After a decade or so of collecting weapons, my mind has started to turn the direction of armor. For context, I've targeted 1350 as my time frame (give or take a decade), German/English as my preferred regional influences.

I've found it easy enough to research the metal components as there's plenty of easily accessible information (antiques, period art, effigies, etc.). My problem is, I don't want to start ordering armor without the right foundation garments because the foundation garments affect the measurements. And, since the foundation garments are worn under the armor, and not of durable materials, art, effigies and antiques all leave me scratching my head.

Particularly when it comes to the legs.

At least in the early part of the 14th century, it appears that maille chausses were the norm, or at least one of several concurrent norms, with plate components strapped over them. So what's under those maille chausses? Some kind of "gamboised" or padded linen chausses? (I'd think you'd want padding in the system somewhere.) Normal civilian linen chausses? And what are all the layers pointed to? The fabric, maille, and plate layers all need to be suspended from the hips somehow. Are they all pointed together, or do we have the fabric layer suspended from braies, and the maille and plate suspended to an arming cotte or a padded foundation garment on the torso?

Further, have we got any evidence that shoes were worn in there anywhere? The sabatons have to be attached to something. Riveted directly to the "foot" of the textile chausses? Pointed through a maille layer to the textile layer?

Hopefully history leaves us something to point to and exclaim "aha!" but whatever such a thing might be, I haven't been able to dig it up.

So . . . any help out there?

I actually did state at the beginning that I'm looking at 1350, approximately. Which is almost as good as not specifying a date at all because just about everything seems to have been common, be it on its way in or on its way out at that point.

The sabaton bit makes perfect sense! Thanks so much for that. I'd somehow never caught the toe holes. So the points on the soles of the feet, do you pull those around and attach them to the sides of the sabatons?

Regarding the arming doublet . . . what you're saying makes sense, but the artist hasn't given us any lines to indicate points. And, of course, the extant "pourpoint" or "cotte" or "jack" of Charles de Blois isn't an arming garment per se so it doesn't have any points, either. Unless they're not visible from the outside. Frankly, the way the hem of that particular type of garment is designed, and how low it appears to want to hang, makes it look really awkward for hanging chausses or cuisses. The idea of having a sleeveless pourpoint underneath it makes all kinds of sense, though.

Lastly, the notion of "leg voiders" seems very efficient and sensible. But I'm not sure I buy it as "the" solution. The full hauburgen persisted for a long time under plate or coat-of-plates. If they were stacking plate on their existing arm and torso maille, I can't imagine that wasn't the practice for the legs as well. In varying degrees over time, of course, as folks start to ask themselves "why am I wearing all this steel under all this steel?"

Also, just a quirky observation: the blog article you linked to shows several paintings all of which appear to be from the Graal. Many show the brown or red colored back of the thigh. But only ever on one leg. One leg will have a red back to the thigh, the other will have gray -- like the rest of the armor. It's sometimes a little hard to figure out which leg is which, but it looks like the artist is only intending to show the inner part of the thigh as unarmored. For a while I wondered if that was meant to be leather, but since you can clearly see the strap holding the cuisses on I don't know why there'd be leather there. I still wouldn't want to be stabbed there, mind.

I think it is important to look deeper into some points her.

First of all, it is a common misconception "pourpoint" comes from "for the points". "Pourpoint" is middle french and means nothing else then "quilted": "pourpoindre" means "stiched through". "Pour points" is a mixture between modern french and middle english. The garment of charles de blois is dated about 1363, and first mentionings of exact that type of garment, called "paltock" can be found in 1367 in the english wardrobe accounts. I would not expect it any earlier in english wardrobe, and there is no indication it was common in germany at all up to my knowledge. In the 1360s, is is pretty hard to find any trace of a doublet-like garment in german sources. All sources I know still show chausses being attached to the brais.

Secondly: As mentioned, the garment of charles de blois is civil. Made to hold up chausses (wuite modern ones extending to the back, or even early closes ones). You don't need that cut for something worn underneath armour. Of course you _can_ war something alike, but more of that lateron.

Next: why always the search for a specific arming garment? In fact you don't need any in the 1350s to 1360s. We have lots of sources, both text sources (again, the wardrobe accounts of the english crown as a common example, which can be found e.g. in "fashion in the age of the black prince") as well as effigies showing partly textile armour being worn underneath the maille shirt, named "aketon" (but interchangingle with "doublet etc.!).
Textile armour. Important difference. Textile armour is made to protect the wearer. -NOT- For padding. -NOT- For showing a specifiy body shape. The garment of charles de blois is quilted, yes, but a lot of garments were quitled in the middle ages. It is fileld with raw cotton wool, yes, which is also true for most surviving textle armours. -BUT_ the garment of charles de blois is _padded_ at the chest, to achieve a specific shiluette.

Now the thing is: you _can_ wear simply civil clothing underneath armour. There are lots of examples for different parts of the middle ages. From the 13th century, the 14th, the 15th. You do not need something quilted. You don't need something padded. Even if the civil garment of that period, which is fashionable, is quilted, this is not why you wear it.
And even if you really really really really need laces to lace your armour to the garment you are wearing underneath (which is only true for very few occurances, and for many examples which are common among reenactors there are hardly evidences), then you simply sew laces to the garment. Takes less than 5minutes,works finde.
You can even sew laces to textile armour, in case what you wear underneath is some kind of that, because you want to get extra safetly (which seems to had been the case for about 1350). There are also examples for that in the 1350s.

But is one of the garments a specific arming garment? No, it isn't. Either textile armour, or a civil garment.
And even if sources mention "arming doublets" (and so on) we hardly ever know what makes them "arming".

I think it is very very important to do three things:

-Not mix post-1350s surviving garments and armour with that of 1350, and over all regions
-To make a distinction between the construction of garments, not between the purpose: we often don't know it
-Not to stick to old reenactorisms

Now for the sake of the initial post:

If you want to build a 1350 armour, please be specific. As good as you can. Armour from 1355 may look differently than from 1350, and especially there are -huge- differences between regions, or nations. German armour from 1350 is often completly different from englis in 1356.
German armour from 1350 would not have sabatons. It would consist, generally, of shirt, brais, old-fashioned chausses, maille chausses -attached to some kind of belt-, textile armour cuisses (attached to the same belt), perhaps shinbards, knee cops, aketon, perhaps vambraces, haubergion, perhaps seperate maille collar, coat of plates, early gauntlets (NO hourglas!), bascinet, great helmet.
Germany was old fashioned when it came to armour in the 14th century.

As for the attachment of the lag armour: I know no real source pointing to attach it to a doublet. If anyone knows any, please quote it, I would be happy. The sources I know for the 13th and 14th century mention the "lendenier" which was sometimes attached to the "huffenier". The "lendenier" can be made from textile, quilted, and laced, according to second haft-of-the-14th-century sources (limburg chronicles being a prominent example). In the 13th century it seems to had been simply a belt.

As for underneath maille chausses: civil ones. No "padding" or textile armour. The textile armour cuisses come _over_ them, reducing the energie of incoming projectiles, so that they cannot pass the maille. Which is also the sense of the textile armour in general, by the way, not because it is more comfortable to wear maille...

I found one picture I have showing arming points for both the vambraces and the cuisses. Please see attached. Note that the points on his arm are not merely stitched to the sleeve, but are laced through holes.

---

 Attachment: 103.02 KB

Hey Hugh, do you think that those lines on his forarms and waist represent some form of extra 'padding' as it were?
And, refering to Rene, he does say to pad the length of ones arms more? Off topic, but just a query.

Ah, cheers Hugh. I must say I did wonder if three fingers thick was a tad overkill :lol: