| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm with Brian and Elling, there is lots of evidence for aketons under mail. and as far as I know 0 evidence of multi-layered aketons till the 14th century, later at that.
There are loads of evidences for padding under mail and plate, starting from relatively common circulated secondary sources have dozens of primary examples of this, and places to look for more. In western Europe from Scotland to Italy we have clear evidence of this. The Earliest I have seen is from right around 1200 and William le Breton gives Richard I's full harness as a mail shirt, padded coat and under the mail an iron plate. We also have the record of William Despencer's death at Dunbar in 1337 when his mail shirt and aketon are pieced, the author even giving how the aketon was made. There are so many written texts including aketons and such under mail and plate that this argument seems rather pointless for this period. After 1450 this gets harder but before this and 1200 plenty of evidence. C. Blair and his section on the age of mail includes several very clear sources that clarify this.
Dan Howard on this very website in his mail article includes a plethora of examples. of the combination of textile and mail armour. So evidence. Yes. Likely hundreds of accounts with at least a few dozen or score that are very clear.
Now as to layered aketons pre-late 14th century. I'd like to see evidence of this and as a clear evidence of cotton padding in use of aketons and gambesons see the Paris Ordinance from 1311 states 3.1 lbs for use between the layers and the English Garderobe accounts of Edward II in 1320s states 2.3lbs between a layer of red kid skin and linen, specifically stated for use under mail and plate. I have looked all over for evidence of the elusive layered akton/gambeson and seen nothing. AS well the Clos de Gallie records and the Tower of London accounts include some fairly clear evidence for construction of these in this way but to my awareness you will have to go to the Nat. Archives of the UK or France to see these, though Dr. R. Storey wrote his PhD on the Tower records and this is more easy to get and he includes entire sections from these manuscripts. I have never seen a shred of evidence before the Charles gambeson, which is likely last quarter of the 14th. The only evidence I know of earlier is for a padded garments before this time, at least in Western and Central Europe.
I do not see a huge difference between a padded or multilayered contruction textile armour though. Both can easily serve the same purpose. We likely will find a type of combination used during the period something like that of the Black Prince's Jupon.
So if you have evidence that shows multi-layered aketons and such were in use that'd work but could not replace the evidence of padding used in guild and other accounts of the 13th and 14th.
RPM
|
|
  |
 |
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The kingsmirror (with all probablity) describes multi-layered cloth armour, as it describes armour made of "soft canvas". My theory is that in this context soft means tightly woven, thin fabric.
It might me intuitive to asume that coarse, thick fabric is preferable for armour. However, a cloth with a finer weave is harder to pierce, and less subject to fraying.
This leads back to the issue of cloth armour in reenactment: Many reenactors, as pointed out by Jens, use thick "sport padding" arming garments, to facilitate a rough fighting style. For performance, a thin, compact garment is more than sufficient.
However, people getting arming garments wrong does not mean that they where not used at all.
My current, soon worn out arming shirt was made using thin (ca 2 cm) channels, and rolled canvas filling. It is about 1 cm thick, which is plenty.
My next one will be layered, using thin canvas.
"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
|
|
  |
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Elling,
I agree they could have been in use but the question remains there is no evidence to my understanding for them until later. If the king's mirror is specific mention I'd love to have the reference. If it simply states soft canvas how can we be sure what part it is applied to? So far all I have found for under armour that has the clear construction it includes raw cotton, even the amounts in weight but I'd love to see more options. Still evidence it was in use in period cannot be discounted because of another system was in place. Some people use apple computers, I use PCs, does not mean one was not used.
I agree some people make super thick aketons for use under armour. One of my biggest issues is the really puffy springy types used, largely synthetic. But even with raw cotton between the outer and inner layers my under armour aketon is not super thick.
As for specific materials... I'd say from having seen a few of the remaining examples of likely textile armour that it may have been both or either. I imagine with a multilayered garment a mix would be beneficial.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Brian Robson:
| Quote: |
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. |
That argument seems odd to me. By that you can also argue 12th century knight didn't need plate, so plate isn't necessary also in the 15th century. Of course 12th century knights knew maille chausses- you can even see them in the 11th century on the all-famous carpet in bayeux  However, obviously, the aspects of military strategy changed somewhere between that and the 14th century, for that full maille chausses were needed and by then worn more often. And obviously by the 14th century it started not to be enough anymore, because they added plates....
| Quote: |
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. |
No. You can war maille- not on by skin, of course- but on some thin textile. You can see that in loads of images, where obviously NO textile armour of some sort was worn underneath. As far as I know in this boards there are already threads mentioning some of those images. They spread from the very early occurances of maille until the general usage of plate.
@Randall Moffett:
| Quote: |
I'm with Brian and Elling, there is lots of evidence for aketons under mail. and as far as I know 0 evidence of multi-layered aketons till the 14th century, later at that. |
I did not say there are no evidences for aketons underneath maille (of course there are, I would not mention the construction of those if I would deny them...), but there are also lots of evidences of maille worn without any aketon underneath.
And, as for quilted textile armour with cotton filling- there is for instance the sleeve of saint martin, as far as surviving examples are concerned, dating to the 13th century, as well as text sources, for instance the Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris in 1298.
| Quote: |
I have never seen a shred of evidence before the Charles gambeson, which is likely last quarter of the 14th. The only evidence I know of earlier is for a padded garments before this time, at least in Western and Central Europe. |
You mean the jupon, I presume? Well, the jupon of the blance prince for instance, since it is dated earlier. The royal wardrobe accounts, dating to 1342, for instance, listing the exact ammount of textiles used for creating aketons for the king of england. You even mention the paris ordiances yourself, so what is the point?
| Quote: |
So if you have evidence that shows multi-layered aketons and such were in use that'd work but could not replace the evidence of padding used in guild and other accounts of the 13th and 14th. |
Erm, you haven't looked closer at the jupon of the black prince, the pourpoint of charles de blois (being civil, I know) and the jupon in chartes, do you? They bear all nearly the same construciton: cotton wool layers between layers of linnen and silk (and velvet etc.). As I have mentioned. I'm not sure what you are argueing against here?
@Elling:
| Quote: |
However, people getting arming garments wrong does not mean that they where not used at all. |
Well, yes, if you have evidences for a soft textile armour? All, really all surviving, quilted textile armour (as well as civil garments) are quite stiff. Even the pourpount of charles de blois is quite stiff, at least at the body areas not "padded" for the sense of makeing the chest look more full. The sleeves are thinner, and the belly is quite stiff. Of course nowadays with restauration it lacks some of it original features. You can compare that for instance to the lubeck and stendal textile armour.
Again, as a summary, my points:
-The main sources, especially the surviving textile armour and quilted garments point to cotton wool (or sheep wool, the jupon from portugal seems to have been made with that, which surprises me a little concerning the availability there).
-Textile armour, especially made with cotton wool, as rather rigid. Not a soft winter jacket, like most reenactor solutions for blunt sword hacking.
-There are (of course) sources for textile armour worn underneath maille. But there are also evidences for the lack of such. And before the 12th century it becomes less and less common in sources. Most early middle age reenactors refer to the same, very rough sources concerning a "something" worn as an armour, combining it with maille. So the logic "you need padding (which isn't the same as textile armour) for the weapon impact" doesn't work. For a number of reasons.
-You don't need textile armour underneath late gothic armour. You will find a hard time finding evidences for the usage underneath a 1470s german gothic harness.
-There are no evidences (at least I know of none) for a textile armour worn underneath maille chausses. Worn upon it, yes, the "senftenier" or in modern words "padded (buarg!) chausses" - textile armour, rigid, effective against arrows, points etc.- no soft layers.
-There are evidences for maille chausses (îsenhosen), of course. Not for maille stockings ending at the knee. It would not make any sense anyway, if you do not combine it with something better then only textile armour at the upper leg.
Armour for a full armoured knight, in 1250-1300, consists up to my knowlegde, from:
- linnen or silk shirt ("chemise", "hemdelin")
- linnen or silk underpants/breeches "bruch"
- sturdy chausses ("hozen"), generally from wool, tied with laces to the breeches
- maille chausses ("îsenhozen"), tied with the "lendenierstrik", a lace(?) to the "hufenier", some sort of kidney belt(?), quilted. The maille chausses are tied in some area, some 12th century sources show the lace on the inside of the leg, presumingly some were tied in the back. Of shoes were worn underneath, or were integral, is a little spekulative, some maille chausses on statues show leather soles
- quilted upper leg defenses ("senftenier"), also tied to the "hufenier". Sometimes with a leather or steel disk sewn into the knee.
- generally an aketon, ("wambis") normally made from linnen, frustian and/or silk, filled with cotton wool or something similar, in case of a "good" one I would say, from the inside to the outside: linnen, cotton wool, linnen, silk. Alternativly made from wool felt (not woolen blankets!). Generally with a seperate beck defense ("koller", "gollier") in the same manner, tied in the back.
- maille shirt "hauberk", generally with integral mittens, lined with leather, with a slit in the hand inside, to slip through, often also integral maille coid, sometimes also seperate
-a steel skull cap, at least in the late 13th century, generally worn underneath the maille coif, sometimes on the outside.
-Possibly staring from the early 13th century more and more often some sort of iron torso protection (mayer sometimes also leather), at least from the mid-13th century on some sort of coat of plates, or the predecessor ("plâten")
-heraldic surcot, before the late 13th century generally uni-coloured. Sometimes combined with the coat of plates, which means, it as a longer and more rich outer shell.
- the great helmet of course.
Of course there are variations.
A very nice reconstruction of that combinated is made by andi bichler, see hhttp://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio/ritter.htm
Somewhere in the time frame between 1280 and 1330 other elements like seperate knee caps, ellbow defenses, an aketon with frontal opening, lacing of the lower arms and such appear, always depending on the different times of armour addtions worn, and the regional tactis. In germany for instance the coat of plates seems to have apeared earlier, while leg and arm defense additions took longer.
|
|
  |
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jens Boerner wrote: | @Brian Robson:
| Quote: |
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. |
That argument seems odd to me. By that you can also argue 12th century knight didn't need plate, so plate isn't necessary also in the 15th century. Of course 12th century knights knew maille chausses- you can even see them in the 11th century on the all-famous carpet in bayeux However, obviously, the aspects of military strategy changed somewhere between that and the 14th century, for that full maille chausses were needed and by then worn more often. And obviously by the 14th century it started not to be enough anymore, because they added plates....
|
I struggle to make sense of what you are saying here. Yes, 12c knights knew mail chausses - but they were by no means universal - even in the latter half of c12, there are more images showing knights without them than with - and longer hauberks to go with that. It's also a common re-enactorism to have mail that doesn't flare out below the belt (ie is missing gores). Also if you look carefully at the few mac bible images where you see people falling from horses etc. you can see the mail there has a very small slit at the front indicating a fullness in the mail 'skirt' Surely this would cover the legs while mounted? Also take into account the very low sturrups and straight-legged posture used in medieval times as opposed to by modern riders.
As to what changed, I suspect (at least in England), the hightening of social status of the knight came with a certain level of elan for the mounted warrior. The result was a mounted force who knew they were special because they were mounted - therefore did not like fighting on foot. The 12c knight was much more likely (and often did) fight on foot just as much as on horseback. One driving difference in armour between c12 and c13 is that c12 is more general purpose, but 13c is more specialised for mounted combat. (Hence the vision-impairing (at small-arms range) great-helms, movement impairing mail chausses and smaller heater which could be moved to either side of the horse) .
| Quote: |
No. You can war maille- not on by skin, of course- but on some thin textile. You can see that in loads of images, where obviously NO textile armour of some sort was worn underneath. As far as I know in this boards there are already threads mentioning some of those images. They spread from the very early occurances of maille until the general usage of plate. |
How do you know it's a thin textile from images? The most common clothing material was wool - which would have gone over a layer of linen - and the woollen garments would have had different weaves/thicknesses based on the time of year. I agree that several sources show no textile armour under mail in 13c - but there is also one which appears to show a quilted pattern on the inside of a hauberk hinting that textile armour could actually have been built into the mail at some point (although the image is so badly detaild, there is no way of knowing). I'm sure if I was going to a 13c battle with no aketon, I'd be wearing my thicker tunic (or tunics) underneath the mail.
| Quote: |
Armour for a full armoured knight, in 1250-1300, consists up to my knowlegde, from:
.
. |
I absolutely agree (and I don't think anyone is disputing this) - but you yourself said in an earlier post that there were no 'rules' for equipment. Yet you seem unwilling to acknowledge the possibilities of any variation here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: |
I struggle to make sense of what you are saying here. Yes, 12c knights knew mail chausses - but they were by no means universal - even in the latter half of c12, there are more images showing knights without them than with - and longer hauberks to go with that. It's also a common re-enactorism to have mail that doesn't flare out below the belt (ie is missing gores). Also if you look carefully at the few mac bible images where you see people falling from horses etc. you can see the mail there has a very small slit at the front indicating a fullness in the mail 'skirt' Surely this would cover the legs while mounted? Also take into account the very low sturrups and straight-legged posture used in medieval times as opposed to by modern riders. |
You cannot honesty try to conclude from the fact that in the 12th and early 13th century maille chausses were not used by everybody, that there were maille stockings ending at the knee? The is a circle-conclusion.
All I'm saying is, obiously they had their reasons, and from that you know from the development of leg armour, is, that it way improved because it was exposed to shooting weapons. This is the major advance in weapon history in those years.
| Quote: |
As to what changed, I suspect (at least in England), the hightening of social status of the knight came with a certain level of elan for the mounted warrior. The result was a mounted force who knew they were special because they were mounted - therefore did not like fighting on foot. |
Which is absolutly not true since through the whole history knights always also fight on foot. Of course it is not what made their identity, and often enough, by choosing the wrong tactics, it had catastrophic results.
| Quote: |
The 12c knight was much more likely (and often did) fight on foot just as much as on horseback. One driving difference in armour between c12 and c13 is that c12 is more general purpose, but 13c is more specialised for mounted combat. (Hence the vision-impairing (at small-arms range) great-helms, movement impairing mail chausses and smaller heater which could be moved to either side of the horse) . |
If this concusion was right, then in the 14th century knights would have abondoned their leg armour. Which was obviously not the case.
| Quote: |
How do you know it's a thin textile from images? The most common clothing material was wool - which would have gone over a layer of linen - and the woollen garments would have had different weaves/thicknesses based on the time of year.
|
Thin = Some normal civil garment, not a textile armour. I'm not making any real statement about the thickness here- just wanting to point out that they wore also normal garments underneath maille.
And that they did you can see from various text sources and images already mentioned here.
And not only the all-famous- everybody-citates-it-just-for-france-1254+x Maciejowski-bible.
| Quote: |
I agree that several sources show no textile armour under mail in 13c - but there is also one which appears to show a quilted pattern on the inside of a hauberk hinting that textile armour could actually have been built into the mail at some point (although the image is so badly detaild, there is no way of knowing). I'm sure if I was going to a 13c battle with no aketon, I'd be wearing my thicker tunic (or tunics) underneath the mail. |
Again: I have never said, that in the 13th century nobody has worn textile armourn underneath maille. Obviously this is not true, we have loads of text sources for that. I even citated such myself! What I do say, that it is by far not such a rule as reenactors nowadays tend to make from it: "no maille without padding": this is not true. You can wear maille without "padding", without (better) "textile armour"- and they did.
| Quote: |
I absolutely agree (and I don't think anyone is disputing this) - but you yourself said in an earlier post that there were no 'rules' for equipment. Yet you seem unwilling to acknowledge the possibilities of any variation here. |
Err, no? Would you have citated me fully you would see yourself- I mentioned that there are of course variations? But not of the kind "padding underneath maille chausses" or "half-leg maille stockins".
Those are reenactorisms, I am absolutly sure, as long as anyone shows me an absolute clear evidence for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going to try and make this my last post because it feels like we're going around in circles.
| Jens Boerner wrote: |
You cannot honesty try to conclude from the fact that in the 12th and early 13th century maille chausses were not used by everybody, that there were maille stockings ending at the knee? The is a circle-conclusion.
All I'm saying is, obiously they had their reasons, and from that you know from the development of leg armour, is, that it way improved because it was exposed to shooting weapons. This is the major advance in weapon history in those years. |
I have never said that there were - only suggested it as an option for a re-enactor who does not want to carry the weight of a full leg harness.! What I have said is that there is no evidence showing that they weren't in use - but I had forgotton that the kingmirror describes full mail chausses with gamboised cuisses and wasn't aware of your German source. I stopped talking about these many, many pages ago!
I'm simply countering your view that the hauberk was not sufficient defence for the thighs on mounted men.
| Quote: |
Which is absolutly not true since through the whole history knights always also fight on foot. Of course it is not what made their identity, and often enough, by choosing the wrong tactics, it had catastrophic results. |
If you have an English example of that in the 13c in a non-siege situation, I'd be very interested to hear it.
| Quote: |
If this concusion was right, then in the 14th century knights would have abondoned their leg armour. Which was obviously not the case. |
You're looking at it in isolation. The shield is part of the equation - being longer giving adequate leg protection in shield-walls. 14c moved much more towards 2-handed pole-weapons which can both destroy shields and reach legs much more easily. The whole arms/armour race had simply moved on
| Quote: |
Thin = Some normal civil garment, not a textile armour. I'm not making any real statement about the thickness here- just wanting to point out that they wore also normal garments underneath maille.
And that they did you can see from various text sources and images already mentioned here.
And not only the all-famous- everybody-citates-it-just-for-france-1254+x Maciejowski-bible. |
So we're in agreement there then. It is preferable to have some small cusioning effect behind the mail - whether from a civil garment or textile armour.
| Quote: |
Again: I have never said, that in the 13th century nobody has worn textile armourn underneath maille. Obviously this is not true, we have loads of text sources for that. I even citated such myself! What I do say, that it is by far not such a rule as reenactors nowadays tend to make from it: "no maille without padding": this is not true. You can wear maille without "padding", without (better) "textile armour"- and they did. |
But you did categorically deny that they did not wear textile armour under mail chausses. That's the initial (and still outstanding) disagreement.
My experience of re-enactors isn't 'no mail without padding' so much as 'no combat without a gambeson' it's a safety consideration.
| Quote: |
Err, no? Would you have citated me fully you would see yourself- I mentioned that there are of course variations? But not of the kind "padding underneath maille chausses" or "half-leg maille stockins".
Those are reenactorisms, I am absolutly sure, as long as anyone shows me an absolute clear evidence for that. |
You seem fixated with half-leg stockings - which I've already responded to. But textile armour under mail chausses? - there is no clear evidence, only hints which I have already given you. Now show me clear evidence that it did not happen. Not clear evidence that other methods were used - we already know aboput those - clear evidence that this did not happen.
I'm only trying to say that there isn't a clear answer on it. I'm not particularly trying to argue for the practice, I just want to see solid evidence either way - but I am arguing against your hard view that it categorically did not happen..
And no, they are not re-enactorisms. Those are things that are generally accepted as 'true' and are commonly done amongst re-enactors - but are wrong.
I'm not aware of any re-enactors who wear textile cuisses under mail chausses. Especially since most re-enactors would more likely want to show that they are wearing gamboised cuisses and so specifically wear them over the mail chausses!
Last edited by Brian Robson on Wed 22 Feb, 2012 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: |
You're looking at it in isolation. The shield is part of the equation - being longer giving adequate leg protection in shield-walls. 14c moved much more towards 2-handed pole-weapons which can both destroy shields and reach legs much more easily. The whole arms/armour race had simply moved on |
Otherwise arround. The shield was reduced in size because the leg was armopured better. And the sword was not the driving weapon for armour development, especially not for the leg armour! A two handed sword gives you more range, but still an attack to the lower openings is only in very few cases a good option. However, with the crossbow being more and more strong, and especially the increasing usage of bows in conflicts in wales, england and france you see first the usage of additional protection there. Unlike in germany, where bows were not very common; and hence you have a much slower development of the protection of arms and legs.
| Quote: |
So we're in agreement there then. It is preferable to have some small cusioning effect behind the mail - whether from a civil garment or textile armour. |
No. The main reason for using textile armour is NOT the cusioning. You cannot cusion your arms really against a hard blow of some weapon hitting it with full force while wearing maille and stil being able to move. What you can do is to provide addtional protection against arrows and the points of swords, lances, and other weapons. Of course such a garment also has the effect of spreading the impact energie of such a blow- but this is more a side effect. You can heal broken bones in the middle ages, but with open wounds you do have a problem quite often. And a piercing of maille by an arrow or bolt, which then driving a hole in your chest is much more a problem to come by.
| Quote: |
But you did categorically deny that they did not wear textile armour under mail chausses. That's the initial (and still outstanding) disagreement.
My experience of re-enactors isn't 'no mail without padding' so much as 'no combat without a gambeson' it's a safety consideration. |
Yes, and I still deny it. There is no evidences, not a single trace, and it simply does not make sense. The idea of cusioning is a reenactorism. I never have come across any source for that idea in the middle ages, apart from tournament- where blunt weapons were used. As for the legs and darts and bolts, you have the senftenier.
| Quote: |
You seem fixated with half-leg stockings - but textile armour under mail chausses - there is no clear evidence - only hints which I have already given you. Now show me clear evidence that it did not happen. Not clear evidence that other methods were used - clear evidence that this did not happen. |
Is see not even a hint there. You only have one image from one pictoral sources, 1250s france.
| Quote: |
I'm not aware of any re-enactors who wear textile cuisses under mail chausses. Especially since most re-enactors would more likely want to show that they are wearing gamboised cuisses and so specifically wear them over the mail chausses! |
I am, unfortunatly And I already had that discussion many times. All causes by the same misconception, in my opinion: textile armour is not a padding. It as a vital part of the armour protecting you against piercing attacks and, in some cases, cuts. The cusioning is only a side-effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Phew! getting there!
I totally agree that textile armour is as much there to stop piercing attacks - but I think you do underestimate the cusioning effect (or maybe my terminology isn't very accurate). I don't believe it is just a side-effect as opposed to necessary property.
My Aketon is fairly thin (around 4mm), and quite stiff, made with multiple layers of linen with a layer of woolen cloth inside. It has a huge effect on the impact of blunt strikes when worn under mail. It doesn't 'cushion' strictly speaking - but it make the pressure from individual mail rings spread over a wider area which then depresses slightly.
| Quote: | Otherwise arround. The shield was reduced in size because the leg was armopured better. And the sword was not the driving weapon for armour development, especially not for the leg armour! A two handed sword gives you more range, but still an attack to the lower openings is only in very few cases a good option. However, with the crossbow being more and more strong, and especially the increasing usage of bows in conflicts in wales, england and france you see first the usage of additional protection there. Unlike in germany, where bows were not very common; and hence you have a much slower development of the protection of arms and legs.
|
I'm honsestly confused at what you're arguing against here. Nobody can say for definate whether the shield got smaller because there was more leg armour - all you can say is that it happened around the same time.
Also I never said that a sword was the driving weapon in armour development.
What you do commonly see in the mac bible - and other 13c sources are knights wearing mail chausses, and infantry (in either hauberks or gambesons) with no leg armour. You also see knights using heaters, and infantry (rarely, I agree - it's usually pole-weapons) using old-style flat-topped kite shields. You also never see infantry with great-helms and rarely see cavalry with kettle-hats. More than anything, that speaks to me of a specialisation of armour for mounted/foot combat - a difference that you don't see in c12. I could add my speculations as to why each item is better/more practical on foot or mounted - but I want to keep the post fairly short.
I do agree that bows/crossbows have impacted armour development though. You wouldn't believe how often you get an arrow in the foot at reenactments!
On the re-enactorisms thing, sadly in England, there arn't many groups doing 13c and the common re-enactorism there is to dress as a knight but without the mail chausses!
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jens,
I think largely we are in agreement here Jens. I was not arguing against a mixed composition of layers only that I know of now evidence for simple layers of linen or canvas for example, without wool or cotton. I have thought for some time that the idea that the puffy type coats used often lack the body they should have. For the most part I see this with synthetic padding used inside as unlike cotton or wool it does not 'matt' down.
As for cotton. We have in the import records for London that include evidence from the 1320s on of cotton being imported raw for use in both aketons and gambesons. I have no problem with people using either of these. A few years ago I read a book on Merchants in Southampton and one of the footnotes included an article on the cotton industry that had a few examples of cotton used in textile armour ordinances that were useful.
Elling,
Soft canvas could also be linen instead of hemp?
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: |
I totally agree that textile armour is as much there to stop piercing attacks - but I think you do underestimate the cusioning effect (or maybe my terminology isn't very accurate). I don't believe it is just a side-effect as opposed to necessary property.
My Aketon is fairly thin (around 4mm), and quite stiff, made with multiple layers of linen with a layer of woolen cloth inside. It has a huge effect on the impact of blunt strikes when worn under mail. It doesn't 'cushion' strictly speaking - but it make the pressure from individual mail rings spread over a wider area which then depresses slightly.
|
Agree. However, my main point simply is, that the "cusioning" is not the primary intended effect. No matter if it was a side effect, secondary effect- the main thing is, textile _armour_ should fullfill this function in the first place- it should hinder the wearer from egtting hurt by weapons used in the middle ages- which were sharp and pointy - and not by modern simulators. Of course, I mean, plate armour also hinders you from getting hurt if you hack onto it. However, nobody would have done so in the middle ages. Which is another point. Of course when hit by the blow of a sword wearing maille with an aketon underneath you will be happy of everything that saves you from broken bones or anything else; but because it simply doesn't make much sense to use your weapon in a way it would not help you to win the fight, and especially not if you put it in danger to break (which a sharp, historical sword does possibly, if you keep hacking on armour with it), with is not your primary concern.
And this is why I say: apart from the lack of evidences, this is way no argument for some kind of "padding" whatsoever underneath maille chausses.
| Quote: | | I'm honsestly confused at what you're arguing against here. Nobody can say for definate whether the shield got smaller because there was more leg armour - all you can say is that it happened around the same time. |
True. But you can a have a locical queue, and a not-so-logical
| Quote: | | Also I never said that a sword was the driving weapon in armour development. |
No, but you stated that the usage of two-handed weapons influenced it. Since the only two-handed weapon which developed during the 13th century is the long sword, I'm not sure what you then meant by that?
| Quote: |
What you do commonly see in the mac bible - and other 13c sources are knights wearing mail chausses, and infantry (in either hauberks or gambesons) with no leg armour. |
Of course. Because your leg is more exposed when sitting on a horse.
| Quote: |
You also see knights using heaters, and infantry (rarely, I agree - it's usually pole-weapons) using old-style flat-topped kite shields. You also never see infantry with great-helms and rarely see cavalry with kettle-hats. More than anything, that speaks to me of a specialisation of armour for mounted/foot combat - a difference that you don't see in c12. I could add my speculations as to why each item is better/more practical on foot or mounted - but I want to keep the post fairly short.
|
I would draw conclusions from a manuscript, especially fomr one single one. Other contemporary ones show different helmets. There is a vivid discussion if for instance the nose guard helmets are smbolic for marking those fighters as old.fashioned. You never know, after all, it's a bible.
| Quote: |
On the re-enactorisms thing, sadly in England, there arn't many groups doing 13c and the common re-enactorism there is to dress as a knight but without the mail chausses! |
Well, here in germany we have everything. And I mean by that, all kinds fo times, and qualities. Which means, you also have lots of rubbish. And while having such a huge scene, we also have many many common misbelives. One of those, and I may have noticed I'm very keen in fighting that- is in my opinion the winter-jacket-.style "gambeson".
It has come to the point I cannot even hear the word "gambeson". Or read it.
Most german groups from the 10th to the 15th century mean by that two woolen blankets between two layers if linnen.
Which they also wear underneath late gothic plate (or what they consider as that). Having the shape of a barrel.
A large barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, but you stated that the usage of two-handed weapons influenced it. Since the only two-handed weapon which developed during the 13th century is the long sword, I'm not sure what you then meant by that? |
2-handed pole-weapons. ie longer, 2-handed spears as opposed to the more commonly used 1-h spear+shield from 12c, Glaives etc. All of which are 6' or more long making it easier to target legs. More and more you see infantry without shields in favour of long 2-handed weapons
| Quote: |
Of course. Because your leg is more exposed when sitting on a horse. |
But that's what I was saying! - Mail chausses were more of a cavalry armour than infantry.
You also see knights using heaters, and infantry (rarely, I agree - it's usually pole-weapons) using old-style flat-topped kite shields. You also never see infantry with great-helms and rarely see cavalry with kettle-hats. More than anything, that speaks to me of a specialisation of armour for mounted/foot combat - a difference that you don't see in c12. I could add my speculations as to why each item is better/more practical on foot or mounted - but I want to keep the post fairly short.
| Quote: |
I would draw conclusions from a manuscript, especially fomr one single one. Other contemporary ones show different helmets. There is a vivid discussion if for instance the nose guard helmets are smbolic for marking those fighters as old.fashioned. You never know, after all, it's a bible.
|
I am taking from several sources. - Trinity Apocolypse, Chronica majora, Lives of two Offas, various tomb effigies, kingsmirror etc. Only the Mac bible is often quoted due to it's level of detail and the sheer amount of images. Yes, noseguards are symbolic of looking old-fashioned -but great-helms with narrow occulars are definately made for combat at lance-point distance and defence vs direct frontal strikes (spears/lances/crossbows). Kettle-hats with their brims are made to protect vs attacks from above - cavalry, longer-ranged bowshots etc.
| Quote: |
Most german groups from the 10th to the 15th century mean by that two woolen blankets between two layers if linnen.
Which they also wear underneath late gothic plate (or what they consider as that). Having the shape of a barrel.
A large barrel. |
The thing is, re-enactments are not real combat and are just a hobby - so equipment has to be built in such a way that you can still go to work on Monday. There has to be a balance betwen the combat looking realistic (ie blows landing with a realistic level of force vs being obviously pulled) - which can only be achieved with a level of cushioning. As long as they look right overall and the re-enactors are honest with the public when describing stuff, then it's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens Boerner
Location: Erlangen, Germany Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Robson wrote: |
2-handed pole-weapons. ie longer, 2-handed spears as opposed to the more commonly used 1-h spear+shield from 12c, Glaives etc. All of which are 6' or more long making it easier to target legs. More and more you see infantry without shields in favour of long 2-handed weapons
|
Uhm, you have two-handed spears since pre-medieval times in the european history, and also two-handed axes were quite common, especially in france( "hache danoise"-> danish axe). Also, if this correlation would be true, then you should have had a massiv increase in leg armouring during the 15th century, with an explosion of the usage of different staff weapons. The surviving fighting techniques normally also do not aim mainly for the legs, since you still have the problem, since you always need more distance then for a high attack. I think it's highly doubtable that staff weapons had an significant influence on leg armour. It's more that the increasing body armour made shields absolete.
| Quote: |
But that's what I was saying! - Mail chausses were more of a cavalry armour than infantry.
You also see knights using heaters, and infantry (rarely, I agree - it's usually pole-weapons) using old-style flat-topped kite shields. You also never see infantry with great-helms and rarely see cavalry with kettle-hats. |
As for the great helmets- fully agree. Especially for those with small eyeslits- they do not make any sense for fighting on foot. As for the kettle hats- disagreement. See (of course, 14th century) the famous romance of alexander- there are of course other examples, but there are really loads of kettle hats worn by riders here.
| Quote: |
More than anything, that speaks to me of a specialisation of armour for mounted/foot combat - a difference that you don't see in c12. I could add my speculations as to why each item is better/more practical on foot or mounted - but I want to keep the post fairly short. |
Ok, generally, I agree with that. The more common mounted warfare was, the more specialized developments the weaoponry and armour saw.
| Quote: | | I am taking from several sources. -[...] - cavalry, longer-ranged bowshots etc. |
I agree with that 
| Quote: |
The thing is, re-enactments are not real combat and are just a hobby - so equipment has to be built in such a way that you can still go to work on Monday. There has to be a balance betwen the combat looking realistic (ie blows landing with a realistic level of force vs being obviously pulled) - which can only be achieved with a level of cushioning. As long as they look right overall and the re-enactors are honest with the public when describing stuff, then it's fine. |
Hm. Generally I would agree with that, but I don't think you have to change the way armour worked in the time frame you portrait to make it work for you. You simply either should change your fighting style, or chech the quality of your armour. I mean, a textile armour from the middle ages was save enough to prevent medieval fighters from being killed. It should work for a modern spare-time-hero slashing with blunt weapons also. Thinking, that u'll be able to improve something that your ancestors, whose lives depended on it, developed within centuries is a little egomanic I think most people aiming for such solutions and then trying to find historical reasons for that simply wanna defend their lazyness. It's easier to clash a military blanket between two pieces of linnen, then to make a sturdy cotton wool aketon, and it is easier to use some thick under-chausses for maille (of the person even uses those, most people don't, because it has no benefit when you use blunt weapons) then to learn to defend your lower openings and show the opponent that higher openings need less distance to attack....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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