| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
No as I said more or less full harness. I was not referring to under armour in particular though they are there but at this point full hauberks are in the inventory no mail strips r the likes.
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
back in topic... it seems that the options are:
from lightest to heaviest:
1) padded leg (chausses)
2) padded leg + schynbalds as seen in Mac B. Goliath
3) padded leg + mail on thighs (cuisses) + schynbalds
4) padded leg + mail chausses
5) padded leg + mail chausse + schynbalds
eventually kneecops possible
|
|
 |
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 1250 norwegian source I'm using (kingsmirror) describes strudy hose, mail chauses, padded breeches, and iron knee protectors.
Personally, I have been "cheating" by attatching short chauses directly to the padded breeches (which end at the knees).
The chauses are made from square panels of mail cut to shape and laced at the back.
As the hauberk covers the upper thighs, you do not really need another layer of mail there. Similarly, the padded breeches lets you have a shorter arming tunic.
My hauberk is a liiiitle short for this configuration, leaving a 15 cm gap with no mail coverage. I do however have knee protectors, which could alevitate this.
As my padded breeches where finaly worn out this season, I will be making new ones shortly; I'll post pics when I do.
"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
|
|
  |
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for replying Elling (I've already seen your reconstruction of your armored surcoat, very nice piece of work, I'm already working on that  )
I'm gonna realize padded legs just for sake of my schynbalds and probably I'm adding kneecops as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: |
As the hauberk covers the upper thighs, you do not really need another layer of mail there. |
Well, this rather depends on what you do, I would say. Modern hacking on each other with blunt iron bars? Yes. Historical fencing techniques with harness? No. At least I would prefer to have a maille protection where somje of my vital blood lines run through.
Real fight as it would have happened 1250? Hell, no. And they had reasons for that.
I mean, people with their live depending on it (and ridiing horses, as it was normal for knights...) obviously had a different opinion and though it was necessary Addtionally, it also depends on what hobby you do. If you want to reconstruct a 1250s armour, wear and act in it as far as it is reconstructable, then you need exactly what they wore in 1250.
|
|
  |
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jens you got a good point; during a battle it happened to me to face some mad guys on the opposite side which tried to make insane thrusts to the legs while standing behind some huge pavise shields, actually the legionary way
which perfectly does make sense if you are fighting for real but not in reenactment situation when you are supposed to get everyone safe
hence the concern for leg protection
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jens Boerner wrote: | | , it also depends on what hobby you do. If you want to reconstruct a 1250s armour, wear and act in it as far as it is reconstructable, then you need exactly what they wore in 1250. |
That's the crux of it really.
If you are doing it to demonstrate to the public what armour was worn (which it sounds like you are), you should really make all the effort to get it right.
That to me speaks of either:-
Full, fully enclosing mail chausses (including feet, lower-legs, knees and thighs).
Or, the above with gamboised cuisses worn either under or over (under is speculation)
Or the above (Cuisses worn over with a plate knee cop/poleyn)
Or you could cheat slightly (I've seen no evidence either for or against this) and have the mail chausses covering the feet and coming up to a point just under the knees(tied here to keep them up) - using gamboised cuisses to cover knees/thighs. It will look exactly like you have full mail chausses under them (and to be honest, this could be what was done when you start seeing gamboised cuisses on knights - unless there is a literary source I'm not aware of stating otherwise)
If you are demonstrating to the public and don't want to do the full leg-armour thing, have you considered portraying a sejens-at-arms? A professional, non-knight soldier - often fighting on foot - and so with leg-armour (or lack of it) to match.
For what it's worth, I do 1250 re-enactment and fight on foot with full leg harness. it's more tiring - but it also lowers your centre of gravity, making your balance feel more natural when wearing a hauberk.
Here's my thoughts along with some pics of my (1250) stuff:
http://dawnofchivalry.wikispaces.com/Gamboise...7s+project
http://dawnofchivalry.wikispaces.com/Mail+Cha...7s+Project
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
very nice chausses Brian
to be honest I'm just not sure about the pattern at thigh-level, wouldn't be more historical following cloth chausses design as well with rings?
I'm gonna post a real example of them from a pair I borrowed from a friend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
It probably would - but unfortunately there are simply no images detailing exactly how the tops were shaped/fastened. So it's just a case of being honest about this with the public and telling them 'we don't know for sure but this is how it could have been'. For mine, the tops were flat as I bought them that way and given the lack of evidence for either shape I decided to leave it.
The lack of evidence leaves it open to a number of interpretations - there's a member of our group who rather than using narrow suspender straps, uses a wide band thin leather to extend the whole outside 2/3s of the cuisses up to the waist and has a belt run through a hoop in the top of them.
I've seen references to them being heavily pointed to the hauberk - so tight that the attacker couldn't get a knife between them - but I really can't picture how this would have been done. It may even hint at them being held up by this method!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roberto Banfi wrote: | very nice chausses Brian
to be honest I'm just not sure about the pattern at thigh-level, wouldn't be more historical following cloth chausses design as well with rings?
I'm gonna post a real example of them from a pair I borrowed from a friend |
There are findings for chausses. http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/bockhome.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: | | It probably would - but unfortunately there are simply no images detailing exactly how the tops were shaped/fastened. |
Apologies for being unclear - I meant tops of mail chausses there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: | It probably would - but unfortunately there are simply no images detailing exactly how the tops were shaped/fastened. So it's just a case of being honest about this with the public and telling them 'we don't know for sure but this is how it could have been'. For mine, the tops were flat as I bought them that way and given the lack of evidence for either shape I decided to leave it.
The lack of evidence leaves it open to a number of interpretations - there's a member of our group who rather than using narrow suspender straps, uses a wide band thin leather to extend the whole outside 2/3s of the cuisses up to the waist and has a belt run through a hoop in the top of them.
I've seen references to them being heavily pointed to the hauberk - so tight that the attacker couldn't get a knife between them - but I really can't picture how this would have been done. It may even hint at them being held up by this method! |
What fastened? The maille chausses? They're (named: īsernhosen ) fastened to the "huffenier":
"ūf der hūf gedoʒʒen lag ein sīdīn huffenier" (->Koloczaer Codex),
also:
"ō wol gesteppet huffenier begreif nie mannes hant"
by the "lendenierstric" (lace). Also the senftenier (aka textile cuisses):
"dā der lendenierstric erwant, etlīchiu het ein semftenier, der noch ein sölheʒ gębe mier, daʒ nęm ich für ein vederspi"
"etslīcher nicht vollen die semftinīr zu den beinen gebunden het"
"was ein sęlige hant, diu di riemen alle bant oben an daʒ senphtenier"
"oben an daz senftenier so wol gesteppet huffenier"
while the "huffenier" being a probably padded kind of belt.
See also http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/C..._wi07.html
So basically: you have the īsernhosen (maille chausses), over those the senftenier (textile cuisses), both attached by the lendenier to the huffenier (which is some sort of padded waist belt).
No padding underneath maille chausses (would not make any sense. Is not even speculation, it is wrong).
No half maille chausses. You don't want to have between arrows, the enemy lance or swordtip only some textile layers.
And btw.: the cuisses are not padded. They consist of layers. Presumingly, like the aketon, cotton wool between layers of linnen and silk.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: | | there's a member of our group who rather than using narrow suspender straps, uses a wide band thin leather to extend the whole outside 2/3s of the cuisses up to the waist and has a belt run through a hoop in the top of them. |
that sounds reasonable and practical
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ooh!
I wasn't aware of that Jens. Is that German? What is it dated at?
I'm not sure I agree on some of your finishing statements though. I'm not saying you're wrong - we don't know, just that there are indications.
| Quote: |
No padding underneath maille chausses (would not make any sense. Is not even speculation, it is wrong). |
Why not? Hauberks have padded armour underneath, why not speculate? The Mac Bible shows a pic of a man getting ready for battle, pulling on padded cuisses. Yet you never see them on knights (always mail) - but you also never see them on infantry in the mac bible (whether wearing mail or just gambesons). So who does wear them? I can only guess it could be the knights under the mail chausses. The only other pic in there (as mentioned already) is goliath - which we know is based on biblical descriptions. But even so - he is depicted as a knight - does this make it knightly equipment? Who knows.
| Quote: |
No half maille chausses. You don't want to have between arrows, the enemy lance or swordtip only some textile layers. |
If you're talking about my suggestion of lower-leg mail only - you still have the hauberk/saddle protecting the thighs and a polyn on the knee. There aren't any gaps really (as long as you're mounted).
| Quote: |
And btw.: the cuisses are not padded. They consist of layers. Presumingly, like the aketon, cotton wool between layers of linnen and silk. |
That fits my definition of padded.
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
agree with Brian for the padding underneath the chausses, my speculation is that in depictions the aketon isn't visible for stylistic reasons... all men are depicted with very slim bodies and it would be simply unnecessary: aketon under mail would be the base so it was necessary do show mail
infantry didn't wear mail so it was necessary to depict what they wore... mere aketons / gambesons
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The kingsmirrors descripton goes:
| Quote: | | "The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft [hose] made of soft and thoroughly blackened [canvas], which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good [mail-breeches] made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces madeof thick iron and rivets hard as steel" |
So, this author sugests at least a sturdy pair of hose under the mail. He also says that the mail hose should be high enough to be fastened in a certain way which he does not detail. On top of these goes the breeches, or cuisse, and finally the knee protectors.
The lack of padding for the lower leg can be reasonable, as it is not subject to many direct attacks, and there are little chance of serious injury from a spear thrust.
The use of padded breeches for the thighs is however well documented, both in text and illustrations.
They where definitely around, but if you chose to wear them or not would be up to you.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roberto Banfi wrote: |
infantry didn't wear mail so it was necessary to depict what they wore... mere aketons / gambesons |
Many of the infantymen in Maciowsky wear mail. Some are even more heavily armoured on the upper body that the knights, with cloth armour on top of their hauberks. Something which is also described on knights, but seldom shown on illustrations.
As you mention, knights are often depicted in a very stylized way; they all look the same. But when drawing infantry, the artist obviously has more of a free hand.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Banfi
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I generalized and I payed it 
let's think about infantry.... all Mac bible foot fighters are infantrymen? could not they be dismounted knight?
btw padding under mail it always seems a nice thing to use though probably it's not necessary - and possibile uncomfortable for movement- having strong thick padding on the legs as on the chest
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Brian: Mittelhochdeutsch ("middle high german"), 13th century. There are also sources from the 14th century for that.
| Quote: |
Why not? Hauberks have padded armour underneath, why not speculate? The Mac Bible shows a pic of a man getting ready for battle, pulling on padded cuisses. Yet you never see them on knights (always mail) - but you also never see them on infantry in the mac bible (whether wearing mail or just gambesons). So who does wear them? I can only guess it could be the knights under the mail chausses. The only other pic in there (as mentioned already) is goliath - which we know is based on biblical descriptions. But even so - he is depicted as a knight - does this make it knightly equipment? Who knows.
|
First of all, there is no single trace of an evidence for that. Normally that should be enough. There are rather complete descriptions of what a medieval knight wore as armour in the 13th (and 14th) century, maybe lacking some details in the construction of the latter, but I have never ever heard of some type of textile armour worn underneath maille chausses.
What's next, we see images of warriors putting on maille chausses. No paddinfg whatsoever underneath.
Then, we have textile cuisses. Those are meant to reduce the impact/energie of arrows and lance heads, so they are not able to penetrate the maille underneath anymore. Wearing an additional layer would not makemuch sense.
You may not see them very often in the Mac Bible, but after that all, that's ONE image source from the 13th century, 1250-60 paris, to be excact. There are lots of image sources where you can see them (worn outside of course)
Then, after all, you can't move.
And finally, if you look at any depiction of medieval knights wearing maille chausses, they look slim. Try achieving that look by wearing some padding underneath.
| Quote: | | If you're talking about my suggestion of lower-leg mail only - you still have the hauberk/saddle protecting the thighs and a polyn on the knee. There aren't any gaps really (as long as you're mounted). |
Mid-13th century you hardly have a polyn. If so, it is in gerneral a small bowl sewn on- yes- the cuisses
And the hauberk and aketon in general move to the sides if you sit on a horse.
Again- I see no evidence. I see no reason for that.
| Quote: |
That fits my definition of padded. |
Problem is, this construction does not padd. What's more, it es very irritating to call textile armour "padded", because most nowadays people hacking on each other with blunt sword simulators construct their textile armour exactly that way: they add "padding", to reduce the paint from the impact of the weapon. Mainly by putting some sort of woolen planket between two layers of linnen, or even by pushing raw wool into preswn tubes. However, no single surviving textile armour I know from is constructed that way, or even is soft enough to resemble something I would call "padded". In fact it is damn stiff and hard. Suitable to reduce even the shoot of an crossbow arrow, as tests by the royal armouries had shown.
Robert:
| Quote: |
agree with Brian for the padding underneath the chausses, my speculation is that in depictions the aketon isn't visible for stylistic reasons... all men are depicted with very slim bodies and it would be simply unnecessary: aketon under mail would be the base so it was necessary do show mail |
There is no stylistic reason I know from. I mean, in fact it is shown. Mainly in the 14th century, when the hauberk was shortened to the haubergion, but there are also some from tzhe 13th century, mainly effigies showing some traces of it at the wrist and neck. However, there are also sources not mentioning it, so it doesn't seem to had been obgligatory.
Which leads me to another reenactorism:
"maille needs some sort of padding underneath"- no, it doesn't!
| Quote: |
Infantry didn't wear mail so it was necessary to depict what they wore... mere aketons / gambesons |
Of course Infantry wore maille. Why should it not have so? There are lots of depictions as well as text sources. Only because you don't sit on a horse doesn't necessarily mean you are poor, cannot afford a maille hauberk or wear some.
That's also some sort of reenactorism. In the middle ages, there were no "rules" for equipment in the sense of "if you are this or that person yopu had to wear this and that, not more, and not less".
And, there are plently more sources then only images.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jens Boerner wrote: | @Brian: Mittelhochdeutsch ("middle high german"), 13th century. There are also sources from the 14th century for that.
Thanks for that.
| Quote: |
First of all, there is no single trace of an evidence for that. Normally that should be enough. |
That's true - but there are hints. The Mac Bible shows 100% that textile cuisses (I won't call them padded to avoid misunderstanding) existed at that time/place - yet you see nobody wearing them in battle. Is that not a hint that they could be worn underneath something? Again, I'm not saying that they categorically were - I just believe it's wrong to say that they categorically weren't.
| Quote: |
There are rather complete descriptions of what a medieval knight wore as armour in the 13th (and 14th) century, maybe lacking some details in the construction of the latter, but I have never ever heard of some type of textile armour worn underneath maille chausses. |
True - but all those that I'm aware of describe the wearing of textile cuisses over mail chausses. A practice that did not appear to occur before 1250 - and still seemed rare (In England and France) before 1300 judging by period tomb effigies and illuminations. If there are any dated around 1250 which describe arming in the way commonly depicted in the effigies and manuscripts (ie no textile cuisses visible) - please share them.
| Quote: |
Then, we have textile cuisses. Those are meant to reduce the impact/energie of arrows and lance heads, so they are not able to penetrate the maille underneath anymore. Wearing an additional layer would not makemuch sense.
You may not see them very often in the Mac Bible, but after that all, that's ONE image source from the 13th century, 1250-60 paris, to be excact. There are lots of image sources where you can see them (worn outside of course)
Then, after all, you can't move.
And finally, if you look at any depiction of medieval knights wearing maille chausses, they look slim. Try achieving that look by wearing some padding underneath. |
I agree that textile armour over mail is there to 'protect' the mail, however there is a lot of evidence for textile armour worn under mail. Mail does a very good job of spreading the force of an impact amongst the weave (in the same way modern kevlar does) - but it still needs to be cushioned underneath. Exactly when aketons started being worn under mail is unclear - but it is visible in late 13c carvings, yet generally not shown in the middle of the century (but is described in the kingsmirror). There are also specific quites around the turn of the 12c describing the layers of armour being punctured - and mentioning the aketon. I'm struggling to understand if you're arguing against the general practice of wearing textile armour under mail - or the suggestion of wearing it both under - and over at the same time.
You can move with textile armour over mail chausses - as long as there are less layers at the back of the knee and it's fitted correctly. You can't bend the knee as much as usual - but you can certainly walk and jog.
True, all medieval depictions look slim - even when looking at a full plate harness.. But it's difficult to say if it's artistic license or not. I do know that a 'shapely limb' was viewed as a noble attribute - so wouldn't the depictions accentuate that?
| Quote: | | If you're talking about my suggestion of lower-leg mail only - you still have the hauberk/saddle protecting the thighs and a polyn on the knee. There aren't any gaps really (as long as you're mounted). |
Mid-13th century you hardly have a polyn. If so, it is in gerneral a small bowl sewn on- yes- the cuisses
And the hauberk and aketon in general move to the sides if you sit on a horse.
Again- I see no evidence. I see no reason for that. |
I agree. That was a suggestion for Roberto with his reticence for getting a full leg harness. It was also based on his question for 1250-1300.
Now I've never ridden a horse in armour - but the hauberk alone seemed fine for 12c knights. it doesn't make sense to me that they would have carried all the extra weight of a hauberk coming past the knee if it was going to move to the sides to the extent that it's no longer an acceptable level of protection.
| Quote: |
"maille needs some sort of padding underneath"- no, it doesn't!
|
Depends on your definition of padding.. To me it's anything that pads/cusions an impact. It can mean a thick woollen tunic or stiff textile armour.
Mail does need something to spread the pressure from individual rings. Not the 'padded armour' you're so strongly arguing against - but you certainly wouldn't wear it against bare skin.
| Quote: |
Of course Infantry wore maille. Why should it not have so? There are lots of depictions as well as text sources. Only because you don't sit on a horse doesn't necessarily mean you are poor, cannot afford a maille hauberk or wear some.
That's also some sort of reenactorism. In the middle ages, there were no "rules" for equipment in the sense of "if you are this or that person yopu had to wear this and that, not more, and not less".
|
Agree - although there were the assizes of arms stipulating minimum armaments..
** Edited because I messed up the quoting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic