The Ombrellino, Umbraculum or Pavilion and Medieval Tent Con

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Interesting image. Those could be poles in pockets but they could also be over-sewn ropes anchored to the fabric. Look how the red stripes line up with the ropes. Each red stripe ends either in the middle of a fan of 6 ropes or between 2 fans. Even the stakes at the bottom are to ropes that span over the red stripes. If the poles were in pockets you would logically expect the ropes to be in line with the poles so as not to unduly stress the fabric. spacing the 'pocket poles' between the ropes seems counter intuitive. I think the spacing is too regular to be coincidence but there is always the issue of 'artist pulling ideas from his gludial cleft" explanation.

I'm not certain what to think but I AM in the market for a new tent and this is strongly driving me towards a hoop tent of some sort.

Can this system work on an oval?

Sean

There is something to note in Rene's "Love Shack".

There is no central pole visible. Now maybe it is just to the right of the doorway, and not visible. Or maybe...

You have the poles in the body of the tent. You have some sort of hoop at the rim, and more (smaller) poles, also in sleeves, going to the cap. All of the extra ropes to the hoop compress the tent downwards, and pull outwards to give it a sturdy form. Depending on the weight of the cap at the roof, it might not even need much to keep it in place (or it could be pinned to the poles) Like a Roman arch, gravity keeping it upright.

Clear as mud?

[RenJunkie]

Is it my imagination or does the KR image have a window in the tent?

Thanks!
Christopher

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Yes, it has a window. It could have a roll down cover that is tied up on the outside and would not be visible from the inside.

And it may seem odd to not have a center pole, but neither do ger/yurts.

[RenJunkie]

I didn't think the Europeans did round tents with no center poles. I would be able to buy a smaller tent if there were no center pole to contend with.

I shall remember this window thing. Seems a good idea to me. Anyone ever do a period tent with proper period windows?

Thanks!
Christopher

[Steve S.]

There is something to note in Rene's "Love Shack".

There is no central pole visible. Now maybe it is just to the right of the doorway, and not visible. Or maybe...

Which picture are you talking about? I don't know which ones are Rene's and which one is a love shack.

Steve

[Steve S.]

Oh, you are talking about this one:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... tent.1.gif

I think it is possible that the center pole is hidden just inside the door flap.

I can't imagine these tents not having a center pole to support them.

Steve

[Steve S.]

Here I have super-imposed a vertical line desending from the finial. It is possible that the artist assumed the center pole is hidden behind the wall.



Steve

[Steve S.]

Notice also that the guy ropes on the left side of the tent disappear into the lady's hair.

Steve

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Here are some late 14th century moneyers working in a half-open tent:

<IMG SRC="http://books.google.com/books?id=ICILAA ... 362&edge=0">

From Giovanni Sercambi's <i>Chroniche</I>, 1400.

Not wall-less, but it's a point of reference for people using a tent for shade...

-Derian.

They look a lot like gers/yurts to me.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

[Steve S.]

Medieval Quonset huts!

Steve

[Mac]

I think that is is very possible, or perhaps even likely, that the King Rene tent in this image is a "yurt-like" structure.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/sca/tent ... tent.1.gif

The red seam lines all look as though they contain batons. So long as the canopy was firmly attached to the walls, it should stand. The guy ropes would keep the tent round in the wind. The wall fabric would keep the wall batons from bending in a way that let the walls bulge outward. The ropes which go from the middle of each side baton to the guys (look for them in the pic, and you will see what I mean) would keep the walls from bending inward. The canopy should support it's self like that of a yurt. A light center pole may or may not be necessary.


Perhaps I will build a 1/2th scale model of it sometime this winter. If it works, I will post pictures of it. If it dosen't work I will still post pictures of it.

Mac

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Medieval Quonset huts!

Steve

Pretty much, and you will find similar contraptions on wagons. Some of which drape down in the center, like Conestoga wagons. So, when you are on the road, it is on the wagon. And when you are planted somewhere, you can use it as a shop/living quarters.

[Steve S.]

An interesting aspect of the internal spine (baton) idea is that the walls would roll up in a bundle, and the roof would collapse like an umbrella with no center handle.

But I'm not very convinced about the concept.

Steve

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I think that all of the little decorative red bits the ropes attach to/through are at least some sort of wooden reinforcing bits. They may also go around some of the poles to help tie them in.

[Galleron]

An interesting aspect of the internal spine (baton) idea is that the walls would roll up in a bundle, and the roof would collapse like an umbrella with no center handle.

But I'm not very convinced about the concept.

Steve

I'm very convinced of the rods (bastons) in the walls, in this particular case.

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... ction.html

On the other hand, the two pieces of evidence for the battens in the wall are both associated with King Rene, so it may not have been used by anyone else.

The red lines in the roof don't show the same pronounced shadow seen in the walls. I'm not convinced there are rods there as well.

[lorenzo2]

The extra guy ropes perpendicular to the main guy ropes convince me that batons must be present in the King Rene tent.

[Jon Terris]

I think that all of the little decorative red bits the ropes attach to/through are at least some sort of wooden reinforcing bits. They may also go around some of the poles to help tie them in.

I would think they are just leather or possibly even just fabric like the red strips on the roof (there to re-inforce the seams)
See this similar surviving one in Basel

The suggestion that the artists didn't bother painting guy ropes is my favourite, we can't take any of these images as gospel, we don't understand what artistic conventions they held to or what liberties they took.

Of the images discussed recently, the canopies of state are to my mind another example of taking things out of context. At least a couple of these are indoor structures which are suspended from the roof and not freestanding at all. The mechanics are completely different when working with gravity as opposed to against it.


(you can see the wall and what looks like a dado rail behind this one).

JonT

[Steve S.]

[quote]Of the images discussed recently, the canopies of state are to my mind another example of taking things out of context. At least a couple of these are indoor structures which are suspended from the roof and not freestanding at all. The mechanics are completely different when working with gravity as opposed to against it. [/quoe]

I don't follow. The canopies of state are identical in structure to my implementation of the top of my pavilion. Gravity still pulls everything down, and everything is still supported by the peak of the cone.

Steve

[Kilkenny]

The suggestion that the artists didn't bother painting guy ropes is my favourite, we can't take any of these images as gospel, we don't understand what artistic conventions they held to or what liberties they took.

Of the images discussed recently, the canopies of state are to my mind another example of taking things out of context. At least a couple of these are indoor structures which are suspended from the roof and not freestanding at all. The mechanics are completely different when working with gravity as opposed to against it.


(you can see the wall and what looks like a dado rail behind this one).

JonT

Jon, let's begin with assuming things about what the artists show us. Outside of cases where we have some sound basis for believing that what is shown is not real but allegorical (I sure would not argue that H. Bosch really had all the things he painted running around in his world), just where and how do you propose to draw the line on this sort of thing ?

For example, I might propose that they had full automatic submachine guns, but the artist just opted not to show them. Pretty classic "slippery slope" there.

In this specific area of investigation (pavillion construction) if you're going to assume the ropes were there but the artist omitted them, then you must allow me to assume the spokes were there, but the artist omitted them, and you must permit Mac to assume that the hoops were there and the artist merely omitted them. Neither is any more unreasonable an assumption...

The distinction you're trying to draw between the canopy used indoors, suspended from a ceiling, and a pavillion canopy is not a valid distinction.
In both cases, the canopy is suspended - it is merely a trivial distinction of being suspended from a pole rising from the ground, rather than from an anchor point on a ceiling above. In both cases, the canopy operates in the same manner, gravity applying in exactly the same way. It's completely irrelevant whether the central point of the canopy, from which all the rest is suspended, is held up by a pole pushing from below or by a hook pulling from above.

I'm not following what you're talking about regarding the dado rail. Could you clarify that, please ?

[Gil-Galadh]

Somenone a bit back mentioned about the distinct look of the camp filled with ropes, and that the painter wouldn't miss it. This instantly reminded me of the following:
the Skylitzes chronicle(late 11th c.) .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... istory.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... in_969.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... na_843.jpg

I really hope that some conclusions on what construction method is authentic will be reached by this thread

[Jon Terris]

In this specific area of investigation (pavillion construction) if you're going to assume the ropes were there but the artist omitted them, then you must allow me to assume the spokes were there, but the artist omitted them, and you must permit Mac to assume that the hoops were there and the artist merely omitted them. Neither is any more unreasonable an assumption...

Indeed, meaning that none of these images can be be used as 100% evidence of any one technique (which is kind of what people are trying to do isn't it?)

The distinction you're trying to draw between the canopy used indoors, suspended from a ceiling, and a pavillion canopy is not a valid distinction.
In both cases, the canopy is suspended - it is merely a trivial distinction of being suspended from a pole rising from the ground, rather than from an anchor point on a ceiling above. In both cases, the canopy operates in the same manner, gravity applying in exactly the same way. It's completely irrelevant whether the central point of the canopy, from which all the rest is suspended, is held up by a pole pushing from below or by a hook pulling from above.

Big difference, a canopy suspended from a roof will hang there for as long as the roof does. A canopy suspended from the top of a pole will stay there as long as the pole is standing -ie it requires some method of keeping the pole UP. Either with guy ropes or possibly a large base to hold the pole upright?

My point is that the artist wouldn't draw guy ropes for a structure hanging from a roof- they aren't there.

I'm not following what you're talking about regarding the dado rail. Could you clarify that, please ?

Half way up the picture, running from the left side to behind the canopy is what looks like a dado rail, a decorative feature in some rooms implying that this picture is indoors rather than outside (where it might be difficult to put in pegs for guy ropes, but there is a roof handy to hang a canopy from!)

JonT

[Baron Alcyoneus]

On the right side of the pic, I think the center pole is visible.

[Mac]

Big difference, a canopy suspended from a roof will hang there for as long as the roof does. A canopy suspended from the top of a pole will stay there as long as the pole is standing -ie it requires some method of keeping the pole UP. Either with guy ropes or possibly a large base to hold the pole upright?


JonT

John,

Here are a couple of pictures of my arming pavilion model. The first shows it with its usual compliment of guy ropes.

http://billyandcharlie.com/tents/armingguys.JPG

The second shows it with the guys removed.

http://billyandcharlie.com/tents/armingnoguys.JPG

In the guy-less configuration, the fabric of the walls is acting in tension, and taking the place of the guys. This is sufficient to keep the whole structure upright. If I wanted to, I could also run the guys inside the walls and attach them to the same pegs as the lower edge of the walls. Either way will work; and in either case, the tent would appear guy-less to the modern observer or the medieval artist.

Mac

[Galleron]

On the right side of the pic, I think the center pole is visible.

I thought so at first, but I think what you see on the far right is part of the wall of the tent.

If it's the center pole it meets the ground much closer to the viewer than it should, assuming a competent artist.

[Kilkenny]

Big difference, a canopy suspended from a roof will hang there for as long as the roof does. A canopy suspended from the top of a pole will stay there as long as the pole is standing -ie it requires some method of keeping the pole UP. Either with guy ropes or possibly a large base to hold the pole upright?

My point is that the artist wouldn't draw guy ropes for a structure hanging from a roof- they aren't there.

JonT

Is that your point ? Previously you stated that "The mechanics are completely different when working with gravity as opposed to against it. "
This is what I was addressing and with which I disagree. The mechanics of supporting a vertical pole versus a hook in a ceiling really aren't relevant. The canopy supported by either is working in precisely the same way.

Guy ropes are a different subject, with one of the problems being that the artist will frequently show lines that hold the center pole but not lines that would hold the roof canopy. At that point, there's a very strong basis for considering a construction method that only needs the one set of ropes, which the artist has shown rather than assuming that the artist for some mysterious reason did not draw the remaining ropes.

[Sean Powell]

Question(s):

How do we presume that the ropes are attached to the upper canvas? Are they sewn into the canvas? Do the central lines pass all the way to the peak? Are they tied to fabric loops at the edge? Perhaps even toggled to loops in the canvas? Do they pass under the valence and anchor to the hoop itself?

I am going to presume that the walls of period tents are permanantly attached. If I wanted to duplicate in a modern reconstruction with removeable walls, would the walls anchor inside the hoop or outside?

The reason I ask is my present tent is 10 years old and a little small for a family of 3. We are looking to expand and had been considering a basic rectangular marque for efficiency sake. The concept of switching to a hoop-oval strongly appeals to me but I need to collect more evidence for my wife about their functionality and durability. She is dubious about the design because she doesn't know anyone who has one and doesn't want to be the experiment.

Any and all information about how one of these could be reconstructed for modern usage is appreciated. Especially about how the hoop is installed, how the ropes attach and how the walls are hung.

Thanks, Sean

[Charlotte J]

Indeed, meaning that none of these images can be be used as 100% evidence of any one technique (which is kind of what people are trying to do isn't it?)

No.

I think we all realize that 100% evidence of one technique used all of the time is nothing anybody will ever accomplish.

For my part, it seems that the explanation of ropes holding out a canopy does not address everything we see in imagery. And it's not a tiny number of images that are unexplainable. I think that most of us are trying to make an educated guess as to what may have been done, and I think that most of us are honest enough to admit that there is some guesswork involved.

[Steve S.]

How do we presume that the ropes are attached to the upper canvas?

Here is a 17th century surviving example that shows one way of doing it:

http://www.greydragon.org/pavilions/basel.html

Steve

[Mac]

Question(s):



I am going to presume that the walls of period tents are permanantly attached. If I wanted to duplicate in a modern reconstruction with removeable walls, would the walls anchor inside the hoop or outside?

Thanks, Sean

Sean,

I don't think there is any reason to assume that the walls must be permanently attached to the canopy. Indeed there is at least one picture where this is most certainly not the case.

The (17th c) tent which came to Hull with the Gratz exhibit had its walls attached with loops and toggles.

Mac

[Sean Powell]

How do we presume that the ropes are attached to the upper canvas?

Here is a 17th century surviving example that shows one way of doing it:

http://www.greydragon.org/pavilions/basel.html

Steve

Dang I wish that tent was still on display. I had to show one of the staff a picture of their own museum to prove that they had the tent. There is a concession stand where the tent used to be. Must be in a back room someplace. They were renovating so it may go back on display eventually. It's a shame that such an important piece is not better documented.

S hooks on crow-feet is quite reasonable to do. It would give me a chance to break out the forge and make some myself. Most modern tent manufacturers will do brass grommets so I could order that as part of the construction and then overlay the leather to disguise the brass.

I don't think there is any reason to assume that the walls must be permanently attached to the canopy. Indeed there is at least one picture where this is most certainly not the case.

The (17th c) tent which came to Hull with the Gratz exhibit had its walls attached with loops and toggles.

Mac

That's GREAT news. I think it was tentsmith that had the option of toggle and loop hangers. Could the hoop have been fed through the same loops as the wall hangers or does it need to be a separate pocket for this to work?

Now I just have to look at a LOT of mid 15th century pictures of tents to settle on a color and decoration theme.

Sean

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I would HATE to have to fold up a large pavillion with the walls attached to the roof.

[Steve S.]

Here is a surviving 16th century pavilion. It has detachable walls:

http://www.greydragon.org/pavilions/Spain/index.html

Also there is another common picture around here, which I can't find at the moment, which shows soldiers breaking camp and all that is still up is the roof, center pole, and guy ropes. The walls have already been taken down.

Steve

[Mac]

Also there is another common picture around here, which I can't find at the moment, which shows soldiers breaking camp and all that is still up is the roof, center pole, and guy ropes. The walls have already been taken down.

Steve

Here it is in B and W

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

There is a nicer, color pic out there, but I can't remember where.

Mac

[Charlotte J]

Necro-thread.

I ran across this image tonight, which I could not track down when we had this discussion before. It makes a good argument for internal structure of some sort.

From http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminated ... llID=43062
(bigger version there too)