Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Aketons are they really necessary? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next 
Author Message
Stephen Curtin




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

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Sun 23 Apr, 2017 3:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan. I agree.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mart Shearer




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

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sun 23 Apr, 2017 10:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
Which leads to the question, "What conditions changed in the late 13th century to cause government to require aketons beneath mail?" Was it a new threat on the battlefield, or lower prices for equipment which caused or allowed the universal standard to be raised?


The main reason for these garments is to improve the fit and stop chafing, not to increase protection. I would suggest that, at this time, more armour was being produced in generic sizes instead of being custom-tailored for each customer. So an arming garment was more important for the armour to fit properly.


Perhaps the correlation is the appearance of the pair (or coat) of plates, rather than anything to do with mail.

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




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 6:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

So far we really only have you saying the main/only reason for these was chafing. Do you have any evidence to back this up from period? I can think of period examples that relate defensive qualities fairly clearly as discussed before. Why discount them without any real evidence to do so? I have no doubt that for added protection adding layers outside is legitimate as we have evidence backing that up but I still am not seeing backing for the 0 protective quality, or no more than any other fabric, clothing. Even with slight changes an aketon could provide much better protection than clothing. Especially when it runs contrary to a number of period accounts. I think at best there is likely a limit to the amount on can have under the mail before it is not useful and becomes a hindrance. From William the Briton, Andrew Wyntoun all the way to Charles the Bolds ordinances we see the idea of improved protection to mail with some type of under armour, jack or aketon.

As well I would think that as time goes on we see better fit mail and such from the remaining pieces we have in existence. Though dating mail is a rather difficult thing. This seems contrary to late medieval textual and remaining evidence that we have though.

To me the requirement if not defensive would not have been put into place. In Ed I Statutes of 1297 reqs he basically states it all as defensive equipment. As do most of these requirements before and after. As it was these were tiresome and dangerous regulations as they could tick off the commoners and lead to instability, it is listed amongst demands made to Ed |I that lead to his undoing for example. I have one account in London from the 14th where it is clearly stated the aketons in use with the mail were insufficient and the town was told to correct this. If aketons were just equal to clothing for protection this does not make any sense. As well the king likely could care less about chafing on a commoner. He is in it to add whatever he can to your survivability in war so he can use you to win his wars. And as we have 0 evidence in period this is why these aketons were used and have evidence it was used as additional protection I think this an impossible position to take when factoring in the evidence.

Now does that mean all mail was used with aketons. Nope. Does it mean all aketons are super heavy and thick? Nope. But trying to argue these did not add protection ever or at all seems to run counter to a plethora of period text. To me these are clearly being added for defense... as they state that is the reason. So could they have other features. For sure. But we cannot discount their own words and accounts.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 7:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

They add protection. It is incidental. No more than clothing.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 8:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan,

Prove it. I'd love to see first off it is not more protective than clothing. Second that defense was not their primary use. You have 0 period evidence, only you saying this. While I respect your opinion highly it is not enough to counter historic text and the evidence, much of it rather clear on both cases. They would not have made such a focus on these aketons in accounts in this defensive use if they were simply as protective than clothing. So I as I am sure many here would love to see some evidence to back this up.

To me this seems simple. It is a part of the development of war. Better defensive equipment as arms are developing. Time line fits this narrative, most scholars follow this. Unless we have evidence against it.... I just think this is a trip to nowhere.



RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 9:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
Good point Mart. Legally speaking, in England, arming garments for under mail were not required until the late 13th / early 14th century. This also lines up with the late 13th century Norwegian Hirdskraa, which calls for vapntreyju to be worn under either a panzar or a mail shirt. This could mean that before this point "aketons" were optional, and the decision to wear one was down to the individual.


Which leads to the question, "What conditions changed in the late 13th century to cause government to require aketons beneath mail?" Was it a new threat on the battlefield, or lower prices for equipment which caused or allowed the universal standard to be raised?

Another possibility might be that by the 13th century cotton for stuffing armour had become more affordable. According to Mazzaoui's book, the 13th century was when Italian cities started weaving cotton and half-cotton textiles on a large scale, using raw cotton imported from Egypt and Anatolia and places like that (www.bookfinder.com/search/?isbn=0521089603&st=xl&ac=qr By the 14th century the art was spreading north of the Alps.

Cultures with cotton seem to be more interested in padded armour than cultures without, although apparently some of those Sudanese armours are stuffed with kapok and other fibres (and some cultures have felt armour).
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: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 3:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall you raise some good points. This is the source which lead me to believe that arming garments were primarily used to make wearing armour more comfortable

the anonymous author of De Rebus Bellicus wrote:
Among all those things which antiquity has thought of with an eye to postery for wartime use, it also conceived the thoracomachus of remarkable usefulness as relief for the body of the weight and discomfort of arms. For this kind of clothing, which is made of felt to the size and care of the human chest, the concern for fear has made of soft wool strands with utmost care in order that after this was put on first a body armour or cuirass or things similar to these would not damage the frailty of the body through the discomfort of the weight. The limbs as well will up to the work in the moment of arms or bad weather helped through the relief provided by such a garment. In order to prevent this thoracomachus from hampering the wearer when drenched in rains through increasing weight, it is useful to put on on top a garmant made from well prepared Libyan hides to the precise specification of the thoracomachus. Therefore, having put on this thoracomachus, as we say, which has taken up its name from the Greek expression because of the protection of the body, and his boots, that is shoes, and having put on iron greaves, with the helmet put on top and with shield or sword at the side, with spears grasped the soldier will be armed in full to enter the infantry battle.


I would love to see some reasonably accurate mail, tested with an aketon of about a finger's thickness, and compare this to mail worn over an undershirt and tunic. My feeling is that there wouldn't be a huge difference between the two, but of course that's just my speculation.

Very Interesting Sean. Thanks for sharing.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 6:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

We have the DRB which specifically says that arming garments were used to improve the comfort of the armour, We have surviving arming garments from Asia and the Middle East designed to be worn under mail and lamellar that are a lot thinner than one finger in thickness. They are no heavier than regular clothing.

On the other side we have texts telling us that :"aketons" and "gambesons" improve protection but none of them tell us whether these words are describing standalone armour or an arming garment.

There are four possible reasons for the development of arming garments in Europe during the time in question.

1) mail was more commonly being made in generic sizes instead of being custom-fitted to each individual
2) they were developed for the coat of plates and were not intended for standalone mail..
3) cotton started to become more common and cheaper.
4) there was some new weapon that made it necessary for extra protection.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books


Last edited by Dan Howard on Mon 24 Apr, 2017 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Arne G.





Joined: 31 Jul 2014

Posts: 126

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 6:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

"...that after this was put on first a body armour or cuirass or things similar to these..."

Is mail included in this? What is the original Latin text?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 7:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Arne G. wrote:
"...that after this was put on first a body armour or cuirass or things similar to these..."

Is mail included in this? What is the original Latin text?


If that translation is correct then it is evidence in support of no. 2. Agreed that we need the original passage.

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




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 7:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The Nihayat al-Su’l (1371) talks abouit a garment called a qarqal.

"A padded garment can be worn beneath the jawshan*, as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses. This is the qarqal. It will protect the wearer from both heat and cold, and from the blows of maces and kafir kubat** which soften the flesh and weaken the bones. If mail is worn beneath it, then both protection and safety are found."

The translation seems to contradict itself. Firstly it says that the qarqal helps against blunt trauma from maces and clubs, but the last sentence implies that extra protection is only afforded if mail is worn underneath it. In any case, the qarqual is not worn under mail but forms a layer in between lamellar and mail. When lamellar is worn by itself, it forms the inner layer. This seems to be more evidence in support of No 2.

