I want to be a French knight in 1380

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Sorry, just saw this...

I'm not really the guy to be giving sewing advice, but... It is basically two slightly off-shape rectangles of fabric that fit over your breastplate. The off shapeness of the rectangles give you the tight fit to the curvature of your globose. I'm sure that if you were to post the picture (Not the link with 100+ images...) over in Interpretive Recreation one of the sewing gurus would be willing ot give you further pointers.

Good luck!

[integral arms]

since it was mentioned, what does the french version of the sleeveless jupon look like? and would the french be more inclined to use a sleeved one?

[Galfrid atte grene]

Same as the English (sleeveless), or with very short sleeves.

[Tailoress]

Gregoire and Galfrid are saying two different things... does anyone care to elaborate on their opposing points?

[Galfrid atte grene]

Maybe there is a detail I'm missing, but the French jupon looks pretty much like the English one. Here are some French examples from three different mediums. I suppose everyone knows how the English jupon looks. Also included a sleeved one.

[Tailoress]

Now that I redid my "Martial surcottes of the 14thc" class for Pennsic this coming week, I can say that there are a few notable differences between the English and the French styles around 1380, at least according to my particular (and limited) artistic survey. (Thanks mostly to Galfrid's sites!)

First, the globose chest looks more pronounced in French figural art than it does in the English art, for the most part. This isn't universal, just a subtle trend that I noticed.

Second, the French were partial to short sleeves, with or without scalloping. The English kept it uniformly sleeveless. This trend is much more obvious and uniform in the figural art of the time.

Third, the French were beginning to wear padded/quilted surcottes while I did not come across visual evidence of the same happening on the English side. Now mind you, we have the Black Prince's padded/quilted surcotte to show that a prominent Englishman was wearing the same too, but his is short-sleeved, and that is a hint that his fashion was more informed by French martial culture than English -- or at least, more than the English effigy sculptors back home in England were informed of it.

I can post some pictures when I get back in a few weeks.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

[quote]Gregoire and Galfrid are saying two different things... does anyone care to elaborate on their opposing points? :)[/quote]

Whoops! Almost a year later I find this...

I think that your posting one up from this sums up my observations - The French were wearing short sleeved, sometimes shapeless jupons by the end of the century. My observation is based largely on the [i]Grandes Chroniques[/i] which is admittedly variably dated, but has been said to have been drawn as early as 1375.

[jarlragnar]

[quote="Tailoress"]Now that I redid my "Martial surcottes of the 14thc" class for Pennsic this coming week, I can say that there are a few notable differences between the English and the French styles around 1380, at least according to my particular (and limited) artistic survey. (Thanks mostly to Galfrid's sites!)

First, the globose chest looks more pronounced in French figural art than it does in the English art, for the most part. This isn't universal, just a subtle trend that I noticed.

Second, the French were partial to short sleeves, with or without scalloping. The English kept it uniformly sleeveless. This trend is much more obvious and uniform in the figural art of the time.

Third, the French were beginning to wear padded/quilted surcottes while I did not come across visual evidence of the same happening on the English side. Now mind you, we have the Black Prince's padded/quilted surcotte to show that a prominent Englishman was wearing the same too, but his is short-sleeved, and that is a hint that his fashion was more informed by French martial culture than English -- or at least, more than the English effigy sculptors back home in England were informed of it.

I can post some pictures when I get back in a few weeks.[/quote]
The puffy chest should look the same across the board (if you're discussing individuals in armour.) And those padded surcoats are shown in the Grandes Chroniques by combatants on both sides. With regards to English effigy sculptors, they were well informed enough, you can be sure. Woodstock's coat armour (the short-sleeved jupon/surcotte) was worn over the body's armour. It is reasonable to assume that many English and French knights had these and wore them over their armour from time to time, but their honest to God Sunday's best was a curve-hugging heraldic surcoat (like the ones we see on most effigies.)

That said, I have an idea about the possible differences between representations of English and French arm assemblies. Feel free to chime in and bounce ideas around: English effigies show many arms that look like the Black Princes, ie what seem to be integral spaulders that terminate much higher than Joe 14th century mafioso's. They also show in lots of cases fully enclosed upper canons. I've seen very few reproductions of arms that recreate this effect well, most notably Mac's arms that he made for Galleron. Those are my dream arms.
This is where I could use the input of experts: The scarcity of French effigies leaves a lot to be determined, but I have many of the 17th and 18th century drawings saved to my computer as well as photographs of the few extant effigies. There is a trend I've noticed that is typified well in the drawing of Roucy's effigy, we see earlier in this thread: The lower arms seem to be something along the lines of what we have preserved in Churburg. They look to have the enclosed vambrace with a small spade-shaped fan and a single rivet in the center. There is also what looks to be a curious segment mid-biceps. My idea is that perhaps what we see in these several French effigies is a widely produced lower arm (a la Churburg) with a Spaulder and Upper canon assembly that overlaps it. Since the arm is not simply one integral assembly, there is no need for sliding rivets to rotate the upper canon. The Churburg-esque arm simply rotates around inside of it. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Buster]

Most of the evidence I have seen indicates that the Black Prince's garment was an arming garment, ment to be worn under the armour.
It is highly tailored and designed to fit snugly over the body. It also shows evidence that it was origionally long sleeved.

[jarlragnar]

[quote="Buster"]Most of the evidence I have seen indicates that the Black Prince's garment was an arming garment, ment to be worn under the armour.
It is highly tailored and designed to fit snugly over the body. It also shows evidence that it was origionally long sleeved.[/quote]
Why would it need to be so decorated? Also, it looks pretty puffy. How would it fit under armour that is supposed to be very contoured and fit snugly over the body itself?

[Tailoress]

[quote="Buster"]Most of the evidence I have seen indicates that the Black Prince's garment was an arming garment, ment to be worn under the armour.
It is highly tailored and designed to fit snugly over the body. It also shows evidence that it was origionally long sleeved.[/quote]

The evidence for the BP garment being long-sleeved is thin, IMO. Janet Arnold wonders if they could have been long and cut short because the existing short sleeves aren't quartered, while a drawing from the late 16th/early 17thc shows them quartered:

http://www.cottesimple.com/armourarchiv ... rawing.jpg

(I'd hotlink it, but BBCode and HTML appear to be turned off in this thread/forum...)

It was conjectured by Sir James Mann, Master of the Armouries in 1949-50 (who oversaw conservation of the funerary achievements at that time), that it might have been long-sleeved originally and cut short when the bottoms frayed. (This is rather speculative, yeah?) The problem here is many-fold. The drawing looks like a herald's tabard, not at all like the existing jupon/pourpoint (whatever you want to call it). The drawing's sleeves are still short, even though they show a quartered field on each sleeve. I'm thinking that drawing is simply unreliable (I mean, look at how Edward's effigy was drawn... Really?) And, since the existing short sleeves show both the arms of France and England on each sleeve, one could find that sufficiently representative of the point those arms were making. (You don't need all 4 quarters on each individual sleeve to make it a heraldicized garment (I just verbed "heraldic".. eek.))

Meanwhile, there's a separate, written reference that seems to be contemporary to the troublesome drawing. Edward Bolton wrote in 1610 that the garment was a "quilted coat-armour with half-sleeves, Tabard-fashion". So now we have two earlier descriptions affirming half-length sleeves -- which matches the current garment, and yet they also assert that the garment is "tabard" like, which doesn't jive at all with the garment there now. Janet Arnold muses that perhaps the garment was hanging in a spread-out manner and thus looked a bit like a tabard. Whatever the case, I don't think we can assume the sleeves were originally any longer than they are now. There's more evidence against it than for it.

Also, if you look at French martial imagery from the 1370s and 80s, you'll see a lot of short sleeves, so it's not an odd thing that this garment could have had short sleeves, given all the time Edward spent in France.

[jarlragnar]

Right, Tailoress. I would also wager that if more English martial imagery survived, we'd see a lot more of the half-sleeved overarmours.

[Buster]

It would be so decorated because it was owned by the Prince of Wales. The only evidence I ever hear against it being an arming garment is that it is decorated.
(Remember that the Charles de Blois purpoint is decorated with an elaborate pattern.)

The garment simply isn't cut to fit over the deep globose breast/back plate setup seen in his effigy.

