I've just found an interesting website with some good looking padded goods.

http://www.kokoszowamanufaktura.eu/

What do you think about their gambesons?

I have made 3 fighting Gambesons, 1 with embrodry. These look very well done and looks to have a good amount of padding.
Much better than some I have seen that looks to have a thin poly batting inside. If it is done right, you can fight in a good gambeson even in Texas heat and feel ok. I have done it. Yes, it got quite warm, but the sweat soaked the garment and kept me cool enuff.
This look very well made and has better shaping than mine.

Looks like good stuff... Only down side is that he doesn't list his prices...

I am with Elling, all of his products look very well made, but he needs to post prices (in Euro's if nothing else).

First, I hate that internet thing where you have movies, etc., on your web page. What a pain--simpler is better.

I looked at this 14th and 15th-century arming clothes. The Charles de Blois stuff-style pourpoints looked too padded to use as arming doublets. After all, in "How a Man Shall be Armed" we're told arming doublets should be of fustian lined with satin (not modern satin!); nothing about padding. Padding adds unnecessary bulk without any commensurate advantage (except in specialized activities such as King Rene's Book of the Tournament in which he wanted doublets to have padding on the shoulders because of the kind of fighting being done). The real garment isn't really padded; the stitch lines are to hold the two layers together; the real one had a padded chest, it's true, but that was so it could give the wearer the "pigeon-chested, wasp-waisted" look popular at the time.

In addition, the buttons on the sleeve are fine for a civilian pourpoint (which is where this pattern comes from, after all), but make the garment useless as an arming doublet because the lower cannons of the vambraces will be too tight to have buttons like these under them.

Also, a pet peeve: A gambeson is a quilted garment worn *over* mail in the Age of Mail, often made of very rich fabric because it was the outer layer of protection. These can be seen all over the place in the Mac Bible. the quilted garment worn *under* the mail was called an Acketon.

These later fitted garments worn under armor weren't intended as padding but rather as a base to which to "point" (tie) one's armor and should more precisely be called 'arming doublets' or, and there's debate over this, 'pourpoints' (which is also what the civilian version was called).

I'll attach a picture showing the only 14th-century arming doublet I've ever seen.

---

 Attachment: 18.18 KB

But there must be a reason why people are bound to that idea, do you have any hints on that?

Hugh,

I do not know if I agree with how most people read the Hastings MS on the padded under garment. saying something is of and lined does not exclude padding. There are all sorts of little things someone could pick apart his description on. It was also written late in the 15th so I think it very likely the padded under armour hung on for some time. It does add significant value according to Williams tests on armour. 20-30 joules I believe of energy more in fact. Till the late 14th aketons are still recorded being used under breastplates and with full suits. In the 1st half of the 15th there are a number of accounts that speak of padded jacks in conjunction with full armour so I think it is not wrong to assume wearing a no or lightly padded garment under armour is the 'only' way. A 1450's account list a gent with a full suit, spurs and padded doublet for war from the York inventories so tehre is not doubt that a padded garment was still used in conjunction with armour. Was full armour possibly used with no padding in the arming coat... seems possible to me. Were their other ways to do it. Most assuredly. A well fit padded garment with armour that is well fit will make no difference whatsoever except perhaps in ventilation.

Gambeson and aketon is a slippery slope. In the end in period it is used for both so its basically pick your poison... that said aketon, haketon, haceton acceton and a million of its others seems more common in english accounts for this.



RPM

Hugh,

Sorry... bloody spell check or something... I tell you I have to start spelling better on my own or this will get very frustrating. No insult intended. Everytime I do that and you make a statment I spend 5-10 minutes trying to remember where I wrote anythign about you in it...

I will get some documents up for you that give the exact listings. the latest on I have found on under armour is from the York Inventories from I think 1457 but don't quite me on the exact year.

I totally argee that under armour should not be massive. Armour in its own right should be heavily padded. Under armour not nearly so. I think the main issue is that they did have at times some manner of padding under plate. I am reading the Howard inventories now from 1460's on and it has been very interesting regaridng textile and other armour. I also think that one can lightly pad under the vambrace but in many cases with full vambraces it really is not always needed. I am not saying that you are wrong only that people need not get the impression that it was only done that way.

I may post a few other things as I find them. I am looking through tons and tons of accuonts for equipment right now from late 13th to early 16th so there is quite a bit.

RPM

(Sorry but no spell check this time...)

Now that´s a discussion. My question was formed in a more naive way by intent, because people will answer in a more comprehensive way then.

I go conform with you that there is no use padding more than needed. It is obviously true, that modern armour is not fitted enough to the wearer. That is one problem of the armourer living to far away and people not commenting on worng sized armour.
On the other hand as Randall stated some padding might be usefull and even you, Hugh, put in that some padding might reduce chaffing.
So coming back to Kokosz pieces of soft kit, they look like that not being too much padded.

I got a Matuls Pourpoint, which was offsized, much too small in the arms. I had e tailor correct this and change the arms. I want to use vambraces with couters in the 1390 italian style like those tulip shaped churburg arms, upper arm will be maille to the breast plate. And there is the point with voiders where I think why use a haubergeon when voiders for the arms are available. But back to the arms it is is 2 layers of cotton batting sandwiched between linen vor elbow and lower arms and the doubled padding for upper arms and shoukder where only maille or some shaped plates for the shoulder joint will be. And this would feel right for me.

The problem with modern fighting is, we don´t want to get hurt by any means, on the other hand folks would like to fight without proper training => heavy padding.

Hugh,

I deserve the ribbing.

Sorry if I was unclear regarding 1457 and the 14th. My point was it shows continuance of the padded under armour garment.

I really do not think one can seperate jacks from this discussion of under armour. The problem is that in period there are indication of jacks being of all types including under full armour.

By 1357 there certainly were solid breastplates. They would not have been common but Prince Edward in 1358 and 1359 in an armour clearance gives away a few along with coat of plates. He would not have been getting rid of these breastplates unless he had another or more and they were somewhat common for him. See the inventory of Prince Edward from Register of Edward the Black Prince, book 4- 245-247 and 323-325.

For the late 14th here is the one I was thinking of.

1383 in the Chronicle of Bertrand de Gueslin (p. 95) - the account is his breastplate being pierces by a lance then being stopped by his buckram covered aketon.

1460, Robert Faucett who would have served as a men at arms owned a padded jack for under his armour. (York Inventories p. 58)

I am not disagreeing about thickly padded aketons as under armour. My point is that padding was used in at least some if not most of these garments. I totally agree that a thickly padded sleeve would not be conducive to full arms. I think the ordinance of 1450 that explains this situation well. The multlayerd jacks clearly indicates what you are talking about. 25-30 layers alone and 10 under a mail shirt. My beef is that the Hastings which is late 15th is used for anything in the plate era which seems flawed logic. They were using padding under garments for hundreds if years. They continued to use it after plate came into being with COP's, they likely continued this practice on for some time. We had a padded jacket worn by a higher up officer in the ECW that was quite nice intended for wear under his full harness (which as time progressed likely shrank) but originally the frilly cuffs would have extended past his vambrace and been hid by his gauntlets when on. Clearly there was more than one type of under armour. They also have the buff coats as well.

I will perhaps keep looking for more to post later as I am sure there are more from 1350 onward. The earlier one gets the easier it is to find COP's and plate armour worn over the aketon. There are some pictures as well tha may be useful but I will have to see.

RPM

This discussion is very interesting to me. I find myself with lower canons that do not fit due to the thickness of my gambeson. I find myself in a quandary - either open up the gambeson and remove the padding from the forearms, or get another one. I'm leaning more to the latter, but it's an expense I could otherwise do without. Let me note that this is in no way the armourer's fault - the canons fit me perfectly without the gambeson. I wonder if the linen version of Revival's gambeson would be better for this? I currently have the cotton version - which is good on its own or with a breastplate and kettle helm for 15th century man at arms portrayal. Anyway - I'm just blathering... :)

Just one question Hugh, you said arms should not turn inside the lower cannons. How is the movement of the hand performed then (pronation, suppination)?

Jason,

I'd think taking padidng out possible. You may look into a second one instead if the other is good as a stand a lone armour. I think I may be doing this same thing in the near future in fact but for different reasons.

I really like the new aketon my wife made for me. Well fit. Keeps me from taking much damage and so far has allowed me to wear my 1st half of the 14th harness. That said. Once I finish this and go on to either a late 14th, early 15th century or late mid 15th harness I will make one that is shorter to whereever the time period dictates and place less padding in the arms. still have to decide...

I will post something later from lord howards housebooks on his padded jack. Even in stand alone armour the arms seem to be thinner.

Cheers

RPM