I inherited a 16 ft tepee from a family member numerous years ago. It was all ready well used and worn and since I don't portray a native american in my mountain man rendezvous curcuit, I put it in storage in the shed for some years. I pulled it out last week and man, did the mice get to it really really badly. So, now I have very large pieces of weather-proofed canvas that all ready has the weatherworn look. Instead of throwing it away, I figured there must be some use for it. My focus is two era's. I have gear for the 1350's (English) and the 1470's (English and Burgundian).
Now, I've seen in another thread, be it here or on the UK reenactors forum, period artwork of a type of open ended A frame tent. I think it was dated to the early 1500's, but was is possible for the common, levied soldier/archer to stay in something as that instead of sleeping on the ground in the elements?
I all ready have a pavillion so I have no need for something like that.
What suggestions do ya'll have for me?
What uses?
Moderator: Glen K
What uses?
Ich Dien
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
-
Tibbie Croser
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2373
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 4:09 pm
- Location: Storvik, Atlantia
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
We need to keep in mind that the normal practise of Medieval and Renaissance armies was to billet the common soldiers on commoners, in their houses, sheds, and barns, put the highest ranking officers into the most comfortable quarters, like abbys and such, and have the middleing rank officers and supplies under canvas, or in slightly better quarters than the common men.
In other words, Medieval armies tended to only have part of the army under canvas at any time, common soldiers weren't normally provided with tents at all, and whenever possible, as much of the army would be billeted on the local population - every soldier or man at arms having their own tent was something you never saw, at all - even in more modern times, canvas sheltered multiple men, or officers, unless you were very high up on the food chain, and even then, those high up on the food chain would likely have servants quartered somewhere under their canvas, to be close at hand to serve them.
There are a couple of accounts scattered throughout the late middle ages into the early Renaissance that show this sort of practise first-hand, from the letters of one of the Croy brothers, sent home from the siege of Neuss, to the reminisces of a common soldier in the Army of Henry VIII in France in 1513 - the latter describing men beig disabled or lost from a lack of shelter, and a lack of knowing how to cobble together shelters from raw materials (what they would have called shebangs in the Confederate army). In the Master WA prints, we see several scenes of an army encamped, and the tents show either shelter equipment, or act as stabling for horses, not as shelter for men.
If you were camping, without billeting, I think from the evidence, an army would likely look like this -
A common Medieval soldier, not stuck in a barn, or a shed, would probably make their own temporary shelter from their cloak, and some branches and thatch, set up along a fence line, going by that early 16th century reminisence.
The supplies, and the mounted men at arms and officers would tend to be clumped towards the center of a camp, with multiples of each billeted in pavilions, with some larger pavilions covering supplies.
The high ranking officers would be center of the camp, the prince dead center these would be bigger pavilions, but they still would be sharing a portion of their tent with their servants - we have some descriptions of princly tents, and they seem to have had internal hangings, that would make corridors along the edge of the tents, and these are the areas likely the valets would be camped out in, I would think.
We can see this arrangement laid out in the depiction of the Imperial camp in the Mittlealteres hausbuch drawings, with the sole exception to my description being a large part of the external walls of the camp are special-purpose artillery carts, the wagons built in the form of mantlets to form the wall - the internal wall around officers country, is made up of the more likely walls for most armies of baggage wagons and carts.
In other words, Medieval armies tended to only have part of the army under canvas at any time, common soldiers weren't normally provided with tents at all, and whenever possible, as much of the army would be billeted on the local population - every soldier or man at arms having their own tent was something you never saw, at all - even in more modern times, canvas sheltered multiple men, or officers, unless you were very high up on the food chain, and even then, those high up on the food chain would likely have servants quartered somewhere under their canvas, to be close at hand to serve them.
There are a couple of accounts scattered throughout the late middle ages into the early Renaissance that show this sort of practise first-hand, from the letters of one of the Croy brothers, sent home from the siege of Neuss, to the reminisces of a common soldier in the Army of Henry VIII in France in 1513 - the latter describing men beig disabled or lost from a lack of shelter, and a lack of knowing how to cobble together shelters from raw materials (what they would have called shebangs in the Confederate army). In the Master WA prints, we see several scenes of an army encamped, and the tents show either shelter equipment, or act as stabling for horses, not as shelter for men.
If you were camping, without billeting, I think from the evidence, an army would likely look like this -
A common Medieval soldier, not stuck in a barn, or a shed, would probably make their own temporary shelter from their cloak, and some branches and thatch, set up along a fence line, going by that early 16th century reminisence.
The supplies, and the mounted men at arms and officers would tend to be clumped towards the center of a camp, with multiples of each billeted in pavilions, with some larger pavilions covering supplies.
The high ranking officers would be center of the camp, the prince dead center these would be bigger pavilions, but they still would be sharing a portion of their tent with their servants - we have some descriptions of princly tents, and they seem to have had internal hangings, that would make corridors along the edge of the tents, and these are the areas likely the valets would be camped out in, I would think.
We can see this arrangement laid out in the depiction of the Imperial camp in the Mittlealteres hausbuch drawings, with the sole exception to my description being a large part of the external walls of the camp are special-purpose artillery carts, the wagons built in the form of mantlets to form the wall - the internal wall around officers country, is made up of the more likely walls for most armies of baggage wagons and carts.
-
Black Swan Designs
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:35 pm
- Location: Ramona, CA, USA
- Contact:
chef de chambre wrote:In the Master WA prints, we see several scenes of an army encamped, and the tents show either shelter equipment, or act as stabling for horses, not as shelter for men.
Bob you really need to make like binders of evidence or something so you can double check these things more easily.
The three tents explicity drawn by WA are generally held to be an offficers tent, I'd guess a man at arms(hard to find), a stable tent, and a soldiers tent which I believe is the one you are refering to as an equiptment shelter and one would assume it would double. It isn't like it takes a large amount of space for someone to sleep.
Assuming that the WA images are more or less actual depictions of the burgundian ordinance companies then each lance would seem to have atleast two tents, one for the man at arms and one for everyone else and to store equiptment, and then possibly another one for the horses that might be shared or not within some larger unit.
The image we are talking about is here. http://www.rogue-artist.com/gothicgermany/camp.html
Along with the big camp image by the housebook master.
Look at the image of the camp by the housebook master, there are several different tent styles.
The one that might be easiest is something similar to a sibley. which is kinda like a tepee with a single center pole. However it is primarily seen in southern Germany in the late 15-th century
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Brent,
There is zero evidence that the master WA image actually shows a tent belonging to a specific lance, that is pure speculation. The assumption the fellow makes on the webpage is fallacious, as neither 'lounger' depicts a nobleman, and the tent is chock-full of general-purpose equipment, both sides of the pavillion - there is a trunk full of helmets in the foreground, there is nothing but equipment in it.
There is more equipment in it than that for a single lance, and no camp bed, or any other sort of item an officers tent would hold, so I think that blows that assumption out of the water.
The only people 'generally holding' this assumption is the author of that one page, and you going on his say-so. If you look at the annual tent purchases made for the ordinance companies, there is not enough tents ordered each year to house all the men, even grouped by the lance, and we have evidence, from the breaking-up of the camp at the siege of Neuss, that the tents the companies had would be destroyed in a season or two of use.
There is zero evidence that the master WA image actually shows a tent belonging to a specific lance, that is pure speculation. The assumption the fellow makes on the webpage is fallacious, as neither 'lounger' depicts a nobleman, and the tent is chock-full of general-purpose equipment, both sides of the pavillion - there is a trunk full of helmets in the foreground, there is nothing but equipment in it.
There is more equipment in it than that for a single lance, and no camp bed, or any other sort of item an officers tent would hold, so I think that blows that assumption out of the water.
The only people 'generally holding' this assumption is the author of that one page, and you going on his say-so. If you look at the annual tent purchases made for the ordinance companies, there is not enough tents ordered each year to house all the men, even grouped by the lance, and we have evidence, from the breaking-up of the camp at the siege of Neuss, that the tents the companies had would be destroyed in a season or two of use.
Bob, you should look into going back to school to finish your degree with the time you have right now. Because writing posts that go way off from the original question are often not worth the time.
What I said was "Assuming that the WA images are more or less actual depictions of the burgundian ordinance companies" That assumption isn't from that page, I never even read that page as almost all of those images are from MY camp and march collection. There are a good number of people who think Master WA had some sort of personal knowledge about the Burgundian ordinance companies as his drawings/engravings show some sort of familiarity that we don't usually see in art in the period. How, we don't know, perhaps he read the ordinances, or saw them at one point. You can disagree that is your choice. But even just counting the numbers on the tents end up with two in the men at arms tent engraving and 7 on the other tent engraving. Same number as in a lance. And yes as you and I both know most lances weren't properly set up so he may be conceiving an ideal.
The problem with looking at purchases is you don't know if those are all the tents a unit or army had. There is a german man at arms who wrote about camping in the burgundian army but I've never read his work only a summary.
end note on this thread. find the best way to use the canvas in a medieval way and go with it.
What I said was "Assuming that the WA images are more or less actual depictions of the burgundian ordinance companies" That assumption isn't from that page, I never even read that page as almost all of those images are from MY camp and march collection. There are a good number of people who think Master WA had some sort of personal knowledge about the Burgundian ordinance companies as his drawings/engravings show some sort of familiarity that we don't usually see in art in the period. How, we don't know, perhaps he read the ordinances, or saw them at one point. You can disagree that is your choice. But even just counting the numbers on the tents end up with two in the men at arms tent engraving and 7 on the other tent engraving. Same number as in a lance. And yes as you and I both know most lances weren't properly set up so he may be conceiving an ideal.
The problem with looking at purchases is you don't know if those are all the tents a unit or army had. There is a german man at arms who wrote about camping in the burgundian army but I've never read his work only a summary.
end note on this thread. find the best way to use the canvas in a medieval way and go with it.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Brent,
I have a hell of a lot more familiarity with this specific topic than you chose to credit me on this thread.
The individuals around the equipment tent - because that is clearly what it is, being chock-full of general-purpose equipment, without room for lodgings, do not constitute the membership of a lance.
Count them, there is one archer, two tent-strtetchers, which were by definition in the Burgundian army, a seperate corps of labourers, one crossbowman, two indeterminate infantrymen lounging in the tent - for all we know, after having lugged those chests and sack there, and two other people, we have no idea of their connection, slaughtering a bullock in the background. There are zero men at arms depicted, and no indication of a man at arms having that tent as his quarters, or anyone else having that tent as their quarters.
You have frequently asked ME my opinion of the master WA prints, and I have repeated to you with equal frequency, that I was as certain as I can be that they depict the bandes of the ordinances, circa 1473 (for which date I gave you my opinions why, relating to the presence of mounted crossbowmen), in the act of drilling (the two infantry, and two calvary images), and that these two are camp scenes. I never stated in my opinion that this represents a tent for a lance, although I have frequently pointed out to you and others the stable tent, which I have found fascinating.
I can tell you one thing I am strongly convinced of (as I can be, and nothing is certain in squinting at art) , that this is not a privately owned tent - it bears the arms of the Dutchy of Burgundy (not the ducal arms, but the arms of the singular dutchy) prominently on its roof, which is a clue, I think, that it would have been issued to the army, or made for the army out of the depot at Dijon. Were it a privately owned tent, it would bear the arms of its owner. There is another tent image in another painting, that has another regional arms pinned to the exterior of the tent, which the company of St. George pointed out in one of their issues of the Dragon
I have a hell of a lot more familiarity with this specific topic than you chose to credit me on this thread.
The individuals around the equipment tent - because that is clearly what it is, being chock-full of general-purpose equipment, without room for lodgings, do not constitute the membership of a lance.
Count them, there is one archer, two tent-strtetchers, which were by definition in the Burgundian army, a seperate corps of labourers, one crossbowman, two indeterminate infantrymen lounging in the tent - for all we know, after having lugged those chests and sack there, and two other people, we have no idea of their connection, slaughtering a bullock in the background. There are zero men at arms depicted, and no indication of a man at arms having that tent as his quarters, or anyone else having that tent as their quarters.
You have frequently asked ME my opinion of the master WA prints, and I have repeated to you with equal frequency, that I was as certain as I can be that they depict the bandes of the ordinances, circa 1473 (for which date I gave you my opinions why, relating to the presence of mounted crossbowmen), in the act of drilling (the two infantry, and two calvary images), and that these two are camp scenes. I never stated in my opinion that this represents a tent for a lance, although I have frequently pointed out to you and others the stable tent, which I have found fascinating.
I can tell you one thing I am strongly convinced of (as I can be, and nothing is certain in squinting at art) , that this is not a privately owned tent - it bears the arms of the Dutchy of Burgundy (not the ducal arms, but the arms of the singular dutchy) prominently on its roof, which is a clue, I think, that it would have been issued to the army, or made for the army out of the depot at Dijon. Were it a privately owned tent, it would bear the arms of its owner. There is another tent image in another painting, that has another regional arms pinned to the exterior of the tent, which the company of St. George pointed out in one of their issues of the Dragon
-
Tibbie Croser
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2373
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 4:09 pm
- Location: Storvik, Atlantia
Regarding a slightly different time and place (the Anglo-Scottish Borders in the 16th century), the recent Osprey Scottish Renaissance Armies book had a quote from a contemporary observer that common Scottish soldiers made small sleeping shelters out of canvas and upright sticks (sort of like pup tents). This may have been for Flodden or Solway Moss, I can't recall. I think the book also has contemporary sketches of Scottish encampments.
Flittie Smeddum of Dagorhir
Tibbie Croser of the SCA
Tibbie Croser of the SCA
Bob, once does not equal frequently and I'm pretty sure it was only once. But I can check my e-mails if you like.
Secondly what you just wrote doesn't actually contradict anything I said.
Thirdly the only reason I would under estimate your knowledge is because you don't generally use sources well and too often use sources that note ethereally instead of specifically, I don't doubt you saw the source I do doubt whether you remember the details correctly or have kept its proper context in your mind.
Fourthly every time you end up with too much time on the forums you end up writing big posts that end up convoluted. Eventually people get tired of it.
Secondly what you just wrote doesn't actually contradict anything I said.
Thirdly the only reason I would under estimate your knowledge is because you don't generally use sources well and too often use sources that note ethereally instead of specifically, I don't doubt you saw the source I do doubt whether you remember the details correctly or have kept its proper context in your mind.
Fourthly every time you end up with too much time on the forums you end up writing big posts that end up convoluted. Eventually people get tired of it.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
-
Baron Alcyoneus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 39578
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:00 pm
I was going to ask you for a single depiction of horses being in tents, but I found a single example last night on my own.
I happened to be looking through HW Koch's Medieval Warfare, and one horse was poking it's head out of the door. Unlike all other tents, this one was staked out so that there was about a one foot gap between the edge of the tent and the ground. This made a bit of sense to me, since flies have loved horseshit since they first found it.
It seems to me that a round tent would be exceedingly unsuited for horses, there would be a lot of unused space.
All other examples showed evidence of people using them. Luggage, tables, people engaging in activities- including depictions of kings sleeping in them. Some even showed people stooping to leave the tents since the doorways were shorter than them.
I'm also puzzled by your insistence that armies billeted themselves in towns, and did not sleep in tents. While that may be the preferred sleeping arrangements, only the first army to reach a town might have that option.
I happened to be looking through HW Koch's Medieval Warfare, and one horse was poking it's head out of the door. Unlike all other tents, this one was staked out so that there was about a one foot gap between the edge of the tent and the ground. This made a bit of sense to me, since flies have loved horseshit since they first found it.
It seems to me that a round tent would be exceedingly unsuited for horses, there would be a lot of unused space.
All other examples showed evidence of people using them. Luggage, tables, people engaging in activities- including depictions of kings sleeping in them. Some even showed people stooping to leave the tents since the doorways were shorter than them.
I'm also puzzled by your insistence that armies billeted themselves in towns, and did not sleep in tents. While that may be the preferred sleeping arrangements, only the first army to reach a town might have that option.
Vypadni z mého trávnÃk!
Does loyalty trump truth?
"If they hurt you, hurt them back. If they kill you, walk it off."- Captain America
Does loyalty trump truth?
"If they hurt you, hurt them back. If they kill you, walk it off."- Captain America
-
Baron Alcyoneus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 39578
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:00 pm
Oh, and as to the original topic?
Sell it to someone doing modern stuff, like 19thC reenactment. Then use that money to buy the materials to make a new pavillion, or to put towards the purchase of one.
The canvas in the teepee is old, and by the time you invest the time to make it functional for your current planned uses, you could have mostly had a new one done.
Sell it to someone doing modern stuff, like 19thC reenactment. Then use that money to buy the materials to make a new pavillion, or to put towards the purchase of one.
The canvas in the teepee is old, and by the time you invest the time to make it functional for your current planned uses, you could have mostly had a new one done.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:I was going to ask you for a single depiction of horses being in tents, but I found a single example last night on my own.
I happened to be looking through HW Koch's Medieval Warfare, and one horse was poking it's head out of the door. Unlike all other tents, this one was staked out so that there was about a one foot gap between the edge of the tent and the ground. This made a bit of sense to me, since flies have loved horseshit since they first found it.
All other examples showed evidence of people using them. Luggage, tables, people engaging in activities- including depictions of kings sleeping in them. Some even showed people stooping to leave the tents since the doorways were shorter than them.
I'm also puzzled by your insistence that armies billeted themselves in towns, and did not sleep in tents. While that may be the preferred sleeping arrangements, only the first army to reach a town might have that option.
You need to dig deeper in your research.
Brent and I were discussing a very specific series of illustrations, pertaining directly to the Burgundian army, circa 1473, the Master WA prints.
Tell me, how many tents were obtained for the use of the army by Henry V expedition to France in 1415? Fairly complete records exist for the logistics of that campaign.
Billeting does not only occur in towns, but in villages, and any structure you can think of. A company of men could be billeted in a field, with the men ripping up wattle fencing to thatch with grass , and to burn for firewood at their convenience, without having to provide carts or wagons to haul tentage, or grain to feed the animals neccessary to haul such carts and wagons, and the grain needed in seperate wagons and carts to haul the grain for the animals hauling carts for tentage for common soldiers. There is a fairly famous mural of a Sienese army in the late 14th century, that shows such temporary expendable, easily thrown-together shelters. When in most of Europe, various shelters can be found within a few hours walk of one another, down the average road, tentage for common soldiers isn't the same level of concern, of a Colonial army in America, fighting on the frontier, for example, or an army in the 'Age of Enlightenement', in a Europe sick of generations of the more common practise of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
An excellent example of documenting the practise of armies on the move can be found in Jehan de Haynin's Memoires, where he specifically shows very clearly the common usage of billeting in villages on campaign, for even someone of his rank (knight, minor lord), as a snapshot during the campaign against Liege.
As a general rule, in most Medieval armies, pavillions are for the use of the nobility, the wealthy, or for equipment. I have a ton of documentary evidence for the practise, ranging from descriptions of campaigns by participants, to legal cases brought by civilians against soldiers, to laws specifically created ti deal with problems brought about by the practise (in example, regulations forbidding extortion by the threat of billeting - ie, and officer comes up to a village, and asks them ' how much will you pay me to not billet my men here?)).
The idea that common soldiers were largely covered by canvas, or that individuals of anything but the most exhalted ranks had their own private pavilions, is a modern re-enactorisim, based on modern concepts of privacy, and the ease of transport of baggage by a population that owns their own motor vehicles, usually multiple vehicles per family, with a modern system of roads to support them.