I found this picture..wondering if it is accurate or not....

MJBlazek · Post by **MJBlazek** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:05 pm

I found a pic of this poster sold at Barnes and Nobel.

I was wondering if it is accuate at all? if so, what are they wearing over the tassets and faulds? it looks like they are fabric covered...or is it a form of tabbard? What could it be!?

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:19 pm

Back then, real men wore dresses.

Seriously, they did.

They also wore fancy ones over their armor at times, Frau Hirsch posted a couple with lots of gems and jewelry a year or more ago.

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:21 pm

Well, I've never seen it in contemporary pictures, but there are others on this forum far more knowledgable than I am on the XV century who may have.

What does the text say? It just a tiny bit too small to make out.

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:38 am

It is a Victorian era wood cut so while it gets many things right the details are always wrong. I have never seen anything that indicates a lower half only livery coat. Outside of images of tournaments I have never seen art of a man in full armor wearing any livery coat.

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:10 am

Looks to me like the bottom of the rock sticking out from the bottom of the breastplate, but covering the tops of the legs.

(pretty much exactly what mine looks like when I have my "dress" suit on.. )

(rock being german for coat)

I think theres a couple of illustrations in Osprey that have the same thing going on.

I don't know that it's a "livery coat" per se, as much as what we call a "waffenrock" (warcoat) being worn under the armor.. you just cannot see the top, as it is covered.

Maeryk

InsaneIrish · Post by **InsaneIrish** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:46 am

Maeryk wrote:I don't know that it's a "livery coat" per se, as much as what we call a "waffenrock" (warcoat) being worn under the armor.. you just cannot see the top, as it is covered.

Maeryk

Thats what I thought to at first, BUT, I believe the First word on the Top is "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey"...err...um I mean FRENCH. :twisted:

All joking aside. There are a couple things that bother me about calling these Faltonrocks (aka Waffenfrock aka warcoats)

1. If the depiction is French they would they be wearing Waffenfrocks? I thought the Waffenfrock was German/Swiss/LATE Itallian?
2. Those are DAMNED short to be Waffenfrocks. All the Frocks I have seen go to just above the knee. Those look closer to a doublet flared waist.
3. Also a Waffenfrock is made from about 15 yards of fabric PLUS multiple layers of clothing under it. I doubt one would wear full harness over and around all those layers. (unless the pointed gambeson is substituted for the layers)
4. The guy in green on the right(green) seems to be wearing something different (doublet over breastplate or cloth covered breast plate with tassets) than the guy on the left.

BTW, I Believe the wording on top reads:
French Costumes
Louis XIV "something or other"

Maeryk · Post by **Maeryk** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 am

SInce we don't really know the context this is out of, hell, it could have been a depiction of a fancy dress tourney! This could be some Frenchman's interpretation of of a completely different period.

As to your 15 yards statement.. that's totally new to me.. (and I have two rocks). Even organ-pleating it would be damn difficult to get more than two yards into the skirt.. and the bodice on them is pretty much tight fitting, (even though layered) but of thin material.

Maeryk

InsaneIrish · Post by **InsaneIrish** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:00 pm

Maeryk wrote:As to your 15 yards statement.. that's totally new to me.. (and I have two rocks). Even organ-pleating it would be damn difficult to get more than two yards into the skirt.. and the bodice on them is pretty much tight fitting, (even though layered) but of thin material.

Maeryk

Let me do some digging. But I think it was master Jose that told me that, but don't quote me on it, since I am not sure. I also seem to remember thinking that they were lined most of the time. So, there is double the normal measurement in yardage right there.

But let me dig and see where I pulled that out of.

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:50 pm

If you have Resplendence of the Spanish Monarchy, you will see a half skirt that appears to be attached to the bottom of some armor.

Sorry, I can't scan and post it right now. :cry:

Jason Grimes · Post by **Jason Grimes** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:05 pm

It looks to me that this image came out of that famous costume book that was first published in the 1860's. I forget the name of it though.

The guy on the left is wearing bases or a short skirt that was worn over the fauld. This is more of a 16th century practice though, you really don't see bases until around 1495 or so. I don't think that this is a historic image, it looks victorian era to me. Sorry,

MJBlazek · Post by **MJBlazek** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:31 pm

Ok whoa whoa.....

Im getting some who say, "Yes it looks like....blah blah..."

Then Im getting some that say "No its from a costume book... or they would have worn somethign like ...blah blah..."

So which one is it?

Jason Grimes · Post by **Jason Grimes** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:21 pm

Sorry about that, I was agreeing with James B. You see armour covered with bases and Waffenroks all over in period German artwork in the 16th century. But I haven't seen this, that I can remember, with 15th century German artwork. Now there is an example in England of a funerary brass that depicts German/Italian/Flemish? gothic armour that is covered with a tabard. There is a picture of it in A&AMK. But the tabard looks very different then what this image depicts. I think what you are seeing here is a bit of Victorian mix and match. :evil:

MJBlazek · Post by **MJBlazek** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:24 pm

ahh ok thankyou!

Thomas H · Post by **Thomas H** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:32 pm

The pavise is spot on though :-)

.

Jason Grimes · Post by **Jason Grimes** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:31 am

I found it. It was published by Braun & Schneider and included in the book called "THE HISTORY OF COSTUME" in about 1861 to 1880.

You will find this particular image on plate 32.

http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/history.html

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:03 pm

Maeryk wrote:SInce we don't really know the context this is out of, hell, it could have been a depiction of a fancy dress tourney! This could be some Frenchman's interpretation of of a completely different period.

As to your 15 yards statement.. that's totally new to me.. (and I have two rocks). Even organ-pleating it would be damn difficult to get more than two yards into the skirt.. and the bodice on them is pretty much tight fitting, (even though layered) but of thin material.

Maeryk

My husband's full pleated rocks were done with 3.5 - 4 yds of fabric. lined of course.

I've seen some German depictions of unpleated garments worn with armor like this from the early 16th c. They are stuck here and there in various paintings and are not as heavy as rocks, and seem to be from about 1490-1510 at most and somewhat rare. They look to be more like something decorative than protective, but they aren't heraldic either. I'm not surprised to see them depicted as French too. The clothing wasn't all that different for men throughout Europe in this period. I think I've seen one in one of the Durer pictures.

FYI, when I've looked for them, I've found the corresponding period art for pictures in Braun and Schneider. They sometimes make up their own colors, because some are from woodcuts, but in some cases they are correct with the colors. Only a few times have I noticed they did not redraw correctly. The pictures from the colorized version are much better prints.

There are some very wierd and unusual costume and armor variants in that late 15th/early 16th c time period...

Juliana

Mike Garrett (Orc) · Post by **Mike Garrett (Orc)** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:35 pm

To me it looks like the top script says "French Costumes, Late XIV century"
Which would be extremely wrong, would it not, given the armour?