| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 9:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Just curious, James.
And I might pre-empt my statement that we are dealing with a question which is very tough to answer with any degree of certainty. Ofr example, what is "worn alone as armour"? Does this mean that if on campaign you wore it until combat was imminent, and at that time put your metal harness over it? Doe it mean tha, yeah, you can wear it on it's own, but you may want to wear 2 layers of it or something else with it preferably.
There are illustrations taken by most to mean there were at times 2 garments of textile armour - one as a top layer the other as a botton, for instance the sleeveless "jack" over a gambeson with sleeves.
In the little testing of cloth armours I have seen, it seems 25-30 layers of cloth does indeed provide quite a barrier. Not impenetrable by any means, but still a bubstantial barrier.
a few layers of linen with cotton batting seem to perform a lot worse. Matteus Bane's test is one example. There were indeed many flaws with his test, but to me it was discernable that the batting based garment provided little protection, far worse than the 25-30 layer garments.
Just my thoughts here, nothing overly concrete, but I think the 25-30 layer garments were state of the art to be worn under mail until mail started becoming augmented with COP, Plate, even an additional "Jack" on the outside. It is during this transition IMO where the couple layers of linen plus batting started becoming more the traditional underarmour.
Well, after enough rambling, here is my question. What "evidence" is there of these batting based garments worn on their own as armour?
|
|
  |
 |
|
Rich Knack
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James Barker wrote: | | Word of advise: wearing a moving blanket, which is polyester material, is like wearing a thermos on your body. |
I have seen 100% cotton moving blankets, mostly made in China. They are fairly inexpensive, too.
"Those who 'beat their swords into plows', will plow for those who don't."
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets not forget jacks and gambesons evolve over time. What is good enough for the 13th century is out of date in the 14th. The example of the Black Prince and Charles VI garments were likely to be worn over armor, maybe just maille. Many effigies of the mid-late 14th century show plate and maille with such garments layers over top. In the early 15th century it is common to see Charles VI like garments over white harness in many manuscripts.
The 25-30 layer jacks are used in the 15th century were for soldiers when longbows were substantially used. These guys were cannon fodder. Heck a Spanish writer who say Richard III march into London with his troops was amazed how many of them had helmets and all had Jacks. It goes to show a Jack is not the defense of the rich and famous anymore. You also have civilian doublets of fence worn that were basically a Jack with a nice cloth cover on it. John Paston wore one in court, a guy tried to stab him during a case and it turned the blade.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
 |
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | Just my thoughts here, nothing overly concrete, but I think the 25-30 layer garments were state of the art to be worn under mail until mail started becoming augmented with COP, Plate, even an additional "Jack" on the outside. It is during this transition IMO where the couple layers of linen plus batting started becoming more the traditional underarmour.
Well, after enough rambling, here is my question. What "evidence" is there of these batting based garments worn on their own as armour? |
25-30 layer jacks were never designed to be worn under mail. These are stand-alone armors, while the 10 layer jack is specified as being worn over mail. During the 13th and early 14th centuries, aketons and gambesons are both described as stuffed or padded, and there is written evidence to show aketons were worn under mail, while gambesons could be worn alone, over an aketon, or over mail. The jacks made of many layers of linen which are being cited are 15th century armors. I can provide citations for the 12th and early 13th century armors, but James B. is more likely to have the 15th century citations.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | Gary Teuscher wrote: | Just my thoughts here, nothing overly concrete, but I think the 25-30 layer garments were state of the art to be worn under mail until mail started becoming augmented with COP, Plate, even an additional "Jack" on the outside. It is during this transition IMO where the couple layers of linen plus batting started becoming more the traditional underarmour.
Well, after enough rambling, here is my question. What "evidence" is there of these batting based garments worn on their own as armour? |
25-30 layer jacks were never designed to be worn under mail. These are stand-alone armors, while the 10 layer jack is specified as being worn over mail. During the 13th and early 14th centuries, aketons and gambesons are both described as stuffed or padded, and there is written evidence to show aketons were worn under mail, while gambesons could be worn alone, over an aketon, or over mail. The jacks made of many layers of linen which are being cited are 15th century armors. I can provide citations for the 12th and early 13th century armors, but James B. is more likely to have the 15th century citations. |
I would like to see those citations. I've never found anything yet that definitively categorises aketons as being under mail and gambesons over or standalone. I'd also like to see the sources for stuffed under and 10-layers over as it makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brian,
That is because there is none. In the medieval period they used the work aketon and gambeson as the same item. What is interesting is when they have two of the items in use at the same time and act like they are different. But if people want to use aketon as under armour and gambeson as over that is fine but might not be correct if they are looking at medieval passages. For example Monstrelet in his Agincourt account lists gambesons under the mail and full harness of each knight, not aketons.
I agree though they likely had some made as stand alone armour and some as under armour.
James,
I am not convinced the Black Princes jupon would have fit over armour, even mail. From what we know of him and his size the garment would have been very tight unless perhaps he wore it alone. That said I have no doubt some wore textile armour over armour, and some under, and some likely both as the king's mirror promotes.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | James,
I am not convinced the Black Princes jupon would have fit over armour, even mail. From what we know of him and his size the garment would have been very tight unless perhaps he wore it alone. That said I have no doubt some wore textile armour over armour, and some under, and some likely both as the king's mirror promotes.
RPM |
True, the same is said about the Charles VI garment and neither is dirty. They could have been used like a doublet of fence.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 25-30 layer jacks were never designed to be worn under mail. |
What evidence do we have of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Brian,
That is because there is none. In the medieval period they used the work aketon and gambeson as the same item. What is interesting is when they have two of the items in use at the same time and act like they are different. But if people want to use aketon as under armour and gambeson as over that is fine but might not be correct if they are looking at medieval passages. |
I agree that the aketons and gambesons are constructed in a similar fashion, shells of fabric "suffed with fluff" in the terms of Mr. Pooh, whether that be cotton, tow, or some other loose fiber. People in the time frame also distinguish between hauberks and haubergeons, even though they're both made of mail and cover the torso. It's certain that people distinguished "aketons" from "gambesons", but is it because of construction, design (one has long sleeves while another is sleeveless), or function (whether it's worn alone or with other armor, or under armor vs. over) is all debateable. By the mid-14th century, the words "aketon" and "gambeson" seem interchangable, but this is not the case in the late 12th or 13th century for the most part. By the late 14th century and into the 15th century, you're more likely to read about jupons, pourpoints, and jacks. We make distinction between slacks and jeans, while both are pants. Nothing's absolute.
I've provided this before, but it clearly shows aketons being worn with gambesons (or with "plates", or with "corsets").
| Quote: | Watch and Ward at the City Gates.
25 Edward I. A.D. 1297. Letter-Book B. fol. xxxiii. old numeration. (Latin.)
It was ordered that every bedel shall make summons by day in his own Ward, upon view of two good men, for setting watch at the Gates;—and that those so summoned shall come to the Gates in the day-time, and in the morning, at day-light, shall depart therefrom. And such persons are to be properly armed with two pieces; namely, with haketon (fn. 11) and gambeson (fn. 12) , or else with haketon and corset (fn. 13) , or with haketon and plates. And if they neglect to come so armed, or make default in coming, the bede lshall forthwith hire another person, at the rate of twelve pence, in the place of him who makes such default; such sum to be levied on the morrow upon the person so making default.
In like manner, if any person shall be summoned to watch within his Ward, and shall make default, the bedel shall substitute another in his place, and on the morrow shall take from him threepence, to the use of such substitute. |
From: 'Memorials: 1297', Memorials of London and London Life: In the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries (1868), pp. 33-36. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?...ry=haketon OR aketon Date accessed: 24 August 2012.
The 1181 Assize of Arms call for English burghers to appear with gambesons and iron helmet as their sole body armor, showing the gambeson (wambais) can be a stand-alone armor, like the more expensive mail (lorica) of the knights.
| Quote: | | III. Item omnes burgenses et tota communa liberorum hominum habeant wambais, et capellet ferri et lanceam. |
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | People in the time frame also distinguish between hauberks and haubergeons, even though they're both made of mail and cover the torso. It's certain that people distinguished "aketons" from "gambesons", but is it because of construction, design (one has long sleeves while another is sleeveless), or function (whether it's worn alone or with other armor, or under armor vs. over) is all debateable. By the mid-14th century, the words "aketon" and "gambeson" seem interchangable, but this is not the case in the late 12th or 13th century for the most part. By the late 14th century and into the 15th century, you're more likely to read about jupons, pourpoints, and jacks. We make distinction between slacks and jeans, while both are pants. Nothing's absolute. |
Lets assume that what you say is correct, they were two different garments meant for two different purposes.
But the question now is, do you have any method to distiguish between the two how they were constructed?
| Quote: | | I agree that the aketons and gambesons are constructed in a similar fashion, shells of fabric "suffed with fluff" in the terms of Mr. Pooh, whether that be cotton, tow, or some other loose fiber |
You seem to leave out a few of the the construction methods of textile armours.
1) Many layers of Linen
2) Similar to the above, but lesser layers of Felt used in place of some of the linen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | But the question now is, do you have any method to distiguish between the two how they were constructed? |
We have evidence that gambesons and aketons were constructed in the same way in a 1322 Regulation from the London Armourers, though distinction is made between those covered in fine cloth, and white aketons. (One might surmise that the fancy coverings were meant to be seen and not hidden under mail.)
| Quote: | Regulations made by the Armourers of London.
15 Edward 11. A.D. 1322. Letter-Book E. fol. cxxxiii. (Norman French.)
---------------
That a haketon and a gambeson covered with sendale, (fn. 4) or with cloth of silk, (fn. 5) shall be stuffed with new cotton cloth, and with cadaz, (fn. 6) and with old sendales, and in no other manner. And that white haketons shall be stuffed with old woven cloth, and with cotton, and made of new woven cloth within and without.
-----------------
4. A thin kind of silk: fine linen appears to have been also so called.
5. seye; possibly, "say," a fine woollen cloth.
6 Or cadas; flocks of silk, tow, cotton, or wool. |
From: 'Memorials: 1322', Memorials of London and London Life: In the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries (1868), pp. 145-148. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?...ry=haketon OR aketon Date accessed: 24 August 2012.
There's this reference:
1286. Comptus Ballivorum Franciae
Expense pro cendatis, bourra ad gambesones, tapetis. --Spent for cendal, tow, to sew together gambesons.
Wardrobe Account of King John, Harleian 4573, shows that in 1212 12 pence were spent for cotton for the king's aketon, and another 12 pence for sewing it together.
As I noted, I don't see a difference in gambesons and aketons based on how they're made, so it must be in how they're tailored or used.
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | I agree that the aketons and gambesons are constructed in a similar fashion, shells of fabric "suffed with fluff" in the terms of Mr. Pooh, whether that be cotton, tow, or some other loose fiber |
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | You seem to leave out a few of the the construction methods of textile armours.
1) Many layers of Linen
2) Similar to the above, but lesser layers of Felt used in place of some of the linen. |
But the descriptions of these textile armors describe them as "jacks" or "doublets of fence", not as "aketons" or "gambesons" to the best of my knowledge. In 1315, we see the English taking custody of the aketons, gambesons, and coats of arms (coat armors) in Wales:
From William de Montagu
| Quote: | | j Aketon.j gaumbeyson. j peyre des quissens. j coleret de linge teille. |
--1 aketon, 1 gambeson, 1 pair of cuisses, one collar of sized linen.
From Dauyd ap Gronou
| Quote: | | iij Haubrgons.j couerture de fer, j targe. j peyre des gaunz de plat, j peyre de quissens....j cote darme de bocram. j gaunbeyson vermail.j Aketon nyent prfet. |
--3 haubergeons, 1 iron horse cover, 1 targe, 1 pair of plate gauntlets, 1 pair of cuisses.....1 coat armor of buckram,1 vermillion gambeson, 1 aketon (not perfect)
From: 'Addenda to Volume 1: Exchequer Records, 1211-1320', Cardiff Records: volume 4 (1903), pp. 55-62. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?...ry=haketon OR aketon Date accessed: 24 August 2012.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Aug, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rich,
Really? I have been looking for 100% cotton moving blankets for several years and never seen them. As well I'd wonder if they were really cotton.... I guess one could try a burn test.
I really would be interested in seeing them though if you have a source.
I have made several in past years with poly and you pay..... oh you pay. I remember thinking that they must have hated life to wear something so hot. Then I took the plunge and spent much more on cotton, then later raw cotton and it made worlds of difference. I prefer linen shells. I think they hold up better than cotton, but cotton is heads and shoulders better than poly.... blah.
James,
I have been putting together work on textile armour since I started finding them a decade or so ago in primary texts with the hopes of some day getting something together but the problem is 99% are fairly openended. Perhaps we should get some people together and dump all our collective notes together and see what we can find. Wasn't there a textile armour post on here years ago? Might be time to revisit this. Problem is most of us have a million projects at one time. Just for articles I have a half dozen to dozen on at the moment. But some good info here and shame we have them so dispersed.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Sat 25 Aug, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | James,
I have been putting together work on textile armour since I started finding them a decade or so ago in primary texts with the hopes of some day getting something together but the problem is 99% are fairly openended. Perhaps we should get some people together and dump all our collective notes together and see what we can find. Wasn't there a textile armour post on here years ago? Might be time to revisit this. Problem is most of us have a million projects at one time. Just for articles I have a half dozen to dozen on at the moment. But some good info here and shame we have them so dispersed.
RPM |
Sounds like a great idea, an online repository for any reference one can find for various textile armors. I suspect it would need heavy moderation to only allow primary sources and avoid 13 pages of commentary. It would be nice to have them in some chronological order, regardless of when the source is added.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Aug, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | Randall Moffett wrote: | James,
I have been putting together work on textile armour since I started finding them a decade or so ago in primary texts with the hopes of some day getting something together but the problem is 99% are fairly openended. Perhaps we should get some people together and dump all our collective notes together and see what we can find. Wasn't there a textile armour post on here years ago? Might be time to revisit this. Problem is most of us have a million projects at one time. Just for articles I have a half dozen to dozen on at the moment. But some good info here and shame we have them so dispersed.
RPM |
Sounds like a great idea, an online repository for any reference one can find for various textile armors. I suspect it would need heavy moderation to only allow primary sources and avoid 13 pages of commentary. It would be nice to have them in some chronological order, regardless of when the source is added. |
Can I suggest you use wikispaces for that? Really easy to set up and should give you the functionality you need.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Aug, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brian,
Could do. I am working on a website and I figured I would simply place it there. That said depends, if Nate and Chad like maybe we could place it here. If I could get enough people together I'd love to reread through several sources that I read during my MA and PhD but when I am in recovery mode for one theme I get a bit superfocused sometime. I really think the London Letter Books and Plea and Memoranda are great but really think the close an patent rolls might have a large amount of info of value but perhaps surrounded by entire volumes with none. I will likely spend some of my research time when not doing class prep on this as I am finishing a few of my other projects up.... that said I still have about 10 articles in the works....
Mart,
Going back to what you said earlier. I think there is little question padded/textile armour could be worn in combination. All the Scandinavian kings' mirrors include this from the 13th century. I think it likely you are right, made the same way. I just think it a danger to term them for period use as I have seen aketons used both inside and outside as gambesons. If we want to decide on using there terms that way then that is fine but we need to be clear when people start digging in the period context it will not be that way... more or less ever. Medieval period just do not seem to care as much as we do about this. For modern minds though it is easier when we talk to use them one way or the other. I have been trying to find a more simple way to get aketons and gembesons together for our LH group but so far still no cigar. I'd like to promote the doubled textile armour system but we will see.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Aug, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Personally I use aketon to describe under-armour and gambeson to describe stand-alone armour. It is purely a personal distinction and I'll go along with any terms that the majority would prefer to use. The point is to use them consistently so everyone knows what you are talking about. Sword typologies are the same. They have no purpose other than to give modern scholars a short-hand method for referring to different types of sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristóf László
Location: Hungary Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2018 2:20 am Post subject: James Barker |
|
|
| James Barker wrote: |
I have a 30 layer linen jack I made, it is about an inch think. |
how did you menage to sew it together? is it possible to sew it by a simple sewing machine? since i plan to make one but i'm way too lazy to make it by hand. how hard it was to make it ?
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2018 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
30 layers is so thick that it'll only work with hand-stitching. Some leather sewing machines might work if run slowly but I wouldn't count on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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