<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Raibeart Lok De la Haye:
<B>I've asked this before, but didn''t get a response, (and/or forgot where I posted it) ??????? It's known as a "Raibeartism".
I was at the Cleveland museum and saw hauberks with straps and buckles, some up the side, some in the front, some around the neck opening, and some with some really thin links. Whats the earlyest I can get away with any of that?</B>
Honestly, I'd have to be a lot surer about the provenance of these items before I could say with any confidence that they were reliable. All sounds a bit Hollywood to me. I believe there are some Russian examples with buckles, but in general, the hauberk seems to have just slipped over the head like a (heavy) t-shirt.
<B>Question's
For early Danish/Norman, late Pict, (850's-950;s) would I have the bib? </B>
Sorry, I've never found any evidence for it earlier than the middle of the 11th century.<B>
Mine is 7"X9" trimmed in leather, and fastened with flower looking vervelles upside down, so when I put it up to the Ocular helm it's ......pretty.</B>
Sounds nice, but unfortunately I've never seen any evidence of the bib in combination with an "ocular" helmet (we call them spectacle helms where I come from). Aventails - even all-around mail curtains (a' la the "Sigurd helm" (Valsgarde helm 8 at
http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/research/helms/valsgarde.htm ) seem to be more likely.<B>
Is that close enough I've seen 'em bigger and smaller at the English Hastings battle last years. </B>
I'd go by the Bayeux Tapestry and other contemporary pics - there are plenty of examples in my bib article - rather than what you've seen other re-enactors do - they're as much in the dark as you and I, and basing their reconstructions on those very same pics. I had issues with the size of some of the "bibs" at Hastings 2000.<B>
Do I split it up the front or sides?</B>
What, the hauberk? Most of them in the 11th century have front and rear splits from what we can make out from contemporary pics, but there's a Frankish reliquary in the Osprey "The Age of Charlemagne" book (disregard the colour plates, and be suspicious of the text, but the photos of original artefacts are worthwhile) from mid 11th with a side split (p38)and the Lombardic horseman on page 6 has his lamellar armour split at the sides.
Osprey reckon that side splits were the way it was worn before about the C11, but I have no idea what they base it on. In all my reading and collecting of contemporary pics over the years, the ones in this book are the only ones I've seen with a side split.
Most show no split, or a front split. Keep in mind that if the hauberk is farly short (as most early ones seem to have been), there's no need for a split anyway.
Must the coif be intregal to the hauberk?Again, for the period you're talikng about, I've seen no evidence of coifs. It all seems to be aventails - or nothing. The Vendel/Valsgarde helms have these funny metal strips at the back of the helm, but they seem to be out of your period and/or region.<B>
Sleeve length?</B>
To the elbow at a maximum. Have a look at the Frankish guy in Fig. 10 of my Bib article. That is fairly typical for your period. He dates to about 800 AD.<B>
Mittens?
</B>They seem to have fought barehanded in your period of choice - not that I'd recommend that for you. Make some good hand protection that looks as inconspicuous as possible. Perhaps fingered plate gaunts with flesh-coloured fabric covering? I'm going to be experimenting with that shortly.<B>
Just front Chouses, ie, laced up the back? full feet, top feet, no feet?</B>
The earliest chausses I've seen are in the Bayeux tapestry, c. 1070's, and only on Bill the Bastard and his half brother Bishop Odo of Bayeux. So, no chausses if you want to accurately portray your period and region.<B>
Would it be way off to sew it directly to a twill tunic, or light leather as a "lining"?</B>
Is this the hauberk you're talking about? Do you mean sew it on the
outside of the tunic? The short answer is no. There were arguments about this matter for many years, (and the French are still arguing) but a very valuable resource is the looting scenes in the Bayeux Tapestry, which show hauberks being pulled off over the heads of dead bodies, inside out, and you can see the ring pattern on the
inside of the hauberk. So, no lining.<B>
I putting it all together pre Gulf War's and want to be spiff.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wish you well with it, and I hope I haven't rained on your parade too much. If you really want coif, bib, chausses, can I suggest you move forward to the mid-late 11h century? The only thing is that the ocular helm would probably be out of place with all that stuff.
As an added aside, please note that I've littered my reply with statements like "as far as we know", "the evidence seems to show that . . ." and "I have never seen . . .".
This is a subject full of uncertainties, and much of our knowledge is based on "best-guess" from the evidence available. But the above <I>is[/] best guess, and I think you'll find is pretty close to the way things were (to the best of our knowledge - see? There I go again!)
------------------
Egfroth
"I can hear the word [i]money</I> from a distance of fifty miles, if the wind's in the right direction"
Major Dennis Bloodnok, Queen's Forty-Third Deserters (retd.)
see my webpage at
www.geocities.com/egfrothos[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 09-16-2002).]