Fiveocommando | 29 May 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
When did surcoats become common among knights? I'm looking at assembling a small army based around the first crusade. I already have some foot knight equipped with kite shields and wearing chainmail. Some are also wearing surcoats. Would surcoats be accurate for this time period and if so then would they bear personal heraldry or be pretty generic besides a cross? |
GurKhan | 29 May 2020 3:31 p.m. PST |
Early 12th century – probably not right for the First Crusade. |
Fiveocommando | 29 May 2020 5:42 p.m. PST |
|
Phillius | 29 May 2020 7:36 p.m. PST |
Possibly as a result of the first crusade? |
GildasFacit | 30 May 2020 8:15 a.m. PST |
No idea if there is evidence to back it up but the received wisdom is that surcoats came to be worn out east to keep the sun off the mail coats. That then became the fashion as the returning crusaders were copied. Makes sense but is it fact ? |
Atheling | 30 May 2020 8:22 a.m. PST |
Whislt there may be some truth in the introduction that surcoats have have first appeared among Western Nobility in the 'Holy Land', I think it more likely they were introduced as a primitive form of heraldry. I base this premise on the fact that a shield was not mean't to survive the whole of a battle so would not be available throughout as a means of identification. Just Add Water Blog: justaddwater-bedford.blogspot.com |
GildasFacit | 30 May 2020 10:38 a.m. PST |
Atheling I'm aware of some early illustrations of 'knights' in surcoats and most are either undecorated or party-coloured. Later heraldic devices do become commonplace but I'm not convinced that was their original purpose, even if it ended up being used for that. Another alternative is offered in a book on the Crusaders I read many moons ago (but have forgotten the title of). It postulated that the surcoats were originally lightweight habits worn by the knightly orders and copied by the other crusaders out of piety. Decoration with the appropriate cross they may be the origin of the heraldic surcoat and the later diminutives, such as the jupon. |
Griefbringer | 31 May 2020 11:46 a.m. PST |
No idea if there is evidence to back it up but the received wisdom is that surcoats came to be worn out east to keep the sun off the mail coats. I have read the same suggestion. I have no doubt that a mail hauberk can get quite warm in the sunshine, but wouldn't this also have been a problem in other parts of the Mediterranean, such as Spain and Italy, and not just in the east. Furthermore, the most typical surcoat design, without sleeves, tends to still leave the part of mail covering arms rather exposed. |
Griefbringer | 01 Jun 2020 12:09 p.m. PST |
I'm aware of some early illustrations of 'knights' in surcoats and most are either undecorated or party-coloured Thinking better, if the purpose was to protect the armour from sunshine, then white (un-dyed) cloth would be the most efficient choice, not to mention the cheapest. If the purpose would be to show status, then a dyed surcoat would of course be preferable. |
Gunfreak | 02 Jun 2020 9:34 a.m. PST |
Who says the surcoat didn't start off as white? The templars had mostly white at least for the knights. But it's not like the African or Arabic armies just used undied bleach. They had all kinds of colours. As it the original question, the surcoat came along some time around or after the 2nd crusade. It was there by the 3rd, but I don't know exactly when it came into being. for 1st crusades, using any late Noram troops would be the correct ones. So in 28mm Victrix Normans as an example or any other late Viking age normans. |
Swampster | 02 Jun 2020 1:45 p.m. PST |
Even in late 12th century art, surcoats are pretty usual. There seems to be a surge around 1200. Richard I's seals, for instance, show him without a surcoat. There may be 'tradition' in the way that individuals might be presented on these, but for his second seal the helmet is updated but he still lacks a surcoat. These link include some dated pretty early with surcoats, but at least some are of rather doubtful dating – the two from France in 1140 and 1170 are very similar and both have shields more typical of the mid 13th century. I suspect they are later effigies installed by a descendant. EDIT link has an explanation and correction of various of the above effigies. |
Herkybird | 02 Jun 2020 5:17 p.m. PST |
Another factor may have been the increasing use of enclosed helms, making identification difficult. |
Swampster | 03 Jun 2020 4:46 a.m. PST |
"Even in late 12th century art, surcoats are pretty usual." That should be _unusual_! Most evidence is European but FWIW, Balian of Ibelin's seal shows no surcoat. |