"12th century english " Topic

Is there livery colours here I do realise that in the Anarchy that only Geffory had the only heraldry. I just feel incredibly blind painting opposing forces for this conflict.

Heraldry is in its infancy during the 12th century and the 'Anarchy' period is VERY early to be talking about a fixed coat of arms for anyone.

The fact that a coat is stated as being bourne 'since antiquity' at a later date should be treated with a large grain of salt.

Seals and contemporary illustrations do show some devices that personalities of the time had in common with their descendants but they are rare.

Anjou's lions are such a case but the passage to the 3 lions of England shows that they were not a fixed design until post 1200.

Opinions on livery this early differ a lot, there is a small amount of data (e.g. colours of cloth bought to equip men) but not really enough to be sure one way or the other.

Reality often isn't what wargamers want it to be – sorry.

I would think it unlikely that livery existed this early. The probable situation was that each man just wore his own clothing and kit. The richer he is the more colourful he looks!

Then sheild devices etc very similar to Norman invasion?

Whoa there. There is evidence that heraldry and even livery of a form was in existence in Stephen's reign. Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex bore quarterly gules and or . Associates of his continued with red and gold in their arms, for example the Veres of Oxford. Montfichet in Essex has chevrons of gules and or. I absolutely agree tha t this is very early for heraldry, but I would not rule out Mandeville bearing red and gold quartered and his allies having variations on this and favours in these colours. Similarly, if you can find early simple coats for mid 12th century leaders the n you could use them. There is an earlier reference to Norman knights having 'red wings' I.e. red shields. Otherwise average warriors probably did have something like the tapestry.

It is often thought that simple arms are early but this is not true in the majority of cases. True, some early arms are simple but some are quite complex so simplicity is no guide to dating.

The main problem with placing dates on the development of heraldry is deciding what exactly 'heraldry' is. Is it when father and son (and possibly other family) sharing similar devices and colours become accepted and consistent inheritable arms or must we wait until there is some commonly accepted 'code of conduct' ?

If you take the English royal arms as a guide then stability comes about 1200 with individual (but consistent) variations for the previous 40-60 years. It is that 50 odd years that sees the slow build of individuals adopting recognisable symbols/colours that develops into heraldry.

Livery colors can be independent of heraldry. I think we are mixing two terms here. Lots of evidence of Norman knights having livery colors for identification, either personal or for contingent identification. Refer to Osprey Elite – The Normans plates A through E, showing distinct shield patterns in the case of the last plate, showing clothing colors to match up to the late 12th century. Also note, Ian Heath's Armies of Feudal Europe figures 4 and 5 which are 1160 and 1175 AD respectively showing a shield charge matching helmet decorations which are most likely matching in color as wel (keep in mind that the book is in black and white). Also, the tendency is to show knights in combat gear and it is likely that additional identification livery may have been worn and taken off prior to battle. Saying that the 13th century is when we begin to see this is ignoring overlap and frankly some common sense as certainly most leaders and definitely senior leaders had personal identification other than a personal standard in the 12th century.

When one speaks of heraldry, this is a horse of a different color. I suspect that only senior nobility had ancestral heraldry of some type and the transition to descendant shield patterns and the rules of heraldry as we know them (quartering, first born designation, etc.) came later.

It makes sense that a form of quasi-heraldry would predate a full-blown system. I doubt that Geoffrey of Anjou invented it- after all I read somewhere that he was "given" the arms by Henry I, who may himself borne arms of gules with a leopard or lion or. This may have been merely Henry's favourite symbol on his shield, but since royalty is always a fashion trend setter, it's probable that some may have decided to copy the practice of associating a symbol with a person or family. The regulations would have followed after the system became popular.
There are traditions that Stephen I used a sagittarius or centaur on a red shield, and that Robert of Gloucester used arms of argent, a lion gules. Of course, these are hardly reliable- but that didn't stop me from painting them on my minis. Gotta paint something on them!

Saying that the 13th century is when we begin to see this is ignoring overlap and frankly some common sense as certainly most leaders and definitely senior leaders had personal identification other than a personal standard in the 12th century.

I did not say that the 13th century was when this was first seen but that it is not EVIDENCED any earlier. You are free to make whatever assumptions you like but to be sure there must be evidence (and somewhat more than just pictures in wargaming books).

The term 'Livery' is generally used to mean colour(s) associated with and used by the followers and private troops of a person or family, not the colour of his personal dress.

I agree that you have to make some guesses – and the ideas given so far are as valid as many I've seen and do have some reasonable evidence to support them – but still be aware that you are rarely dealing with evidenced facts in this area.

It makes sense that a form of quasi-heraldry would predate a full-blown system.

I'd agree with that but there are writers on heraldry who do not.

In England the system of heraldic design and common usage of recorded designs 'owned' by particular individuals does seem to appear over a very short period of time.

They use this as an argument that it was an imported system that was adopted rapidly as the latest 'fashion', possibly from Northern France (indicated by some of the language used in the early rolls).

I read an article about knightly identification in the pre and proto heraldry period it discussed, amongst other things, why it was necessary for William 1st to take off his helmet at Hastings when rallying his troops. iIRC the conclusion was that the troops would have known William from his armour and shield and that exposing his face was more a matter of being able to shout and show expression to his men. I am not saying that William's shield was heraldic or inherited, but was most likely decorated and specific to him. He may well be the tapestry igure with white shield showing a cross. Battle cries and field signs also aided identification. In an earlier period one Frankish leader told another to seek him on the battlefield and that he wold be wearing red.
The importance of the Mandeville evidence is that he has a simple two colour coat of arms and that his associates use these colours after his time. That, of ourse does not imply a system in the 1130-40s, what it suggests is that around this time the Ist coats of arms. Are being created, so Geoffrey's followers form their coats from his, implying that in the period of Stephen the top chaps are getting coats of arms that are to become heritable and thir followers are wearing common odours and then systematising oats of arms in the next generation or so.
So I think Gildasand I are in broad agreement here.