NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17085

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!tbarnes
From: [e-mail] (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: On the Nature of Armor ...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:31:17 GMT
Lines: 24

>is better ventilated than true period armor.  Since my persona would not
>have worn a tabard, I'm planning on making a hauberk of aliminum scales.  It
>will essentially look period, and I won't have to suffer and endure wearing
>a heavy steel coat.

Milord,

As an aside. Why make scale armor, just for looks?  A fighter in our
shire disguises his carpet armor under an oversized T-tunic. Several
fighters disquise their later period leg-harnesses under baggy sweat
pants or "tube pants". The effect is very good at producing that
"minimally armored" look that you see in most illustrations of Viking
warriors and the like, and llooks very good, since only the helmet and
gloves are visible.
    I have heard of other fighters concealing most of their armor
under puffy Landsknechkt costumes, or cavalier pantaloons and "buff
coats".
    Why go to the trouble of making "cosmetic" armor when a simple
piece of clothing will do? Best of all, you can WASH the tunic after
you're through wearing it:)

Lothar \|/
        0