[RandallMoffett]

Having seen it I'm thinking there is no way on earth the Black Prince Jupon went over armour on a man. Just the basic dimensions are doubtful on an average sized human being but actually seeing it makes me think it is nearly impossible it was able to fit over armour. Now for long sleeved evidence. Look at the right sleeve on the back, it is somewhat longer and irregular like it was changed later.

Why was decorated if it was worn under. Not sure why we think the son of the king did not decorate much of his gear. Maybe he had a nice PE or EBP on his braes. Not sure if this in and of itself is an argument for it being a jupon. There is evidence of all sorts of odd things people would not see being decorated.

RPM

[Tailoress]

Good data points, Randall, thank you. I haven't seen it in person yet, and my jury was out about the over/under armour question, but your sleeve info is certainly intriguing. Nothing like that is mentioned in the Janet Arnold article. Do you know of other analytical write-ups for this garment? I've heard there's more, but don't have the sources yet.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Do we have any evidence the the garment on display was ever actually used by the Black Prince? It could just as easily be a funerary display that was made to look "pimp" and therefore didn't need to fit over or under armor...

[Tailoress]

It's been verified to be from the time period of his death, but no, there's no overt proof that it was directly worn by him before being put into his funeral procession and hung up as an achievement over his tomb. (As far as I know.)

[Buster]

[quote="Gregoire de Lyon"]Do we have any evidence the the garment on display was ever actually used by the Black Prince? It could just as easily be a funerary display that was made to look "pimp" and therefore didn't need to fit over or under armor...[/quote]

As I recall, his shield, (which so many think is only a funeral sheild) has holes on the back for straps, indicating it was once a working shield.
I bet all the stuff on dispaly was probably working stuff origionally.

[RandallMoffett]

There seem to be several places with unusual wear as well. I think around the waist on the right as well it looks like something straight ran across the back and wore faster than the material above and below. It could be some form of support was used behind it for mounting but I have no idea.

I know there are some more recent works on it but I will have to take a look when I get home to find it/them.

RPM

[Tailoress]

I forgot to post a link on this thread earlier, but I put up my martial surcotte slide class on my site. Here's a direct link. It covers the whole 14thc (obviously not exhaustively; else it would be a thousand pages long and people would need to bring cots to the class for periodic naps) and compares English and French martial surcottes. The writings at the bottom of each slide are my notes for discussion with the class.

Martial Surcottes of the 14th Century in England and France

I posted this in Historical Recreation a while back, but I want a record of it here, as part of the one-stop-shop we're trying to make these "I wanna be..." threads.

[Bayard]

I actually want to be a late 14th century French noble, but I really don't like the jupon. I'd prefer to wear a tunic with a hem that ends just below the knees, split in the center up to below the belt line, with sleeves that come down to the elbows. I believe this is an earlier period style and I'll be wearing a coat of plates over it that I'm in the process of making myself. I know breastplates were more popular, but I prefer longer tunics and I don't like the breastplate as a matter of taste. Opinions on this please. Let me add that I read a review on the steel breastplate in the S.C.A written by someone who said it provided them with a bit too much protection. They had trouble judging whether a strike to the plate was good. With a coat of plates, I'll still be protected, but I'll be able to gauge a strike fairly

[Tailoress]

If you prefer the key elements of an earlier kit, why not just surrender to being an earlier persona? To make the surcotte at least glancingly French, you could scallop the end of the short sleeves. That appears to be a uniquely French detail.

[Bayard]

There are many elements of the 14th that I like and as it turns out, only the tunic really seems to vary a bit. I'm not really familiar with scalloped sleeves.

[Jan van Nyenrode]

Hi Bayard,

The closest I think you'd like, which goes down to the knees, is the cote worn by Bertrand du Geusclin and similar garments which are shown in period manuscripts;

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... _guesclin/

I still think you'll need a globose breastplate underneath the gown or a corrazina if you like the protection from a full COP.

Cheers,

Jan

[Tailoress]

I'd love to talk more about the du Guesclin style of cotte. It's mid-upper-arm and mid-thigh, which is considerably shorter than what Bayard seems to be looking for. It's a famous example that jumps to mind, certainly, but I didn't suggest it because of those telling differences in length. I think that making the sleeves longer and the hem longer by that much -- knee-length and elbow-length -- would take it out of the believable realm for 1380.

Unless of course there is a bunch of imagery I am overlooking, which is entirely possible. So, if others can chime in and make a good case, I'm eager to learn.

The other thing about the aforementioned cotte that catches my eye is its lack of a belt over top of it. It makes me wonder if it's an earlier form of the huque, which is typically worn over armour without a belt and seen more commonly at the turn of the 15thc in figural art. Further thoughts, anyone?

[Gregoire de Lyon]

I am on the wrong computer and in the wrong state to have the images at hand, however I believe that there are cotes similar to what is being suggested in the St. Denis manuscript.

Ditch the coat of plates though. It just wouldn't work.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Ha! Found a picture here on the Archive I had posted previously...



Check out the guy in green on the extreme left edge. I think what he is wearing is very close to what Bayard is suggesting.

It is important to note that every time I have seen it in imagery, it is loose and floppy and no external belt is worn! If you were to add a belt to this jupon, it would look just as wrong as wearing one of the more typical cotes without a belt.

[Tailoress]

Excellent, Guillaume. Is that manuscript firmly dated though? I have seen references from between 1380 and 1400.

And note, our green guy has scalloping along the hem and the sleeves! Très Français!

So Bayard, if you go with this style, and don't belt the outside of the cotte/huque/whatever-we're-calling-it, and don't take it past the top of the elbows or top of the knees, and put scallops in the hem and sleeves, you'll be in a good ballpark of believability for 1380. You could go with the du Guesclin style too, and get away with a slightly longer sleeve and hem probably, but I really think that it shouldn't be belted on the outside, or the effect is ruined.

[Jan van Nyenrode]

Hi Tasha,

The Du Guesclin does have a belt around his waist. At elbow height. See second image on the effigies and brasses site between his hands. It could be worn loose too though.

Cheers,

Max

[Bayard]

Why is it so strange to wear a belt with this garment? Without a belt or baldric, how does one wear a sword? I actually need to be able to carry my sword on a belt until I throw my javelin and when I am eventually squired, I'd like to be able to wear a red belt. I'm keeping the coat of plates. Brigandine came into being in the late 14th century, which fits my persona but I'm going with a simpler approach to the construction for my first armor project and that leads me to a coat of plates.

I realize that some of my choices may not be as up to date for the 14th century, but they were options that existed. My persona could be dressed in a more classical approach. I'll keep the measurements as recommended here and check with the friend who is helping me sew about scallops.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Excellent, Guillaume. Is that manuscript firmly dated though? I have seen references from between 1380 and 1400.

I assume you are talking to me, and the answer is nope.

I like to call it end of 14th century so that I can wear a jupon and long cotes and still be part of the mafia. Chances are excellent, looking at the non-martial clothing in some of the images, that it is more beginning 15th.

[Jan van Nyenrode]

Hi Bayard,

The swordbelt is often worn under the coat or jupon.

Cheers,

Max

[Bayard]

Hi Bayard,

The swordbelt is often worn under the coat or jupon.

Cheers,

Max

Ah, so I would be varied in choosing to keep the belt visible. Thanks for the info

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Why is it so strange to wear a belt with this garment? Without a belt or baldric, how does one wear a sword? I actually need to be able to carry my sword on a belt until I throw my javelin and when I am eventually squired, I'd like to be able to wear a red belt. I'm keeping the coat of plates. Brigandine came into being in the late 14th century, which fits my persona but I'm going with a simpler approach to the construction for my first armor project and that leads me to a coat of plates.

With respect to the belt, you are welcome to do as you please, however it will not look right. The advice you have been given is sound, what you choose to do with it is entirely up to you. Even if brigs do exist in the last quarter of the 14th century, of which I am skeptical, substituting a COP for a brig will not look right.

Honestly, it sounds like you want to be an SCA fighter with a historically inspired, but not faithful, garniture. There is nothing wrong with that - I myself am something of a casserole at most events. Just please don't tell people that it is accurate if it is not.

[Gregoire de Lyon]

Hi Bayard,

The swordbelt is often worn under the coat or jupon.

Cheers,

Max

Ah, so I would be varied in choosing to keep the belt visible. Thanks for the info

No, you would be anachronistic at best and wrong at worst.

Again, nothing wrong with that as long as you don't think and say otherwise.