Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Aketons are they really necessary? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next 
Author Message
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,294

PostPosted: Thu 23 Mar, 2017 7:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It appears to be talking about the use of multiple layers of linen, and the expense of producing such. I know about as much Latin as I do Martian though. Laughing Out Loud That's my little bit of interjection here. I'll leave THIS conversation to you guys. Wink ...McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Thu 23 Mar, 2017 9:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here's another point about the King's Mirror. The horse's armour is much like the rider's. It starts with a covering, made like a panzar, of soft and thoroughly blackened linen. Over this goes the mail, and over the mail goes another linen garment.

"Over the bridle and about the entire head of the horse and around the neck back to the saddle, there should be a harness made like a gambison of firm linen cloth"

"En utan yfir beizli ok’um alt höfuđ hestsins ok um háls framan til söđuls, ţá skal vera grima gör á panzara lund af stirđu lérepti"

I'm no expert, but this translation looks accurate to me. The only thing I would change is the word "grima" has been translated as "harness". I think a better translation would be a caparison.

Does anyone here know if 13th century caparisons were padded and quilted? AFAIK caparisons were basically the horse's equivalent of surcoats, and visual evidence suggests that they were un-quilted, but lined like the surcoats in the Mac Bible.

Now if I'm right, and the horse's "grima" made like a panzar was actually a caparison, then it would make sense that the rider's sleeveless panzar was actually a surcoat. If this is the case, then this questions whether any of the linen garments in the King's Mirror were stuffed and quilted.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 23 Mar, 2017 9:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Has there ever been a test of historical or high-quality reproduction mail without padding? The Knight and the Blast Furnace test used a substantial jack in addition to the mail.
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Thu 23 Mar, 2017 11:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not to my knowledge Benjamin.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 24 Mar, 2017 12:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The only test involving a good replica is in Knight and the Blast Furnace and the padding was not appropriate.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Fri 24 Mar, 2017 11:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So that presumably means that mail, at least of the type tested, was easier to penetrate than the test indicates when worn with the lighter padding some or many historical warriors used. That's consistent with some historical claims about mail penetration.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 24 Mar, 2017 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The energy required to compromise the mail stays the same regardless of how thick the padding is.. All that changes is the amount of energy required to punch through the padding. The main problem with modern testing is that the test surface is rarely as movable and yielding as a human being. Any restriction in the mail's ability to shift under the attack will compromise its capacity to stop weapons.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Fri 24 Mar, 2017 2:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This movement matters a lot - not just for mail, but for scale, lamellar, brigandine, etc. Energy from an arrow that goes into moving the armour is energy that can't go into penetrating the armour. Mail rings being lighter than lamellae in lamellar, scales in scale, plates in brigandine, it probably matters more for mail.

Mark Stretton's tests on penetration of brigandine, reported in Soar, "Secrets of the English War Bow", show this effect.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ed W.




Location: New Zealand
Joined: 27 Mar 2016

Posts: 42

PostPosted: Fri 24 Mar, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Does anyone here know if 13th century caparisons were padded and quilted? AFAIK caparisons were basically the horse's equivalent of surcoats, and visual evidence suggests that they were un-quilted, but lined like the surcoats in the Mac Bible


Hi Stephen, I'm not so familiar with the literary sources, but I've done a fair bit of searching the pictorial sources for 13th C equestrian gear, and have not come across anything to suggest caparisons were padded. Ie, no vertical or horizontal stitching lines indicating quilting. This phrase "Over the bridle and about the entire head of the horse and around the neck back to the saddle, there should be a harness made like a gambison of firm linen cloth, so that no man shall be able to take away the bridle or the horse by stealth" suggests that a key purpose of the caparison is to prevent an opponent gaining control of the horse by, for example, grabbing the bridle. For which padding wouldn't be necessary. They are also usually depicted as being fairly free flowing, like surcoats.

The King's Mirror also mentions mail caparisons for the horse. Pictorial sources showing this are also not uncommon. From an equestrian angle though I really don't see this as practical. I haven't done any calculations on what this would weigh, but it must be horrendous and combined with the weight of rider and his armour I really can't see it being practical, or even possible for any length of time under any sort of physical exertion (eg, fighting a battle).

This discussion is overlapping quite a bit with a recent one here http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=34599

In that topic I also shared this effigy from 1276, which is about the earliest I've found showing a garment extending below the mail hauberk which looks quite clearly to be padded and quilted. However, the statement in the King's Mirror that the gambeson (under the mail) "need not come lower than to the middle of the thigh" means that the lack of visible padding under mail in effigies may not be reliable evidence of absence.

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/Winterin...6%2075.JPG

It's good that the old reenacterism that a heavy, thick, bulky garment under mail is needed is being questioned. Even if we can't come up with enough evidence for a definitive answer one way or the other, at least there's enough of a discussion of the evidence for individuals to make their own informed decision.

Ed.
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 3:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ed W. wrote:
Hi Stephen, I'm not so familiar with the literary sources, but I've done a fair bit of searching the pictorial sources for 13th C equestrian gear, and have not come across anything to suggest caparisons were padded. Ie, no vertical or horizontal stitching lines indicating quilting. This phrase "Over the bridle and about the entire head of the horse and around the neck back to the saddle, there should be a harness made like a gambison of firm linen cloth, so that no man shall be able to take away the bridle or the horse by stealth" suggests that a key purpose of the caparison is to prevent an opponent gaining control of the horse by, for example, grabbing the bridle. For which padding wouldn't be necessary. They are also usually depicted as being fairly free flowing, like surcoats.


Hi Ed. Thanks for the reply. Yes the text specifically states that the purpose of the "grima" (caparison) is to cover the bridle, so that no one can grab onto it. I haven't looked much into horse armour and its associated equipment, but I haven't come across a quilted caparison either. As you say, caparisons seem to be made like surcoats. So if the "grima" in the King's Mirror is in fact a caparison, then I think that the sleeveless panzar is most likely a surcoat.

Apart from the description of what the "grima" covers (over the bridle and about the entire head of the horse and around the neck back to the saddle), according to online dictionaries, "grima" is Old Norse for mask or hood. This is why I think caparison is a better translation than harness.

Ed W. wrote:
This discussion is overlapping quite a bit with a recent one here http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=34599


Oops. I had not seen this thread, if I had I might have posted there instead. Oh well.

Ed W. wrote:
In that topic I also shared this effigy from 1276, which is about the earliest I've found showing a garment extending below the mail hauberk which looks quite clearly to be padded and quilted.


According to the link below, this effigy has been dated to 1275 based on the appearance of the armour, and so is assumed to be the effigy of William Marmion.

http://www.winteringham.info/Genealogy/Marmion/marmion.html

To me this dating seems questionable. It could just as easily be an early 14th effigy, of which many show evidence of a quilted garment worn under the hauberk.

Ed W. wrote:
However, the statement in the King's Mirror that the gambeson (under the mail) "need not come lower than to the middle of the thigh" means that the lack of visible padding under mail in effigies may not be reliable evidence of absence.


The evidence of absence that I spoke of, is in images of people in the act of removing their mail. These images show that men put their armour over an un-quilted garment. However I'm wouldn't say that no-one wore a quilted garment under mail in this period. Mart Shearer has shared references to men wearing aketons under mail in the 1180s. Even though we don't get written confirmation of cotton stuffing until the 1290s, the etymology of aketon suggests that they were stuffed with cotton.

We all know that words such as aketon, gambeson, panzar etc, were at times used interchangeably. What I'm suggesting is that at least sometimes, some of these words could be used for garments such as surcoats, or un-quilted but stout tunics worn under mail.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 6:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
Where are our Latin scholars?

Radulfus Niger, De re militari et triplici via peregrinationis Ierosolimitane, 1187-1188

Quote:
19. De multiploi linea et corio cocto

Ad vitalium quoque custodiam multiplois linea varie consuta lorice
superponitur et subinduitur aut corium excoctum. Per lineam
predictum industria significatur, que multo labore perquirtur, sicut linum
multo labore candidatur et conficitur. Per hanc industriam venialium evitatur
contagio, per corium exoctum inveterata boni consuetudo intelligitur, que
otia repellit et occasiones venialium.

Very roughly (and I don't often read medieval Latin, so please don't quote this offline without asking me):

On Manylayered Linen and Cooked Leather

Also, for the protection of the vitals manylayered linen variously sewn together is put atop the shirt of mail, and underneath it cooked-out leather is also put on. By the afforesaid linen hard work is indicated, which is sought by by much work, just as linen is whitened and put together with much work. Through this hard work the taint of selling is avoided, through cooked-out leather the well-established custom of the good is understood, which drives away business and opportunities for selling.

Looking at sources for soft armour from the late 12th and early 13th century, when it starts to appear again among the Frankish nations, would be a great project and a great excuse to learn some Old French and Latin.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 7:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Is it possible to tell whether the leather is worn under the linen but over the mail or whether the leather is under the mail?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 7:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the translation Sean. I could be way off here but according to online dictionaries, linea and lineam don't mean linen cloth they mean linen thread. I think linum is the word for linen cloth, though I think it can also mean flax.

So is this passage possibility talking about the production of linen thread from flax?

Just as a caveat. I have never studied Latin, and have merely consulted online dictionaries. Please forgive any amateur mistakes.

Éirinn go Brách


Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Sat 25 Mar, 2017 8:14 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,294

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well...I was close! Kinda... Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud ....McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
View user's profile Send private message
Eirik R. F.




Location: Norway
Joined: 08 Nov 2015

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 8:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Maybe this is helpful. Sylloge tacticorum, a collection of tactics and stratagems in 102 chapters compiled about the year 950. Chapter 38 and 39. Translation from the book: Sowing the dragon's teeth. p. 185.

Quote:
In addition to these, let them wear lorikia or klibania, which are either of iron or horn, but in the absence of these items, let them have tunics made of cotton or coarse silk reaching as far as the kees, the sleeves with slits at the forearms all the way up to the elbows so as to put the hands through. Let the sleeves be fastened behind the shoulders with loops and buttons.


The Praecepta Militaria (PM 1) by Nikephoros Phokas say almost the same. But the difference is that he's more realistic and accept protective garment whiteout iron or horn for his regular soldiers as requirement. This is the armor worn by his spearmen, archers and light skirmishers with javelins. The only difference between them seems to be the size of their shields. However, the front ranks, especially those armed with the menavlion, were most likely made up of the better off soldiers.

Quote:
Short tunics reaching to the keees are to be required, made of cotton or coarse silk. Their sleevs must be short and broad with slits up to the shoulder-joints so that they can put their arms through easily and comfortably to fight. Their sleeves should be fastened with loops and buttons back at the shoulders.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




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

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 11:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Sean.

Dan Howard wrote:
Is it possible to tell whether the leather is worn under the linen but over the mail or whether the leather is under the mail?


Indeed. If referring to the multiple layers of linen, superponitur et subinduitur, both above and beneath the hauberk, the we have the same situation as called for in Diu Crône and the Konungs skuggsjá. I presume the corium excoctum is cuir bouilli, the cuirie, which Claude Blair states "first appears in texts of the third quarter of the 12th century." So an aketon/gambeson either beneath and above the mail, or a mail shirt, one aketon/gambeson, and a cuirie?

Eirik R. F. wrote:
Maybe this is helpful. Sylloge tacticorum, a collection of tactics and stratagems in 102 chapters compiled about the year 950. Chapter 38 and 39. Translation from the book: Sowing the dragon's teeth. p. 185.

Quote:
In addition to these, let them wear lorikia or klibania, which are either of iron or horn, but in the absence of these items, let them have tunics made of cotton or coarse silk reaching as far as the kees, the sleeves with slits at the forearms all the way up to the elbows so as to put the hands through. Let the sleeves be fastened behind the shoulders with loops and buttons.


The Praecepta Militaria (PM 1) by Nikephoros Phokas say almost the same.........

Quote:
Short tunics reaching to the keees are to be required, made of cotton or coarse silk. Their sleevs must be short and broad with slits up to the shoulder-joints so that they can put their arms through easily and comfortably to fight. Their sleeves should be fastened with loops and buttons back at the shoulders.


These descriptions seem to describe something similar to the sleeve of St Martin, preserved in the church of Bussy-Saint-Martin, dated to 1160-1250, or to a couple of depictions from St. Albans.
http://www.guerriersma.com/contenu/Telecharge...Martin.pdf



 Attachment: 61.01 KB
Chronica Majora 3.jpg


 Attachment: 84.94 KB
DublinTrinityCollegeMSEi40LifeAlbanFol38v.jpg


ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 11:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Is it possible to tell whether the leather is worn under the linen but over the mail or whether the leather is under the mail?

Its not obvious to me. In fact, the text in Ludwig Schmugge's edition says that the linea consuta can go over or under the shirt of mail!

In the 14th century, some people put the plate under the mail, and others over. I would expect that the same was the same in the 12th century.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Thanks for the translation Sean. I could be way off here but according to online dictionaries, linea and lineam don't mean linen cloth they mean linen thread. I think linum is the word for linen cloth, though I think it can also mean flax.

So is this passage possibility talking about the production of linen thread from flax?

Just as a caveat. I have never studied Latin, and have merely consulted online dictionaries. Please forgive any amateur mistakes.

Well, that is one place where a specialist in the 12th century who looked closely at the text might decide on a different translation. Lineus/a/um is the adjective form, so it can mean anything made from linum utilissimum. Du Cange has some examples of medieval Latin where linea is another name for camisia "shirt." http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/linea

They would also want to look at the context, which seems to be a treatise de re militari by a scholarly cleric https://books.google.at/books?id=KqggAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA107&ots=bd6RUDLyjt

Thanks for the excuse to nerd out about why linea can mean "line"!
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




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

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 12:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Might the leather even be a top layer over the linen, as the Dublin fragment seem to be, or as the later Burgundian Ordinance calls for as a deerskin over the multi-layered jack?
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Hĺvard Kongsrud




Location: Norge
Joined: 10 Mar 2015
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 2:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've followed this topic with great interest, and by "this" I mean the discussion of the nature of textile armour (or padding) worn beneath the hauberk before 1300, or throughout the 13th century. Stephen Curtin has stepped into an recent version of an ongoing discussion which gained momentum, at least from my perspective, after Isak Krogh presented his fabulous tailoring of a mid 13th century hauberk last year. In the discussion, playing out on this forum, familiar forums and on various Facebook groups, some central themes has played out as the dynamic element:
1) a "revisionist" position has questioned the existence of "thick" padding worn beneath the hauberk based on the lack of it in image sources.
2) this position expressed a critical view on a reenactment trend with the use of a bulky aketon beneath the mail, often associated with a particular kind of full contact fight.
3) inspiration seem to be drawn from the much lighter textile padding worn beneath plate armour.
4) the position is often less concerned with written sources, express a pessimistic view of reconciling contradictory evidence or a "hypercritical" interpretation of discussed sources.

A competing position point to written sources and to image sources supporting their position. This position often come out as either somewhat aggressive ("how can one ignore written sources and historiography!!") or overly diplomatic and silent. Furthermore, this being an old discussion, fragments from older or familiar themes seem to resurface without context clouding the waters. Both positions tend to undercommunicate two points: 1) how universal they consider their interpretation and 2) quantity: how thick or thin padding are we talking about. Off course, few if any participants adhere to one of these positions exactly, but only to some extent and might wander in between them. One should not mix the two - person and position.

enough of the meta stuff:

My position is that quilted textile armour (or padding) worn beneath mail was in extensive use (but not necessarily in majority) in Western Europe including Scandinavia in the 13th century. Any garment called haketon or aketon, gambeson, pourpoint or treya in the period was most likely quilted, while wambais necessarily was not. Worn beneath mail, it was probably for the most part thinner than 1 cm (before final compression), often getting thinner at the hem and sleeves. The material between the outer layers differed, from silk, cotton, hemp and flax to wool, from textile via rags to unspun fibres. While I base this on my reading of arguments put forward by historians from Meyrick to Blair, by Mart (please write the book on 13th century armour?) and other scolars on this forum and elsewhere, and on the written and image sources I've seen, my position is off course of limited interest in itself, but I state it so that you know which view blurs my arguments.

Argument 1 - the extant garment: The st Martin Sleeve has already been mentioned. I consider it unlikely that the sleeve (C14 dated to 1160-1270) was made for anything else than being worn beneath mail. Piel & Bédat 1997 remarks traces of iron oxide on the outside of the sleeve. Due to its length it was most likely made as a separate sleeve from the start, and the upper sleeve was possibly never intended to be sewn close. Most of you are familiar with Catherine Besson‎'s reconstruction and her article, not to mention Cité d'antnan's. To me it represents part of an aketon as defined by Stephen Curtin, being up to 8 mm thick on the upper arm, getting thinner toward the wrist.
View user's profile Send private message
Hĺvard Kongsrud




Location: Norge
Joined: 10 Mar 2015
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Sat 25 Mar, 2017 3:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Speaking of effigees. Already in 1821 Meyrick spoke of the quilted garment beneath mail on the ca 1285 Hughenden effigee.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Aketons are they really necessary?
Page 4 of 12 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum