Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

If you use the word "gambeson" to describe both armour and arming garments, then nobody knows what you are talking about.
Len Parker wrote:
The translation for the description of the gambeson in Chretien is correct. Mole et tanvre does mean soft and frail/delicate. So it looks like a thinner garment being worn under the mail. The King's Mirror c.1250 gives three different descriptions for gambesons/pannzara: a heavy gambeson for fighting on foot, a soft (blautan) gambeson worn under mail, and a sleeveless (godan) gambeson over top. I'm not sure of the word godan. I think it might mean good.


Yes, it's gošan, meaning good or well made.
Thanks Mart. Now here's something that shows two layers beneath the mail. Scroll down a little more than halfway. There's a broken sculpture from the Cathedral of Cluny. You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?
Len Parker wrote:
You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?

Looks like it to me. Though we'd need an x-ray to be sure.
On a somewhat related note. Was there ever a practical reason behind wearing mail coifs, or did people just think they looked cool?
Dan Howard wrote:
Len Parker wrote:
You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?

Looks like it to me. Though we'd need an x-ray to be sure.


I can see at least a couple riveted rings, near that lower big brass rivet.

Matthew
Henry O. wrote:
On a somewhat related note. Was there ever a practical reason behind wearing mail coifs, or did people just think they looked cool?


Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew
I found some viking age examples of double layering. All from carolingian manuscripts.
The first is two layers without armour: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/14993/
The second is two layers under armour (top center right): http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15004/
The third has more detail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15001/ Notice the strings along the bottom edge of the upper garment. It looks just like the way the thorsberg tunic is attached at the sides. This could mean two layers of material sewn together like a gambeson. I haven't seen this on normal tunic bottoms.
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.
Here's the thorsberg shirt: http://www.kelticos.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=4055
Len Parker wrote:
I found some viking age examples of double layering. All from carolingian manuscripts.
The first is two layers without armour: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/14993/
The second is two layers under armour (top center right): http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15004/
The third has more detail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15001/ Notice the strings along the bottom edge of the upper garment. It looks just like the way the thorsberg tunic is attached at the sides. This could mean two layers of material sewn together like a gambeson. I haven't seen this on normal tunic bottoms.


I would be very vary of using these carolingian Psychomachia manuscripts as evidence, since these are thought to be artistically derived from late roman or byzantine manuscripts (pteryges are the most obvious sign of this)
Then there is the question of the possible existence of integral lining indicated by some of the artwork. The most known depictions come from the Bayeux tapestry but there are others:

[ Linked Image ]

Roda Bible 1050-1100 Spain. The armoured soldiers in this illumination have what might be edging at the cuffs and hem of their hauberks.

Here is an example from the Bayeux tapestry that shows men transporting hauberks to ships in preparation for the invasion of england:

[ Linked Image ]

The hauberks have different colored edges depicted on them even when not worn by anyone. similar edges are depicted on many of the hauberks in the Tapestry.

Im not sure about this theory though, but I think its plausible. I would like to hear from the people on this forum who have actually worn a hauberk with an integral lining about the effectiveness of the design.

Roda Bible illumination: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4356/13454/
Bayeux tapestry: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia..._tama.html
Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


AH! Sorry, gotcha! Comfort, maybe? It shapes itself to your head regardless of whatever you wear under it, so it automatically fits better than any solid helmet. It won't be topheavy and wobble. The AIR goes through it! Wonderful stuff, mail.

That said, I'd still tend to go for a helmet.

Matthew
Matthew Amt wrote:
Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


AH! Sorry, gotcha! Comfort, maybe? It shapes itself to your head regardless of whatever you wear under it, so it automatically fits better than any solid helmet. It won't be topheavy and wobble. The AIR goes through it! Wonderful stuff, mail.

That said, I'd still tend to go for a helmet.

Matthew


It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

There is an older thread discussing wearing skullcap under coif here:
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.36537.html
There is one other thing to keep in mind I suppose in my A or B summation above... though it has little to do with how people are arguing.

There is a scenario of 'personal difference' there are always trends, but it is rarely a 100% certainty rate. Personal decision, what to wear, colour of tunic, cap over/under, etc.. would have perhaps had trends, but rare universality.

Z
M. Nordlund wrote:
It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

Well, you have to wear something under a coif. Mail directly on top of hair is not a comfortable setup. :)
Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
M. Nordlund wrote:
It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

Well, you have to wear something under a coif. Mail directly on top of hair is not a comfortable setup. :)


This is the exception to the rule about arming garments under mail being fairly light. On the head, underpadding was a lot thicker.
This looks like two layers under mail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4474/11163/
This also: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4199/18610/
Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


A skullcup covers the top half of the head. A coif protects the lower half of the head, plus the neck, chin and throat. If you see someone wearing a coif in battle, you can usually assume that there is a skullcap underneath.
Len Parker wrote:
This looks like two layers under mail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4474/11163/
This also: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4199/18610/


That second one just looks like regular tunic sleeves sticking out, to me, with decorative bands on the cuffs. The mail has edging at cuffs and hem, though I agree that might indicate a lining.

The first one is weird!

Matthew
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Page 3 of 4

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum