I've been researching 13th C (1200-1299) hauberks, and chausses. Specific period is mid-late 1200s. There are images that show the quilted under, and maille outer chausses both connected with a buckle to a belt worn over the Braies. Reasonable. What I need to know is this: Do those pieces hang loosly to the ankle, or are they gartered below the knee like daily-wear linen or wool?

I assume that the use of poleyns because of their harnessing serve as garters. I am needing to know if a tied or buckled garter would be used to keep the simple mail legging from sagging. i.e. Was King Henry/Edward I/Edward III wearing maille or cloth when he gave that famous garter to a lady for her hose?

I also need some help with facts concerning the use of of wrist/arm ties to keep hauberk sleeves from falling to the elbow when a knight raised his sword into high guard, etc.

One last question: Gauntlets--Were they always maille on the non-grip area (with or without fingers) or would scales or other protection be used? Were they always connectible to the sleeves or could they be seperate pieces (like gloves of today) with long cuffs that served as early forms of bracers?

Y'all know I'm a girl, and my clothing consists of a chemise, cotehardie, belt, and those pretty little knee, or thigh-high hose rolled over their nicely buckled or tied garters. Any information about manful, manly stuff like 13th C. maille harnessing would be greatly appreciated. :lol:

I don't know about the chausses. But for the arms, I think the important point is that maille should be fitted to you. Your ams taper towards your wrists. If your sleeves do as well, they won't have such a tendency to fall towards your elbow when going into a high guard. Also, in the 13th century most hauberks would have had attached maille mittens or gloves. That makes such strapping unnecessary.

I've previously posted here (http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight=) an image from the Westminster Psalter where you can see how tight a suit of maille was around the body (even when the knight raise his arms): it's pratically a second skin!

This was done for comfort and to reduce the weight of the armour as much as is possibly: I have restricted my suit of maille around my arms, using then the rings to extend it of over 10 cm around the thighs... It was simply too uncomfortable to use with all those rings banging on my arms.

You can see there an early type of chausses, they don't cover the back of the legs but are fastened with very tight laces.

Hope this is of help!

make the mittens tighter at the wrist and they don't go anywheres. i have slack in my arms as well, it helps when you bend your elbows for high guard or raising the shield.

I think you're thinking of a story about Edward III, but confusing some details. At a party, where no armour would have been worn, he picked up a garter that had fallen off a lady.

Here are my responses to your comments (sorry this took so long) Warning: many quotes, and photo intensive.

Gabriele A. Pini wrote:
I've previously posted here (http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight=) an image from the Westminster Psalter where you can see how tight a suit of maille was around the body (even when the knight raise his arms): it's pratically a second skin!

Me: I have seen this illustration as well in my research. There was an art trend of stylized representation in paintings and most relief sculptures (Believe me, those artists were not blind to anatomy. Plus, the usual variety of talent and ability existed then as now.) I agree that those tied leggings with the different maille are really cool! It is a beautiful illustration.
____________________________________________________________

Sander Marechal wrote: ...it makes me wonder, did they not wear gambesons beneath their hauberks? And if not, what did they wear? I have a really well fitting, tailored gambeson, but even though I am quite skinny, I bulk up quite a but when I put it on. I can't imagine looking so spiderman spandex-y in a haukberk as that guy in the image is looking.

Me: Makes sense to me. Besides who among you mighty warriors doesn't wear a quilted, or leather undergarment under your maille? I doubt the knights in Acre ran around with steel hauberks on bare skin or thin cotton undergarments in that sun, and heat. OUCH!! This might explain the development of surcotes over armor as well.
____________________________________________________________

Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: "I did a brief test of attaching mail mittens to my hauberk arms. I found that on order to be able to bend the arm at the elbow, there is need of a significant amount of slack in the arm (despite decent tailoring), making the mittens prone to fall down from the hands if i let my arms hang..so some sort of wrist band or fastning there seem logical..."

Chuck Russell wrote: "make the mittens tighter at the wrist and they don't go anywheres. i have slack in my arms as well, it helps when you bend your elbows for high guard or raising the shield."

Me: Your comments are very useful. Tighter wrists are logical, but does that make the mittens/gloves harder to slip on? Wouldn't that slow a man down when he needed to arm quickly in response to surprise attacks, etc?
___________________________________________________________

Chad Arnow wrote: I think you're thinking of a story abotu Edward III, but confusing some details. At a party, where no armour would have been worn, he picked up a garter that had fallen off a lady.

Neil Langley wrote: Yes, this is the legend of the motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' belonging to the Order of the Garter. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter.

Me: Thanks for the clarification guys. I knew some stuff about the the Knights of the Garter, but now know the correct era, and more details. :)
__________________________________________________________

Below are some illustrations I have found from the 1200s, and 1300s. They show a whole array of information. Maybe these will be helpful to all of us:

[[EDIT] Images removed as they are not Primary Resource Authenticated] The two full-figure sculptures appear to have been sculpted nearly 100 years apart. The 13th C knight has loose sleeves. He definitely looks well padded. The early 14th C. knight has a more slender build, however, his face and hand anatomy compared with the broader waist, and chest breadth indicate underlayers. Those bracers and other plate elements. illustrate 14th C armor development nicely. Neither one is wearing gloves. Hmmm...[Of course not, they were sculpted in 1929!]

The effigy is William de Valence (died around 1315). I'm intrigued by the use of rivets at the elbows and the bindings around his wrists. (might be the way they connected the parts for the sculpture?) Is he depicted of his actual armor which might be an older style, as he fought on the King's side during the Second Baron's War (1260s). He was well over 70 when he died. Wonder what he thought of those young upstarts in their short cotehardies, and all that dagging on their surcotes? LOL! (Photo credit: http://www.life.com/image/53377168)

The battle painting illustrates that popular stylistic art discussed above: Note how the art clearly depicts the ranks of the figures. The king in a crown, top commanders and lieutenants in grete helms, and the lesser knights in maille hoods. The defeated fighters are depicted wearing 12th C helms with nose guards, possibly to show their inferiority to the victors.

Sincere thanks for your replies to my questions: I consider this site (myArmoury.com) the best resource for discussion, and debate concerning historical arms and armaments on the web. I'll keep hunting for primary resource material on the subject of how armor was kept in place, yet always allowed full range of motion, and comfort when worn. Even my daughter could handle 70-80 lbs. (weight distributed of course) while in Iraq, which is the standard weight of full medieval harness.

Cheers!

---

 Attachment: 36.89 KB



 Attachment: 240.8 KB

In the picture you posted of the 14th C knight, it looks like it may be jackchains on his sleeves. I cannot tell if the sleeves themselves are maille or padded gambeson.

he two full size sculptures appear to have been made much later than what they are to represent. The way the posture and the faces and the drape in their garments are made don´t look like either 13th or 14th cent artwork.

The image title suggested Edinburgh Castle so I looked it up. Indeed, those are later statues of William Wallace and Robert Bruce added to the castle circa 1929.

Isn't there a statue of Roland with a maille chausse on only his right leg that shows lacing on the inner side just above the ankle? As I would have thought that this would have been a way one could apply it to ones wrists.

By definition, this is a double post. However, I feel the content is compelling enough to be added. Thanks for your understanding, Mods and Admins.

This is a copied and pasted quote from the Nottinghamshire: history and archeology

http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/articles/tts/t...igies1.htm

Military Effigies in Nottinghamshire before the Black Death (1)

II. GONALSTON. (1).

"This effigy, which now lies at the east end of the south aisle, though in poor condition is of considerable interest. The head and shoulders have disappeared entirely. The hands, which are joined in prayer, are clothed in mail mittens fastened with cords tied at the wrists. The sword-belt is much narrower than is usual later, and is fastened to the scabbard at two points, a method which though later than the attachment at one point, is earlier than the interlocking-thong principle. The quillons of the sword are long and straight and the hilt is surmounted by a pear-shaped pommel. The surcoat is short and only split up the front a matter of six inches, displaying the hauberk beneath it, the latter reaching down almost to as low a point as the surcoat. The legs are crossed5 and the feet rest on a lion. No knee-caps are worn, but straps are fastened round the leg below the knee much after the fashion of the effigy ascribed to William Longsword at Salisbury, which has several features in common with this effigy. The purpose of these straps was to lesson the drag of the heavy chain-mail chausses, an inconvenience which was afterwards obviated by dividing them into two separate gannents, termed chausses and chaussons respectively.6

This effigy evidently represents a member of the family of Heriz who held four knights’ fees: one at Stapleford, one at South Wingfield in Derbyshire, and two at Gonalston and Widmerpool. It seems probable, having regard to the type of equipment, that the original was Sir John Heriz who in 1236 paid three marks relief on succeeding to his brother Yvo’s lands.7 He appears to have died about 1270, a date which suits the character of the armour worn."

Citations:

(5) As this is the attitude of all the remaining effigies to be described, the fact will not be referred to again, to avoid useless repetition. Needless to say, this position of the legs has nothing to do with participation in a Crusade, still less does it suggest that the original of the effigy was a Knight Templar.
(6) See Archaeological Journal vi. 5. (1850) for Mr. Westmacott’s account of the discovery of the two effigies at Gonalston in 1848. Both are illustrated in Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire.
(7) Pipe Roll 20 Hen iii. See Thor. iii. 50. The pedigree is somewhat involved.

---

 Attachment: 11.88 KB

Chausses are gartered below the knee with straps.