|
Author
|
Topic: 16th cen Border Reiver
|
Arik
Member
Member # 281
|
posted 02-02-2003 12:31 PM
   
Hi All,
once again I am diveing in headfirst.
A Border Reiver neither Scot nor English. Tended to wear French fashions and styles. Or so all my research shows. But would wear anything that suited his fancey. A sticking point at the moment is, Armor. I want to build a "Jak O'plates". This according to research will consist of a doublet in the regular style and shape. With a layer of leather or heavey cloth. Covered with approximatly 1400 to 1600 small plates. Laced to the doublet with heavey cord in an overlapping pattern. These disc shaped plates have a hole centeraly located for laceing.
Ok, now the questions that I am stuck on. Would the leather be the base or just there? Is it to add stiffness and body to the jak? Would the plates be tinned? If so, would galvinizing work for that? What would be ideal lace that would be accurate historicly? Where is a proper pattern for the doublet of the early 16th found? (The Jak Ive seen is very definatly talored to look like a civilian doublet. With a cover to conceal the plates.) Thank you all,Arik  -------------------- Arik
Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Alan F
Member
Member # 386
|
posted 02-03-2003 01:39 AM
Hi Arik,
First things first - to be one of the Reivers you HAVE to be either Scottish or English. Despite the fact that these men showed little allegiance to either country, any representation of them would only work if you decide which you wish to be.
Secondly, a Jack of plates has the armour sewn into the lining of the Jack itself. I doubt that there would be 1400 - 1600 plates - the one I wore last season only had five! These are about the size of the palm of your hand. The Jack itself is stuffed, in the same way as an akaton or gambeson is. You also wouldn't have been able to wear whatever you wanted - this is dictated by the class you would have belonged to, and by the income that you would have had. Also remember that Reivers where engaged by the Scottish and English armies as light cavalry, so you can't wear anything too heavy!
Lace - you wouldn't have worn this at all. Although it existed to some extent, it was largely worn by the Aristocracy at the Royal Courts. Because of its expense, it wouldn't have been worn whilst 'riding a road' (Border slang for a raid by reivers).
It's also doubtful that they would have worn much in the way of French fashions - again largely because of income and class, but also because they (on both sides) had little or no time for them, to the English especially the French were a sort of bogeyman who lived across the Channel.
The Jack can be made of leather. It can also be made of Cloth. The choice of material would have been determined by income, however, a good cloth jack will absorb a weapons blow (ie sword, lance).
For good pictures/descriptions of now reivers dressed, try looking at the Osprey men at Arms series - try Henry VII's Army, there's also one specifically about the reivers themselves. I've lost the address for Caliver Books, but if you punch in 'Caliver+Books' on a search engine, you should be be able to get their homepage. Caliver have the entire Osprey series,as well as various texts on the Reivers.
Hope that helps. Post back here if you need more information.
Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Callum Forbes
Member
Member # 230
|
posted 02-03-2003 06:43 PM
A 16th century Border Reiver portrayal is also one of my pet projects - if I ever get my 14th century portrayal to where I want it!The Osprey title Alan refers to is "The Border Reivers" - Men-at-Arms #279. A good book that gives a more indepth background to the general history of the border reviers is "The Steel Bonnets" by George MacDonald Frazer. Both are available from Amazon. -------------------- URL=http://www.jousting.co.nz Facebook [URL=http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1290562306]
Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Arik
Member
Member # 281
|
posted 02-04-2003 05:39 PM
Greetings Alan and Callum,
Yes I have both those books. In the reivers from Osprey on page 12, it shows a Jak with lots of little plates. Im not looking to do a brigandine. That is not as accurate as I want. 16th rather then 13-14th century.
Also, In the "Steel Bonnets", Fraser says the mens wear was mostly influenced by french fashion. So, Im looking for patterns that follow. David Edge at the Wallace collection has given me some ideas as well. But, I will keep on looking. As to being Scottish or English, Yes.Both. It seems that the English males in my family had the good sense to marry Scottish women.  Good for them and for me. Hard and fast ties to Buchanan, Fraser,Olgivie,Smith and Pollock. MAxwells were at one time a sept of Clan Pollock. Later on the roles were reversed and Pollocks became a sept of Maxwell. A well known Rideing Family. I will continue to search. Any other knoledge will be helpful.
Yours Aye, Arik-------------------- Arik
Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Alan F
Member
Member # 386
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:44 AM
Arik,
You cannot be both Scottish and English, at this point in history the Act of Union is yet to be passed - it wasn't passed until 1707. You can be Scottish (not 'Scot') or English. The nationality of your father would have determined what race you were.
Forget about all this stuff about Clans. This is the Lowlands, we don't go in for that here, never have, never will. That's something from the Highlands, and can remain there.
Also, the Maxwells have been an independant family since before the Medieval period - Lord Maxwell held lands in France and Scotland in the 15th Century. His ancestor fought alongised Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314, and even then was not a part of a sept, rather the largest and wealthiest family in the borders. It is one the greatest names in scottish history.
Clothing. Macdonald Faser was going on the perceived wisdom of the time he was writing. You would not have been able to tell the difference between a Scotsman, and Englishman or a Frenchman simply by dress alone. A FEW people in the Highlands were wearing plaids, but these weren't worn before 1530, and even after that were quite rare.
If you want to see how Lowlanders dressed, then can I suggest you look at my group's website at www.Gadgeddlar.com We only do Lowland Scots - has anyone ever told you that the finest Soldiers that scotland ever had were from the Lowlands?
Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Donnachaidh
Member
Member # 121
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:53 AM
Hi Arik,Well, the Frasers and Buchanan's are more suited to the lowlands north of Aberdeen. I have seen one very expensive museum replica from an Elizabethan group, which had plates laced in to a jack made of seven (or so) layers of heavy canvas (or whatever) It certainly had more than 5 plates in it, but certainly not as many as 1400. As Alan says, they also wore simple padded jacks as well as jacks of plates - or at the upper end of the scale 3/4 armour (which in the c16th was still considered "light armour") Clothing was as of standard "English" dress for the time. Here's a c17th 3/4 horseman from Fyvie last year  Ta,
Andy
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Donnachaidh
Member
Member # 121
|
posted 02-06-2003 04:01 AM
Hi Arik,The jack I saw was as per the original (for look) in the Border Reiver book, but the plates over-lapped, and it was quite rigid. I did see it a (good) few years ago, so brain rot may have altered my memory, but small plates individually laced without any sort of overlap would be of limited protection I would have thought. Dawn Wood (Ages of Elegance
) has made at least one - I shall ask her..! Cheers,
Andy
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Donnachaidh
Member
Member # 121
|
posted 02-06-2003 04:31 AM
Hello again,Sorry, the saddle. I missed the event, so I don't know on the saddle, but it looks potentially to be Spanish, rather than the Indian made "Portuguese" saddles that the rest of the SK use (When not using traditional "English" saddles that is) There is a chap at Buitle Tower who runs a reiver group, and he uses the Indian saddles as well
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 02-06-2003 12:14 PM
OK chaps (in my role as a moderator),A little time out here? Lets not get going hammer and tongs. The best history of the border I have read has to be 'steel bonnets', which has a lot of good information in it concerning the subject. From my (albeit brief) research, you both have a good point. According to documentation (both in geneological record, and in laws passes, and complaints levelled against the custom), there was indeed a fair ammount of intermarriage between riding families. Although laws were passed on the English side anyway, for marriage to a Scottish woman without permission of the Warden in quesion, was 'March Treason', that hardly seems to have slowed the practise - a quick perusal of geneologys of Redesdale and Liddlesdale give weight to Ariks argument. That said, a family was (obstensibly) one side or the other. When families threatened to 'turn English', or 'turn Scot', that was usually a cue to the wardens of either side to be shortly pursuing a government sponsored raid. Unfortunaely Arik, to the best of my knowledge, and to the research I have done (limited to the 1480's through first quarter of the 16th century), Alan is dead right regarding fashion. There is little to mark a border family from one side or the other regarding fashion, with the exception of accent. In my own turn of phrase, when explaining to interested friends where my family came from, the Cheviots are 'like the moon- with grass'. While the river valleys are very rich farmland, the custom of the border kept them from being farmed due to the perrenial spoilage by raids on either side. The 'debatable' land even had by law been forbidden to build anything approaching a permanent structure on it. In short, the country wasn't exactly the seat of wealth. people didn't go trotting around in the latest fashions, including middleing heads of septs of riding families. Ever read "The Ballad of Parcy Reed"? the 'laird of Troughend' is bartering for his life, trying to keep companions to fight by his side by bribing them with pairs of oxen - not exactly jewels and gold. Take a good look at some of those peels - there a cellar and two rooms stacked atop one the other - they just have thick walls, and barmkins aren't the lap of luxury either. Walter Scott Romance aside, the border was a very rough, and very poor area. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Alan F
Member
Member # 386
|
posted 02-07-2003 05:47 AM
Arik,
Have you actually read what I posted? I have alreasy told you that you cannot be in a Clan if you're re-enacting Lowlands history. The idea of a Clan is something from the Highlands. The word 'Clan' is from the Gaelic An Clann, meaning 'The Children'. Gaelic is not the language of the Lowlands, Scots is. The idea that there was Amxwell Clan is nonsense from the Victorian era, when generalisations such as these were used by People such as Sir Walter Scott in his romantic novels. They are not true. A Lowlander belongs to a family and/or a great House.
The Maxwells, as I have said before, were a great family in their own right. They may have had ties to ther families, but they didn't need them. Lord Maxwell was one of the richest men in Europe, owning lands in socltand, Ireland, England and France. He had achieved these by both strength and guile.
