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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jul, 2016 9:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

the earliest latin usage of gambeson like textile armours ive seen (there might be earlier) but theres definately one in the itinery of richard the 1st in the holy land

Furthermore, one of our body-guard, while walking in the ditch
outside the city wall, either for the purpose of reconnoitering the weak
parts of the wall, or to strike any of the enemy he could see with his sling,
stopped at last; he was armed sufficiently like a foot-soldier, with iron
headpiece, coat of mail, and a tunic of many folds of linen, difficult of
penetration, and artificially worked with the needle, vulgarly called a
pourpoint.

interesting terms to note are that it was

'artoificially worked with a needle

and even more that it was 'vulgarly' called a pourpoint suggesting that pourpoint was, at the time of the crusade, called that as a sort of common/ slang term
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jul, 2016 9:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eirik R. F. wrote:
"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


You said nothing about Mark in the previous comment.

So, you have an archers enthusiast comment without any proof whatsoever on a video where they did not even test mail but standalone gambeson.

Legit to the max.

Though, even if it was true, they were shooting basically point blank, so, not exactly a common distance.




.

“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
Mart Shearer




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

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
the earliest latin usage of gambeson like textile armours ive seen (there might be earlier) but theres definately one in the itinery of richard the 1st in the holy land

Furthermore, one of our body-guard, while walking in the ditch
outside the city wall, either for the purpose of reconnoitering the weak
parts of the wall, or to strike any of the enemy he could see with his sling,
stopped at last; he was armed sufficiently like a foot-soldier, with iron
headpiece, coat of mail, and a tunic of many folds of linen, difficult of
penetration, and artificially worked with the needle, vulgarly called a
pourpoint.

interesting terms to note are that it was

'artoificially worked with a needle

and even more that it was 'vulgarly' called a pourpoint suggesting that pourpoint was, at the time of the crusade, called that as a sort of common/ slang term


It's always useful to check the original material. The relevant text from the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi reads, "Armatus quidem erat more peditum satis competenter, ferreo tegmine capite munito; lorica quoque, tunica etiam linea multiplici consuta, lineis interioribus difficile penetrandis, acu operante artificialiter implicitis; unde et vulgo perpunctum nuncupatur. So we see the mail hauberk or lorica, and also the pourpoint or perpunctum.

There is also another reference to goods being brought by camel, horse and wagon, including, " tela multiplici insutas loricas, vulgo dictas Casigans, or multiply sewn loricas, commonly called casigans. As mail hauberks are usually referred to in Latin texts as lorica, in this second case, the reference is to mail sewn between cloth with associated padding, i.e. khazaghands or jazerants.

Textual evidence for gambesons and aketons appear somewhere between the Second and Third Crusades, during the last third of the 12th century. The 1181 English Assize of Arms predates the Third Crusade, and calls for free men and burgesses to be armed with the wambais or gambeson.

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




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
William P wrote:
the earliest latin usage of gambeson like textile armours ive seen (there might be earlier) but theres definately one in the itinery of richard the 1st in the holy land

Furthermore, one of our body-guard, while walking in the ditch
outside the city wall, either for the purpose of reconnoitering the weak
parts of the wall, or to strike any of the enemy he could see with his sling,
stopped at last; he was armed sufficiently like a foot-soldier, with iron
headpiece, coat of mail, and a tunic of many folds of linen, difficult of
penetration, and artificially worked with the needle, vulgarly called a
pourpoint.

interesting terms to note are that it was

'artoificially worked with a needle

and even more that it was 'vulgarly' called a pourpoint suggesting that pourpoint was, at the time of the crusade, called that as a sort of common/ slang term


It's always useful to check the original material. The relevant text from the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi reads, "Armatus quidem erat more peditum satis competenter, ferreo tegmine capite munito; lorica quoque, tunica etiam linea multiplici consuta, lineis interioribus difficile penetrandis, acu operante artificialiter implicitis; unde et vulgo perpunctum nuncupatur. So we see the mail hauberk or lorica, and also the pourpoint or perpunctum.

There is also another reference to goods being brought by camel, horse and wagon, including, " tela multiplici insutas loricas, vulgo dictas Casigans, or multiply sewn loricas, commonly called casigans. As mail hauberks are usually referred to in Latin texts as lorica, in this second case, the reference is to mail sewn between cloth with associated padding, i.e. khazaghands or jazerants.

Textual evidence for gambesons and aketons appear somewhere between the Second and Third Crusades, during the last third of the 12th century. The 1181 English Assize of Arms predates the Third Crusade, and calls for free men and burgesses to be armed with the wambais or gambeson.


i have a very strong feeling that the adoption of standalone textile defences or layered textile defences under armour in latin armies is very probably gleaned from contact with byzantine and islamic armies, considering that the byzantines had the standalone gambeson as basic standard infantry armour in the 10th, 11th and probably 12th centuries as well,
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eirik R. F.




Location: Norway
Joined: 08 Nov 2015

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I said the information about the penetration was from the comments on Mark Stretton's blog. Read it again.

And not only did Mark Stretton and Steven Stratton say it, Mike Loads said it himself in his book.

"We knew that if the archers had used long bodkins, this type of armour could have been penetrated at this distance, but that was not the purpose of the test" Mike Loads, Longbow p. 73

In The Great Warbow by Hardy and Strickland they tested a rather poor 150 lbs Oregon yew bow with a 95.9 gram long bodkin arrow. The initial velocity was 53 m/s and at max distance the arrow struck the ground at 43.46 m/s (retained 82 % of the velocity). That's 134 joule and 90 joule.

A good 150 lbs yew bow would have shot that arrow at more than 54.7 m/s. I know this because Mark Stretton shot a 102 gram arrow with a 140 lbs bow at 54.7 m/s. So let's say the 140 lbs bow could manage 55 m/s with the 95.9 gram arrow. 82 % retained velocity is 45.1 m/s at max distance. That's 97.5 joule.

Steven Stratton said he penetrated the armor with his 120 lbs bow point blank, which means the kinetic anergy at max distance with a good 140 lbs or 150 lbs bow and his120 lbs bow, point blank, would be about the same. A 71 gram long bodkin shot from a good 120 lbs bow will give you about 52-53 m/s point blank. that's between 95-100 joule.

Yes, they would have penetrated that armor at max distance. That's a fact.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 9:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eirik R. F. wrote:
I said the information about the penetration was from the comments on Mark Stretton's blog. Read it again.

And not only did Mark Stretton and Steven Stratton say it, Mike Loads said it himself in his book.

"We knew that if the archers had used long bodkins, this type of armour could have been penetrated at this distance, but that was not the purpose of the test" Mike Loads, Longbow p. 73


I am not talking about their gambeson comments, I am talking about your claim that they stated they penetrated both mail and gambeson.

Where is the mail you repeatedly mentioned?


Eirik R. F. wrote:
Yes, they would have penetrated that armor at max distance. That's a fact.


Firstly, read up on The Knight and the Blast Furnace and how much energy is required to penetrate both mail and gambeson.

After you do that, research just what kind of velocity drop arrows have over distance, it may surprise you.

For instance, musket balls can have up to 40-50% velocity drop already under 100m.

Your calculations are nothing more than wishful thoughts.



.

“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: 23

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Are you kidding with me? It's in the comment.

"and the long Type 7 bodkins that we used which penetrated right through the mail and padding were never shown at all"

Do you see it now?

Williams in The Knight and The Blast Furnace talk about a 6mmx6mm short bodkin. And all his tests are done by dropping a weight with an arrowhead attached to replicate an arrow. This has been shown to be inferior to an actual longbow. And so is the air cannon by the way. In other words, it's completely irrelevant.

I have researched the drop in velocity. It's in the appendix in The Great Warbow by Hardy and Strickland. p. 410-414.

Bullets have nothing to do with this. An arrow will retain between 76 and 82 % of its velocity at max distance when shot in a parabolic arch due to gravity. This is a scientific fact.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 10:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eirik R. F. wrote:
Are you kidding with me? It's in the comment.

"and the long Type 7 bodkins that we used which penetrated right through the mail and padding were never shown at all"

Do you see it now?


I do not see that comment posted anywhere.


Eirik R. F. wrote:

Williams in The Knight and The Blast Furnace talk about a 6mmx6mm short bodkin. And all his tests are done by dropping a weight with an arrowhead attached to replicate an arrow. This has been shown to be inferior to an actual longbow. And so is the air cannon by the way. In other words, it's completely irrelevant.


That is your personal opinion, nothing more.


Eirik R. F. wrote:

I have researched the drop in velocity. It's in the appendix in The Great Warbow by Hardy and Strickland. p. 410-414.

Bullets have nothing to do with this. An arrow will retain between 76 and 82 % of its velocity at max distance when shot in a parabolic arch due to gravity. This is a scientific fact.


It is not due to gravity lol.

Though, regardless, if you look at the testing done by Joe Nuttall, the final KE from a 150 Mary Rose replica longbow delivered at maximum range is dropped to as low as 56% of the initial KE, depending on the weight of the arrow and the final distance.

So no, a mere 20-30 lbs increase in draw weight will not result in piercing both mail and gambeson at maximum range.

How about a Hundred Years War primary source that mentions mail along with plate, versus the longbow;

"Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards." - Geoffory Le Baker

Or perhaps the opinion of the writer of Chronicon Colmariense (1398);

"...an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow fired from a bow could cause injury."

Now, I am not stating that mail was impervious, merely that it is very doubtful that arrows launched from max range could easily deal with it.



.

“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
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 12:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:


For instance, musket balls can have up to 40-50% velocity drop already under 100m.



Minor correction, the Graz tests found musket balls lost around 50% of their total energy at 100 meters, not velocity. That was when fired at super-sonic speeds. For both bullets and arrows the mass and initial velocity effects how much energy is lost.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 1:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
Minor correction, the Graz tests found musket balls lost around 50% of their total energy at 100 meters, not velocity. That was when fired at super-sonic speeds. For both bullets and arrows the mass and initial velocity effects how much energy is lost.


Look at the velocity values and calculate;

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/journalimages/MCR/1995/Vol_42/mcr42art09_ta1.jpg



.

“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: 23

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 2:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Though, regardless, if you look at the testing done by Joe Nuttall, the final KE from a 150 Mary Rose replica longbow delivered at maximum range is dropped to as low as 56% of the initial KE, depending on the weight of the arrow and the final distance.


Well. it's actually 58 % retained kinetic energy for a 53.6 gram arrow. 60 % for a 57.8 gram arrow and 67 % for a 95.9 gram arrow. 67 % of 134.69 joule is 90 joule. The strength of a heavy warbow is its ability to shoot heavy arrows. With lighter arrows there's a diminishing return. 20-30 lbs more will do exactly what I said. The arrow remain the same length while the weight is increased and this does not effect performance much. It does, however, increase the kinetic energy significantly.

If he tested something like a 48 gram arrow it might be 56 %, I'm not denying that, but it is irrelevant when I'm talking about a 95.9 gram arrow.

What you want to look at is retained velocity. That's the key factor when you calculate kinetic energy.
The 53.6 gram arrow retained 76 % of its velocity, the 57.8 gram arrow 78 % and the 95.9 gram arrow 82 %. 82 % of 53 m/s is 43.46 m/s. The formula for kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2. In other words 0.0959*43.46*43.46 / 2 = 90.56 ~ 90 joule. So yes, the book is spot on.

And let us not forget. This was an Oregon yew bow. An European yew bow will shoot those arrows several m/s faster, as I made clear in my previous post, and therefor will retain more of the arrows initial velocity.

Can you provide a link or information to where I can find this test by Mr Nuttall? I could only fin his name on a table top game forum. The test I'm referring to was carried out by Simon Stanley and Anne B. Crowley, Professor of Ballistics and Computational Fluid Dynamics at The Royal Military College of Science. It's sure to say I trust them more than your statement for the time being.

It doesn't help quoting Geoffrey Le Baker when he talks about plate and mail and leather shields. Big Grin

I can quote Geoffrey Le Baker too you know - and several other for that matter.

The archers of the Captal de Buch’s battalion at Poitiers ‘greatly and horribly pierced’ the miserable French. (‘sagitarii grandine diro confodiunt.’)
Geoffrey Le Baker, Chronicon, p. 152

'the archers‘ ‘caused their arrows to prevail over the armour of the knights’ ( ‘Nec officia sua sagittarii pretermiserunt, set, insistentes aggeri tuto supra et ultra sepem, coegerunt sagittas armis militaribus prevalere.’)
Geoffrey le Baker, Chronicon, p. 147


Last edited by Eirik R. F. on Mon 25 Jul, 2016 4:08 pm; edited 3 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jul, 2016 2:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mario M. wrote:
Henry O. wrote:
Minor correction, the Graz tests found musket balls lost around 50% of their total energy at 100 meters, not velocity. That was when fired at super-sonic speeds. For both bullets and arrows the mass and initial velocity effects how much energy is lost.


Look at the velocity values and calculate;

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/journalimages/MCR/1995/Vol_42/mcr42art09_ta1.jpg



.


1 - (305m/s)/(482m/s) = 36.7% velocity lost, which isn't between 40% and 50%

If the bullet did lose 50% of it's velocity after 100 meters it would mean that it only had 25% of its initial energy remaining.
View user's profile Send private message
Mario M.




Location: Croatia
Joined: 31 Mar 2016

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Tue 26 Jul, 2016 8:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eirik R. F. wrote:
It doesn't help quoting Geoffrey Le Baker when he talks about plate and mail and leather shields. Big Grin

I can quote Geoffrey Le Baker too you know - and several other for that matter.

The archers of the Captal de Buch’s battalion at Poitiers ‘greatly and horribly pierced’ the miserable French. (‘sagitarii grandine diro confodiunt.’)
Geoffrey Le Baker, Chronicon, p. 152

'the archers‘ ‘caused their arrows to prevail over the armour of the knights’ ( ‘Nec officia sua sagittarii pretermiserunt, set, insistentes aggeri tuto supra et ultra sepem, coegerunt sagittas armis militaribus prevalere.’)
Geoffrey le Baker, Chronicon, p. 147


You are completely missing my point.

I am not arguing that armors were impervious to arrows, I was arguing against your notion of arrows defeating mail as a "fact" even at maximum ranges as it was a blanket statement.

The quotes I provided are merely arguing that it is not easy to defeat armor with arrows, I even stated that in the last sentence.

Considering the amount of arrows launched by the English, it is obviously sane to assume some penetrated the armors, those at Agincourt are estimated in the hundreds of thousands launched, not to mention that they are often described as shooting at close range.

If the longbow was not useful, it would not be so prominent, and it armor was not useful, nobody would waste such amounts of money on it.

There is not even a shred of evidence of anyone purposefully abandoning the practice of wearing armor during the Hundred Years War, that alone states that it at least justified its own weight and cost.

In fact, how about we use the usual list of French named persons who walked into the storm of arrows at Agincourt and remained unscathed just to still it up;

Jacques de Châtillon - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
David de Rambures - survived the arrow volleys and later captured while fighting the English in melee, murdered as a prisoner of war
Guichard Dauphin - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
Antoine of Burgundy - participated in the secondary charge, survived the arrows storm, fought in melee, captured and later murdered as prisoner of war
Jean I, Duke of Alençon - survived the arrow storm completely unharmed, fought his way to king Henry himself, killed four of king Henrys bodyguards while trying to kill king Henry, died while fighting other bodyguards
Edward III, Duke of Bar - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
Philip II, Count of Nevers - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
Frederick I, Count of Vaudémont - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
Robert of Bar, Count of Marle and Soissons - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
John VI, Count of Roucy - died while fighting in melee against the English man at arms
Waleran III, Count of Ligny - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
Edward II, Count of Grandpré - captured during the melee against the English
Henry II, Count of Blâmont - captured during the melee against the English
Jean de Montaigu, Archbishop of Sens - captured during the melee against the English
John of Bar - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war
Jean I de Croÿ - died in close melee while fighting against Henry's bodyguards while trying to capture king Henry, he managed to hit Henry with a mace to the face
Jean de Béthune - captured during the melee against the English
Jan I van Brederode - captured during the melee against the English, later murdered as a prisoner of war


These men were at the front of the front during the assaults, about 100 000 to 200 000 arrows were launched their way.

In fact, how would you explain the 2000 or so prisoners the English took if the arrows just plowed through the "miserable French"?


Henry O. wrote:
1 - (305m/s)/(482m/s) = 36.7% velocity lost, which isn't between 40% and 50%

If the bullet did lose 50% of it's velocity after 100 meters it would mean that it only had 25% of its initial energy remaining.


I said "up to";

5) 427m/s - 238m/s = 55% of initial velocity

“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
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed 27 Jul, 2016 11:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Can I see some more comparisons between the weight of quilted armors and iron armors?

I read on the previous page about how iron armor weighs less than quilted armor. I'm not having a hard time understanding that many layers of cloth can indeed be heavy, but I'm having a hard time understanding how it is heavier than iron. How much thicker is 30-40 layers of cloth compared to the cuirasses of pre-firearm Europe?

I'm just hoping for more stats, really, because the couple examples didn't sound entirely equal in terms of coverage. A short cuirass, or even one with faulds and tassets, does not include sleeves or a collar, which the cloth would have included. How does the weight compare to mail armor?

Also, I have heard many, many times that a full plate harness weighs around 60lbs. This harness' weight is including the padding underneath, isn't it? Meaning, the actual iron of a full harness would not total to 60lbs, but would be less. Am I correct?
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Thu 28 Jul, 2016 12:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
You can't just compare a jack and a steel cuirass. You have to select two items that stop similar attacks.


Did a steel cuirass and a jack not face the same threaths? I would also be curious to see a weight comparison between say a one foot square section of thirty layers of quilted linen vs a one foot square section of hardened steel. Weights would obviously depend on the thicknesses of each material. With all of the surviving examples of cuirasses, I'm sure we have a good idea of how thick they were on average. Unfortunately no thirty layer jack has survived, so we don't know what oz of linen was used.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Thu 28 Jul, 2016 12:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For some reason my last post refuses to go in the right order. Instead of going to the bottom of the thread, it keeps going a few spaces up.

Edited to add:
Same thing keeps happening. If or when the mods fix this I can delete this post.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 28 Jul, 2016 2:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
I would also be curious to see a weight comparison between say a one foot square section of thirty layers of quilted linen vs a one foot square section of hardened steel. Weights would obviously depend on the thicknesses of each material. With all of the surviving examples of cuirasses, I'm sure we have a good idea of how thick they were on average. Unfortunately no thirty layer jack has survived, so we don't know what oz of linen was used.


Steel sheet 1mm thick weighs about 8kg per m^2. Modern heavyweight linen is about 360gsm. So 22 layers weighs about the same as 1mm of steel.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 8:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You can't just compare a jack and a steel cuirass. You have to select two items that stop similar attacks. For example, a Greek bronze cuirass weighs less than 10 lbs. A quilted linothorax providing similar protection weighs closer to 15 lbs.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Matt J




Location: Durham, NC
Joined: 18 Aug 2015

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 9:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan, why not?

I'm not asking to compare the protective qualities, I'm just interested in comparing the various weights of textile armor and iron armor. All I am concerned about is that the coverage is similar, as it is pointless to compare the weights between a long sleeved hauberk that extends to the knees with a brigandine that is sleeveless and only covers the torso.
View user's profile Send private message
Alan E




Location: UK
Joined: 21 Jan 2016

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matt J wrote:
Dan, why not?

I'm not asking to compare the protective qualities, I'm just interested in comparing the various weights of textile armor and iron armor. All I am concerned about is that the coverage is similar, as it is pointless to compare the weights between a long sleeved hauberk that extends to the knees with a brigandine that is sleeveless and only covers the torso.

Because you wear armour against a particular threat: It would be like comparing steel gauntlets with kevlar knitted gloves - they both have the same coverage after all! One resists pole-axe blows, the other .... doesn't.

Member of Exiles Medieval Martial Arts.
Currently teaching Fiore's art in Ceredigion
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Gamberson: The underrated armour?
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum