Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Gamberson: The underrated armour? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Joined: 14 Mar 2015

Posts: 199

PostPosted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 6:11 pm    Post subject: Gamberson: The underrated armour?         Reply with quote

I watched an "I am Shad"'s video that deals with padded armor and how undervalued they are. One of the indicated links showed a warbow's testing (yeah, here we go again) against a pig carcass covered with a tough-like gamberson. You can see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

Although it is a huge power longbow, the gamberson stopped the arrow. I got to discuss it with a friend of mine who practices archery with longbows, and he seemed pretty negative about the test's accuracy. I would like to hear from you: such powerfull longbow would have similar results to that test? If yes, what is the secret to this efficiency? I'm just talking about gambeson here, though maybe I will discuss if the set of mail+paddings would be virtually impenetrable to longbows that did not use bodkin arrows.

I came also to watch some tests that ThegnThrand made with a type XIII sword and a bronze spear and would like the opinion of you about the accuracy of results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_yObDjXVQ&feature=youtu.be
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 2,990

PostPosted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 11:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The most common threat on the battlefield was from spears and arrows. All armours were specifically designed to stop these weapons - including cloth and leather ones.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,224

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 12:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The test which Mike Loades narrates is against a jack. Jacks of 10-12 layers (some with waxed fabric) were designed to be worn over mail. Jacks worn as a sole defense are composed of 25-30 layers of fabric, and sometimes a cover of deer skin.

1471 Ordonnance of Charles the Bold
L’archer sera monté sur un cheval de 10 écus au moins, habillé d’une jaque à haut collet tenant lieu de gorgerin, avec bonnes manches; il portera une cotte de mailles ou paletot de haubergerie dessous cette jaque qui sera de 12 toiles au moins dont 3 de toile cirée et 9 de toile commune.

The archer shall be mounted on a horse worth at least 10 écus, wearing a jack with high collar in place of a gorget, with good sleeves; he will wear a coat of mail or paletot of mail-work below this jack which will be of 12 cloths, at least 3 of which will be waxed cloth and 9 of common cloth.


A Later Ordonnance of Charles the Bold:
La jaque qui couvre le paletot de haubergerie sera de 10 toiles (au lieu de 12), ils joindront à leur armure, demi avant-bras à petites gardes et manches d’acier pendant jusqu’au coude, assez larges pour ne point les gêner lorsqu’ils tireront.

The jack which covers the paletot of mail-work will be of 10 cloths (instead of 12), it's joined with their armor, half vambraces with small guards and steel (mail) sleeves hanging to the elbow, wide enough not to disturb the draw.


Gambesons are constructed differently, being "stuffed with fluff", yet the records tell us that, when worn with mail, it was also effective against arrows. There's an old issue of Military Illustrated, part 2 of a longbow article, where historical bodkins fired against historical patches of mail usually broke rings and penetrated, but if the point missed the ring and hit the padded armor beneath, it was observed to "bounce off". I'll have to see if I still have the issue at home for a citation.

Chronicon Colmariense, 1298:
Armati reputabantur, qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream, id est vestem ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.

Thus considered armed, that he had an iron helmet on his head, and his gambeson, that is, a thick tunic out of linen and tow, or old rags sewn together, and above an iron shirt, that is a garment woven together of iron rings, through which no man was able to wound with the arrows of bows.


Report of England made by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557:
...ma l' uso più frequente è di alcuni giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi alti due dita e più riparo tenuto sicurissimo contro la furia delle freccie.

...but the most frequently used armor is some jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers, and considered very safe shelter against the fury of the arrows.


Almost 260 years between those two citations, but the value of textile armor doesn't seem to have diminished.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,589

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 5:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shad's gambeson is pretty thin and the quilting isn't very dense -- it could work reasonably well underneath (or over) a mail hauberk, but he seems to mistakenly treat it as standalone armour.

I'd probably disagree with Mike Loades calling the gambeson "light" too. Sure, it's light when it's just a small patch like that. made into a garment that covers the whole torso, it'd be heavier than a one-piece iron or steel cuirass with similar coverage.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 571

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 6:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would hardly say that it is underrated.

Duarte Lopés looking back on his battles in Angola which he won despite bad odds and low number of men:

Quote:
I reply that it might easily happen, seeing that, the blacks wore no clothing, had no defensive weapons and only bows and daggers as offensive ones. Whereas our small numbers of men were well covered with quilted jerkins lined with
cotton, and firmly double-sewn, which protected their arms and reached down to the knees. Their heads are covered with caps of this same material, which are proof against arrows and daggers… One cavalry soldier is equal to a hundred blacks,
who are greatly afraid of horsemen and, above all, of those who fire the arquebuses and artillery pieces, which cause them extreme terror.


https://books.google.nl/books?id=fsoWg1yXKQUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=Duarte+Lop%C3%A9s+angola+quilted&source=bl&ots=7GA61zPyAK&sig=unNd_aclkIIaNuWAqtcokHT9y2w&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCpqjM66TMAhVKLZoKHWQlDUIQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=Duarte%20Lop%C3%A9s%20angola%20quilted&f=false
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:44 am    Post subject: Re: Gamberson: The underrated armour?         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
I got to discuss it with a friend of mine who practices archery with longbows, and he seemed pretty negative about the test's accuracy.


Of course he was negative, he is an archer enthusiast Razz

Every single archer I showed that video to got irrationally angry.

The truth is, the archer shooting the gambeson in that video is Mark Stretton, one of the most famous longbow archers in the world today(he is the 200lbs longbow guy) and the test itself was done under the guidance of the English Warbow Society.

I also found this testing done for another documentary, again ol' Mike Loades with the English Warbow Society;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcbhc93Gfw&t=25m05s

The heavy warbows pierce the mail(ofc they did, they are shooting basically point blank), but again, failed to pierce the gambeson underneath.

However, the impact of the arrows would hurt like hell and wound(how much is the question).
Though, again, they are shooting at a far smaller distance than the vast majority of arrows would be launched from.

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Joined: 14 Mar 2015

Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 1:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
The test which Mike Loades narrates is against a jack. Jacks of 10-12 layers (some with waxed fabric) were designed to be worn over mail. Jacks worn as a sole defense are composed of 25-30 layers of fabric, and sometimes a cover of deer skin.


What is a Jack? When I looked on the subject on the internet, I found that it was a padded armour were they riveted square plates between two canvases, like an brigandine. Would it be this? Because I had also read in another topic in this forum that in the fifteenth century they began to create thicker gambersons with 20 to 30 layers of fabric which used to be hardened in boiling water or brine. Sometimes these also had "Jack Chains" to protect shoulders and elbows. These were called gambersons or jacques?

By the way, waxed fabric had any specific property to make the paddings harder?

Mart Shearer wrote:
1471 Ordonnance of Charles the Bold
L’archer sera monté sur un cheval de 10 écus au moins, habillé d’une jaque à haut collet tenant lieu de gorgerin, avec bonnes manches; il portera une cotte de mailles ou paletot de haubergerie dessous cette jaque qui sera de 12 toiles au moins dont 3 de toile cirée et 9 de toile commune.

The archer shall be mounted on a horse worth at least 10 écus, wearing a jack with high collar in place of a gorget, with good sleeves; he will wear a coat of mail or paletot of mail-work below this jack which will be of 12 cloths, at least 3 of which will be waxed cloth and 9 of common cloth.


They still wore mail armour at the end of the fifteenth century? This type of mail mentioned in this ordinance has sleeves? Short or long? Why wear the jack over the mail if it would be more useful under the mail?

Mart Shearer wrote:
Gambesons are constructed differently, being "stuffed with fluff", yet the records tell us that, when worn with mail, it was also effective against arrows.


Then they would be less efficient than Jacks? What kind of fluff they used to put beneath the thicker layers of fabric?
When Jack was invented and when he replaced gamberson?


Quote:
Report of England made by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557:
...ma l' uso più frequente è di alcuni giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi alti due dita e più riparo tenuto sicurissimo contro la furia delle freccie.

...but the most frequently used armor is some jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers, and considered very safe shelter against the fury of the arrows.


Jupon theoretically shouldn't be a modern term for the type of padding garment that knights wore over their armor in the fourteenth century?

------------------------------
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Shad's gambeson is pretty thin and the quilting isn't very dense -- it could work reasonably well underneath (or over) a mail hauberk, but he seems to mistakenly treat it as standalone armour.

I'd probably disagree with Mike Loades calling the gambeson "light" too. Sure, it's light when it's just a small patch like that. made into a garment that covers the whole torso, it'd be heavier than a one-piece iron or steel cuirass with similar coverage.


Really? So technically that piece of 3Kgs that Shad wore would not be anywhere near like to the weight of a soldier's sole gamberson armour? How could a piece of cloth would be almost as heavy as a piece of steel?
----------------------------
Pieter B. wrote:
I would hardly say that it is underrated.

Duarte Lopés looking back on his battles in Angola which he won despite bad odds and low number of men:

Quote:
I reply that it might easily happen, seeing that, the blacks wore no clothing, had no defensive weapons and only bows and daggers as offensive ones. Whereas our small numbers of men were well covered with quilted jerkins lined with
cotton, and firmly double-sewn, which protected their arms and reached down to the knees. Their heads are covered with caps of this same material, which are proof against arrows and daggers… One cavalry soldier is equal to a hundred blacks,
who are greatly afraid of horsemen and, above all, of those who fire the arquebuses and artillery pieces, which cause them extreme terror.


https://books.google.nl/books?id=fsoWg1yXKQUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=Duarte+Lop%C3%A9s+angola+quilted&source=bl&ots=7GA61zPyAK&sig=unNd_aclkIIaNuWAqtcokHT9y2w&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCpqjM66TMAhVKLZoKHWQlDUIQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=Duarte%20Lop%C3%A9s%20angola%20quilted&f=false


These quilted Jerkins were gambesons / jacques or the typical garment that was used in Europe at that time? If the latter, it seems to me much less thick than a military vest (if there were military Jerkins), it doesn't seem very suitable for a war. I found it strange that aren't any mention of cuirasses or three-quarter armour.

By the way, I can't see the content of the book you left at the end of your post
---------------------
Mario M. wrote:
I also found this testing done for another documentary, again ol' Mike Loades with the English Warbow Society;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcbhc93Gfw&t=25m05s

The heavy warbows pierce the mail(ofc they did, they are shooting basically point blank), but again, failed to pierce the gambeson underneath.


Relevant observation. Buy, even with plate+mail+light paddings still would result in such powerfull impact?
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 1:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Relevant observation. Buy, even with plate+mail+light paddings still would result in such powerfull impact?


Plate armor would absorb that impact nearly completely from my understanding.

Otherwise jousting would not have been a leisure activity back then;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s


Although that lance broke, there are videos of modern reenactors doing full contact(lance is solid) jousting for fun;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L8aGRfci5Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lECKF8Zpttc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVZgp-eQG8 (watch this one from start until the end, magnificent)


I would argue that if they can take a lance at those speeds(both horses at opposite gallop), an arrow will not really harm them through blunt trauma.

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
F. Rodel





Joined: 19 Mar 2011

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 2:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi, alti due dita e più,

Quote:
jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers,


This means joupons of canvas stuffed with several clothes, thick two fingers or more.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 2,990

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 5:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
I would argue that if they can take a lance at those speeds(both horses at opposite gallop), an arrow will not really harm them through blunt trauma.

Yep. You need firearms to deliver the energies required to inflict blunt trauma through armour.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,224

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
The test which Mike Loades narrates is against a jack. Jacks of 10-12 layers (some with waxed fabric) were designed to be worn over mail. Jacks worn as a sole defense are composed of 25-30 layers of fabric, and sometimes a cover of deer skin.


What is a Jack? When I looked on the subject on the internet, I found that it was a padded armour were they riveted square plates between two canvases, like an brigandine. Would it be this? Because I had also read in another topic in this forum that in the fifteenth century they began to create thicker gambersons with 20 to 30 layers of fabric which used to be hardened in boiling water or brine. Sometimes these also had "Jack Chains" to protect shoulders and elbows. These were called gambersons or jacques?

By the way, waxed fabric had any specific property to make the paddings harder?


Jack or Jacques is a name which simply denotes "everyman" and his armor. The armor of the commoners. There are references to jacks of plate, where small plates are sewn between the fabric, or jacks stuffed with mail, etc. Edmund Spenser says that Irish Jackes (which the Irish called a cotun) is the same as the one used by Chaucer's knight (called a jupon, gypon by Chaucer), was the same as the older English hacqueton or aketon. It's all very confusing. I suspect the waxed fabric (cerecloth) is for waterproofing.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
1471 Ordonnance of Charles the Bold
L’archer sera monté sur un cheval de 10 écus au moins, habillé d’une jaque à haut collet tenant lieu de gorgerin, avec bonnes manches; il portera une cotte de mailles ou paletot de haubergerie dessous cette jaque qui sera de 12 toiles au moins dont 3 de toile cirée et 9 de toile commune.

The archer shall be mounted on a horse worth at least 10 écus, wearing a jack with high collar in place of a gorget, with good sleeves; he will wear a coat of mail or paletot of mail-work below this jack which will be of 12 cloths, at least 3 of which will be waxed cloth and 9 of common cloth.


They still wore mail armour at the end of the fifteenth century? This type of mail mentioned in this ordinance has sleeves? Short or long? Why wear the jack over the mail if it would be more useful under the mail?


Yes, they still wore mail. Since the ordinance doesn't specify the type of sleeve, it might have varied depending on the soldier's need. There may have been an arming doublet beneath the mail as well. Since they specify the jack is to be worn over the mail, I presume they thought it was more useful in that location.

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Gambesons are constructed differently, being "stuffed with fluff", yet the records tell us that, when worn with mail, it was also effective against arrows.


Then they would be less efficient than Jacks? What kind of fluff they used to put beneath the thicker layers of fabric?
When Jack was invented and when he replaced gamberson?


They may have been just as efficient as jacks, just constructed in a different way. Fill materials mentioned in records include cotton, tow, rags or scraps, and caddis ("fluff"). Falsely padded mattresses and pillow which were mislabeled were found to use other materials, like cattails, thistledown, etc. The word "jack" used to describe armor first appears in the 1370s, while the word "gambeson" seems to have fallen out of favor before then.

Dan, Sean M, I, and several others discussed several references on this Armour Archive thread.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...p;t=178394

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Report of England made by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557:
...ma l' uso più frequente è di alcuni giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi alti due dita e più riparo tenuto sicurissimo contro la furia delle freccie.

...but the most frequently used armor is some jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers, and considered very safe shelter against the fury of the arrows.


Jupon theoretically shouldn't be a modern term for the type of padding garment that knights wore over their armor in the fourteenth century?


There are a number of 14th century (and earlier) references to jupons, The name seems to be adopted from the Arabic robe jubba.

1367, Inventory of Guy d'Ibelin, Bishop of Limassol
item un gippon d'armes, vendu B. 5 d. 1;
Item, a jupon of arms, sold 5 Bezants, 1 denari
item un gippon d'armes garni aveuc manches de mailles, vendu B. 7 d. 12;
Item, a jupon of arms garnished with sleeves of mail, sold B. 7., d. 12

Chaucer uses the word gypon in Canterbury Tales in the late 14th century:
Of fustian he wered a gypon Al bismótered with his habergeon
He wore a fustian jupon, all spotted by his haubergeon.

Shortly after Chaucer's death in 1400, the Ellesmere Chaucer was illustrated showing the knight in his jupon:



 Attachment: 90.83 KB
HL EL 26 C 9 fo010r-points.jpg


ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,224

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

F. Rodel wrote:
Quote:
giubboni di canevaccio imbottiti a molti doppi, alti due dita e più,

Quote:
jupons of canvas, padded to double height, two fingers,


This means joupons of canvas stuffed with several clothes, thick two fingers or more.


Thanks for the correction.

imbottiti = padded or upholstered
a molti = of many, multiple
doppi = doublings

Perhaps "padded with many doublings (of cloth)" is a better translation?

Dominic Mancini writing of the English in 1482-1483 describes the "soldier's tunics" in Latin:
Quote:
Vulgus vero militum tunicas habet aptiores, infra inguen demissas, stupa sive alia molli referctas. Ictus sagittarum et gladiorum tanto melius sustinere eas dicunt, quanto molliores sunt, preterea estate minus graves quam ferrum, et hyme utiliores.


The masses of the soldiers' coats are fitted to fall below the groin, of tow or other soft material. They are better able to sustain beatings from arrows and swords much better, indeed they are much softer, less grevious than iron in summer, and more useful.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,589

PostPosted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 11:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
What is a Jack? When I looked on the subject on the internet, I found that it was a padded armour were they riveted square plates between two canvases, like an brigandine. Would it be this? Because I had also read in another topic in this forum that in the fifteenth century they began to create thicker gambersons with 20 to 30 layers of fabric which used to be hardened in boiling water or brine. Sometimes these also had "Jack Chains" to protect shoulders and elbows. These were called gambersons or jacques?


At the risk of being a little simplistic, a "jack" is a padded or quilted armour just like the gambeson. We don't actually have enough information to clearly distinguish the two in terms of construction (i.e. multiple layers of fabric vs. stuffing) because there were many garments of hybrid construction that relied on a combination of both multiple layers of fabric and some sort of soft material stuffed in between the layers.

Of course, it doesn't help that the term "jack" was also used for civilian garments that were presumably padded or quilted for warmth rather than protective value.

"Jack of plates" is a different kind of garment entirely. Think of it as a brigandine or a coat-of-plates that also has a fabric lining inside, so the plates are sandwiched between two multilayered slabs of fabric (rather than being riveted to an outer facing but completely exposed on the inside like what we normally think of when we speak of a European brigandine). Eastern brigandines in Korea, China, and Mongolia (and Japanese kikko) were usually made this way.


Quote:
By the way, waxed fabric had any specific property to make the paddings harder?


Probably not. I agree with Mart in that the waxed layers are probably for waterproofing, since a padded or quilted garment can absorb a great deal of water and thus get much heavier when wet. Another way to protect padded/quilted armour from moisture is to have the outermost layer made of leather, which may be why such armour is often mistaken for "leather armour" when in reality the leather is just an outer shell to protect the fabric.


Quote:
They still wore mail armour at the end of the fifteenth century?


Mail was still worn extensively well into the 16th century. Look at things like the "bishop's mantle" worn by the Landsknechts. It was used even later in the East, not falling out of fashion until the 17th or even the early 18th century in Russia and Poland. Beyond that, we occasionally hear of mail being worn under civilian clothes as a defence against muggers and assassins until the mid-19th century or so (when criminals had largely shifted to firearms).


Quote:
This type of mail mentioned in this ordinance has sleeves? Short or long?


Like Mart said, it is not specified in the Ordinances. Surviving examples and contemporary illustrations also show varying lengths including short, elbow-length, and full-length sleeves. Try looking at the Swiss Chronicles illustrations here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_illustrated_chronicles


Quote:
Why wear the jack over the mail if it would be more useful under the mail?


Why must it be more useful underneath the mail? Modern reenactors' experience tend to hint that sandwiching the mail between two (relatively) lightly padded garments is both more protective and more comfortable than wearing just one thickly padded garment underneath or over the mail. Given that even ordinary civilian doublets in the late 15th century were made of at least two layers of sturdy cloth, wearing mail and then a(nother) lightly padded garment over that made perfect sense.


Quote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Gambesons are constructed differently, being "stuffed with fluff", yet the records tell us that, when worn with mail, it was also effective against arrows.


Then they would be less efficient than Jacks? What kind of fluff they used to put beneath the thicker layers of fabric?
When Jack was invented and when he replaced gamberson?


I sort of disagree with Mart here in that I don't think gambesons were constructed differently. Both jacks and gambesons could be made with multiple layers, stuffing, or both. The difference is more linguistic than technical/mechanical.


Quote:
Jupon theoretically shouldn't be a modern term for the type of padding garment that knights wore over their armor in the fourteenth century?


Not exactly. The term "jupon" already existed and was used in the 14th and 15th centuries, but its meaning was less restricted and more vague than it is today. It was used for civilian garments, military arming/undergarments, military overgarments, and who knows what else. What's modern is the way we use the term to refer to a specific garment (and even then the people who use it don't always agree about which or what garment it is).

------------------------------
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
I'd probably disagree with Mike Loades calling the gambeson "light" too. Sure, it's light when it's just a small patch like that. made into a garment that covers the whole torso, it'd be heavier than a one-piece iron or steel cuirass with similar coverage.


Really? So technically that piece of 3Kgs that Shad wore would not be anywhere near like to the weight of a soldier's sole gamberson armour?[/quote]

Yes. A gambeson or jack worn on its own (without any other piece of body armour) could be 30-40 layers thick. We're talking about 6-10 kg for a knee-length garment (when dry -- the garment's weight can easily double when wet). A short cuirass without faulds barely weighs 3-4 kg, and a cuirass with faulds and tassets rarely went over 7-8 kg (and were often lighter) before the increasing power of firearms caused a sharp increase in the thickness of armour in the mid-16th century or so.

Quote:
How could a piece of cloth would be almost as heavy as a piece of steel?


It's not just "a piece" of cloth. It's many layers of cloth and/or fibrous stuffing, compressed together with quilting stitches. Besides, modern people tend to underestimate the weight of their clothing -- many of us wear 3-4kg on a daily basis without even noticing it.
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Miller




Location: Santa Barbara
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Likes: 20 pages

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

"...modern people tend to underestimate the weight of their clothing -- many of us wear 3-4Kg on a daily basis without even noticing it."

That is the absolute truth. When I was in the Air Force, we had to weigh in at the Flight Surgeon every few months, and then subtract the weight of our clothing. Each item had a standard weight, and a fatigue uniform with a field jacket and boots counted for 11 pounds. The big wool overcoat was 7 pounds alone.
A canvas jack with several layers of material and padding could easily outweigh a steel harness. If you have ever humped a canvas tent around, even a small Baker style tent, you know it's a fact!
There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that a tightly woven fabric piece of several layers would be very effective against arrows with or without maille.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 2,990

PostPosted: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 3:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is a fact that people have trouble getting their head around. Cloth and leather armour weighs significantly more than metal armour. The whole point of using metal for making armour is that it was the lightest material available.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 571

PostPosted: Mon 25 Apr, 2016 4:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
This is a fact that people have trouble getting their head around. Cloth and leather armour weighs significantly more than metal armour. The whole point of using metal for making armour is that it was the lightest material available.


I think the whole "what's lighter, a pound of steel or a pound of feathers" thinking might play a part in that.

Another thing mentioned in that Mike Loades documentary is that gambesons soak up a TON of water and can double or even triple in weight when wet. Sadly he did not give weighs because it literally went beyond the scale.
View user's profile Send private message
Karl G




Location: Australia
Joined: 25 Apr 2016

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Tue 03 May, 2016 1:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Mario M. wrote:
I would argue that if they can take a lance at those speeds(both horses at opposite gallop), an arrow will not really harm them through blunt trauma.

Yep. You need firearms to deliver the energies required to inflict blunt trauma through armour.


As a modern crossbow owner which run at 2x the energy of longbow would concur with this. You will get contusions but immobilising impact would be rare/doubtful.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eirik R. F.




Location: Norway
Joined: 08 Nov 2015

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jul, 2016 5:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

During testing of that gambeson they shot arrows with needle bodkins. And needless to say, they penetrated straight through the mail, deerskin, and 25 layers of linen. Didn't show that on TV because it didn't fit the narrative. They wanted to show how good the armor was against the shortest of square heads. Didn't sit well with Steve as far as I'm concerned. Understandable though, this particular clip has become its own myth about the impenetrable armor... as we can see here.

The details on the gambeson is from page 72 in Longbow by Mike Loads

Information on the penetration is from Steven Stratton on facebook and comments on Mark Stretton's blog.


Last edited by Eirik R. F. on Sun 24 Jul, 2016 8:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jul, 2016 7:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You cannot just state things like that without providing any links whatsoever.

Also, they did not test the gambeson with the mail, I do not know where you get that it went through the mail itself.

Your comment on Steven's own agenda sounds more like a conspiracy theory.


Here is a video from a different documentary, also with Mr. Loades, in which, again at point blank range, the bows penetrate mail but, again, fail to penetrate the gambeson even though they used the type 8b bodkin instead of a short bodkin;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcbhc93Gfw&t=25m05s

“The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness...Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against this stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion." - Anna Comnena
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eirik R. F.




Location: Norway
Joined: 08 Nov 2015

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jul, 2016 7:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

"Unfortunately this type of head (talking about a plate cutter) is not from the 13th Century, which is why we did not use them on the TV program with Mike Loades. However, that film only showed the heads that failed, and the long Type 7 bodkins that we used which penetrated right through the mail and padding were never shown at all,although this was down to the production company and was nothing to do with Mike." Mark Stretton

If you know how to use google you can do a search for his blog and look at the comments under part 10. I can give you the link, but that would be too easy after that condescending reply.

Steven said the same, but I have no clue where to look for that. It was in the comment section on Facebook way back in time. But it's irrelevant because I've already posted Marks comment.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Gamberson: The underrated armour?
Page 1 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next 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 2003-2017 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum