Early Armour
Early Armour
Would it be reasonable for an early period (approx. 6th cent) Briton to have an adaptation (something similar, but not exactly like) a lorica segmenta and pteruges (hopefully I have gotten the right word for the skirt of leather strips)... or is that combination way out in left field?
-
white mountain armoury
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10538
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: the Taiga
The leather skirt seems to persist in all ages, over a large geographic area, documentable by paintings and pottery and such. There are of course very few surviving examples of them, being leather and all.
Their preponderance was probably due to the ease with which they could be obtianed or made by even the poorest of soldiers.
Even the Mongols had pleated horseman's skirts similar in appearance to the ancient Roman infantry's...and this was as late as the 16th century. The thing is that everyone equates them with the Romans and the Greeks.
You put one on with any other style of kit, and it immediately stands out. It looks out of place even though it really isn't. It also looks a little "Zena, Warrior Princess."
Bad portrayals ruin it for everybody, don't they?
Yet there are depictions of celts and goths and vandals all wearing them...though of course these are all groups that had a lot of contact with the Romans. Later period depictions of William Wallace in a leather pleated leather skirt are somewhat untrustworthy, as much of the artwork in the renaissance and afterwards was done in the Classical Style, closely mimicking ancient Greek and Roman dress and accoutrements.
As you know, to get an idea of the type of armor any period person might wear, one would have to look at the artwork done in that period...even if the subject matter is a historical one from an earlier period. It never occurred to the medieval artist that fashion was any different during the time of his subject's lifespan than it was in his own time.
Or maybe it did occur to them, but they simply didn't have any relaible sources, and anyway they knew that their illiterate audience would be befuddled by viewing unfamiliar attire, even in context.
Much medieval artwork was stylized and used different coventions to denote sainthood, evil, virtue, etc. Just as the theatre of the time used pat and rote facial expressions so as not to lose the audience. So it was probably not encouraged to make departures from these conventions, even for the sake of accuracy.
[This message has been edited by Abaddon (edited 07-10-2002).]
Their preponderance was probably due to the ease with which they could be obtianed or made by even the poorest of soldiers.
Even the Mongols had pleated horseman's skirts similar in appearance to the ancient Roman infantry's...and this was as late as the 16th century. The thing is that everyone equates them with the Romans and the Greeks.
You put one on with any other style of kit, and it immediately stands out. It looks out of place even though it really isn't. It also looks a little "Zena, Warrior Princess."
Bad portrayals ruin it for everybody, don't they?
Yet there are depictions of celts and goths and vandals all wearing them...though of course these are all groups that had a lot of contact with the Romans. Later period depictions of William Wallace in a leather pleated leather skirt are somewhat untrustworthy, as much of the artwork in the renaissance and afterwards was done in the Classical Style, closely mimicking ancient Greek and Roman dress and accoutrements.
As you know, to get an idea of the type of armor any period person might wear, one would have to look at the artwork done in that period...even if the subject matter is a historical one from an earlier period. It never occurred to the medieval artist that fashion was any different during the time of his subject's lifespan than it was in his own time.
Or maybe it did occur to them, but they simply didn't have any relaible sources, and anyway they knew that their illiterate audience would be befuddled by viewing unfamiliar attire, even in context.
Much medieval artwork was stylized and used different coventions to denote sainthood, evil, virtue, etc. Just as the theatre of the time used pat and rote facial expressions so as not to lose the audience. So it was probably not encouraged to make departures from these conventions, even for the sake of accuracy.
[This message has been edited by Abaddon (edited 07-10-2002).]
I'll have to consider it... any SCA depiction of early armour is going to have some glaring discrepancies in it.
I recall those early british basket hilts and mitten gauntlets... and gorgets, of course... not to mention aventails and upper leg armour. Even the lower leg armour's a bit of a stretch... oh, and don't forget those elbow cops with the celtic knot-work done in repousse.
(might as well just wear Star Wars stormtrooper armour and declare "I am King Arthur, risen again!" [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]
I recall those early british basket hilts and mitten gauntlets... and gorgets, of course... not to mention aventails and upper leg armour. Even the lower leg armour's a bit of a stretch... oh, and don't forget those elbow cops with the celtic knot-work done in repousse. (might as well just wear Star Wars stormtrooper armour and declare "I am King Arthur, risen again!" [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]