[Stephen Curtin]

First off, Im new here so hi everyone, amyway can anyone tell me why knights in the last quarter of the 13th century
start to use a seperate coif instead of the attachted kind? I would also like to know if anyone has any information about
padding worn under mail chausses.

[Daniel Michaelsson]

[Stephen Curtin]

hey Daniel thanks for the reply but it would seen to me that an attached kind of coif would actually be easier to use. Lets say you want to get some air you have to take off one kind and hold on to it but the other you just let it hang down the back. plus putting it on would also be faster for this reason.

[Chuck Russell]

dunno. maybe has to do with the added body armour such as the coat of plates etc that made the attached coif start to dissipate.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Also flexibility of use: One could wear the coif by itself over a padded coif or wear it + a cervelière either worn over the coif or under the coif. Coif + any other type of helmet.

Pushing the coif back over the shoulder is convenient to cool off but some coifs have a face opening to small to push back: In such a case removing a separate coif would be a lot easier than removing an entire hauberk with an attached coif ?

How common was pushing back the coif ? I know that every " Hollywood " movie seems to show this but was it common practice in period ? With movies this was certainly done so that one can easily see the face of the " Star " actor ?

[Jonathan Blair]

The real reason, I would think, for a move to a seperate maille coif is weight. A maille coif weighs two to perhaps five pounds at the most, and when worn properly on the head that weight would be spread out over the entire crown. Now, imagine slipping that attached coif off the head. Now that couple of pounds of weight is hanging down the middle of the back suspended from the neck hole, and the other side of that neck hole is now pressing against the larynx. Not enough weight to cut off the air supply, but surely enough to be uncomfortable. With a seperate maille coif, no choking feeling.

[Stephen Curtin]

I dont know, maybe the coat of plates had something to do with it and thats a good point about wearing a coif on its own without a hauberk I suppose it could be usefull in some situations but I dont think any coif had a face opening too small to be able to be pushed back over the shoulders. Some coifs do look every close fitting with a small face opening but this is achieved in one of two ways, either it is a seperate coif that is laced up the back or it is attached to the hauberk and has a flap of mail called a ventail that covers the throat and sometimes the lower face aswell.

Has anyone any evidence for knights wearing padding under the're mail chausses. The only possible reference I know of is in chapter xxxvii of the 13th century Norwegian text The Kings Mirror. It give a good discription of armour from about 1250 and discribes a knight wearing a gambeson under his hauberk but it also uses the same words to discribe the hose worn under the mail chausses. The words used to discribe both are well prepaired, soft and thoroughly blackened linen. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.[/i]

[Stephen Curtin]

Thanks Jonathan that makes alot of sence. I suppose that extra weight hanging around your neck could be a bit uncumfortable.

[Thomas Beckett]

There's also a mobility issue. With the coif attached to the hauberk, there's a limit to how far you can turn your head to each side before the maille binds up. With the limited visibility of period helms, the need to turn your head and see what's coming at you is important. Look at Batman's cowl in any of the movies up to "The Dark Knight": same problem, he can't turn his head because the cowl is attached to the rest of the suit.

[Andreas Auer]

[Philip C. Ryan]

Having worn both types of coifs (attached and unattached) in sparring/combat, I would have to agree that the main reason would probably be what Mr. Beckett stated. An attached coif does limit the heads ability to swivel side to side. Yes, you are able to move your head, but only so far until the mail reaches its limit of expansion.

Mr.Blair also makes a valid point. However, in my years of experience, the weight of the attached coif hanging down your back is barely noticeable. Now, this may have to do with the design of my hauberk (V-shaped neck opening), where no mail actually touches my larnyx area (this is covered up by the Norman styled "bib" or "flap"). The majority of the coif's weight is suspended from the mail around the shoulder area, so very little actually presses against my throat. I can see that a square-shaped neck opening would definitely result in the weight pressing on your throat. My guess is a seperate coif, worn hanging down the back in similar fashion, would be extremely uncomfortable.

[Toney Lauffer]

As more and more plate was introduced to the Knight's harness, mail would have just added unnecessary weight. The Hauberks went bye bye, and were replaced eventually with mail gussets to protect areas like the armpits and insides of the arm at the junction of forearm and upper arm where the upper cannon and lower cannon left gaps. It would seem the mail coif would offer nice flexible protection to the neck and shoulders until gorgets and bevors of plate became more common.

On the subject of padding under Chausses, I've never read anything about that, but in researching Gambesons/Pourpoints it is my understanding that these were generally heavy linen quilts with cotton or some other form of batting between the two layers of linen. By heavy I mean canvass weight linen with a tightly packed quarter inch or so of batting. That's how I'm making mine. Once it's done I'll have my friends beat me with swords and axes to see if the padding is adequite Nothing like real life experience Part of the role of the gambeson though is to prevent chafing, so "padding under Chauses may have been nothing more than heavy linen or even leather.
This is not a complete and accurate description of construction or materials. Check out the various articles available on the internet about the Charles de Blois pourpoint. Pourpoint aparantly means For Points in French and was meant for pointing armour. The Charles de Blois pourpoint is obviously a dress pourpoint. I don't think the buttons would go well under armour.
These are just my opinions based on my current level of learning and practice. Hope this gives you some ideas.

[Stephen Curtin]

Thanks everyone for all the info about the coif but I could still use some info on padded leg defences. Maybe there is not a lot of info about the early period but what about 15th century, did knights wear padded clothing under their leg harness?

[Lafayette C Curtis]