Arik, Lowland history is my thing - it's what I put a lot of time and effort into both studying and re-enacting. I have learned a lot about it, and continue to do so.
Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Arik
Member
Member # 281
|
posted 02-07-2003 12:10 PM
Thank you Chef for your guidance.I realize a lot of the people were living from hand to mouth. No one was always wealthy. But being a Reiver and helping yourself to some one elses goods, could have helped you attain a better quality of clotheing and hardware. Alan, you seem to have a predudice against the word "Clan".
A Clan is: Noun- A large social group(Esp. Scots) with a common ancestor,
a large united family.
A family is: Noun- A group consisting of parents and their children, a group of people closely related by blood (cousins,Aunts, Uncles), a group consisting of individuals descended from a common ancestry. Just to make sure, I took the definations from the English Language Dictionary. I do not object to constructive critiqueing, but hair splitting is best left to politicions and plastic surgeons. I still want and need information on a proper kit for the early 16th. These were turbulant times and the Scots, both Highland and Lowland, were used as Mercenary troops accross Europe and Ireland. I see no reason for my persona to be excluded. I am putting this kit together with my youngest son, as a traing aid and history lessons. Accuracey is paramount in history. And all to often people will look at one segment and dwell on it to the exclusion of all else. We are trying to see the Big picture historicly. With attention paid to parts that realy do have some bearing on our family history. Claiming family distinction from one side or the other of the family tree is up to the individual. Names are not as important as the honor a person had and the earning of trust. In "Steel Bonnets" there are many names dropped that are English, Lowland and Highland. Some with Clan ties to the Highlands. Some men just needed to be looking for adventure. And those men would go where it was.
Enough said, I do not wish to alienate helpful advice or information. But I dont take well to being told that I dont know what is going on either. History was my major and I see it differently then a lot of people.
If you dont learn from it, you will repeat it. Have a good day, Yours Aye, Arik
-------------------- Arik
Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
Alan F
Member
Member # 386
|
posted 02-07-2003 03:07 PM
Arik,
There is no such thing as a Lowland Clan. The word Clan, as I have pointed out, is gaelic. It does not even appear in the Scots dictionary.
I shall have to explain it like this. Highlandets and Lowlanders don't get on. For centuries, people in the Lowlands had to put up with cattle raids, and general thuggishness, by Highland clansmen. The Highlanders wrote long epic poems about what were, in essence, little more than an excuse for them to kill and raid the Lowlands. At University, I tried to get Highlanders to understand that,from a lowland point of view, this was wrong. I failed. In return, the Lowlanders used the Militia and Army to fight the Highlanders, in what can only be seen as an Old Testament approach - an eye for an eye, or in this case, repaying the debt with interest. This, to many Highlanders even today, is a great wrong, despite the fact that they were the ones who started it. The word WILL be used by an English dictionary, as it is from the utside looking in. It can be seen in a similar vein to this: You are an American, but to many people in the UK, you are a Yank. You may not be from the South, but someone who is not, for want of a better expression "In the Know" will use that word.
So Lowland and Highland culture are two different things. In the Lowlands, one speaks about ones family and its origins. This is the Lowland way. The term Clan, in 16th Century setting, would only apply to the Highlands.
And believe youme, I do know my lessons from history. My family has suffered dreadful lossesin the last 100 years, hence my reluctance to support Blair in his Crusade. Unless he intends to lead the troops himself.... 
Arik, I am very, very passionate about re-enacting Scottish history. I take it you've seen the idiocy that is Braveheart? that for many is all that Scottish history is - men in Plaids with big swords hating the English. Little attention is paid the what it was really like, sadly this is true of some re-enactment groups in scotland. That is why I want, more than anything, for people to do things right - do you know what it feels like to see people dressed in yards of tartan, all claiming to be highlanders, and in my mind, parodying scottish History? I'm not saying that's you, but what's why I get annoyed when I think you aren't listening to what I have to say.
Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donnachaidh
Member
Member # 121
|
posted 02-10-2003 06:24 AM
Hi Arik,I agree entirely with Alan. If you also look at the c16th, the highlander was the weakest link. Your border horseman would fight in the face of adversity, where your highlander would be running off the field like something out of "The Holy Grail" to the cries of "run away, run away" (only in Gaelic). It was only their introduction into the British army that turned them into a disciplined elite in the late c18th and through the c19th. Too much notice is taken of the romanticised pish of the Victorian era. I say this as a Scot, and a highlander, so I don't have any bones to pick as it were. Good luck with you interpretation. I might say that you actually look at which part of the c16th you want to cover. By the late 16th century, back and breast and burgonet was pretty common armour, where as with the early c 16th you would be looking at open salet, mail and brigandine. Yours Aye,
Andy
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
posted 02-05-2003 06:53 PM
Thanks, Arik 
