A Question about Medieval Livery

[Too Bo Coo]

Cool. I think thus far it all points to -

1) Around 1100 is very early for soldiers to be wearing retinue colours, but it's possible.

2) Thus I can do what the hell I like!

Thanks guys, I think what I'll do is have most of the retinue with at least one garment in the red and blue of Antioch, but without a strict sort of uniform or surcoat. Knights will be in their own colours.

1100 is the period of Henry II, which means his son Richard the Lionhearted would be on Crusade in that century.  Are there any accounts of livery in the Crusades that Richard was part of?

[Cubs]

That's a neat trick, going on crusade 57 years before you're born. I'm afraid you're a couple of generations out and Richard was one of the leading figures of the 3rd Crusade nearly a century later.

Henry I was on the throne in 1100, taking over from his brother William Rufus. They were William the Conqueror's sons.

[Too Bo Coo]

That's a neat trick, going on crusade 57 years before you're born. I'm afraid you're a couple of generations out and Richard was one of the leading figures of the 3rd Crusade nearly a century later.

Henry I was on the throne in 1100, taking over from his brother William Rufus. They were William the Conqueror's sons.

Sure, H II was what 1170 or so?  I meant the 12th century as a whole.  I wasnt suggesting that Richard invented the practice of livery for the Crusades, but my guess what if he had used it, it probably predated him as well.  Since you're not going for strict historical accuracy, that would push the date back to the beginning of the 12th century, ie 1100, for painting purposes.

[Cubs]

Pretty much my thinking - it's a stretch, but the verge of possible is enough for fun with toy solders.

Besides, the models I'm using are from at least a century later (at least) so it would be silly to quibble about 50yrs or so.

[Druzhina]

Here are some contemporay 12th century illuminations from Liber ad honorem Augusti, by Pietro da Eboli, Sicily, c.1197 showing matching patterns worn on helmet and/or shield:
Folio 113r. Public discourse of Count Richard of Acerra and the Archbishop of Salerno.
Folio 130r. Storming of S. Germano by Diepold von Schweinspeunt
Folio 131r. The army and the fleet of the Emperor Henry VI to conquer the kingdom of Sicily.
Folio 138r. The Empress Constance, when leaving for Sicily, entrusts the little Frederick Roger (the future Frederick II) to the Duchess of Spoleto.
Folio 145r. Chancellor Conrad talking to the nobles of the kingdom to his right, behind him two armed with swords in hand.

Druzhina
12th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

[Atheling]

Here are some contemporay 12th century illuminations from Liber ad honorem Augusti, by Pietro da Eboli, Sicily, c.1197 showing matching patterns worn on helmet and/or shield:
Folio 113r. Public discourse of Count Richard of Acerra and the Archbishop of Salerno.
Folio 130r. Storming of S. Germano by Diepold von Schweinspeunt
Folio 131r. The army and the fleet of the Emperor Henry VI to conquer the kingdom of Sicily.
Folio 138r. The Empress Constance, when leaving for Sicily, entrusts the little Frederick Roger (the future Frederick II) to the Duchess of Spoleto.
Folio 145r. Chancellor Conrad talking to the nobles of the kingdom to his right, behind him two armed with swords in hand.

MIRROR SITE
Liber ad honorem Augusti, by Pietro da Eboli, Sicily, c.1197

Druzhina
12th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Excellent Stuff Druzhina  . only thing is we are seeing the depiction of a lot of royalty, aristocracy and knights, no pics of the common soldier as is usual (unless I've missed something, which is very possible at this time in the morning!!). The question as i understood it was about the possible livery of the common soldier? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

Don't forget that the line between 'Knight' and professional soldier was a lot more blurred in the 12th Century. The fact that there is apparently a common design does imply that these are not Knights, who would each have had their own unique design, nor are they the 'levied commoners' which accompany them.

While they're not quite liveries as I would call them, it is however a degree of uniformity. 

[janner]

Yes, in short, I don't know for sure when it comes to common troops for the era you are looking at 

The giving of robes (such as a Michaelmas) was a common way for a lord to reward his household troops. I suspect this became less prevalent to lower one went down the social scale/decreasing wealth of the patron.

We have sources to show that is was well-established by the third quarter of the twelfth century and I would be very comfortable fielding troops in a, somewhat haphazard, livery in the early twelfth century, eg shields showing a similar design matched with the odd painted helm in the same colour scheme, with commanders (and perhaps musicians) in livery. If someone was expected to turn up in their own gear, such as under assizes, then I would expect them to be pretty diverse. If their equipment came from a city armoury, or the lord's stocks, then if you would have a stronger case for a degree of uniformity.

When it comes to archers, you might consider a field sign rather than livery - as has been suggested

[Cubs]

Here are some contemporay 12th century illuminations

Thanks for going to so much effort fella, very much appreciated.

It's tricky to know whether the degree of uniformity shown in some of the illustrations (lots of diagonal green and red sripes on show) is down to the artist's lack of palette and imagination as much as the subjects themselves.

In the illustrations, however, the men-at-arms (or knights, or whatever they are) have similar, colourful, designs whereas the peasants are in drab shades. Again, perhaps as much a social statement by the artist and what he wants people to concentrate on.

I pondered a field sign Janner, but then couldn't be bothered. I once modelled Milliput heather sprigs on my Highlanders and then deccided they looked poo and chipped them all off again!

[Atheling]

Thanks for going to so much effort fella, very much appreciated.

It's tricky to know whether the degree of uniformity shown in some of the illustrations (lots of diagonal green and red sripes on show) is down to the artist's lack of palette and imagination as much as the subjects themselves.

In the illustrations, however, the men-at-arms (or knights, or whatever they are) have similar, colourful, designs whereas the peasants are in drab shades. Again, perhaps as much a social statement by the artist and what he wants people to concentrate on.

I pondered a field sign Janner, but then couldn't be bothered. I once modelled Milliput heather sprigs on my Highlanders and then deccided they looked poo and chipped them all off again!

Just to add more fuel to the fire, so's to speak, it's also worth remembering that most of the illustrations would have been made by the clergy who would have had little if any military experience.

Darrell.

[Crossedlances]

Success evidence wise, the Kings troops at the battle of Evesham 4 August 1265 had copied Simon de Montfort trick at the battle of Lewes. At Lewes de Montforts troops had painted a white cross on their livery and at Evesham the Knigs men painted a red cross on their livery.

So with the information posted by Atheling c 1197 were in the right ball park at least.

M

[janner]

Indeed, the use of the white cross by the king of England's contingent goes back to the agreement made at Gisors in the run up to the Third Crusade with the Capetians wearing a red cross and the Count of Flanders' chaps in a green one. So de Montfort was being a bit cheeky in using the king's colours so to speak ;-)

[Atheling]

Indeed, the use of the white cross by the king of England's contingent goes back to the agreement made at Gisors in the run up to the Third Crusade with the Capetians wearing a red cross and the Count of Flanders' chaps in a green one. So de Montfort was being a bit cheeky in using the king's colours so to speak ;-)

A deliberate provocation?

Darrell.

[janner]

I think so. The use of the cross was probably provocative by itself, as it was still the mark of someone who had taken a crusader vow at this time. Given de Montfort's own crusader heritage, to then select of colour of cross worn by Henry III's grandfather and uncle was unlikely to have been a coincidence.

[Too Bo Coo]

I'll chalk my comments up to an educated guess then