Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Question on Aketon Pourpoint Gambison Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Hugh Knight




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

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Fri 30 Oct, 2009 11:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
I think using the Hasting MS for the 14th, even the 1st half of the 15th, is a mistake if taken completely literal. We have loads of accounts that clearly indicate padded aketon/gambeson in use under mail and plate into Henry VI or Charles VII's reign. The most clear example I can give you off the top of my head is General Bertrand's Chronicle. In the late 1380s (written years later) he is stated as wearing a strong aketon faced in leather. You also have several of the French accounts of the later HYW that record padded gambesons under mail and early plate harness. Now that said what Dave and Hugh said is good to keep in mind. There is a development from heavy under mail aketon to the MS Hastings doublet, but I doubt it took place right away, less by the mid 14th. As Hugh pointed out you have loads of types of aketons, gambesons, etc. from stand alone to under armour.

One of the biggest things to get comfortable with is that medieval terms are fluid, especially true with textile armours. This means they might be using aketon for over or under armour and it may be anything from a heavy several fingers thick stand alone or a much lighter padded doublet like Hugh and David are refering. Most people have taken Blair's model but the truth is both are equally complicated and likely overlap.

As far as guesses as to thickness there are only two accounts one from 1311 in paris and one from london 1323. The first states 3.1 pounds the second 2.3 pounds of cotton to be used. The first gives no idea whether it is for stand alone or undermail though the second appears to be intended for Edward or one of his household armoured so mail and early plate bits like Pair of plates and limb armour etc. One Norwegian account from the second half of the 14th indicates a fairly strong padded garment under the mail and breast and back plate but I could not find it specifically. I think it is from King Magnus's land laws though.

Two padded jacks that were worn under plate bits in Switzerland shows something that I think is key in textile armours, especially under armour. The thickness is not uniform. As Dave said less padding under the arms etc.

As far as having two layers of padded garments you could do that either way, heavier outside makes more sense to me but no one can prove otherwise.

RPM


Hi Randall,

While you're mostly correct, you have taken my words out of context, as did Christian after you. I did not say the arrangement in the Hastings MS was used in the 14th century, and, in fact, I said that I didn't post the accompanying picture because it wouldn't have been relevent. All I said was that the term doublet should be used for a fitted garment worn under late-14th-century armor.

And while you're correct that terminology was somewhat fluid in period, we can't be--not and speak accurately to one another. For example, both the early barrel-style helmet and the later Pembridge-style great helm were called "helms" in their respective periods, so we need to add precision to the medieval term. To do that, most authorities I have read distinguish between barrel helms (or are even more specific and refer to a single type, e.g., the Bozen helm) and Pembridge helms and later frogmouthed helms. Likewise, most medieval sources refer to bascinet visors simply as visors, yet we need greater precision, so we speak of houndskull visors and dog-faced visors and side mounted visors and klappvisiers.

You know and I know that the term aketon is really best used to describe a knee-length, long-sleeved quilted garment worn under the great hauberk of the 13th and early 14th centuries. Thus, let's keep that term to mean that. We know that the term doublet was used in the 15th century (i.e., the Hasings MS) to describe a fitted garment to which armor was pointed. Thus, it makes the most sense to refer to a fitted arming garment as an arming doublet. And we'll leave the outliers as just that--outliers. That way, when a modern person writes about an arming garment and he calls it an aketon, we won't have to wonder what he means.

And regardless, a fitted arming garment worn under later-period harness, such as the original poster asked about, should *not* be called a gambeson!

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: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 12:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric Fick wrote:

I think i still need to put on a thin gambeson under the mail to protect the clothes and my skin. This brings me back around to the original question, what should i be looking to order? David's looks great, and I think would work for me and solve the cuisse issue and having to use a belt to hold up the legs.


Best suited to this would be the aforementioned fitted doublet under the maille. Then their is only braies and hose under the doublet, you wonīt need a shirt.
The arms can be laced directly to the doublet in case you have the short sleeved haubergeon. This would look very Italian then. For the arms under the "Gambeson" which would be a jupon then. The outer layer would need wide sleeves. If you canīt bring the arms below the outer layer you maybe want to get rid of the outer layer of padding over the maille and have a short or no sleeve Jupon. That would be the two possibilities I know of from later 14th cent paintings.
View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 7:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Hugh,

Quote:
While you're mostly correct, you have taken my words out of context, as did Christian after you. I did not say the arrangement in the Hastings MS was used in the 14th century, and, in fact, I said that I didn't post the accompanying picture because it wouldn't have been relevent. All I said was that the term doublet should be used for a fitted garment worn under late-14th-century armor.


I wasn't addressing your comments at all in my post. I thought it was pretty clear that you *weren't* advocating Hastings as the proper source for answers to Eric's questions. Rather, I was addressing a general tendency, one that tends to think of '15th century armour' as all one thing that is addressed by the Hastings description's arrangement of mail defenses.

Cheers,

CHT

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi again Hugh,

I will say, and this time in direct reference to your last post, that I do agree with other posters in that the terms as used in period do not allow us to assign precise definitions to words like aketon, gambeson, arming doublet, and the even more mysterious 'gypon/jupon'.

In Germany, words like gambison, and its more common variants there 'wambs/wams/wammes', continue in some form for sometime, even applying to what are not necessarily arming garments, but simple doublets. Thus, in some of the anonymous wrestling techniques in the Ringeck manuscript, we find references to "wammes"; in the von Danzig, this is usually 'joppen' (=jupon).

I'm not confident English sources aren't equally confusing. David has alluded above to sources that suggest intermingling meanings for all of the above, but I'm not sure I know all of them.

The one thing I'm fairly confident I agree with is that the term aketon always seems to refer to something under the armour, and I suspect it's an earlier reference at that.

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Eric Fick




Location: California
Joined: 16 Sep 2009

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh,

I agree, terminology needs to be more specific. My apologies for the confusion as I have used the term gambeson for many years as a generic term. This is mostly from laziness, sorry.

Felix R. wrote:

Best suited to this would be the aforementioned fitted doublet under the maille. Then their is only braies and hose under the doublet, you wonīt need a shirt.
The arms can be laced directly to the doublet in case you have the short sleeved haubergeon. This would look very Italian then. For the arms under the "Gambeson" which would be a jupon then. The outer layer would need wide sleeves. If you canīt bring the arms below the outer layer you maybe want to get rid of the outer layer of padding over the maille and have a short or no sleeve Jupon. That would be the two possibilities I know of from later 14th cent paintings.


thank you Felix. The Jupon I have should be able to accommodate well fitted arms under if I use a simple elbow cop with no fan or rondel, but I have not tested this yet. If i get it right, I should be able to move from plate in, plate out, and with the same kit show several different 14th century styles by changing the placements or taking off the jupon, etc.

any chance you can post some 14th cent pics? You may have some photos I have not seen that could be of great help

Cheers,

Eric Fick
Davenriche European Martial Artes Schoole
www.swordfightingschool.com
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




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

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 9:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
Hi again Hugh,

I will say, and this time in direct reference to your last post, that I do agree with other posters in that the terms as used in period do not allow us to assign precise definitions to words like aketon, gambeson, arming doublet, and the even more mysterious 'gypon/jupon'.

In Germany, words like gambison, and its more common variants there 'wambs/wams/wammes', continue in some form for sometime, even applying to what are not necessarily arming garments, but simple doublets. Thus, in some of the anonymous wrestling techniques in the Ringeck manuscript, we find references to "wammes"; in the von Danzig, this is usually 'joppen' (=jupon).

I'm not confident English sources aren't equally confusing. David has alluded above to sources that suggest intermingling meanings for all of the above, but I'm not sure I know all of them.

The one thing I'm fairly confident I agree with is that the term aketon always seems to refer to something under the armour, and I suspect it's an earlier reference at that.


They easily allow it: We simply choose to do it. By your logic we must refer to all visors as simply "visors" because that's how the term was used in period, ignoring the more modern, but also more precise terms such as "houndskull" to distinguish between various types. We know that at least much of the time an aketon was used in period for the simple garment worn under the great hauberk. We know that the term doublet was used in a period source to refer to a fitted garment used to point armor. Therefore, we can use those terms quite easily to refer to those things specifically.

As for wammes (etc.), there's no question but that your German is better than mine, however, I see no connection between those terms and the word gambeson, nor to the word "gamboissed" (other than, perhaps, a slight similarity of sound). In fact, I often see that word used in reference to some unspecified civilian garment, not a military arming garment. Can you demonstrate the connection you believe to exist?

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: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 9:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is Walther von Hohenklingen, an Austrian knight who died at Sempach. It was posted by someone on the armourarchieve. I donīt know his name, otherwise I would give credit.


 Attachment: 46.96 KB
hohenkligenIII.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 10:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:

They easily allow it: We simply choose to do it. By your logic we must refer to all visors as simply "visors" because that's how the term was used in period, ignoring the more modern, but also more precise terms such as "houndskull" to distinguish between various types. We know that at least much of the time an aketon was used in period for the simple garment worn under the great hauberk. We know that the term doublet was used in a period source to refer to a fitted garment used to point armor. Therefore, we can use those terms quite easily to refer to those things specifically.


If we're to rely upon modern definitions, it could be argued that 'gambeson' has achieved a wider meaning through usage among today's enthusiasts. Claude Blair, in "European Armour", also admits that while gambesons are more often referred to as being outside the armour, that there are exceptions; in like fashion he admits that aketons are referred to at times as being fine and decorated.

Quote:
As for wammes (etc.), there's no question but that your German is better than mine, however, I see no connection between those terms and the word gambeson, nor to the word "gamboissed" (other than, perhaps, a slight similarity of sound). In fact, I often see that word used in reference to some unspecified civilian garment, not a military arming garment. Can you demonstrate the connection you believe to exist?


This is no innovation of my own - I've read it on many occassions. Here are two sources giving some derivation:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Gambison

http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Wams

The correlation between 'wams' and 'gambeson' is due to a common consonant shift between Germanic and Romance languages; that is to say, W's become G's or 'Gu's. Examples can be found in our word 'guard' which is the Romance version of 'ward' (also still used in English). We can also see this in the names associated with the warring Papal and Imperial factions, Guelph and Ghibelline; these come from the names of two noble German houses - Welf and Wablingen.

This is a useful translation 'trick' btw - try sounding out an old German word with the 'gw' sound instead and you'll sometimes arrive at a familiar modern English word.

Cheers,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Sat 31 Oct, 2009 12:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
I'm not confident English sources aren't equally confusing. David has alluded above to sources that suggest intermingling meanings for all of the above, but I'm not sure I know all of them.

The one thing I'm fairly confident I agree with is that the term aketon always seems to refer to something under the armour, and I suspect it's an earlier reference at that.

All the best,

Christian


Hello All,

The big problem with my data is...

it is all gone.

I made the mistake on storing all of my personal research online at the now defunct Arador Armour Library.

I was the moderator of the cloth based armour forum there and had every thing I'd gleaned off the internet or had sent to me in digital format was stored on site for my easy access, until a hacker wiped the site and it's backup files off the face of the internet. Sigh... Worried

I never rebuilt my files as my focus by them was spending more time with a longsword in hand studying the art of Johannes Liechtenauer and his later masters. Happy

My earlier focus had been the cloth based armour worn by the tenet farmer and the professional soldier and not what the knightly class was wearing. With that fact in mind, this is how I broke down the the English/Lowland Scottish use of the words (when not being fluid in their uses) in the 14th & 15th centuries.

Gambesons ( Early to mid14th century:Worn by the knightly class with maille)

Aketon (14th century: worn by the common class, thicker than the gambeson and can be used as a stand alone garment)

Arming doublet (late 14th & 15th century : Much thinner than the earlier gambeson, worn with harness for pointing the armour to.)

Jupon ( Mid to late14th century:The "French" style of wearing a second coat over the transitional armour of the era, Can be padded. Seen a lot in HYW artwork.)

Gown/Surcoat (14th century: Style favored by the English and the Lowland Scottish knights of wearing their Heraldic devices over their transitional armour on a unpadded sleeveless gown. Gown if worn by the knight, surcoat if worn by a retainer)

Jack (The 15th century "aketon" , but unlike the early garment made with loose fibers it's made with 20-30 layers of linen/flax canvas. Common Foot soldiers coat)

Feel free to disagree... especially since I don't have my sources to back up my studies anymore, but... the above definitions have worked for me for the last few years.

I think I'm going to go count my "visors" now. Wink

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Question on Aketon Pourpoint Gambison
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 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