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 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next 
Author Message
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Concerning the protective properties of aketons compared to regular clothing. I'm nowhere near as familiar with period texts as the rest of you gentlemen, so I'll leave that for others to argue. All I will say is this would be fairly easy to test. I have seen tests performed on jacks made of multiple layers of linen, but never of aketons/gambesons stuffed with cotton. Does anyone here know of such a test.

Jason
View user's profile Send private message
Alan E




Location: UK
Joined: 21 Jan 2016

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
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).

AIUI the Charles VI pourpoint is clothing, a civilian garment padded to achieve the fashionable shape. Is the padding thickness on such relevant to the requirements of underarmour wear?

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




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 10:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alan E wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
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).

AIUI the Charles VI pourpoint is clothing, a civilian garment padded to achieve the fashionable shape. Is the padding thickness on such relevant to the requirements of underarmour wear?

As Tasha Kelly's article explains, the red Charles VI garment is probably a coat-armour (the thick padded garment which men-at-arms in France wore as an outer layer when they were serious about fighting). But more importantly, manylayered or stuffed garments for wearing by themselves, over metal armour, and under metal armour were made by the same workers using the same materials and the same techniques in the fourteenth century. Trying to divide them into either armour OR clothing (or military OR civilian) is like trying to divide shoes into either fashionable OR practical: most are both.

The gold Charles de Blois garment shows no sign of having been worn over or under metal armour, but garments about as heavy have been worn under metal armour in the 14th century and today.
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 3:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Further, the red Charles VI pourpoint has rust stains consistent with mail on the interior fabric.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 27 Apr, 2017 3:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not only that Mart, but wasn't the Charles VI pourpoint made for him when he was still a boy. So it's possible that a pourpoint for a fully grown adult might have been even thicker.

Jason
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 4:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes, it's child sized.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I thought we were discussing arming garments. Charles' pourpoint was worn over the top of mail, not underneath.
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: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 3:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan. Yes, neither the Charles VI, or the Charles de Bois, pourpoints were intended as arming garments. However they can provide us with useful information about construction methods. I think this is why Mart brought up the Charles VI pourpoint, to illustrate that the thickness on these garments could vary from one area to another. This is also seen in the sleeve of St Martin, which varies from 5 - 8mm. Unlike the two surviving pourpoints the sleeve of St Martin might have been from an arming garment.
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: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 7:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
This is also seen in the sleeve of St Martin, which varies from 5 - 8mm. Unlike the two surviving pourpoints the sleeve of St Martin might have been from an arming garment.

And it might not. We don't need to speculate; we have extant examples of arming garments from Asia and the Middle East. Eric found this Japanese example.


Mail and lamellar don't need thicker padding just because they are worn in Europe.

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




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 8:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes Dan, but there are cultures which wore quite thin garments under mail (like the 16th-19th century Japanese) and cultures which wore quite thick ones (like some Europeans in the 13th through 15th centuries). In that period records of expenses show that normal clothing could contain dense cotton padding or many layers of tough linen and silk ... whether that is 'more protective than regular clothing' depends on whether you are thinking about winter clothing in the Yukon or summer clothing in Sicily.

Stephen Curtis' passage from the anonymous Byzantine treatise on strategy is certainly interesting, although I agree that a finger thick is thicker than most garments worn under armour. I would recommend that anyone who wants to build an argument on it reads the whole thing though ... George T. Dennis picked publishers who charge a fair price http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780884023395 I do not know that source so I can't comment.
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: Fri 28 Apr, 2017 11:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

One of the original ideas behind starting this thread was to discuss the necessity (or lack thereof) of wearing an aketon under mail in the context of the Viking Age. I have heard it said way too many times that mail is all but useless without a thick layer of padding underneath it. IMO this line of thinking needed to be called into question. I have already brought up the fact that Japanese mail was used in conjunction with only a few layers of cloth. IMO this illustrates that the people who lived in North West Europe, during the Viking Age, could easily have worn their mail over their everyday clothing.

Dan. The Roman/Byzantine sources we have discussed lead me to agree with you. Until I see evidence otherwise, I think that the primary function of aketons was to improve the fit and comfort of wearing armour. I also believe that there wouldn't have been a huge difference in the protective qualities of aketons and say three or four layers of cloth (regular clothing). BTW have you any more info to accompany the image of Japanese arming garments.

Where I don't agree with you Dan is saying that there wouldn't be any difference in protection between an aketon and regular clothing. As I said, I don't think that there would be a huge difference, but I do think that aketons would be a little better. It would be very interesting to see this tested though.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Mon 01 May, 2017 5:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
This is also seen in the sleeve of St Martin, which varies from 5 - 8mm. Unlike the two surviving pourpoints the sleeve of St Martin might have been from an arming garment.

And it might not. We don't need to speculate; we have extant examples of arming garments from Asia and the Middle East. Eric found this Japanese example.


Mail and lamellar don't need thicker padding just because they are worn in Europe.


Dan do you have any information to go with this image? Wouldn't these Japanese arming garments have likely been worn under lamellar or plate armour and not mail? If so how does this relate to arming garments for use under mail?


Earlier in this thread Håvard Kongsrud mentioned a report which claims that traces of iron oxide were found on the sleeve of St Martin, indicating that it likely was worn under armour, and as it has been carbon dated to the late 12th / early 13th century, this would have been mail.

Jason
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 01 May, 2017 4:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The Japanese used similar garments for both lamellar and mail. No I don't have any additional info - perhaps if Eric sees this he could comment.

The thickest part of an aketon would be in the shoulders. You can't take the thickness of the upper arm in the sleeve of St. Martin and extrapolate it for the torso.

Here is the full report
http://www.guerriersma.com/contenu/Telecharge...Martin.pdf

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: Mon 01 May, 2017 9:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In fact the sleeve is so long that it covers the shoulder. They propose it doubling beneath the body of the aketon, which would result in a double layer there.

I've been going through the Chanson of Gaydon (c.1230) again, and there are several references to aketons (auquetons) with prepositions or sequences indicating that the hauberks of mail, double mail, or jazerant (and sometimes leather cuiries) are worn above them. The references within the same poem for gambesons (gambisons) seem to indicate they were considered a standalone armor.
https://archive.org/details/gaydonchansondeg00gues

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Mon 01 May, 2017 11:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
The Japanese used similar garments for both lamellar and mail. No I don't have any additional info - perhaps if Eric sees this he could comment.


That's assuming that these garments weren't worn under a plate cuirass.

Dan Howard wrote:
The thickest part of an aketon would be in the shoulders. You can't take the thickness of the upper arm in the sleeve of St. Martin and extrapolate it for the torso.


Well I would assume the the forearm would be the thinnest part of the garment. This suggests that the absolute thinnest that the torso section could have been is 5mm.

Mart Shearer wrote:
I've been going through the Chanson of Gaydon (c.1230) again, and there are several references to aketons (auquetons) with prepositions or sequences indicating that the hauberks of mail, double mail, or jazerant (and sometimes leather cuiries) are worn above them. The references within the same poem for gambesons (gambisons) seem to indicate they were considered a standalone armor.
https://archive.org/details/gaydonchansondeg00gues


Cool. I look forward to your findings.

Jason
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: Tue 02 May, 2017 3:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason. Earlier in the thread I shared an example of a Japanese kusari katabira, which is a mail shirt hidden inside of a jacket. This kusari katabira was made from a mail shirt surrounded by five layers of cloth, four on one side, and one on the other. AFAIK all Japanese mail was backed with a couple of layers of cloth, and from what I've been able to find mail sleeves were often backed by as little as three layers of cloth. So I'd say that it is fair to say that the Japanese used a very light approach when it came to padding under mail.

Dan. If the top section of the sleeve of St Martin, overlapped with the torso section at the shoulder, making a double layer of padding, then this is more reason to believe that this was indeed an arming garment. As you said arming garments are thickest at the shoulders to help support the weight of the armour. Though we cannot know for sure, I would think that the missing torso section would have been a little bit thicker than the forearm which is 5mm thick.

Mart. Thanks for the link.

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: Wed 03 May, 2017 4:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here is an example of a 16th - 17th century Turkish kazaghand kept in the Royal Armouries Leeds. In this case the mail has only a single layer of cloth on either side of it, a course cotton fabric on the inside, and silk taffeta on the outside. This is more evidence that mail was not necessarily always worn with thick padding.


 Attachment: 201.54 KB
post-1815-14196847440096.jpg


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: Wed 03 May, 2017 10:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason O C wrote:
Mart Shearer wrote:
I've been going through the Chanson of Gaydon (c.1230) again, and there are several references to aketons (auquetons) with prepositions or sequences indicating that the hauberks of mail, double mail, or jazerant (and sometimes leather cuiries) are worn above them. The references within the same poem for gambesons (gambisons) seem to indicate they were considered a standalone armor.
https://archive.org/details/gaydonchansondeg00gues


Cool. I look forward to your findings.

Jason


All translation errors are my own. ( And I welcome correction.)
https://ia801403.us.archive.org/28/items/gaydonchansondeg00gues/gaydonchansondeg00gues.pdf

3098 Ferraus s'arma sus en palais plennier:
3099 Les chauces lace sus espérons d'ormier;
3100 Auqueton et d'un drap de soie chier;
3101 Deseure vest .1. bon hauberc doublier,
3102 Fort, et tenant, et merveilles legier.

Feraud armed himself in a plenary palace
The chauces laced with spurs of pure gold added;
Aketon and a cover of costly silk;
and over he put on 1 good double hauberk,
Strong, and holding fast, and marvelously made.



5882 Sor .1. tapis ont armé Savari.
5883 Les chauces chauce, onques meillors ne vi,
5884 Espérons ot qui sont à or burni,
5885 .I. auqueton ot de Roie vesti,
5886 Puis vest l'auberc, qui fu fais à Châmbli.
5887 Cuirie ot bonne qui fu de cuir boilli,
5888 Cote à armer d'un dyaspre gaydi.
5889 Le hiaume lace, qui très bien li séi,

On a Savoy(?) carpet he armed.
The close-fitting chausses, better are not seen,
Spurs that are of polished gold,
Dressed in 1 aketon had of the King,
And then put on the hauberk, which was from Chambly.
A Cuirie that is good which was of cuir bouilli,
A coat of arms with cheerful, scattered decor.
The helm laced, which was very well his own,


6397 L'arma dus Naynmes et Renaus ausiment.
6398 Chauces li chaucent blanches com .1. argent;
6399 Espérons d'or ot ouvrez richement;
6400 Sor l'auqueton vest l'auberc jazerant,
6401 Fort et legier, maillié menuement.
6402 Cuirie ot bonne, ferrée largement.
6403 Cote à armer d'un cendel de Mêlant :
6404 Plus est vermeille que rose qui resplent ,
6405 A .III. lyons batus d'or, richement.

Likewise Naynmes and Renaud are armed.
Close-fitting white chausses with 1 silver;
Spurs of gold, openly enriched;
Over the aketon, put on a hauberk-jazerant,
Strong and light, woven tightly.
And a good cuirie, widely covered with iron.
A coat of arms of sendal of Mêlant (Milan?)
More vermilion than a resplendent roseLes cha
With 3 lions of beaten gold, richly made.



6482 Les chauces chauce blanches com flors de pré ;
6483 Les espérons li a chauciez Hardrez.
6484 Lors saut en pies , si a ses bras levez
6485 Sor l'auqueton qui d'or fu ponturez;
6486 Vesti l'auberc qui fors fu et serrez.
6487 Cuirie ot bonne , d'un cuir qui fu tennez ;
6488 Cote ot moult bonne, plus bêle ne verrez,
6489 D'un drap tout ynde qui fu à or frezez ,
6490 A .1. lyon vermeil enclavinné.

The tight-fitting chausses, white like flowers in the field;
The spurs put on Hardrez shoes.
Then jumps with his foot, and his arms are raised(?)
Above the aketon which of gold was sewn;
put on the hauberk which was strong and closely woven.
The cuirie is good, of leather which is tanned;
The coat is very good; more beautiful was never seen
Of a cloth from India which is fretted(?) with gold,
With 1 lion with vermilion claws

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 04 May, 2017 5:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some interesting stuff here Mart, thanks.

Lines 3100 and 3101 have an aketon and a silk garment under a double hauberk. Perhaps this is why aketons are not visible in artwork, they are being covered by another garment and then by the hauberk.

Lines 6400 to 6402 have an aketon, then a jazerant, then a cuirie. This one is a bit strange. If a jazerant had integrated padding, then why was it worn over an aketon? Also I thought cuiries were a leather cuirass yet this one seems to have involved iron in some way.

Jason
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 04 May, 2017 5:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason O C wrote:
Some interesting stuff here Mart, thanks.

Lines 3100 and 3101 have an aketon and a silk garment under a double hauberk.

The aketon is covered in silk; it isn't a separate garment.

Quote:
Lines 6400 to 6402 have an aketon, then a jazerant, then a cuirie. This one is a bit strange. If a jazerant had integrated padding, then why was it worn over an aketon?

You've just been shown a jazerant with no padding. The aketon is to make it more comfortable.

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


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