| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Sun 26 Mar, 2017 8:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Mart Shearer wrote: | | Does anyone have the exact source of the "felt coats" worn by Richard I's men on the Third Crusade? I have seen it cited as being Arabic and Latin, but have never found the specific document. |
I'm pretty sure I used the full citation in the Mail Unchained article. Unfortunately I had to rely on a translation similar to the one above and there is no way to know how accurate it is. Assuming it is correct, there is no way to tell whether the felt was worn underneath or whether it was worn over the top. |
How would the chronicler know about the material or shape of the garment when being worn on the field if the garment was worn under the hauberk? The passage would have probably read that our arrows made no impression on their dense mail. |
How would he have known that their mail was dense and strong without seeing it? He could have seen a dead Frank or simply asked a Frank to show him. There was plenty of interaction between the two sides - even in the middle of a battle they visited each other's camps.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
Arne G.
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | Getting back to the subject of arming garments in the Viking Age for just a moment. This thread has veered way off where I originally intended it to go, but I'm not complaining, I've enjoyed the discussion, and I'm glad that it managed to stay civil for once.
As I said earlier, one of the arguments why the Vikings "must have" used an aketon under their mail, is because the Romans used subarmalis. I don't think that this is a good argument. There is no evidence that the Romans ever used a stuffed and quilted arming garment. The Pliny and De Re Bellicis references suggest that Roman arming garments were made from felt. Felt can be made very thick, so it doesn't need to be layered. Also felt doesn't need to be quilted between layers of cloth to hold itself together. I believe that there are traces of felt lining the inside of some of the surviving examples of Roman helmets and greaves.
So if the idea of arming garments under mail carried on after the Romans, and through to the High Medieval period, then this garment was probably a thick felt tunic, and not an aketon-like garment. The idea of cotton stuffed arming garments probably came to Europe through contact with the Holy Land during the crusades. There is one well known reference to crusaders wear mail in combination with a thick felt garment, but unfortunately the author (Saladin's biographer) doesn't mention whether this felt garment was worn under the mail or over it. This could be evidence of a native European tradition of arming garment, which eventually got replaced by aketons.
Other than this, the only other evidence that I know of for felt arming garments in Europe, is that recently some 17th century "buff coats" have been found to have been made from felt, and not buff leather.
As for the argument that aketons were worn in the Viking Age because without them mail is "useless". Though this has not been argued on this thread, I've seen this argument so many times that I had to talk about it. As Dan Howard has pointed out on other threads the main threats on the battlefield in the age of mail were spears and arrows. Of course the first line of defence against these threats were large shields. If a spear point or an arrow did get around the shield, and struck someone on their mail, then I believe that the mail was enough to handle it. Could the blunt impact of this strike cause bruised flesh and perhaps broken bones? Yes of course, but it still saved lives. A comparison could be made to modern ballistic vests. These vests stop bullets from entering a human torso, but do nothing cushion the impact. This is very similar to mail, and yet law enforcement officers wear these vests without any padding underneath.
The Maciejowski Bible and King's Mirror were brought into this thread to show that even in a time when aketons were used, they were not universal, and so in earlier centuries might not have been used at all. They have now become the focus of this thread, but as I said, I'm not complaining. I'm enjoying the discussion, so thank you all for the replies. |
Out of curiosity, what sort of advantage is gained by not wearing any sort of thick lining, padded aketon, or the like under mail?
|
|
 |
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arne G. wrote: | | Out of curiosity, what sort of advantage is gained by not wearing any sort of thick lining, padded aketon, or the like under mail? |
Mail literally can't be beat for mobility, flexibility, and ventillation. Not to mention how quick it is to put on. Heavy padding negates all of that, while not *really* stopping the kind of bone-crushing blunt impact that some folks are so worried about.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arne G. wrote: | | Stephen Curtin wrote: | Getting back to the subject of arming garments in the Viking Age for just a moment. This thread has veered way off where I originally intended it to go, but I'm not complaining, I've enjoyed the discussion, and I'm glad that it managed to stay civil for once.
As I said earlier, one of the arguments why the Vikings "must have" used an aketon under their mail, is because the Romans used subarmalis. I don't think that this is a good argument. There is no evidence that the Romans ever used a stuffed and quilted arming garment. The Pliny and De Re Bellicis references suggest that Roman arming garments were made from felt. Felt can be made very thick, so it doesn't need to be layered. Also felt doesn't need to be quilted between layers of cloth to hold itself together. I believe that there are traces of felt lining the inside of some of the surviving examples of Roman helmets and greaves.
So if the idea of arming garments under mail carried on after the Romans, and through to the High Medieval period, then this garment was probably a thick felt tunic, and not an aketon-like garment. The idea of cotton stuffed arming garments probably came to Europe through contact with the Holy Land during the crusades. There is one well known reference to crusaders wear mail in combination with a thick felt garment, but unfortunately the author (Saladin's biographer) doesn't mention whether this felt garment was worn under the mail or over it. This could be evidence of a native European tradition of arming garment, which eventually got replaced by aketons.
Other than this, the only other evidence that I know of for felt arming garments in Europe, is that recently some 17th century "buff coats" have been found to have been made from felt, and not buff leather.
As for the argument that aketons were worn in the Viking Age because without them mail is "useless". Though this has not been argued on this thread, I've seen this argument so many times that I had to talk about it. As Dan Howard has pointed out on other threads the main threats on the battlefield in the age of mail were spears and arrows. Of course the first line of defence against these threats were large shields. If a spear point or an arrow did get around the shield, and struck someone on their mail, then I believe that the mail was enough to handle it. Could the blunt impact of this strike cause bruised flesh and perhaps broken bones? Yes of course, but it still saved lives. A comparison could be made to modern ballistic vests. These vests stop bullets from entering a human torso, but do nothing cushion the impact. This is very similar to mail, and yet law enforcement officers wear these vests without any padding underneath.
The Maciejowski Bible and King's Mirror were brought into this thread to show that even in a time when aketons were used, they were not universal, and so in earlier centuries might not have been used at all. They have now become the focus of this thread, but as I said, I'm not complaining. I'm enjoying the discussion, so thank you all for the replies. |
Out of curiosity, what sort of advantage is gained by not wearing any sort of thick lining, padded aketon, or the like under mail? |
Less wieght on you, better mobility, less hot to wear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arne G. Depends on how thick you mean exactly, but basically I'd agree with what Matthew and Philip said.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arne G.
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Less wieght on you, better mobility, less hot to wear. |
Well, OK. However, how much less weight? Is it really an appreciable fraction of what the iron mail itself weighs? Does the padding really inhibit mobility to any meaningful degree? Finally, earlier in this thread there is an excerpt where Saladin mentions crusaders wearing thick aketons in one of the hottest climates on the planet - why, then, should the wearing of padding (of whatever specific nature) be an object of concern in, say, Northern Europe?
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Mail literally can't be beat for mobility, flexibility, and ventillation. Not to mention how quick it is to put on. Heavy padding negates all of that, while not *really* stopping the kind of bone-crushing blunt impact that some folks are so worried about. |
Properly articulated plate armor does not significantly impede range of motion (with a couple of minor exceptions); overall weight is more of a determining factor w.r.t. mobility - and the weights of comparable levels of mail and plate coverage are pretty similar. Even flexibility is not that badly impacted, though mail is obviously superior in this respect. Quickness of donning is true, though that really only applies to a hauberk or haubergeon worn by itself - chausses for example would require additional effort to lace on. Padding does not necessarily negate any of this - for example, the padding could be sewn integral with the mail, so no additional time would be spent putting it on. Nor should a reasonable level of padding inhibit range of motion to any meaningful degree.
It should be pointed out that the padding need not have been "heavy" - substantial, maybe, but not necessarily heavy. How do you define heavy, anyway? Also, a blow need not be truly "bone crushing" to put you out of a fight - merely fracturing your collarbone could do that, something that padding/lining might easily prevent if worn.
Is there any proof that an aketon would present the level of hardship that is claimed? Are there any studies that can be linked to that prove that mail's positive qualities are degraded or negated by wearing padding? I would be very interested in seeing those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hċvard Kongsrud
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Getting back to the subject of arming garments in the Viking Age for just a moment ... So if the idea of arming garments under mail carried on after the Romans, and through to the High Medieval period, then this garment was probably a thick felt tunic, and not an aketon-like garment. ... Other than this, the only other evidence that I know of for felt arming garments in Europe, is that recently some 17th century "buff coats" have been found to have been made from felt, and not buff leather. |
You allways have the Ǫrvar-Odds saga a legendary saga about arrrow-Odd's exploits around Northern Europe written down in the late 13th century saying: "ŝeir váru allir í flókastǫkkum, ok beit á engan járn", something like "They were all in their felted tunic, and no sword would bite". Be warned though, this is the medieval equivalent of GoT or LotR.
[Ed: you find 'em in Sturlunga saga too, where "ŝorbiorn var i ŝófa-stacki, ŝeim er sverdin ŝeira bito ecki, ŝot ŝeir breiddi a tre; ŝann hio Hǫgni i svndr bak ok firir." Compiled in the 12th and 13th century and edited ca 1300, this beeing a late 14th century copy that might contain a corruption of "torf stakkr", Thorbiĝrn beeing hidden in a pile of turf.]
Last edited by Hċvard Kongsrud on Mon 27 Mar, 2017 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arne G. wrote: | | It should be pointed out that the padding need not have been "heavy" - substantial, maybe, but not necessarily heavy. How do you define heavy, anyway? |
Well this is based on my own interpretation of period sources so it could be off, but then again I don't think anyone knows for sure. I think that typical aketon probably weighed about 5 or 6 lbs. A heavy garment would be something like a 10 - 30 layer jack, which would weigh about 1 lbs per layer. I'm not sure how much padding you can get away with under mail, before it interferes with mobility, or the weight becomes a hindrance.
| Arne G wrote: | | Also, a blow need not be truly "bone crushing" to put you out of a fight - merely fracturing your collarbone could do that, something that padding/lining might easily prevent if worn. |
How much padding do you think it take to distribute the force of a strike which would fracture an un-padded collarbone? I think "padding" wouldn't do much. I think that to handle these heavy blows would require more rigid armour. Of course that is just my opinion. I don't know of any studies that have tested this stuff. Those would be interesting.
Éirinn go Brách
Last edited by Stephen Curtin on Mon 27 Mar, 2017 1:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the saga reference Hċvard.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arne G. wrote: | | Out of curiosity, what sort of advantage is gained by not wearing any sort of thick lining, padded aketon, or the like under mail? |
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by thick padding, but if what you meant was, what advantage would one gain by wearing mail over regular clothing, as opposed to wearing mail over an arming garment? None that I know of. Arming garments would certainly have some advantages over regular clothing, if they didn't, it wouldn't have been invented. The one grey area is, in climates where regular clothing was fairly thick due to the cold, perhaps dedicated arming garments weren't necessary.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Well this is based on my own interpretation of period sources so it could be off, but then again I don't think anyone knows for sure. I think that typical aketon probably weighed about 5 or 6 lbs. A heavy garment would be something like a 10 - 30 layer jack, which would weigh about 1 lbs per layer. |
Weight can increase by up to 100% when it gets soaked with sweat. This isn't a problem when it is worn on top. Rain isn't such a problem: sources suggest that the surcoat was designed to keep armour clean and protect it from rain.
| Quote: | | How much padding do you think it take to distribute the force of a strike which would fracture an un-padded collarbone? I think "padding" wouldn't do much. I think that to handle these heavy blows would require more rigid armour. Of course that is just my opinion. I don't know of any studies that have tested this stuff. Those would be interesting |
Yep. The amount of padding required to mitigate these attacks is way too much to comfortably fit under mail - you'd look like the Michelin Man..Rigid protection is required.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hċvard Kongsrud wrote: |
You allways have the Ǫrvar-Odds saga a legendary saga about arrrow-Odd's exploits around Northern Europe written down in the late 13th century saying: "ŝeir váru allir í flókastǫkkum, ok beit á engan járn", something like "They were all in their felted tunic, and no sword would bite". Be warned though, this is the medieval equivalent of GoT or LotR. |
It really doesn't require much to stop a sword cut. Proper armour was designed to stop points.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Mar, 2017 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan. Good point. The weights I suggested were of the dry garments. Of course the weight would significantly increase when they got wet. We have some sources which indicate that attempts were made at waterproofing some of these garments, but sweat would certainly increase the weight from the inside.
As you mentioned earlier thick winter clothes have been recorded historically to have sometimes stopped sword cuts. These felted tunics could just have been thick winter clothes.
Hċvard, does the saga give any more details to suggest if these felted tunics were considered as regular clothing, or as cloth armour?
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hċvard Kongsrud
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Mar, 2017 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Hċvard, does the saga give any more details to suggest if these felted tunics were considered as regular clothing, or as cloth armour? |
The passage in Arrow-Odd's saga is listing the armour of the raiding party entering Bjarmeland, (Karelia) which make it useable as both, I guess.
The quote from Sturlunga saga is quite entertaining actually - i found a google translate-friendly Danish translation here. (search "filtkofte"). It's your average seven samurai or Bonnie and Clyde scenario, where a gang falls upon a small group in a village, and eight warriors decide to break out. This was pretty recent history when written down, the story of the turbulent years that lead the Icelanders to accept the Norwegian king. Quite a few dramaturgical elements can be found, though. In this passage, where a warrior cut through the impenetrable garment it is obviously concidered cloth armour, It could still be used as a civilian garment too.
One note on climate and clothing: Reenacting winter events in Norway, down to minus 5-10 degrees celcius (23-14 degrees Farenheit) I use a linen undergarment, a single wool tunic and a cloak on my torso, both at around 400 g pr square meter. If works fine if I don't sit down for too long. Off course a supertunic was common too, but one should not overestimate the need for thick clothing even in cold weather when beeing active. The biggest problem in cold weather is getting wet from sweat reducing the clothing's isolating effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Mar, 2017 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Mart Shearer wrote: | | Does anyone have the exact source of the "felt coats" worn by Richard I's men on the Third Crusade? I have seen it cited as being Arabic and Latin, but have never found the specific document. |
I'm pretty sure I used the full citation in the Mail Unchained article. Unfortunately I had to rely on a translation similar to the one above and there is no way to know how accurate it is. Assuming it is correct, there is no way to tell whether the felt was worn underneath or whether it was worn over the top. |
How would the chronicler know about the material or shape of the garment when being worn on the field if the garment was worn under the hauberk? The passage would have probably read that our arrows made no impression on their dense mail. |
Perhaps he wasn't describing the Crusaders at all, but was assuming they were armed with felt coats like his own infantry, due to his own cultural bias.
| Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani wrote: | Most troops could not afford to buy expensive armour and were protected by felt. These
were called namadpu نمدپوش (felt wearer; someone who uses felt as armour). |
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Mar, 2017 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link Hċvard. For some strange reason the Google translate function isn't working for me right now, but when I figure it out, I'll be sure to have a read through. As for the thickness of clothing. In battle you most likely wouldn't be wearing your cloak, and so might choose to double up on layers of clothes. You might even wear two linen undershirts and two wool tunics. Of course most of the fighting took place in the summer months, so this might not have been necessary. Either way I think that the clothing worn in Europe would have been thicker than those worn in the Middle East, where I believe aketons most likely originated. My point is that because lighter clothing was worn in hotter climates may have necessitated the invention of specialized arming garments.
Mart. That's possible. Of course it's also possible, as Dan mentioned, that there are errors in the translation. For all we know the author might have meant that some crusaders worn mail and others worn a thick felt garment. The translation makes it seem like each man worn both a hauberk, and a felt garment, but without getting someone familiar with the language to take a look at the original, we can't be sure of anything. Who knows perhaps "felt" isn't even the correct translation. We've seen bad translations lead to misconceptions before. The "leather jerkin" from Gerald of Wales springs to mind.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Mar, 2017 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then there is the question of what is considered "felt". In the Sixteen Regulations of Armorers, Fabric Armorers, and Helmers of Paris of 1364, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k55440899/f332.item , Article 4 describes the making of linings for bascinets and camails with this line:
| Quote: | | Et que nul ne face fouceau ou bassinet, se il ne lui est commandé, et que le feutre soit couchié de coton neuf sur vieilz linge et enterin flotté de cendail, et contrendroit, de la couleur du cendail. |
...and the felt (feutre) is laid down of new cotton (coton neuf) on old linen and in between entirely floated in cendal,....
Which sounds like loose cotton fiber sewn to old linen and covered with silk is considered to be "felt".
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Mar, 2017 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. The word had a different meaning at the time. Today it is largely used to describe matted wool.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Thu 30 Mar, 2017 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that without having someone look at the original text, who is familiar with the language, history, and the textiles of the region, we can't be sure of the translation. So until this happens, we can either take the above translation at face value or ignore it altogether.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason O C
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Apr, 2017 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that it's possible that panzar could mean everything from aketon to gambeson to surcoat. We have an example of something similar in the way that German speaking people used the word waffenroc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but waffemroc could be used for surcoats as well as padded garments.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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