriate kettle hats, mail shirts and coifs are encouraged and must be rivited. Helmets should have period style liners.

Aside again...I see sever pics of what look like spagen helm bascinets in several primary sources. Jeff Chef Glen you have any info on those?

If you have a question on an items appropriateness, do more research. IE if you're not sure a sword/shoe/ hat ect is avalible to the 14th century english don't use it.
Stay away from unusual items. If you can't find primary sources on an item don't use it.

I strongly suggest guantlets, coifs, greaves and other armour. Brigendine, COP's, mail shirts augmenting body armour. Think professional indentured soldiers.

LABelle is so on the ball they even have the pay Scale.
KNow how much your worth! If you can't afford it don't have it. If you have the means have the gear.

Recognized
Customary Pay
(vadia consueta guerre)

Out of England
Knight 2s
Other Men at arms 1s
Armati (armored footsoldiers) 6d
Archers 3d
Mounted archers 6d

Archers in English Garrison service
Archers 2d
Mounted archers 4d


1 pound (£)= 20 shillings (s) = 240 pence (d)

Organization:
The commander of a body of men was a captain, whether he was noble or common, and regardless of the number of troops. Men were often arranged into 20s, 100s, and 1000s. Under this scheme 19 men were commanded by the twentieth, the vintenar. Five of these units were commanded by a centenar. Such units were formed at enlistment. At an assembly point, such as a regional headquarters or a port of embarkation, the 20s and 100s could be amalgamated into 1000s. How retainers and retinues fit into this scheme is not clear.

(I liked this from Novea)
There are no set or fixed postions or "ranks", as far as historical impressions go, within the group. Outside of when we are "on stage" we do of course have a Unit Commander, though even this role may float around from time to time (usually whoever is dressed and ready whenever "Commanders' Call" is announced the morning of events!) This allows individuals a great degree of flexibility as they participate - assuming one has the correct equipment they may choose to portray a gentelman at one event or a simple archer at the next.

I guess the closest thing we'll have to a leader is me. I'll be the contact for anyone interested, i guess i'm more or less setting thie standards. I'm very open to amendments to the standards, espically from people who know more than me (those numbers are legion).

If members want to go to an "event" and i can't go. Then go and have fun! Thats my main thing i'm trying to establish a framework so that _we_ can have fun playing HYW dress up! Just do wnat we claim we do and represent the people who could not make it with courtesy and honor.

I know we all seem to want to do the same thing. But someone had to organize it. I hardly plan on bossing everyone around or trying to micro manage everyone, i _do_ expect people to meet the standards that we as a group agree upon. I think the bar i'm setting is very reasonable with everything thats avalible.

PS To the Real LH folks, thanks for understanding about the Renee discusion.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:...One has to remember that to participate in Rene's tournament, a gentleman had to have 4 quarterings of arms (all his grandparents had to be armatigeous). The participant might marry a 'commoner' (invariably trading pedegree for wealth), but his daddy had better not have, or he wouldn't be participating.

Bob, can you please show us exactly where in Rene' that this is stated? I thought I was very familiar with the text, but I've not been able to find this reference.

Rene's Tournament Book

Hi Jeff,

The reference to the four quartering can be found here, in the *theoretical* reference to a "virtuous gentleman, not noble in all his line of descent"

Note: If there comes someone to the tourney who is not a gentleman in all his lines of descent, but who is a virtuous person, he should not be beaten the first time, except by princes and great lords, who, without hurting him, should beat him with their swords and maces, and this should always be considered to be an honor. And this will be a sign that because of his great goodness and virtue, he deserves to be at the tourney, and from then on no one may reprove him for his lineage in any place of honor where he is found, at the tourney or elsewhere. There too he may bear a new crest, or change his arms if he wishes, and keep them thereafter for himself and his heirs.

I have emphasised the part 'who is *not a gentleman in all his lines of descent*, and underlined the If. The reference to his lineage clearly indicates the expected norm is that the tourniers *are* gentlemen in all their lines of descent. The If is a big If, when one examines actual tournaments that were organised and held.

It is important to keep in mind that Rene's book is a theoretical work based on how *he* thought an ideal tournament should be conducted - clearly in the text we see him commenting on how things were done in his and other countries, and which he thought were good and bad practises.

To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of a single tournament organised by Rene's book actually having occured - are you aware of one? Renes book is to tournaments what "The City of Ladies" is to government and society, and what "The Tree of Battles" is to how wars were conducted in actuality. I would respectfully suggest that to truely understand how tournaments were conducted, one needs to study the tournaments described by de la Marche, Chastelin, ect, that were recorded by history as having occured - Rene is a supurb 15th century resource, especially when reading his descriptions of how tournaments were conducted in other realms when he makes his comparisons. I don't think it is a practical handbook of how to conduct tournaments as they actually occured in the 15th century - rather, it is a handbook of how to conduct Rene's ideal tournament.

This is completely out of the scope of Murdocks question, and is no help to him and his group in any way whatsoever. I suggest that if a discussion of 15th century tournaments is wanted, then we start a specific topic for that discussion, rather than derailing Murdocks thread.

Murdock wrote:Basic clothing for a woman consists of a shift of linen; headgear (such as a head wrap or a veil and wimple); a kirtle (usually of linen); a gown (preferably of wool); hosen and shoes.

Basic personal gear consists of a belt (with pewter, tinned iron, or copper alloy fittings that include a buckle and strap end at the very least); a purse or a bag to hang from your belt; a bowl and drinking vessel (wood and ceramic are typical); a spoon (wood, horn, or pewter); a knife in a leather sheath (for a man, this could be his dagger); and a container for your goods (a cloth bag is sufficient).

Murdock,

What is the role of women in your group? Are they camp followers, or something else? You may want to define this.

In the 14th century, especially for wandering around home, or being comfortable in camp, it should be appropriate for a woman to wear one layer over her shift. The different sleeve variations start getting interesting once you add multiple layers. For more info on 14th c. womens layers, see Tasha's layers theory paper at www.cottesimple.com

As far as the material for this first layer of gown, wool is probably still your best choice. Granted, I understand that you are south of here, and linen may be more comfortable. There are lightweight wools available. In fact, I was wearing a summerweight wool gown at Calais, and freezing my behind off! I also wore it at MTT, and was as comfortable as I would have been in linen.

As far as belts for women, there's many many illos. of women not wearing a belt, or wearing it hidden. I would think it appropriate for a woman to go without.

My $.02,
Charlotte

Charlotte wrote:What is the role of women in your group? Are they camp followers, or something else? Charlotte

in the immortal words of our beloved Tanc.. "har-har-har" CAMP FOLLOWERS!!!!!!!

Charlotte -

From personal experience, lightweight wool is great until around the end of May/beginning of June. When the temperatures are regularly above 80 degrees, it's time to start wearing linen or cotton. In Arkansas, the cotton-wearing season is about June to September; sometimes even into October if it is a hot year.

And really, it isn't the heat that gets you, it's the humidity. It isn't unusual to have days where the temperature is 95 degrees with 95% humidity. You don't want to be wearing wool on those days - heck, you really don't even want to be wearing clothes!

Waitaminit - that's period, right?

Gwyneth

Did first edit

Need to add more personal items list
Expand women stuff

Resources list
book list
approved materials for items

suggestions??

added more personal equipment

Gwyneth wrote:Charlotte -

From personal experience, lightweight wool is great until around the end of May/beginning of June. When the temperatures are regularly above 80 degrees, it's time to start wearing linen or cotton. In Arkansas, the cotton-wearing season is about June to September; sometimes even into October if it is a hot year.

Yeah, I wore my wool at 2 events now that were ~90 degrees. I was warm, though honestly, my native Wisconsin blood would have been overwarm in almost anything.

That's actually another thing to think about. When during the year do you want to hold events? I've been told that Greys, at least, takes the summer off, partly because of not wanting to wear wool (and armour) in the heat.

-Charlotte

did another small edit to standards.

It would be dangerous for those not native to the deep south to wear multiple layers of wool in the Summer here.

I've lived here (or further south) all my life.

For ex all yall gripe about how hot Pensic is. We call that an nice Spring Day here in Birmingham. (No kidding)

In July it's 85' with high humidity _at night_. I work in that in a Kevlar vest and a polyester/ woll blend uniform.

At Pensic 30? 31? they were telling me that 90 with 40% humidity was was to dangerous to fight in. They had no clue how to calculate heat index, by their figuers it's a heat index of 170 in B'ham almost all Summer.

They'd freak out if they saw the temps at Border Raids. 105' with 100% humidity, it's only not raining because it's too hot for the droplets to form. Heat lightning as the temp slowly falls, then the raging thunder storm.

Canadians and those from colerd climes in plastic armour and piles of black cloathing and sweat shirts might need to worry about 85'. I'm in linen and live in temps higher than that more than half the year, i hydrate like crazy, i'm not in any danger.

Make a long story short (too late) i'm all about the linen clothes. When it's cold enought to wear wool i will.

More inspiration?

More pictures of Lion Rampant (from my little hometown, Brisbane):

http://photos.amy.id.au/fayre3

Not perfect, but impressive.

Anyone willing to guess which one is She-Who-Posts-as-Caithlinn?

Cheers
Michael B

Murdock wrote:did another small edit to standards.

It would be dangerous for those not native to the deep south to wear multiple layers of wool in the Summer here.

I've lived here (or further south) all my life.

For ex all yall gripe about how hot Pensic is. We call that an nice Spring Day here in Birmingham. (No kidding)

In July it's 85' with high humidity _at night_. I work in that in a Kevlar vest and a polyester/ woll blend uniform.

At Pensic 30? 31? they were telling me that 90 with 40% humidity was was to dangerous to fight in. They had no clue how to calculate heat index, by their figuers it's a heat index of 170 in B'ham almost all Summer.

They'd freak out if they saw the temps at Border Raids. 105' with 100% humidity, it's only not raining because it's too hot for the droplets to form. Heat lightning as the temp slowly falls, then the raging thunder storm.

Canadians and those from colerd climes in plastic armour and piles of black cloathing and sweat shirts might need to worry about 85'. I'm in linen and live in temps higher than that more than half the year, i hydrate like crazy, i'm not in any danger.

Make a long story short (too late) i'm all about the linen clothes. When it's cold enought to wear wool i will.

It is a bothersome myth that keeps cropping up that it is uncomfortable or impossible to wear wool in high temps. Firstly, not all wool weight is the same - you don't make your cotes or doublets out of blanket wool, and you will be fine. Secondly, wearing a linen shirt under wool acts as a bit of a primitive AC unit - as you sweat into the linen, the water evaporates off of it (possible while wearing 100% wool, which breathes wonderfully), and you can be quite comfortable in high temps with moderate to high humidity.

I did Gettysburg twice, each time 96 to 104 degree temps, with high humidity, in a wool uniform, pushing around and working a 3" ordinance rifle and attendant limber. In neither case was the wool at all unbearable - in point of fact I believe I was more comfortable than some of the spectators in their t-shirts and shoirts, because I had coverage from the sun.

If you hydrate yourself well, your own body will take care of keeping you tolerably comfortable, and well in those clothes. Armour is a different thing entirely. Mail 'breathes' to some degree, plate armour is a heat trap. In careful reading, one sees people going into battle with reduced ammounts of armour on hot July days (Cornille, Bastard of Burgundy at Ruplemond, who was killed for leaving off a large portion of his harness), but never is there a mention of people stripping down out of their clothes in a fight. On the hottest days of the year, peasant labourers in agricultural work *might* roll down their hosen, but they kept their top on, and wore some sort of hat (straw ones are seen in illustrations, and work well).

Our recent ancestors didn't suffer as much from from the Mellenoma that is prevelant today - they protected themselves from the sun. For the past 50 years, we hacve stripped down to next to nothing, and skin cancer rates have soared.

chef de chambre wrote:It is a bothersome myth that keeps cropping up that it is uncomfortable or impossible to wear wool in high temps.

Chef not tryin' dispute your word or research here but I have been wearing a wool uniform re-enacting for the past 6 years or so. Its not a myth that wool is uncomfortable in the summer.

If wool is so much cooler why didn't the US Army issue wool fatigues in Vietnam?

It all sounds like a good idea to just NOT hold events during the hottest summer months. Just like you wouldn't expect a Minnesota group to hold an outdoor event during December, January, or February (or late October, November, March, early April...) I spent several months in Dallas, and I realized that both the far south and the far North have 3 months of misery every year.... those three months were people dash between climate controlled buildings to stay comfortable.

From playing in the SCA to playing in Living History, it takes a bit of shift of expectations. I'm used to an SCA event every weekend, somewhere. With LH, there just aren't as many events, so you can choose your timing to pick a little more, well, authentic, weather. Murdock, how many events a year are you thinking? Is there something specific that you just NEED to hold in the summer?

-Charlotte

Paul von Katzenellenbogen wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:It is a bothersome myth that keeps cropping up that it is uncomfortable or impossible to wear wool in high temps.

Chef not tryin' dispute your word or research here but I have been wearing a wool uniform re-enacting for the past 6 years or so. Its not a myth that wool is uncomfortable in the summer.

If wool is so much cooler why didn't the US Army issue wool fatigues in Vietnam?

Wool is a hell of a lot 'cooler' than any synthetic material, of any weight. My point was that it wasn't so much 'cooler', as it *breathes* - synthetics do not.

You missed the part about differing weights of wool. There is a world of difference between a sack coat or roundabout, and a quality business suit. Reenactors of the 19th century are constrained by the U.S. (and for the most part CS) Army issuing heavyweight wool uniforms - Medieval reenactors are under no such constraint, and can get a much finer (thinner) wool should they prefer.

The U.S. Army from almost it's inception issued summerweight uniforms of lighter materials than wool - it ceased to do so during the late Rebellion due to the drop off in the cotton supply.

I wasn't unbearably uncomfortable in my uniform - I surmised I did better than many of the tourists many years who were par-broiling their semi-naked bodies - at least I was covered and didn't suffer from sunburn. Rule of thumb is most reenactors do not hydrate themselves as well as they ought, hence the number of meat wagons at large reenactments waiting for a TBG (tubby bearded guy) in wool to keel over, after an afternoon of more excersise than he normally sees in a month. Mind you that dehydration and heatstroke were serious problems with the Army in the 1860's - but then again, those guys were busting their humps on forced marches, and couldn't break ranks to refill empty canteens as often as reenactors can (and usually don't, because most have little clue).

Generally, excepting in Winter (and even then) most Americans today do not dress to a level commensurate with outdoor survival in any given weather - we have people die climbing some local 'mountains' every fall, when they get caught outside in lightweight shirts and jeans, because they don't have a clue about exposure. We run around like dumbasses outside, in what we consider to be 'comfortable' levels of clothing, hopping from a climate controlled house, to a climate controlled car, to a climate controlled workplace or place of entertainment. Many people I deal with daily would get lost in a stand of more than 10 trees together, and a quarter acre lot counts as 'the woods'. (Please note that I am not the greatest woodsman spawned, a veritable Daniel Boone - I do figure that if I'm stuck outside overnight, I am at least usually well prepared enough to live till morning. Many people aren't.)

I will assume the Vietnam comment is not serious, but humorous. You do realise that the Summer months in Southeast Asia can be as hot as the American Southwest desserts, but with 70% plus humidity? It is another level of heat above what is commonly found in the Mid Atlantic and Southern States. You will note the Sub and Trans Sahara tribes wore very voluminous clothes, despite the heat in their location - for protection.

The U.S. Army from almost it's inception issued summerweight uniforms of lighter materials than wool - it ceased to do so during the late Rebellion due to the drop off in the cotton supply.

late Rebellion? when in the hell is that.

Brent

Peder wrote:

The U.S. Army from almost it's inception issued summerweight uniforms of lighter materials than wool - it ceased to do so during the late Rebellion due to the drop off in the cotton supply.

late Rebellion? when in the hell is that.

Brent

It was the polite way the 'old fellers' in the GAR used to refer to it.

Circa 1861-65. "The War of Northern Agression" to you heathens from Texas.

Chef's right and sorta wrong.
I don't dispute his research or experiences in wool uniforms.

Wool's not all that bad. My uniform pants are wool and i wear them all year long. There are light weight wools that can be worn fairly comfortably. I've worn my wool hosen in June or July. Natural fibers are cooler than almost any synthetic but...

Europe afaik is much much cooler than south Alabama in the summer. It's miserably hot _naked_, much less in wool. I fully believe Chef's right and they did wear long sleves and wool almost all the time in the Middle ages in Europe.

I doubt they could have done that in Loachapolka or Opelika in August working in a Peanut or Cotton field.

I've seen guys from up East nearly pass out in shorts and a t shirt. If your not used to it, the heat here can really nail you.

Remember Biloxi Blues? "It's hot here, it's Africa hot. It doesn't get this hot in New York. Tarzan could'nt take this."

Ok enought being funny

I hate to be a dunce here but what does a houce (sp?) look like?

Also does anyone have a source for archer bracers? I have an issue of Skirmish somewhere with a beautiful one made of cow horn. Anyone have any clue where i might get one?

It sounds like you need to make a decision:

1) You will be interpreting 14th century English people and material culture

2) you will be interpreting 21st century people taking advantage of modern conveniences (even with period materials) to portray 14th century English people and material culture.

If you're just doing it for fun, there's nothing wrong with #2. If you are serious about actually educating the public, #1 is the only acceptable solution.

Murdock (and others) -

I now have some close ups of some of my recent handwork (a late 15th century Florentine dress). The style of the garment is later period than you are wanting, but the handsewing skills and stitches used are the same. Be happy to E-mail photos to you if you are still interested.

Gwyneth

Perhaps we aught to have an outing for fun first, to get the lay of the land and weather in this stuff, before doing somthing meant to educate people.
We could always just use oak mountain for a night.

Glen

Most of the heat commentary is just being funny, you live in Ga you know how it is.



Not sure 100% of what you mean by modern convieneces. I want everything to look spot on not sure what the seperation is. I want this to be fun for us, i also want to be educational and "get into" the period.
Don't see that they have to be mutually exclusive. Could you explain what ya mean?