Wear and Tear.

[DEL]

Been admiring Pete's Crossbowman and it got me thinking about how we paint clothing,.
To be specific it's more about how dyes would perform on campaign in medieval times.
Like Pete I always create a sense of colour loss around the hem of a garment as shown on the aketon.
https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/french-crossbowman-normandy-1450.448988/#post-1243051
This always creates a pleasing look to a campaign figure but I wonder about its accuracy.
Presumably the dyes used for ordinary soldiers would be relatively cheap, particularly the mordant used.
That being the case would it be possible that weather particularly rain would wash dye down towards the hem saturating the colour there and reversing what we tend to paint?
D.

 

[Helm]

The rain would probably dilute it so much it wouldn't matter. I suspect in reality, if a medieval army had been on a field campaign for more than a week or two it would be a horrible mud brown mess, even the nobles would struggle to keep any kind of clothing bright and clean.
Steve

 

[DEL]

True enough Steve, spend a fair bit of time in any terrain and you pretty much end up the same colour.
I imagine nobles would have fabrics, dyes and mordants of a higher quality. Whilst not perfect a blue pigment using Lapis Lazuli is likely to stay more vivid for longer than a dye from woad.
Ah me! it's always the same.... the haves and have noughts
The way we paint figures is often to create something visually interesting.
Think of all the short jackets and knee length capes we see that are mudcaked and dusty along the lower edge.
Ok they could have been held and dragged along the ground but that's a bit of a stretch.
I'm all for realism but perhaps the aesthetic is more pleasing in the scales we paint

As for the clean seats on breeks, kilts, and trousers......come on
D.

 

[Babelfish]

I'm all for realism but perhaps the aesthetic is more pleasing in the scales we paint

Agree with that. I know that some guys like to bang on all the time about "historical accuracy" but I think that to produce a result that's pleasing to the eye, a degree of "artistic license" is often inevitable and even (arguably) necessary.

Two main reasons why: (1) gaps in the historical record that we can only fill with best guesses, (2) some things simply don't work well in miniature scale, even if they're strictly speaking "accurate".

Good thread by the way.

- Steve

 

[Blind Pew]

Excellent topic, I love it. The colour fast dyes and man-made fabrics we're used to today would all act very differently to those used in bygone days. Until the era of mass production as we know it today, which is mid/late Victorian, really, uniform supply and manufacture was more or less a cottage industry by comparison. The effects of the environment, weather etc would take a heavy toll. They'd all come back looking worse for wear, regardless of rank. Repair & patching up in the field were commonplace.

As figure painters we're also guilty of painting what looks good in miniature, otherwise what's the point?! You see examples of this in figures wearing what would've been brand new clothing, looking all weathered & beaten...as it just looks better.

 

[Blind Pew]

Two main reasons why: (1) gaps in the historical record that we can only fill with best guesses, (2) some things simply don't work well in miniature scale, even if they're strictly speaking "accurate".

Good thread by the way.

- Steve

Steve is 100% spot on. It's a fact that one of the few sources of what troops wore in the AWI are contempory newspaper descriptions of what deserters were wearing when they were last seen....not exactly Kodak, is it?!

 

[OldTaff]

A case in point could be the appearance of many British regiments at Waterloo. It was reported at the time that the red dye had run from the soaking they got on the night before the battle, making them look as though they had already been in bloody fighting. Their white crossbelts were apparently streaked and pink. Apart from the muddy conditions, a scale figure looks pretty weird when you try to depict this as well, however historically accurate . I know, I tried it once, hated it and cleaned it all off.

Alan

 

[Henk]

Historical accuracy has been a much debated argument in armour modelling for decades, from issues like the correct shade of Olive Drab or Dunkel Gelb (or the actual existence of Khaki Drab...), how much weathering is to much, or whether or not a small army of dwarves would have taken hammers to a tank (chipping...)?

Whilst on a campaign, soldiers would indeed get dirty, but they also had a large train of camp followers, which included washer women. Also, as today, most of an army's time is spend other than "in action", whether marching or resting/training. Untill WWI most wars were prolonged, but battles tended to be widely dispersed , and armies had to march there, and prepare, which might be months between battles.
There is also the oft held idea that medieval people were mud caked and filthy, which they were not. Not as clean as today, but jobs such as waher women are well recorded throughout history.

What is true, is that the colour of clothing was not as colour fast as today, so making clothes look faded and washed out is certainly historic.

 

[DEL]

Whilst on a campaign, soldiers would indeed get dirty, but they also had a large train of camp followers, which included washer women..
There is also the oft held idea that medieval people were mud caked and filthy, which they were not. Not as clean as today, but jobs such as waher women are well recorded throughout history.

Absolutely the case, certainly on long campaigns, although a substantial number of combatants were levied for specific battles. Indeed their participation could be governed by factors like a need to harvest, a dilemma for the levy but also for the lord whose wealth could be seriously impacted by a prolonged campaign.
A clear illustration of your point is the camp followers who supported Landsknechts.
Given the complexity and vanity of their styles skilled seamstresses would have been pretty essential.
I have read that the affectations of split and slashed clothing had its origins in soldiers thieving garments that were often to small and cutting them to allow freedom of movement. Latterly becoming a style choice.
D

 

[Forté]

Historical accuracy is only as accurate as the historical reports. And considering that current day news cannot report current happenings correctly... well... it's open to interpretation.

I'm liking how people are remembering that dyes would not have been colourfast and that surroundings and weather would change those. Essentially though, if you use a common sense approach and can justify what you choose to do then it is fair game. If anyone tells you that it isn't "historically accurate" just tell them to "prove it" and wait to see what they come out with as justification for their 'opinion'. Also always remember that it is their 'opinion' which does not make it a fact.

Enjoy your creating.

 

[DEL]

Well that's your opinion

 

[Wayneb]

Who would notice and how many would have the knowledge to critique?

 

[custer760]

Actually there was a member of med rom forum back in the days (Mike Butler was forum host so he will know more) his name is Shane Terry and he posted some brilliant threads on clothes dyes, even testing them himself using plants and roots to create the colour dye and even....urine ! which was used by the romans to get a whiter white to clothing. Apparently urine bleaches all colour so I am sure lots of soldiers had the front of their breeches well bleached by the end of a days fighting. Shane also repeately washed the fabric he had used the dye on, showing how the colour changed by each wash....very interesting stuff.
Regards
Pete

 

[Nap]

Great thread DEL

Lots of good points raised all very valid , I agree with Alan , it's hard to create in miniatures but I think it's also how you want to depict and what the subject is , I like a clean look on my busts .......especially here's it's a full dress uniform

Whatever you do enjoy it

Nap

 

[Henk]

Actually there was a member of med rom forum back in the days (Mike Butler was forum host so he will know more) his name is Shane Terry and he posted some brilliant threads on clothes dyes, even testing them himself using plants and roots to create the colour dye and even....urine ! which was used by the romans to get a whiter white to clothing. Apparently urine bleaches all colour so I am sure lots of soldiers had the front of their breeches well bleached by the end of a days fighting. Shane also repeately washed the fabric he had used the dye on, showing how the colour changed by each wash....very interesting stuff.
Regards
Pete

Any links to that? Sounds fascinating. I saw a blog/video a while ago, of a guy who is very much into re-enacting Celtic life, including the naked battle attire (if that makes sense? A bit different from dressing up as your favourite Schutz Staffle member...). He tried out various ways to process woad, to make it into something that can be painted on the skin, to see how likely it is that Celt warriors painted their bodies with woad, and it turns out it's not simple, and rather acidic (if I recall correctly ( I didn't, I meant Caustic. It actually burns the skin and leaves scars)). I'll see if I can find it, to post a link.

 

[DEL]

his name is Shane Terry and he posted some brilliant threads on clothes dyes,
Pete

Can't beat a good pun Pete
Thinking back I now remember those articles in which the level of research and detail was superb.
What stood out for me was how many ingredients resulted in completely different colours from that of the source material...pun intended.
Cheers
Derek

 

[Henk]

An interesting article on Celtic woad paint:

https://historyhysteria.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/celtic-warpaint/

 

[Forté]

Well that's your opinion

Oh yes

 

[Henk]

This was the article about woad, and body adornment, that explains why it's unlikely that Celts painted themselves in blue motives/warpaint, that I mentioned earlier.

http://tastesofhistory.blogspot.com/2020/03/dispelling-myth-woad.html

 

[theBaron]

Earlier this year, I stumbled across the YouTube channel for James Townsend & Son, who are researchers and outfitters for reenactors. Their focus is the 18th century, but they have 4 videos on laundry. This video is on the chemistry used in the process. While it is several centuries later than the medieval period, I don't think the techniques had changed very much, even since the Romans, at least. This might provide some insight into treating cloth, insight that were probably valid centuries before:



One of the other videos looks at the dyes that were available, too, but I can't find the link. If I do, I'll post it back. I find these videos interesting, even if there's nothing immediately useful to me.

Prost!
Brad