Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Padded goods Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Michal Plezia
Industry Professional



Location: Poland
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 11:17 am    Post subject: Padded goods         Reply with quote

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

http://www.kokoszowamanufaktura.eu/

What do you think about their gambesons?

www.elchon.com

Polish Guild of Knifemakers

The sword is a weapon for killing, the art of the sword is the art of killing. No matter what fancy words you use or what titles you put to
it that is the only truth.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary A. Chelette




Location: Houston, Texas
Joined: 29 May 2007
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 337

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 11:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.

Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 12:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Looks like good stuff... Only down side is that he doesn't list his prices...
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lloyd Clark




Location: Beaver Dam, WI
Joined: 08 Sep 2004

Posts: 508

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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

Lloyd Clark
2000 World Jousting Champion
2004 World Jousting Bronze Medalist
Swordmaster
Super Proud Husband and Father!
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
Lancelot 48 crop.jpg


Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Felix R.




Location: Germany
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Reading list: 25 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 555

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:
(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). .


And exactly this is the reason why I thinkg most people nowadays like their garments padded, because of the kind of fighting.
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Tue 30 Oct, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Felix R. wrote:
And exactly this is the reason why I thinkg most people nowadays like their garments padded, because of the kind of fighting.


But since your armor isn't designed for that kind of fight you'll find the padding binds and constricts you as it shouldn't do.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Felix R.




Location: Germany
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Reading list: 25 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 9:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But there must be a reason why people are bound to that idea, do you have any hints on that?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Randall Moffett on Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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


Do you mean why people today want heavily-padded arming doublets? If that's what you're asking I think it's a combination of ignorance and bad armor.

The ignorance comes from what I like to call "consensus think": Some armchair historian with widespread credibility comes up with a notion and then everyone else wants to be seen going along with him, so they never really look into what he said. In this case, I can see someone who'd never really done any serious fighting thinking that you'd need a lot of padding under your armor and so imagining that there must have been some, especially if he extrapolated from the early-period acketons which were padded (for under mail, though, not plate). Of course, that would mean he never read Blair's material on the subject arguing that padded acketons didn't come into use until the 12th century (in other words, for several hundred years knights fought in hauberks with no padding under them), but that's possible.

The bad armor comes from modern craftsmen not doing reasonable recreations of medieval armor. I can imagine that in a poorly-fit breastplate that just hangs on the wearer's body (as about 95% of those I've seen do) and which hangs down from the neck as so many do you might want a lot of padding there. And the *vast* majority of vambraces I've seen are *huge* compared with the real thing; most of them have couters bigger than their poleyns should be! And the lower cannons are big enough for the arm to turn inside the piece, even on 14th-century vambraces where they should be so close-fit that sliding rivets are needed on the real lower cannons. And I've seen some jousters with upper cannons big enough to put two regular arms in--I'm not sure what the feature is for them, but it's much larger than the real thing; one of my students who does jousting has vambraces like that and he was actually surprised to discover that the huge upper cannons prevented him from doing any real fighting. Anyway, with such oversized vambraces you can stuff too much padding on your arms, but you can't do that with a correctly-made vambrace.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Huge,

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.


First of all, comments on my size aren't germane to this conversation.

Second, breastplates were worn over jacks, it's true, but the biggest thing is vambraces and you didn't wear vambraces over jacks; at most you wore jack chains. You can't mix and match these discussions.

As for your comment about acketons being worn under breastplates I'd like to see your documenation for that; I've seen nothing of the sort. But what you might be seeing is that someone who wore a full haubergeon under a breastplate might wear a quilted garment under his haubergeon to minimize chafing, but a heavily-padded garment will *not* fit under correctly-made vambraces, Randall, they just won't.

And I never said they never had any padding, I was talking about heavily-padded garments. A light bit of quilting helps reduce chafing, but that's not the heavy padding people use today in a mistaken attempt at reducing felt impact.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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...)
View user's profile Send private message
Felix R.




Location: Germany
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Reading list: 25 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 555

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 1:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
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...


Not to worry, Randall, I make typographical errors all the time, and I certainly wasn't offended by yours. I consider you a decent fellow who wouldn't mind a little ribbing or I'd not have said anything. Please consider my joke as a compliment to you, but I won't tease you about it again.

Quote:
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 think you'll find that breastplates weren't being worn in 1457; at that time they were still experimenting with shaped coats of plates. Moreover, the arm harnesses weren't as fitted as later ones, so the amount of padding then may have been different (although I doubt it). The main point, however, is that the Charles de Blois pourpoint from which this fellow obviously took his pattern was a very late 14th-century artifact; much later than 1457, and with the rate of change in armor during this period (it wasn't called the Age of the Transition for nothing), anything from 1457 (and if the document dated from 1457 you know the articles it described were probably older unless this record was of purchases) simply can't be used to analyze things from the period we're discussing.

Again, I stand by my original point: The reproduction garment in question is padded much more heavily than it needs to be or than it was in period.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,178

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 3:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:
Randall Moffett wrote:
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...


Not to worry, Randall, I make typographical errors all the time, and I certainly wasn't offended by yours. I consider you a decent fellow who wouldn't mind a little ribbing or I'd not have said anything. Please consider my joke as a compliment to you, but I won't tease you about it again.

Quote:
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 think you'll find that breastplates weren't being worn in 1457; at that time they were still experimenting with shaped coats of plates. Moreover, the arm harnesses weren't as fitted as later ones, so the amount of padding then may have been different (although I doubt it). The main point, however, is that the Charles de Blois pourpoint from which this fellow obviously took his pattern was a very late 14th-century artifact; much later than 1457, and with the rate of change in armor during this period (it wasn't called the Age of the Transition for nothing), anything from 1457 (and if the document dated from 1457 you know the articles it described were probably older unless this record was of purchases) simply can't be used to analyze things from the period we're discussing.

Again, I stand by my original point: The reproduction garment in question is padded much more heavily than it needs to be or than it was in period.


I think you mean 1357 which would be 14th century as 1457 is 15th century. (Same way that 1957 was 20th century. Wink Razz Laughing Out Loud ) probably just a typo. Big Grin Oh, easy to fix if you go back to your post and hit the EDIT button.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 31 Oct, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
I think you mean 1357 which would be 14th century as 1457 is 15th century. (Same way that 1957 was 20th century. Wink Razz Laughing Out Loud ) probably just a typo. Big Grin Oh, easy to fix if you go back to your post and hit the EDIT button.


Well, *I* certainly thought we were talking about the 14th century (1357), so that was a typo on my part. I was going by Randall's earlier comment about 14th-century sources referring to acketons and assumed that's what he was referring to here.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 01 Nov, 2007 12:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu 01 Nov, 2007 9:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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... Happy
Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
View user's profile Send private message
Felix R.




Location: Germany
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Reading list: 25 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 555

PostPosted: Thu 01 Nov, 2007 10:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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)?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 01 Nov, 2007 10:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Padded goods
Page 1 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3  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 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum