[J. Douglas]

[J. Douglas]

[Stephen Curtin]

[Stephen Curtin]

No need to apologize J. You didn't come across as aggressive at all. AFAIK surcoats came into use in the late 12th century, and this thread covers everything pre 1300. Of course, if you could, you would use your shield to deal with blows from maces and the like. Yes could injure a person through mail with a mace, but that was just one of the risks of fighting back then. To pad a garment thick enough to deal with maces would probably make this garment too thick to be practically worn under mail. To really deal with impact weapons you want armour that is rigid, flexible i.e. plate armour

[Philip Dyer]

[J. Douglas]

[Stephen Curtin]

Philip. Yes these modern combat sports often use more padding than was probably used back in the day. However there are some SCA members who fight with mail worn over 2 thick tunics.

[Philip Dyer]

[Henry O.]

The argument I've heard for why an aketon was needed under mail is that it gave far better protection against penetration by arrows or spears than even riveted mail alone. For that layers of dense linen would probably be more effective than something that is just thick and fluffy.

[Mark Millman]

Dear Mr. Curtin,

You quote Rod Walker in your original post, and it's clear that you're interpreting his statement as saying that he and Mr. Van Essen struck each other's bodies with their lances as well as their swords. I don't think he's saying that. I think that when Mr. Walker says,

[Stephen Curtin]

Thanks for the replies Henry O, and Mark Millman.

Please feel free use my first name. No need for formalities.

Rod Walker's post does mention that they used solid lances with steel coronels. I overlooked this but, Rod doesn't mention whether or not these lances struck their shields or their armour.

[Mart Shearer]

In Diu Crône, from the period 1220-1230, there are at least two references to a gambeson worn beneath the mail hauberk.

Ein wambeis wart ime gesuocht
Von einem buckeram blanc,
Einer spannen von der gürtel lanc,

865 Under sînen halsperc.
---------------
85 An dem andern morgen
Vil gar unverborgen
Manie belt ze velde san,
Der sîn hosen schuobte an,
Dar über sin schellier;

190 Ein wambeis unde ein collier
Muost er haben dar nâch:
Hie mite was ime niht gâch;
Sô muost ein halsperc wesen dâ bî,
Dar nâch zwên knappen oder drî,

195 Die ime die coifen stricten
Und daz wâfen alsô schicten,
Daz ez im wære behende;
Dar nâch an dem ende
Gehôrte vür die brust ein blat:

200 Was er iht an der ritter stat,
Dêswâr, sô muostz dà vur:
Des gewan er michel gevüer,
Ob er wolte stechen;
Ouch sei er niht zebrechen,

205 Ein wambeis sol dar über sîn,
Oder ein wâfenroc sîdîn:
Sô vüer er wol in ritters schîn.
( When the time came the following morning for every man to get ready for the tournament, many were plainly concerned with the contests ahead, because they dressed slowly and with care. They put on mail chausse (hosen), knee cops (schellier) - over them, then a gambeson (wambeis) and a collar (collier). They had to have a hauberk (halsperc), of course, and two or three squires to tie on the coif (coifen) and arrange the armor (wâfen) so that it fit well. After that they needed an unbreakable metal plate in front of their chest (vür die brüst ein blat): they had to have one in the arena since it was very useful in a joust. After everything was covered by a gambeson (wambeis) or a silk surcoat (wâfenroc sîdîn), they were indeed dressed like knights.)

Rather than the stout linen used in the King's Mirror, the wambeis is made of white buckram - stout cotton fabric. Buckram and fustian are frequently mentioned in other accounts, and it is believed the fustian is a blend with linen warp and cotton weft. White is also the most common color in the Macieowski Bible miniatures and in most purchase accounts.

Also, the second account mentions the gambeson being worn both above and beneath the hauberk, similar to the arrangement in the King's Mirror.

Unfortunately, the construction of the gambeson isn't revealed other than it's covering material. For that we have other sources such as the Chronicon Colmariense from 1298, which specifies the gambeson beneath the mail as well as giving details of their construction:

, 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,"
(and his gambeson, that is, a thick tunic made out of linen and tow, or sewn with old rags, and above, an iron shirt, that is a garment woven together of iron rings,).

[Randall Moffett]

Phil,

I am not sure that anyone here is saying mail is useless without some type of under garment. At least I hope not. That is just not true. Depending on the type of mail I suspect it provides very good protection from many threats. I have not seen anyone make this comment and I sure have not. My point is that I think you have men wearing a variety of combinations for increased protection and that historically we have evidence of this being done. I have little doubt that some wore only mail with a heavy tunic or something. I am sure others wore a more substantial aketon under mail as well. There is an account from the early 14th century in England that gives an strong indication of a such an aketon under a mail shirt. So it could go for fit and comfort but I suspect it also could be something much more substantial. I do think that some of the super heavy modern ones likely are more akin to those used alone in the medieval period but we really cannot be sure one way or the other as most of the accounts use terms that are not exactly quantifiable. All I can say is that in the 1st half of the 14th we see requirements for aketons, aketons with mail shirts or pairs of plates and even some requiring aketons with mail and a pair of plates for commoners. Clearly the combination was seen as being a standard by Edward II and Edward III from their point of view. More to come as my book gets further developed on this.

Doug,

I think that if you are comparing the blunt force trauma from jousting in plate without an aketon to that of mail that we need to be clear that these are very different animals. I'd joust in plate without heavy padding. I'd be wary to joust in mail in general as a sold defense unless all involved were really good and we were playing shield and helmet tag. It depends on the context heavily but I have seen 12 gauge breastplates go basically inverted with a hard lance strike. I'd not like to think what that would have looked like with mail with padding, let alone without it.

I think much of the anecdotal examples are a bit misleading and can be dangerous unless all the variable are applicable and well setup in any case. I have seen enough jousting to realize things just can be unlucky or just happen as well.

There was some testing done at the Royal Military Academy about a decade ago with force transference that was pretty interesting and had some good info. I think Mike Loades was involved or I might be confusing a few tests done.

RPM

[Mart Shearer]

Randall, I think the transition is earlier than the 14th century. I'm reminded of our discussion on the lines from Guillaume le Breton where the knights are uninjured due to the "density of arms in our time". Certainly something had changed in the method of wearing armor in the opening decades of the 13th century compared to previous times.

[Dan Howard]

[Stephen Curtin]

Good point Randall. Even though the joust I mentioned, had two guys wearing only tunics under mail, perhaps the two jouster only struck each other's shields. In fact the more I think about it the more this makes sense.

The Chronicon Colmariense just about sneaks in prior to 1300. It only made it into this thread by 2 years. Well looking back at my OP I did say about 1300, so technically we're both right Joking aside, thanks Mart this is a solid reference for an aketon in 1298.

I'll be honest, I didn't originally intend to include the bit about no aketons prior to 1300 in this thread. I put that in at the last minute, when I realized that the description of the panzari in the King's Mirror say nothing of stuffing or quilting, only soft linen, and that the hoes were made of the same material as these panzari. To me this explains why we don't see aketons in the Maciejowski Bible.

We see padded arming caps, and padded collars, worn under mail in the Mac Bible, but no aketons, why? I think that it's because the tunics (which had at least two layers, possibly more) were made of stout enough material (perhaps something like buckram) and were thick enough to serve the same function as an aketon.

As for Diu Crône (great reference btw, thanks for sharing). The first reference does say that a wambeis of white buckram was worn under a hauberk. As you say it doesn't mention anything about stuffing or quilting. This could just as easily be a stout buckram tunic, rather an aketon, but It could be either.

The second reference in Diu Crône mentions that over the hauberk you could wear either a wambeis or silk surcoat. I see two possibilities for this
1. Some people preferred the extra protection of a wambeis (sleeveless gambeson) over their hauberks, while others preferred lighter armour and instead wore a silk surcoat.
2. The wambeis (sleeveless buckram tunic) and the silk surcoat (essentially a sleeveless silk tunic) were not that different, and so the decision was between a hard-waring material (buckram) or a stylish material (silk).

I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative. I'm only challenging these ideas because, as I see it, the visual evidence we have (effigies, illuminated manuscripts etc.) contradicts the literary evidence. We have literally evidence for garments called things like wambeis or panzar worn under hauberks, but these words also show up in the context of garments worn over armour, or as stand-alone textile armours. In the visual evidence we have prior to about 1300, there are plenty of quilted textile armours worn over mail, or on their own, but when we can see under the hauberk, we see an un-quilted garment. This contradiction between literary and visual evidence disappears if we say that words such as wambeis and panzar could include un-quilted, but stout, tunics intended to be worn under a hauberk.

[T. Kew]

Arne Koets has jousted in a 13th century kit of mail and very light padding - you might find asking him for opinions on the subject interesting.

It might also be interesting to consider much later evidence. Two thoughts which spring to mind:

First, there's a number of 16th century or later accounts about secretly wearing mail shirts under normal clothing, including while fighting and specifically against thrusting weapons. Obviously in that sort of context one is unlikely to face a halberd or lance, but it does indicate that mail alone was still considered useful.

Second, arming doublets worn with full harness are typically unpadded, and (among other things) are the only backing for mail voiders etc.

One final thought, which has been touched on already. In modern sport combat, the swords don't cut - armour which only turns the edge or point is therefore less useful, since you'll still get pretty much as bruised. So thick padding is much more relevant. When you're dealing with sharp weapons, stopping it cutting you is suddenly great. An interesting parallel might be gauntlets - most historical gauntlets don't have the sort of crush protection on the fingers that's considered necessary for safety now, but they'll still stop your fingers getting chopped off.

[Randall Moffett]

Mart,

Absolutely. I was just pulling one from off the top of my head but the Richard account is a very good one. We also have the bovines one that has some type of layered defense likely. So late 12th early 13th seems likely to me as well.


Dan,

That is true enough but we have many things that have multiple functions that we use all the time so it does not have to be a monotasker as well the historic record backs up many instances of the aketon being defensive so I think it is a pretty solid interpretation. In fact trying to find period evidence to support comfort and fit is likely harder to find that it being defensive.

Stephen,

I would assume that. I have only done a bit of jousting but I am not confident enough to go in a mail shirt and tunic alone if I am likely to be hit in the chest. I have seen some pretty nasty blows with a lance. Perhaps Rod or someone with more experience can chime in but with real lances I'd imagine that was what they were up to.

As to what makes a tunic. We have many around from close to that time frame. Many are pretty light and only one layer. I'd assume that some fought in these alone though. In fact I know they did. I have found evidence of men going to war in but tunics so a mail shirt over that would for sure be a boon.

There are all sorts of makes and styles of aketons. Multilayered linen, padded, multilayered and padded. To be honest those remaining seem to be the latter two. I have never seen a multilayered aketon or jack though we have some textual evidence for them.

I think the over mail padding were likely heavier duty. Not sure as we do not have much to go on but I figure the inside ones would have limits of how far you can pad or layer them before they become less advantageous to movement and overheating.

As I have said before I am more likely to trust textual evidence that is clear to artwork. There are far too many variables to consider in both cases but art more so to me. Much is left ambiguous. That is not saying they do not ever have value as they for sure do, some have great detail but not all MS are the same. Just like not all text is the same. More often than not we get terms like armour or shield used. Well is it mail, pairs of plates, an aketon? A buckler or heater? But also keep in mind artwork often is sort of homologous in the MS itself. they often have more of stereotypes than people that are real. You have a stereotype of a knight. Most of the knights seem simply copied with mild changes. But I'd be wary to discount such detailed text to art though.


T.

Arne would be a good person to ask for sure.

I think that is a good point. the type of threat likely is important. wearing a secret mail shirt to stop a knife is different than a halberd.

You are very correct. The two have very different needs in several aspects so they develop different protections. They also avoid stabbing for the most part so the armour reflects that as well.

RPM

[Philip Dyer]

[Alexander Hinman]