Signo wrote:Well, we know that they had a special taste for fashion. I've read several accounts were people made extravagant clothes for special occasions. We have just short description of them, obviously not much survive, as they were intended as "I use it this evening, then no more". Under this logic we cannot apply the period-non period masturbation, because that kind of stuff was not period even at the time!
Under these circumstances, you cannot dismiss with a no-no those costumes. You could only if you were at that tournament in 1468. We know they applied any sort of crap to their crest holder, will you dismiss anyone that has never been depicted? Do you know better than me how many knights crawled earth, I assume each of them had his crest... how many crest we have documented? 1000? 10000? how many undocumented? 10 times the number? 100 times the number? maybe 1000 times. So, how can you dismiss as not appropriate a thing that was unique in time and space?
Hi Signo,
We actually know the participans for the joust in honour of the marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, and we even know in some detail the odd bits of items worn - for instance, one participant had their encranche covered in green silk, with a number of gold coins, set to be able to whirl nailed to it.
You can justify any anachronisim by your applied logic in this instance
As I stated in my first post, which caused a shitstorm unintentionally, I thought this was one of the coolest events I have ever seen, if not the coolest, and I wished I could have been present.
I find Lukes Crest jarring, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have never seen anything like it in 15th century Flemish art. Secondly, it is constructed as a number of modern reconstructions, with undyed horsehair - which is quite likely correct, in a 6th century BC context - but can you justify, if you know anything about 15th century aristocratic culture, such a crest, if existing, being
undyed horsehair?
Lukes rig for the joust looks much cooler in the stills posted than it did in a split second video on Swiss-German television (from behind, and at a canter, mind you). I like the overall costume very much, but I don't care for the crest.
Toby Capwells rig is directly taken from a 15th century work of art, and makes perfect sense as a 15th century ancient costume. I still do not believe the rig represented an actual armour.
Am I not entitled to my opinion? I certainly gave what I thought were well thought out reasons for the opinion I hold, when my opinion was brought to task. I am even
gladly willing to change my opinion if a shred of evidence could be produced for the contrary position.
Ought I be
villified and ridiculed by some people, for holding an opinion contrary to theirs, and actually daring to express it?
No use fighting over silly stuff. I wish I could have been there, sounds like a great time and a great show.
Authentic or not I'm not qualified to comment, but as an attempt to recreate pageantry of the day it was a splendid effort.
I think I actualy took more pictures of Toby than of anyone else! Apart from Jeff maybe, I'd have to review my pictures.
