Mail conformation -- myArmoury.com

Kai Lawson · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 10:21 am Post subject: Mail conformation

Hello everyone.

I have a question about mail (collective groan) in period depictions (groan, pt. 2.) If the first line didn't put you off the topic, let me ask: how much padding would be worn under mail for north and central europe at the end of the 11th and into the early 12th centuries, and how closely would the mail be tailored to fit the individual? In later depictions such as statues and artwork, the mail is almost skin-tight, and tailored well; in the earliest miniatures I could find (dated 1000-1100, and 1099-1109 on manuscript miniatures) show relatively tight fitting garments, without the looser look of most reenactments (I have read and seen Patrick Kelly's norman articles, and prefer that more conforming look.) Additionally, the presence of full sleeves as opposed to the more commonly assumed elbow-length sleeves makes me wonder: was there a full length gambeson or akton below, or was it partial, or not present at all? (more specifically, I wish to both increase my knowledge of mail, as well as assemble a 1st or 2nd crusade dismounted knight from either normandy or sicily. As I understand it, I would need round, riveted mail, possibly alternating solid/riveted, maybe thigh length. Integral coif included. Could I get away with full sleeves, can they be tightly tailored, and what would one wear underneath the mail in such a case?)

Robert Rootslane · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Mail conformation

Doug Lester · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 11:40 am Post subject:

I think that the gambesons were something like 10,15, or even 20 layers thick. Probably determined by how much could have been afforded more than comfort. Though it seems reasonable that if someone experienced serious overheating fighting in a 20 layer garment that he'd go to a lighter one. Remember that the gambesons were not just worn to reduce blunt trauma but could also cut down on penetration from edged weapons that might have penitrated the maile. It would also help the maile work by dispersing the impact over the gambeson which would allow some give to absorb energy.

Kai Lawson · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 11:52 am Post subject:

Thanks for the practical insight--valuable in the context of a person giving input, having worn the thing for longer periods in contact fights. I have also sent an email to Erik, in response to him prompting me to email him if I had any questions. I have seen his site, and have looked at historic examples of mail from the period of interest, but would like to 'double check,' as it were. Thank you to everyone who posts good intel.

Robert Rootslane · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 12:05 pm Post subject:

nice.

Keep us posted if anything intresting turns up from the conversation with Erik.

R

Dan Howard · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 12:18 pm Post subject:

Robert Rootslane · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 1:05 pm Post subject:

Doug Lester · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject:

I too would be interested in any references that referred to armour with integral padding. No references that I have, not that they are extensive, make any mention of integral padding (I'm not challenging you with that statement-I'm just saying what I have)

It does make sense that a padded garment intended for stand alone armour would be thicker than one worn under armour. I see no reason that if it was worn under plate reinforced maile or under a harness of plate that it would need to be much more than a heavy undergarment like an arming doublet.

I believe that it is also not always clear in writing what constitutes a gambeson, an askelon, or a doublet. It might well be that the name varied by time and place. Like where I lived in Virginia none of the people I met at a hardware store had ever heard of a plumber's probe being referred to as plumbers snake. Around where I live now, that's the only thing that I have ever heard it called.

Rod Walker · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject:

A couple of years ago myself and Joram Van Essen ran a mid 13thC joust as accurately as we could. This meant tailored rivetted mail, solid wooden lances with steel coronels etc etc. We both searched around for proof of a padded garment under the mail and couldn't come up with anything conclusive. I wore a lined linen tunic and Joram wore a thin felt tunic under our mail, and that was it.

We ran the joust passes perfectly fine and even did some mounted sword combat ala the tournament. We both landed full power blows upon each other and we both pulled up fine. Bruised and battered, but fine. The swords were blades made by Peter Lyon and have a thin edge.

What this showed us was that you don't neccasarly need much in the way of padding under mail. In fact our testing showed that padding over the mail worked better than under. Even just having the surcoat helped with dissapating the sword blows.

One thing that really stood out was that unlike the movies,,,, do not ditch your shield or helmet. Very important bits of kit. Wink

Randall Moffett · Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject:

I do not know of any evidence that early but by late 12th we know something was in use as Richard I was supposedly wearing some type of textile armour with mail. That is the earliest I know of for western Europe.

I can only imagine before they used this type of textile armour they wore some type of heavy tunic or something but hard to say what without evidence.

RPM

Johan Gemvik · Posted: Sun 04 Mar, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject:

Dan Howard · Posted: Sun 04 Mar, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject:

William P · Posted: Mon 05 Mar, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject:

although as dan pointed out in his article maile unchained, due to the fact when under gravity, a tube of maile automatically langthens and contacts, meaning its somewhat form fitting, kind of like elastic, and this flexible property means you can equip many different people of slightly different body sizes with the same shirt and it will reasonably fit all of them.

but having something fit you more snugly and thus having less excess material is always better.

Len Parker · Posted: Fri 09 Mar, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject:

Anyone speak french? This is Chretien de Troyes Le Conte du Graal c.1180. http://www.stanford.edu/~patricia/Lecoy1040.html
I see in line 1154 ganbeisiee. Is this a gambeson, and does it say anything about it's construction?
I read the english translation a while back and I remembered Percival not wanting to trade his canvas shirt for what the knight was wearing. I thought I remembered it being a silk padded shirt, but I'm probably wrong about the padded part. I believe Percival was also wearing some sort of deerskin coat or hood (line 502), not sure which. Percival didn't think the knight's garment would keep the rain off as good as his own. I do remember Chretien saying he was dressed in the Welsh fashion.

Kai Lawson · Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject:

If a liner were to be used, what would have been the more likely material? Leather? Wool? Canvas? And--supposing a liner were used--how thick might it have been, and would a heavy tunic style garment be worn underneath?

Dan Howard · Posted: Sat 10 Mar, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject:

A few layers of linen would probably do. Tut's scale armour had a liner consisting of six layers of quilted linen and a seventh of fine leather.