I watched an "I am Shad"'s video that deals with padded armor and how undervalued they are. One of the indicated links showed a warbow's testing (yeah, here we go again) against a pig carcass covered with a tough-like gamberson. You can see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

Although it is a huge power longbow, the gamberson stopped the arrow. I got to discuss it with a friend of mine who practices archery with longbows, and he seemed pretty negative about the test's accuracy. I would like to hear from you: such powerfull longbow would have similar results to that test? If yes, what is the secret to this efficiency? I'm just talking about gambeson here, though maybe I will discuss if the set of mail+paddings would be virtually impenetrable to longbows that did not use bodkin arrows.

I came also to watch some tests that ThegnThrand made with a type XIII sword and a bronze spear and would like the opinion of you about the accuracy of results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_yObDjXVQ&feature=youtu.be

The most common threat on the battlefield was from spears and arrows. All armours were specifically designed to stop these weapons - including cloth and leather ones.

The test which Mike Loades narrates is against a jack. Jacks of 10-12 layers (some with waxed fabric) were designed to be worn over mail. Jacks worn as a sole defense are composed of 25-30 layers of fabric, and sometimes a cover of deer skin.

1471 Ordonnance of Charles the Bold
L’archer sera monté sur un cheval de 10 écus au moins, habillé d’une jaque à haut collet tenant lieu de gorgerin, avec bonnes manches; il portera une cotte de mailles ou paletot de haubergerie dessous cette jaque qui sera de 12 toiles au moins dont 3 de toile cirée et 9 de toile commune.

The archer shall be mounted on a horse worth at least 10 écus, wearing a jack with high collar in place of a gorget, with good sleeves; he will wear a coat of mail or paletot of mail-work below this jack which will be of 12 cloths, at least 3 of which will be waxed cloth and 9 of common cloth.


A Later Ordonnance of Charles the Bold:
La jaque qui couvre le paletot de haubergerie sera de 10 toiles (au lieu de 12), ils joindront à leur armure, demi avant-bras à petites gardes et manches d’acier pendant jusqu’au coude, assez larges pour ne point les gêner lorsqu’ils tireront.

The jack which covers the paletot of mail-work will be of 10 cloths (instead of 12), it's joined with their armor, half vambraces with small guards and steel (mail) sleeves hanging to the elbow, wide enough not to disturb the draw.


Gambesons are constructed differently, being "stuffed with fluff", yet the records tell us that, when worn with mail, it was also effective against arrows. There's an old issue of Military Illustrated, part 2 of a longbow article, where historical bodkins fired against historical patches of mail usually broke rings and penetrated, but if the point missed the ring and hit the padded armor beneath, it was observed to "bounce off". I'll have to see if I still have the issue at home for a citation.

Chronicon Colmariense, 1298:
Armati reputabantur, qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream, id est vestem ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.

Thus considered armed, that he had an iron helmet on his head, and his gambeson, that is, a thick tunic out of linen and tow, or old rags sewn together, and above an iron shirt, that is a garment woven together of iron rings, through which no man was able to wound with the arrows of bows.


Report of England made by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557:
...ma l' uso più frequente è di alcuni giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi alti due dita e più riparo tenuto sicurissimo contro la furia delle freccie.

...but the most frequently used armor is some jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers, and considered very safe shelter against the fury of the arrows.


Almost 260 years between those two citations, but the value of textile armor doesn't seem to have diminished.

Shad's gambeson is pretty thin and the quilting isn't very dense -- it could work reasonably well underneath (or over) a mail hauberk, but he seems to mistakenly treat it as standalone armour.

I'd probably disagree with Mike Loades calling the gambeson "light" too. Sure, it's light when it's just a small patch like that. made into a garment that covers the whole torso, it'd be heavier than a one-piece iron or steel cuirass with similar coverage.

I would hardly say that it is underrated.

Duarte Lopés looking back on his battles in Angola which he won despite bad odds and low number of men:

Quote:

I reply that it might easily happen, seeing that, the blacks wore no clothing, had no defensive weapons and only bows and daggers as offensive ones. Whereas our small numbers of men were well covered with quilted jerkins lined with cotton, and firmly double-sewn, which protected their arms and reached down to the knees. Their heads are covered with caps of this same material, which are proof against arrows and daggers… One cavalry soldier is equal to a hundred blacks, who are greatly afraid of horsemen and, above all, of those who fire the arquebuses and artillery pieces, which cause them extreme terror.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=fsoWg1yXKQUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=Duarte+Lop%C3%A9s+angola+quilted&source=bl&ots=7GA61zPyAK&sig=unNd_aclkIIaNuWAqtcokHT9y2w&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCpqjM66TMAhVKLZoKHWQlDUIQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=Duarte%20Lop%C3%A9s%20angola%20quilted&f=false

"...modern people tend to underestimate the weight of their clothing -- many of us wear 3-4Kg on a daily basis without even noticing it."

That is the absolute truth. When I was in the Air Force, we had to weigh in at the Flight Surgeon every few months, and then subtract the weight of our clothing. Each item had a standard weight, and a fatigue uniform with a field jacket and boots counted for 11 pounds. The big wool overcoat was 7 pounds alone.
A canvas jack with several layers of material and padding could easily outweigh a steel harness. If you have ever humped a canvas tent around, even a small Baker style tent, you know it's a fact!
There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that a tightly woven fabric piece of several layers would be very effective against arrows with or without maille.

This is a fact that people have trouble getting their head around. Cloth and leather armour weighs significantly more than metal armour. The whole point of using metal for making armour is that it was the lightest material available.

During testing of that gambeson they shot arrows with needle bodkins. And needless to say, they penetrated straight through the mail, deerskin, and 25 layers of linen. Didn't show that on TV because it didn't fit the narrative. They wanted to show how good the armor was against the shortest of square heads. Didn't sit well with Steve as far as I'm concerned. Understandable though, this particular clip has become its own myth about the impenetrable armor... as we can see here.

The details on the gambeson is from page 72 in Longbow by Mike Loads

Information on the penetration is from Steven Stratton on facebook and comments on Mark Stretton's blog.

You cannot just state things like that without providing any links whatsoever.

Also, they did not test the gambeson with the mail, I do not know where you get that it went through the mail itself.

Your comment on Steven's own agenda sounds more like a conspiracy theory.


Here is a video from a different documentary, also with Mr. Loades, in which, again at point blank range, the bows penetrate mail but, again, fail to penetrate the gambeson even though they used the type 8b bodkin instead of a short bodkin;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcbhc93Gfw&t=25m05s

"Unfortunately this type of head (talking about a plate cutter) is not from the 13th Century, which is why we did not use them on the TV program with Mike Loades. However, that film only showed the heads that failed, and the long Type 7 bodkins that we used which penetrated right through the mail and padding were never shown at all,although this was down to the production company and was nothing to do with Mike." Mark Stretton

If you know how to use google you can do a search for his blog and look at the comments under part 10. I can give you the link, but that would be too easy after that condescending reply.

Steven said the same, but I have no clue where to look for that. It was in the comment section on Facebook way back in time. But it's irrelevant because I've already posted Marks comment.