* The term jawshan was used to denote lamellar at this time but later it was used to denote their plated-mail armours.
** I think the kafir kubat is some kind of war club.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
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: Mon 24 Apr, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Arne and Dan. I gave the full original Latin passage in my OP. "body armour or cuirass, or things similar to these" is translated from "lorica vel clivanus aut his similia".
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: Tue 25 Apr, 2017 10:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning. As you are currently working on an aketon / arming doublet you might be able to shed some light on something for me. If I'm not mistaken you used about 3 lbs of cotton batting in your garment. Could you tell me how thick it turned out to be after quilting?
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Wed 26 Apr, 2017 12:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Sean Manning. As you are currently working on an aketon / arming doublet you might be able to shed some light on something for me. If I'm not mistaken you used about 3 lbs of cotton batting in your garment. Could you tell me how thick it turned out to be after quilting?

That is hard to measure, but offhand I would say about 8 mm in the thickest parts (where I used 4 layers of batting) and maybe 4-5 mm in thinnest parts. I forget whether the Romans had a finger as a formal measure, but usually it means a thumbsbreadth, so around 2 cm or 3/4" http://www.livius.org/w/weights/weights3.html#length

But that is part of the problem. I don't know anyone who has worn any style of Roman armour who needs a finger's thickness of padding to feel comfortable, except maybe under the shoulders of a lorica segmentata. You can talk to re-enactors who have worn armour on the march if you doubt my words. So what the author writing de rebus bellicis meant, and where he got the idea, is a real question!
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: Wed 26 Apr, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Sean. The thickness of your arming doublet seems to line up fairly well with the extant sleeve of St Martin. As you say, one finger thick is probably about 2cm. This does seem a bit much for an arming garment. This is just speculation (not at all suggested by the text) but maybe a finger's thickness was the thickness of the cotton before being compressed by quilting.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 12:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Thanks Sean. The thickness of your arming doublet seems to line up fairly well with the extant sleeve of St Martin. As you say, one finger thick is probably about 2cm. This does seem a bit much for an arming garment. This is just speculation (not at all suggested by the text) but maybe a finger's thickness was the thickness of the cotton before being compressed by quilting.

Well, first off, the anonymous author says that the thoracomachus is made de coactili which is usually understood as "of felt/fulled wool." Apparently some law code of around the right period uses the term in that sense, so you would have to make a case that it can also mean "raw cotton" (that could absolutely be the case, but you would have to make an argument).

And you seem to be making assumptions about how a thick garment stuffed with cotton would be made, and that the author of de rebus bellicis is interested in how things look while they are being made by women and slaves and day labourers, rather than when they are finished and on the backs of soldiers. The kind of Romans who wrote texts like that made a point of not noticing the systems and technologies and skilled workers which made their comfortable lives possible.
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 27 Apr, 2017 2:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean. There is no mention of the thickness of the thoracomachus in De Rebus Bellicus, and yes it was made from felt not cotton. The reference to an arming garment of a finger's thickness comes from an anonymous 6th century Byzantine military manual, part of which can be found on post #39 of this thread:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-3698-page-3.html

This text does not make any mention of cotton or quilting, those are definitely speculations on my part.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 3:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some texts mention one or two fingers of stuffing but that is before quilting. After quilting it compresses down to a few mm.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




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

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 4:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Some texts mention one or two fingers of stuffing but that is before quilting. After quilting it compresses down to a few mm.


I don't recall any source mentioning whether the thickness is before or after sewing. Consider the pourpoint of Charles VI, where the stitching does not go through the loose cotton at all. Like plate armor, thickness can vary depending on location, since all the work is done by hand.
Tasha Kelly wrote:
The third question posed at the beginning of this section addresses the uniformity or variability
of the padding's height. This measurement varies on the pourpoint, depending on
location. Over the widest area of the chest and back, the thickness of the padding is approximately
1 inch (25 mrn), which diminishes to .75 inch (19 mm) near the shoulder seam,
and .5 inch (13 mm) at the waist. The padding gradually thickens again as it reaches the
hemline, where it is a full 1 inch (25 mm) thick (Fig. 5).

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
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 27 Apr, 2017 5:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Of course it's entirely possible that the 6th century Byzantine text should be taken at face value, and arming garments of this time really were at least a finger thick. Perhaps this is why the author says that many troops chose to not wear this garment, and wore their armour over regular clothing.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Aketons are they really necessary?
Page 10 of 12 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  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