Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > 16th Century Arming Coat/Jack/Gambeson Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Allen Johnson





Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 29 books

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Fri 10 Oct, 2014 11:15 am    Post subject: 16th Century Arming Coat/Jack/Gambeson         Quote

Been trying to find some documentation on late 16th century arming jacks/coats/gambesons... what ever you want to call them. Specifically what would be worn under the notable 3/4th armor such as the black and white suit seen below.

I've seen some good examples of padded jacks, doublets and coats that could be worn under the breastplates or worn on their own, but I can't find any examples of coats where there are placements for the pointing of armor. Any leads?

Thanks ya'll!



 Attachment: 49.11 KB
450px-Jack_of_plate,_English_or_Scottish,_c1590,_Royal_Armoury,_Leeds.jpg


 Attachment: 23.09 KB
12284.jpg

Profile PM
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 3:39 am    Post subject:         Quote

I'd say there were two factors that made medieval-style arming doublets become less popular in the 16th century. First, normal civilian attire became more padded and structured than ever before, so I suspect many civilian garments could work decently well as arming undergarments without significant modification. At the same time changes in ranching practices made leather cheaper and more available, so we start seeing the extensive use of leather as armour in the form of buff coats (though this doesn't seem to have really taken off until the 17th century).

The second possible cause is that armour components were now tied/pointed to each other rather than to an undergarment; the gorget served as the foundational piece for this kind of attachment, with the arms being linked to it rather than the sleeves of the arming garment underneath. Of course, conventional leg armour in the medieval style still had to be pointed to the undergarment, and I sometimes wonder if this was a significant factor in the move away from medieval-style legs to the extended tassets of three-quarters armour in the 16th and 17th centuries. I once started a topic with a question about this general subject: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=276...ght=points
Profile PM
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,303

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 4:32 am    Post subject:         Quote

Real Armería: Inventario Iluminado, 1554-58


Similar to this Moroni portrait from c. 1560.
[ Linked Image ]

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
Profile PM
Jeffrey Faulk




Location: Georgia
Joined: 01 Jan 2011

Posts: 578

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 6:02 am    Post subject:         Quote

Mart:

Those two pieces paired together, on the right of the middle row-- what in the world are those? I would think they are two pieces (right and left) of some kind of mail undergarment that are lacking a fabric foundation, but the 'neck' pieces seem to be closed?
Profile PM
Dan Rosen




Location: Providence
Joined: 21 Jan 2010

Posts: 98

PostPosted: Tue 14 Oct, 2014 7:45 am    Post subject:         Quote


-Dan Rosen

"One day there will be no more frontier, and men like you will go too."
Profile PM


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > 16th Century Arming Coat/Jack/Gambeson
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


All contents © Copyright 2003-2026 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum