The tent itself is a large 15th century rectangular tent, similar in proportions and decoration to the Burgundian tent c.1460 illustrated in the Osprey Men at Arms series #94, "The Swiss at War 1300-1500". It is 13' x 22' at the base, 7'6" to the bottom of the roof and 12" tall overall, with lots of screen printing. When it is done I will post a picture, it is going to be our pride and joy. Anyway, my questions are not particularly about 15th century tents, but medieval tents in general.

Firstly, does anyone know of ANY surviving medieval tents or even identifiable fragments of tents? The earliest I know of are two from the 17th century, a large rectangular tent, and a classic round tent of white canvas with lines of blue fabric stitched along the seams. Then there seems to be a huge gap back to the 9th century Viking 'A' frame tents.

Canvas: For purely financial reasons our tent is being made of 12oz cotton canvas (linen canvas would completely bankrupt me!). There are numerous references for purchases and use of clothing fabrics, but what about canvas and other things bought specifically for the making of tents, and what does this tell us about the costs of tents at the time? Also, is there is any evidence that cotton canvas could have been used in the late middle ages (I know it was expensive, but was certainly becoming more available after 1100, when trade routes were built up through Outremer) - I have found some references to linen, and particularly to silk (it seems to be mentioned to point out examples of conspicuous consumption), but what about other materials?

what about the logistics of moving large tents around? Carts/mules, the problems of terrain, wear and tear, how long did tent last under normal use, and were old tents pulled apart to reuse the canvas, wood and ropes?

I now have over 200 period illustrations that feature or at least show tents (over half of them from the 15th century) and these have raised some questions about artistic conventions. Some show tents without guy ropes (easily explained if there is a wooden frame at the base of the roof line, so pegging the lower wall gives the stability needed in calmer conditions), and some even show no main pole (in each case it is so the pole doesn't obscure the action), but I have at least four showing something very interesting. Tents which we would expect to have two main poles at the ends of a ridgeline, but instead are shown with a single centrepole visible through the doorway. Do you think this is another artistic convention, or could it be a 'T' shaped support arrangement, or what?

I have been told emphatically (by someone who recreates Byzantine gear) that perimeter poles are the way to go. But none of my research really supports this, and most is against it (our tent is using a wooden perimeter frame at the base of the roofline, with two crosspoles that we can hang curtains from to divide the tent into three "rooms"). The few illuminations and paintings that show interior detail show only the lower walls (so any framework inside the roof is out of view) and all show that the lower walls are unsupported IE they hang from the roof, rather than being supported from the ground. Thoughts?

Many round pavilions today are made with spokes radiating from a central hub to tension the roof, but the pictorial evidence doesn't really support this method. Short straight sections are left between each spoke, yet many illustrations (especially in the 15th century) take pains to show a perfectly conical roof and round roof base; this base often looks to be supported by a stiff hoop, sometimes the width of a 6' wide board. I've seen some modern attempts to reproduce this and they are right on the mark. Is the spoke method a cheaper way to mass manufacture tents today, or is there some other justification? (I know from using a round Past Tents tent that the spokes are great for hanging clothes, towels etc from!)

I've unearthed interesting stuff about Burgundian tents - come across in researching other things, but I'll have to go looking after some rest. Just got back from a seminar.

Some brief points.

Medieval tents were much less weatherproff than ones of modern fabric, which is the cause of the acute pitch of the roof.

Tents were a very expendable commodity. The Burgundian army was supplied with hundreds upon hundreds each year of campaign. From a passage describing the end of the Siege of Neuss, the last act of the Burgundian army upon leaving was to fire their tents (they had been worn out in the course of a year).

The wagon spoke arrangement has no documentation - Past tents will confirm this as speculative on their part. I doubt it was done historically for reasons described below.

Perimiter poles highly unlikely. You would need to lug them everywhere, and they would take up valuable cart space. The reason for all the guy lines on pavillions- especially the crow footing on them is to eliminate such an item from the design. This is the reason I doubt the wagon wheel arrangement. Jeff & Gwen have a better speculative reconstruction of a hoop of thin wood steamed to shape, that breaks down easily. with the guy lines and this, perimiter poles or wagon wheel hoops are unnessecary.

Keep in mind "miniatures" are to be viewed with suspicion when they show something very unorthodox. Their size, and panoramic action tends to make any details out of the foreground action sketchy, and a lack of something on a tent is probably the artist acccidentaly leaving it out rather than anything else.

Anyhow, more to come when I get a chance to poke about in the books.

--------------------

--------------------

But I thought the tents in 15th C. illos show the use of perimeter ropes (at least the ones I can think of). If the illos show perimeter ropes, shouldn't we try to find a design that uses them effectively, even if another design that doesn't need perimeter ropes exists?

Have to strongly disagree with you here. The ropes do serve a vital purpose in wind. Our 10x20 oval marquis has pitches in canopy and wall such that the tent stands very nicely without guylines, but the lateral force in a strong wind will push the hoop sideways, deforming it.
(This is also why I don't believe in the spoke configuration; in a strong wind the lateral force of the wind pushes on the side of the tent, through the spokes and could very easily shear the center pole at it's midpoint or whereever the spokes attach)
In a strong enough wind, the hoop could break. Now you say "why not make/get a stronger hoop?", but that would entail bigger pieces of wood and defeat the elegance of the design in its transportability. I'd like to point out that nearly all the illustrations of tents having round or oval shapes are shown with guylines, usually of the 'crowsfoot' variety.

Another issue to consider is that if you don't have guylines, the forces holding the tent upright are directed to the stakes at the bottom of the walls, which can lift the windward side off the ground a bit, creating a troublesome draft. Yes, "sod cloths" can cure this, but is there any evidence for sod cloths? If you have guylines on the canopy, the walls don't have to be pulled upward on one side, they just hang and are pulled taught only enough by the stakes; they don't have to support the "lean" stresses of the structure.

The real 'need' for guylines at the eaves has led me to believe that it's probably most likely that round or oval tents didn't have hoops in most cases. I'm not ruling them out, and they do give a very nice line to the tent, but they're rather a pain and somewhat succeptible to damage. Actually, the round areas of the eaves are not the problem in creating an attractive line; it's the straight section on an oval marquis- they tend to sag if not supported. I feel the best solution to this is to tie in a straight piece of wood, preventing the straight sections from sagging in the middle over the door.

At this point, I believe that the real key to reconstructing a 14th/15th century tent is to make sure the peak is tall enough, allowing for a very steep roof pitch so the ropes don't have to go out very far from the tent, which lessens the footprint. As Bob said, it sheds water better too. The shallower the roof pitch, the farther from the tent the ropes have to go to pull the canopy out. Steeper pitch, closer in rope stakes.

I've also lately thought that since medieval tents were hand-sewn and likely not water proof at the seams, this could be why many many tents are shown with colored lines on the seams; perhaps this is the strip of fabric stitched over the seams as extra waterproofing, or it's a paint sealing the seams.

All in all, considering an army would be on the move perhaps daily, setting up tents should happen quickly. A tent with the walls attached to the canopy and guylines attached at the eaves could have its center pole(s) inserted, held by two men, then the ropes staked down in minutes - no fuss, no muss. Speed is of the essence. The more structure, the more things to fiddle with. You don't want to have your people waiting to have their tents set up after a hard day's march.

An example of a round with no perimiter ropes: http://www.adelphi.edu/~sbloch/sca/tents/pictures/dream.html

An example of an oval with long perimeter ropes! http://www.adelphi.edu/~sbloch/sca/tents/pictures/martini/fogliano.html

Tops with no walls: http://www.adelphi.edu/~sbloch/sca/tents/pictures/frombob/tentpic2.html

Lots of ropes! http://www.adelphi.edu/~sbloch/sca/tents/pictures/martini/renounce.html

--------------------