Knights of Jerusalem surcoat color?

[Meticulous]

I have just primed, and am ready to paint, a 13th century knight.

I know this has been discussed here a few times, but has a consensus view ever been reached?

I understand that Kingdom of Heaven is a bit of historical amalgamation/fantasy, but is there any known historical basis for the blue surcoat? Would red, green, or any other color be just as likely? The heraldry (on white shield) seems well documented, so I am interested in finding the most likely color.

My first thought was off white, then perhaps light green or light blue (for more visual interest).

Opinions?

 

[Meticulous]

Does the absence of replies infer:

A) No one knows...
B) No one (besides me) cares...
C) It was discussed a few years back and that should suffice...
D) I'm loathed and not deserving of a response...
E) All of the above

 

[Helm]

Just saw this, as far as I know it's got no proven historical grounding.
Steve

 

[billyturnip]

Does the absence of replies infer:

A) No one knows...
B) No one (besides me) cares...
C) It was discussed a few years back and that should suffice...
D) I'm loathed and not deserving of a response...
E) All of the above

Option A for me, haven't a clue, sorry.

Roger.

 

[Augie]

FWIW. . . Military Orders through the mid-13th c. wore white, with the notable exception of the Hospitallers, who wore black until 1259 (?--if memory serves).

The real issue here is not so much the color of the surcoat, but rather the very existence of the so-called "Knights of Jerusalem". There was no order known by that name: the two most likely candidates would be the Hospitallers (the Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem); or the Order of the Holy Sepulchre. Give the trappings, etc. depicted in the movie, the latter is the most likely basis for the "KoJ".

Hope this helps. . .

Augie

 

[Meticulous]

FWIW. . . Military Orders through the mid-13th c. wore white, with the notable exception of the Hospitallers, who wore black until 1259 (?--if memory serves).

The real issue here is not so much the color of the surcoat, but rather the very existence of the so-called "Knights of Jerusalem". There was no order known by that name: the two most likely candidates would be the Hospitallers (the Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem); or the Order of the Holy Sepulchre. Give the trappings, etc. depicted in the movie, the latter is the most likely basis for the "KoJ".

Hope this helps. . .

Augie

It does, thank you. I kept seeing the heraldry and assumed it must be an offshoot of the Templars.

So, I assume then that the heraldic cross represents just the kindom of Jerusalem, and not a specific order of knights charged with its protection?

 

[Augie]

The "Jerusalem Cross", as it is known heraldically, is the device of the Kingdom of Jerusalem through 1291. The arms are originally ascribed to Godefroy de Bouillon, the liberator of Jerusalem and its de facto first King.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no Order charged with the protection of the city itself--that would be the solemn duty of every able-bodied Christian male; however, the aforementioned Order of the Holy Sepulchre, were the stewards of the Holiest site in Christendom. And, perhaps apocryphally, their habit is said to have been a red Jerusalem Cross on white.

 

[Meticulous]

The "Jerusalem Cross", as it is known heraldically, is the device of the Kingdom of Jerusalem through 1291. The arms are originally ascribed to Godefroy de Bouillon, the liberator of Jerusalem and its de facto first King.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no Order charged with the protection of the city itself--that would be the solemn duty of every able-bodied Christian male; however, the aforementioned Order of the Holy Sepulchre, were the stewards of the Holiest site in Christendom. And, perhaps apocryphally, their habit is said to have been a red Jerusalem Cross on white.

Very good; thank you. I think I am finally clear on this. You just saved me from painting a fantasy piece.

Sounds like I can represent G. de Bouillon with an appropriate figure though, so I may go that route.

 

[Augie]

My pleasure.

Just a word of caution: Godefroy died in 1100, the last year of the 11th c. You indicated your figure represented a man-at-arms of the 13th c.: not knowing the figure in question--or the amount of research invested in its design, if it's early 13th c., you might be able to use it to represent a maa of the l. 11th c. Otherwise, probably not.

 

[Meticulous]

My pleasure.

Just a word of caution: Godefroy died in 1100, the last year of the 11th c. You indicated your figure represented a man-at-arms of the 13th c.: not knowing the figure in question--or the amount of research invested in its design, if it's early 13th c., you might be able to use it to represent a maa of the l. 11th c. Otherwise, probably not.

Yes, I meant I will need to choose another, more appropriate figure. I might have one though, and it seems to suit Godfrey's oft represented, strong, youthful renderings...

What is your (and everyone's) opinion of this figure? Shield and helmet look period appropriate, I think?

 

[Augie]

That is one of my favourite Verlinden figures, and a very good representation it is--of a mid-late 13th c. maa. The critical factors impacting the dating are the poleyns, the [circular] ailettes, and the fully developed heater-shape of the shield--all of which flourished in the second half of the 13th c.

Depicting an early crusader is/can be tough. Your base figure should essentially be representative of a Norman knight/maa at Hastings. The question is then whether or not to add a surcoat, and to what extent emblazon it with the wearer's [alleged] arms: heraldry was very much in its infancy at this time, and many, if not most, arms are apocryphal.

 

[Meticulous]

Hi,

I did notice the ailettes (easy enough to remove), but I missed the shield shape.

I'm not even sure why I am trying so hard to use the Jerusalem cross... I've just got it in my head... I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I think I can paint it more readily than most other heraldry...

Thanks, again; I appreciate the information.