I'm not a Medieval re-enactor. I'm a re-enactor of Landsknechts in the 1530's. But even so, I believe you folks on this list can help me.

I am looking for resources to support the use of leather and/or wool in the construction of tight fitting hosen. So far, the only book resource I've come across that I can get my hands on is Köhler, in which it states:

p181 (14th-15th century section)
"Like long stockings, they had feet, and covered the whole of the leg. They were kept up by being attached at the top to a belt which was buckled around the body beneath the coat. These hose were as tight as possible: they were sometimes of leather and sometimes of elastic material like wool."

It seems to me like the Medieval re-enactors favor the use of wool for the hosen. What resources do you have/use to support that?

Thank you

PS Gwen, if you could post what you sent me over the e-mail, it would be great

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

What I told him in private correspondence was:

I have never found a single reference for leather hose in any period source,
and the citations for wool abound.

As for Kohler, take what he says with a healthy dose of salt- the work was written 80+ years ago, and like Norris, much of the information has been superceeded by subsequent archaeological and documentary findings. Notice too that he's lumping all countries and social classes together for a 200 year span. Research done in the last 10-20 years has determined at least 4 stages of evolution for men's leg coverings, and a distinct class-based trend in what was used by whom when.

I've told him to contact Jamie as someone who is doing great early Landsknecht stuff (1499)

I believe Tristan's group (like most Faire based groups that I know of) really likes the look of leather for Landsknecht clothing, especially breeches. I believe Tristan is trying to find evidence to disabuse them of the inclination, and wants to hear that hosen are made of wool from someone other than me.

So hop on it other folks. I've said my piece.

Gwen

I'm interested in doing what's historial vs. what I want. And I'm most interested in being able to document everything in regards to my garb and accoutre. So any and all sources you know of will be greatly appreciated

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

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

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Johnson ]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
I believe Tristan's group (like most Faire based groups that I know of) really likes the look of leather for Landsknecht clothing, especially breeches. I believe Tristan is trying to find evidence to disabuse them of the inclination, and wants to hear that hosen are made of wool from someone other than me.

---

Just a note on this. I am a member of Tristans group. We as a group are not overly fond of leather, however we do have a couple of members (mostly old school people who have been doing it for 10+ years) who *love* their leather. But they cannot provide good arguments for it, rather twisting any arguements against around until the whole thing leaves you shaking your head wondering what the person is smoking (and thinking they need to quit). So all we really want are some solid pro's and con's for both leather and wool so that we can make an informed decision.

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

I have never seen leather referenced as hosen material in a 15th century context. Almost always it is kersey, I have seen references to silk, and one possible mention of linen, but never leather.

I am by no means extensively read on the first third of the 16th century, but where I have seen references to 'pinked' clothing (The De Soto expedition comes to mind, and the initial muster of recruits for it), it has always been wool or silk. Looking at Holbein's artwork, and Drurer, I doubt a leather set of hosen would tatter in quite the way depicted on soldiers undergoing just a few months of campaigns in Italy.

I can see myself in no way, shape, or form, wearing leather hosen in an Italian Summer, and actually undergoing a campaign - the chaffing would be an indescribably agony. I could not see myself fighting for several hours in such garments, and do so using the forms of combat known to have been historicaly used.

When complaints are leveled against Landesknechts in the Imperial Diet about their mode of dress breaking sumtuary laws, Velvets, brocades, and silk are mentioned, but leather is never mentioned in context.

Most of the groups on this board have a general rule regarding members wishing to introduce new equipment, or use an old bit of kit of dubious attribution - they must document it in three independant sources from the period in question, preferably both in art, and in a written document from the time in question, such as an inventory, a will, or some such.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, when concerning authenticity in a group allegedly devoted to same, the burden of proof for documentation lies on the person wishing to use the previously undocumented item - not on those questioning it's authenticity (especially if they have never seen any documentation for same).

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

"We have had to be in turn Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Turkish, French, Italian, English or devilish, Nurembergeist, Brunswickian, Franconian or Saxon; and every size and style have had their run: short, long, narrow, wide, plain, plaited, braided, corded, wadded, gallooned, with fringes, with tags, with rags, whole or slashed up, lined and unlined, with sleeves, without sleeves; with foolish headger party-coloured, crumpled, pointed, blunt, with or without tassels and tuffs; then it had to be of leather, felt, cloth or linen, of all stuff and forms without end or measure. At one moment is worn the Swiss cut, the next moment the cross-cut, then a peacock-tail is cut in the hose, and this produces such a scandalous and abominable result, that a pious heart must be horrified at it. For no thief on the gallows can dangle backwards and forwards, and look more ragged and tattered than the present-day hose of the swashbucklers and grandees. Fie for shame."

I also found a late 16th century reference to silk hose. This from "Die Teufelstracht der Plunderhosen" (1592):

"Saxon nobles wore trunk-hose of silk or gold stuffs, of which 60-80 ells were used: many of them required 130 ells. A single pair of hose often cost more than the whole retinue of a village came to, so that the numbers of nobles reduced themselves to ruin by their dress."

I'll look and see if I can find anything else. Hope this helps for now.

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

quote:

---

Katherine B wrote:
Textiler Hausrat, Kleidung und Haustextilien in Nurnberg 1500 - 1650 sites a 1531 document of Thoman Beck as listing "3 alte paar lidere Hosen und 3 lidere Wamas. (StaN, LI, fol. 227v-228v)" The author states regarding hosen: "Den Kleiderverzeichnissen zufolge waren Leder und Wolltuche, seltener Leinen, die gangigen (umlaut on a) Materialien." (According to the recorded clothing inventories, leather and wool cloth, and rarely linen, were the common materials. - translation mine.) Also states the author: "1507 bezahlte die Frau Michael Bahaims 'fur ein liderein hirschen Paar Hosen, meinem Friedrich gein Lyon' einem gulden. (In 1507 the wife of Michael Behaim paid 1 gulden 'for a pair of deer leather hose, to my Friedrich going to Lyon - translation mine -

---

quote:

---

Julie B. wrote:
I finally got a chance to dig into Textiler Hausrat last night. <> I found more references to Leder Hosen with translations. Interestingly, one was for very early, like 1450's.....the medieval hose that are seen in "the Medieval Footsoldier".....apparently they were being made of very soft leather already!

---

Although, I have not yet seen where it states that soldiers wore leather hosen. That's really what I'm looking for.

I feel that if leather would stand up well to being constantly exposed to the elements that a footsoldier is exposed to, then it's a good bet that some soldiers wore leather hosen.

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

By selective and/orindescriminate referencing we can "prove" just about anything existed- Memling's "Reliquary for St. Ursula" "proves" splint armour, the Trebon altarpiece "proves" the use of bar grill visors, the painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold "proves" the use of portable ovens.

What we can't do no matter what is "prove" what was NOT used.

In 1467, Gerard Loyet created a reliquary which depicts St. George presenting Charles the Bold. Can you prove indisputably that St. George was not there to do what the sculpture depicts?

I could bore you with 40 references to various donors standing in the company of and presented by as many saints to the Virgin Mary and/or Christ. The paintings are done with photorealistic precision, and some of the things in the paintings are found in modern museums--can you prove indesputably that those paintings do not depict actual events?

The same method can be used with written references- if there are 400 references to leg covering in the record 40 of which prove that leather was used in some undefined capacity, what do you do with the 360 that call for wool? You could certainly discount them entirely and "prove" that leather was used for leg coverings. You could err on the side of conservative scholarship and say that the preponderance of available material points to the use of wool for leg coverings with a small minority of cases using leather.

Now, just so we’re discussing apples and apples here, I went and had a quick look at Janet Arnold.

Of the 29 items or outfits presented for discussion, 4 doublets (14%) were made of leather. I’ll argue that the embroidered cream doublet in the Stibbert in Florence is a special purpose garment, as it resembles the fencing doublet in the MMOA in NY a lot. So if we take that one out of the running, only 3 of the 29 are leather, which brings the percentage down to slightly under 10%. The remainder of the items are made of satin or velvet, mostly satin (13 items, or 45%). Now, as a costume historian I start looking at the sample and asking questions:

• What is the date of these items, and how does that relate to the period I’m studying?

• Who wore these garments, and what is their relativity to the garments I want to recreate?

• What is the likelihood that this is a broad based, impartial and representative sampling of the types of clothing I want to recreate?
  

Even with this short beginning list, I run into problems with the clothing from Arnold:

• I’d call “Landsknecht” period at about 1500-1535. The earliest date of the clothing presented in Arnold is 1562, so that’s a big problem right there.

• All of the provenanced garments presented belonged to wealthy men or “nobility”. This is not a fair sampling of what a soldier would be wearing.

• Because of the above, the majority of these garments were preserved in tombs (a luxury not afforded to many soldiers) or in the case of the Stures’ in a cathedral in memory of their assassination. These are not the clothing of your average guy on the street.
  

So for my money, I’d only be able to use this particular selection of garments for 16th C. tailoring and construction details, NOT for fibre content.

For fibre content, I’d have to look at the kind of references you’re using. For me,Kohler is not a valid scholarly source since so much of what he wrote is no longer true, so he’s out. I’m going to look at trade records, ordinance issues, inventories, etc., along with established fabric use patterns for the period in question. I know that Europe has a hundreds of years long tradition of using wool for garments, so references for leather will have to be scrutinized and assessed to see if this is a regional use, class specific, or purpose related use.

For what it’s worth, the soldier’s clothing I did for Ft. Caroline last year were intended to represent the average soldier occupying the fort in 1540. My research indicated wool and that’s what they got. I’m currently working on 3 suits for Carbrillo Nat’l Monument here in San Diego intended to represent him 1520-1530-1540. I’m using wool for most of it and velvet for the last suit which represents him as a wealthy and successful navigator and explorer.

Reenactment is a wide open field and you are free to use whichever method suits your purposes and tastes. Certainly anyone can pick up any issue of the Museum Replicas catalog and create a "medieval impression" from the offerings found in its pages that will fly at most Faires and with most recreation groups. You won't find those people here.

For the most part, I believe the people who frequent this board err on the side of conservative scholarship and have waded past the point where we dispute the predominant use of wool in the manufacture of middle and lower class clothing in the 14th and 15th C. We have spent years wading through dusty records and inventories in search of day-to-day life. We have no expectations regarding what we would like the record to show, but are interested in the most even-handed examination and evaluation of what the record does show, and the most factual reconstruction of ordinary items.

Just my 2d.

"Textiler Hausrat, Kleidung und Haustextilien in Nurnberg 1500 - 1650 sites a 1531 document of Thoman Beck as listing "3 alte paar lidere Hosen und 3 lidere Wamas. (StaN, LI, fol. 227v-228v)" The author states regarding hosen: "Den Kleiderverzeichnissen zufolge waren Leder und Wolltuche, seltener Leinen, die gangigen (umlaut on a) Materialien." (According to the recorded clothing inventories, leather and wool cloth, and rarely linen, were the common materials. - translation mine.) Also states the author: "1507 bezahlte die Frau Michael Bahaims 'fur ein liderein hirschen Paar Hosen, meinem Friedrich gein Lyon' einem gulden. (In 1507 the wife of
Michael Behaim paid 1 gulden 'for a pair of deer leather hose, to my Friedrich going to Lyon - translation mine - I'm not sure about the word gein - I suppose it could be a period spelling of gehen)”

Can you give me some background info here- who was Thomas Beck? I’m not a German speaker, so can you amplify the part about ”...leather and wool cloth, and rarely linen, were the common materials” Does it give any indication what material would be for what garment? I could easily interpret this as doublet and hose of wool with a leather jerkin, which would fall smack into line with what’s going on in the rest of Europe in this period.

I’ll back you up that it’s entirely possible that special purpose doublets made of leather existed. We see several examples in Janet Arnold and the Met (both previously cited). Arnold says one of the Sture doublets is made of leather, but I note 2 things: 1) It’s not cut and slashed and 2) the pluderhosen are very cut and slashed, also made of wool. She comments that leather clothing was used for travelling and hunting because they were warm and hardwearing. Although she doesn’t cite a source, that seems reasonable to me. It would also explain why the doublet wasn’t cut, if one assumes that it was a functional garment rather than high fashion. A cut doublet would certainly be less effective in protecting the wearer from hard weather than one without cuts.

As far as Michael Behaim’s wife, she’s paid for ”....'for a pair of deer leather hose, to my Friedrich going to Lyon”. What pops out here is the “going to” part. Are these “leather hosen” part of his travelling attire, like riding boots?

I’m not ready to say that leather is as valid as wool, but I’ll agree that it shows in the record. You may be able to prove at some point that slashed leather clothing was as faddish among the Landsknecht as it is currently among Harley riders- it certainly could be! Before I go there though, I’d like to see more about what was common travelling attire so we could evaluate what all of these “leather hosen” in the records were intended for.

I’m also working on a list of costume history books for you, but it may take a couple of days as I’m pretty busy here at work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:

Can you give me some background info here- who was Thomas Beck?

---

The Brauer of Beck bier? j/k

Seriously, I don't have a clue.

quote:

---

I’m not a German speaker, so can you amplify the part about ”...leather and wool cloth, and rarely linen, were the common materials” Does it give any indication what material would be for what garment?

---

Not sure myself, but the person I quoted that from states it is in regards to the hosen.

quote:

---

I’m also working on a list of costume history books for you, but it may take a couple of days as I’m pretty busy here at work.

---

Thanks! But please take your time. I don't want you to be put out or anything.

Here is more feedback from the Textiler Hausrat:

quote:

---

By Julie Bradley
OK - Here we go: This is the very first sentence in the chapter dealing
with "Hosen". (Please note that these translations are not going to be
word for word......).

"Die im einzelnen äußerst vielgestaltigen Männerhosen lassen sich auf
zwei Grundtypen reduzieren: das eng anliegende strumpfhosenartige
Beinkleid aus Tuch oder Leder sowie Hosen mit unterschiedlich weiten,
bis zu knielangen Beinen, die gewöhnlich zusammen mit Strümpfen getragen
wurden."

"The individual, many shaped mens pants can be reduced to two basic
types: the tightliy fitting variety of "leg-dress", similar to
pantyhose (tights), made of cloth or leather, as well as pants in
various widths, with kneelength legs, that would have been commonly worn
with stockings."

Then there are the two quotes that Julie Adams posted.

"1537 hinterließ der Tüncher Hans Zügler >1 brauns Paar Hosen mit einem
hirschen Überzug<"
"1537 the "whitewasher" (Tüncher - maybe that's a house painter in
1537), Hans Zügler, left behind >1 brown pair of hose with a deer
(buckskin) covering<".

---

Okay, the above is definitely special hosen for the type of work done by a Tüncher.

quote:

---

"Unter den in den Kleiderlisten verzeichneten Materialien nahm Leder,
vorzugsweise Hirschleder, die vorderste Stelle ein."
"In the cloths lists, in the index of materials, leather, particularly
deer (buck) leather, took the foremost place.

and finally,

".........während sich die Bestände der Mittel und Unterschichten nach
wie vor auf Leder, Wolle und Barchent konzentrierten."
".........while the constancy of the middle and lower classes, later as
earlier, concentrated on leather, wool and "Barchent" (no idea what this
is....I'll see if Mom knows).

That's my 2-Groshen worth.....

Thanks,
Juliana B.

---

(-Brad

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Tristan Wagner ]

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

who was Thomas Beck?
I’d find out who Thomas Beck is. Was he a 16th C. toilet cleaner or a Victorian armchair scholar? I could write a book on dentistry but that doesn’t mean anyone should take the contents as gospel. KNOW YOUR SOURCES! especially if you’re depending on them to prove something.

”...leather and wool cloth, and rarely linen, were the common materials”
You say the person I quoted that from states it is in regards to the hosen.
You know what I think of heresay. It’s not admissible in a court of law, it doesn’t fly with me. If all else fails send it to a language professor and get your own translation.

This is the very first sentence in the chapter dealing with "Hosen".
Where did you say this comes from? I’m confused at this point.

"The individual, many shaped mens pants can be reduced to two basic types: the tightly fitting variety of "leg-dress", similar to pantyhose (tights),
PANTYHOSE????? God help me. What kind of reference is this?

"1537 hinterließ der Tüncher Hans Zügler -1 brauns Paar Hosen mit einem hirschen Überzug. "1537 the "whitewasher" (Tüncher - maybe that's a house painter in 1537), Hans Zügler, left behind 1 brown pair of hose with a deer (buckskin) covering".
So are you a housepainter or a soldier? Ballerinas and I both wear shoes, but I don’t wear ballet slippers. This doesn’t prove soldiers wore leather hosen, it proves that painters did.

"In the cloths lists, in the index of materials, leather, particularly deer (buck) leather, took the foremost place.
Foremost place for what? For making shoes? Boots? Aprons? Workmen’s clothing? Lots of materials in an inventory just means that a lot was used for *something*. It’s up to you to prove they made that leather into clothing.

I’m pursuing this with you because I run into the same sort of flawed “research” in 14th & 15th C. circles. I’m hoping our conversation will not only clarify what you need to get out of this pile of “research” and “proof” you’ve been handed, but will help others on this board to critically evaluate “research” that’s been handed to them.

I hope you understand that I'm no longer being rough with you, but your research needs some cleaning up before you take it home to Momma.

"Hans Zügler, left behind 1 brown pair of hose with a deer (buckskin) covering"

I missed this the first time around, but this is not proof that hosen were made of leather. What this inventories is 2 distinct items of clothing: hose (of undertermined fibre content, presumably wool) with a separate leather covering. If both articles were made of leather it would have said "leather hose -and- Uberzug".

On a tangental issue, Jeff and I got to talking about your whole predicament regarding going in a more historical direction with your group. I want to caution you that you are standing on the brink of a VERY slick slope. This may be a good thing, but it can also be a dangerous thing. As you become more historical in your approach, the ripples of implication spread out from the source.

For example, once you have the clothing issue ironed out to your satisfaction, you'll start thinking about the Faire setting and your involvement. You're ostensibly portraying characters from the 1520's and 30's. So why are you at a venue that is set in the 1590's? If you can ignore that, how can you justify being anywhere near Elizabeth's court? England is a firmly entrenched Protestant country by now (even headed in that direction shortly after your time), and you are part of the Holy Roman Empire. What are you doing in England? Elizabeth has spurned the advances of Phillip II and turned her back on the Holy Roman Empire. Remember the Armada campaign?

I can tell you from experience that this whole "being more historical" thing can be a royal pain in the butt. The more you learn the crazier it can make you. The Red Company doesn't do RenFaires because they are set 100 years too late.Faire promoters court us and say "it doesn't matter what your period is, the public doesn't know the difference", but WE know, so we stay away. We can't attend SCA events because much real history runs counter to SCA culture and we offend by implication. We are left pretty much to hold our own events and attend military timeline events. This is fine, it just means we don't have as many event opportunities as we'd like.

You've already lost some members because they don't want to give up their leather clothing. You'll stand to lose many more if you tell them that you can't go to Faires and fight in the Pageant Battles. This is the time for you to take the long view and decide where you want your group to go. I can tell you from personal experience that "being more historical" won't stop with the clothing, if you do it right.

Just my 2d.

Sorry I haven't responded. I didn't check this over the weekend.

In regards to the research handed to me, all if it is in regards to hosen. So any materials mentioned is mentioned about hosen. So there should be no need to question that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:

On a tangental issue, Jeff and I got to talking about your whole predicament regarding going in a more historical direction with your group. I want to caution you that you are standing on the brink of a VERY slick slope. This may be a good thing, but it can also be a dangerous thing. As you become more historical in your approach, the ripples of implication spread out from the source.

For example, once you have the clothing issue ironed out to your satisfaction, you'll start thinking about the Faire setting and your involvement. You're ostensibly portraying characters from the 1520's and 30's. So why are you at a venue that is set in the 1590's? If you can ignore that, how can you justify being anywhere near Elizabeth's court? England is a firmly entrenched Protestant country by now (even headed in that direction shortly after your time), and you are part of the Holy Roman Empire. What are you doing in England? Elizabeth has spurned the advances of Phillip II and turned her back on the Holy Roman Empire. Remember the Armada campaign?

---

Our group does the independent faire cirucuit. To understand why we do them you need to understand the independent faires. Also known as "small faires". They are looked at as primarlily a chapter of history vs. a page. And they are more for theatrics than true history. So many of the guilds and groups that perform there do not fit with the faire year. First off, not all of them are 1590's Elizabeth. Some are 1530's and 40's Henry VIII and some are 1560's Queen Mary of Scots. Typically only the court fits with the faire year and location it's set at. The indi-faires are mainly a place for diffent "re-enactment" groups to show off their stuff to the public. And while doing so, they interact with the other groups to create a more coheasive environment for the patrons to feel like they've become a part of. And, at each of the faires, typically most of the same groups are present, regardless of the year, court, or country. The groups will interact with each other differently though, depending on the situation. Like, at an English Faire, the Landsknechts are on the side of the court. At a Scottish Faire, the Landsknechts are they enemies of the court. If all the groups at an indi-faire portrayed their characters and clothing to match the faire year, then we would not be able to fit with all of them. But, the fact of the matter is that at any given indi-faire, you might find 1510 English longbowmen, 1536 Landsknechts, 1545 English Foote, 1560 Italians, and Tudor Knights of Saint John's. We all each have our own little living history area in which we portray what our group is. And then a time or two during the day, the various groups work together to put on larger shows. It would be best if every group portrayed the correct year, but if a restriction was put on that, then faire wouldn't happen, or not be as enjoyable as they are. Some of the faires we do are King Henry VIII faires and set around 1536. So, of course, they are prime faires for us.

The direction of our guild is not to be 100% re-enactment. We just want to make sure our clothing, encampment, and character backgrounds are historical. And we take that and add theatrics to it to make it more entertaining to the patrons. As it states in our purpose, we want to educate and entertain the public.

quote:

---

You've already lost some members because they don't want to give up their leather clothing.

---

Nope, I haven't said that. We actually haven't taken leather clothing out of our guidelines. We're gathering the research first. In the meantime, we're allowing, what's currently accepted in the Landsknecht re-enactment community. It's hard to disallow something that all the other Landsknecht groups allow without proof to the contrary. So that's why the current discussion on leather hosen. If leather hosen are proven to be not historical for Landsknechts to wear, then the clothing guidelines will be adjusted and any members with leather hosen will have to make new hosen appropriate to the revised guidelines. If they don't want to, then we may loose them.

To make your statement more clear, over the years, after more research, we adjusted our clothing patterns and styles to be more historical to our group's year of 1536. And those who did not want to give up their old incorrect clothing, left.

quote:

---

You'll stand to lose many more if you tell them that you can't go to Faires and fight in the Pageant Battles.

---

I'd loose me too! LOL

Like I stated before, our group is not strictly a historical re-enactment group. We are a mix is re-enactment and theatrics. So we will never give up faires. We may do some appropriate historical events. And if so, we will adjust our style of presentation to include less theatrics and more re-enactment. The key is that we will adjust to the venue. But faires are at, and always will be, at the core of the guild.

quote:

---

This is the time for you to take the long view and decide where you want your group to go.

---

All ready done. Here is our Statement of Purpose.

"St. Maximilian Landsknecht Re-enactment Guild is a 501(c)3 non-profit
educational organization that portrays a historical, but theatrical,
representation of camp life of das Todesengel Fähnlein, CIRCA 1536, on the
Northern California/Nevada small faire circuit, for public education and
entertainment."

quote:

---

I can tell you from personal experience that "being more historical" won't stop with the clothing, if you do it right.

---

Well, essentially we're more interested in looking historical. The year of 1536 was chosen for our guild simply to have a place to focus on the style of clothing and for the members to base their character histories off of. That way our guild has one look and one story.

I don't believe there is a black and white distinction between re-enactment and renfaire. I believe one can be teatrical while looking historical.

Hope that makes more sense on what our group is all about

(-Brad

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Tristan Wagner ]

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

quote:

---

I don't believe there is a black and white distinction between re-enactment and renfaire. I believe one can be teatrical while looking historical.

---

I'd have to say Yes, there is a clear and distinct difference. You have covered much of it in your last post.

Reenactment, by definition, is reenacting an actual historic event, with people or military units portrayed which were actually present. By it's nature, reenactment is a military event. You don't have elves, trolls, vikings, and generally make believe characters and peseudo-historics at a reenactment event. You won't find Vikings at Getttysburg 2002, nor will you find Redcoats at Hastings 2002.

By its very nature, a Rennfair cannot be a reenactment, especially considering the mixing of years, 'personas' ect. What is foisted off at the public at every Rennfaire I have ever witnessed (from Massachusetts to Maryland) resembles in no way history, any more than Storybook village in NH resembles a real town. They mention a few historic personages, a few historic places, then it's off to the spandex wearing fire swallowers, "knights" riding plow horses larking about in armour that looks like it's been banged together out of trashcans at worst, and put together by a failed apprentice of an armourer at best, goths, trolls, faieries - all for $20 a head to get in the gate, and a regular fleecing of the gullible public at every turn where they might need some article, either a souvineer or food.

History it ain't, unless it's a history of con artists and ne'er do wells (perhaps "A Childs Garden of Golden Cons", or "A Complete book of Grifting" )- 30 years ago most of the merchants and fortune tellers, etc, would have been run off by the bunko squad.

That said, I'm not lumping your group in with these fellows. I know and call friends several who participate in Renn Fairs in a professional way. I know there are some "guilds" that strive for a sense of history.

The problem is the venue does not lend itself to history, precisely because it is ahistorical, and because of the commercialisim of the fairs, and the less than above board antics of many fair merchants and organisers. I havent been to any Fairs in CA, but from the photos I seen in "Rennaisance" magazine, I see no indication that history is no better treated there than anywhere else.

If you want to call yourself a reenactment group, theatrics are fine so long as the historical accuracy does not suffer for the sake of it. As soon as this occurs, you are no longer reenactors, but slightly better clad fair preformers, in undocumented (by any academic sense of the word) costumes - not clothing.

The only people I've ever heard of considering Renn Faires "reenactments" are participants in them. Ask real reenactor (and I mean other periods than us, ACW, ECW, F&I, RW, WW1, WWII - you name it) if they think Renn Faires are reenactments, or that Renn Faire Guilds are reenactment groups from their observations of same, or the generally accepted definition within the community, and watch their reaction. You will get an answer - eventually, after the guffaws die down and they wipe the tears from their eyes, and it won't be a pleasing one to you.

Don't feel bad, they generally look askance at us, associating anything pre-1600 with the SCA at it's worst.

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

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