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 
Author Message
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Thu 04 May, 2017 7:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Are you sure that the aketon and the silk covering are not two separate garments, the "et" (and) suggests to me that they are.

We do know that at least some jazerants / kazaghands were made with a hauberk sandwiched between layers of cloth and cotton padding. Perhaps the one that Stephen shared was intended for civilian use? More like hidden armour, than fancy covered battlefield armour.

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 7:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

and perhaps the one Stephen shared was meant to be worn over an aketon while those with integrated padding were not.
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 04 May, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason O C wrote:
Are you sure that the aketon and the silk covering are not two separate garments, the "et" (and) suggests to me that they are.


No, I'm not. Drap can mean a sheet, curtain, or clothing. It could be either one costly silk shirt, or one costly silk layer of fabric on the aketon. Perhaps someone with better translation skills can be more precise?

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: Fri 05 May, 2017 4:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason. I'm certainly no expert on Middle Eastern fashion, but the fact that the kazaghand that I shared has integral mittens, leads me to think that this was not a civilian hidden armour. Unless male jackets of this time had such mittens, then maybe it could pass for a regular item of clothing.

Thanks for the translation work Mart.

I used to think of jazerants and kazaghands as; arming garments, armour, and surcoats, all in one, but lines 6400-05 definitely call this idea into question.

Line 6402. I wonder if this cuirie is meant to be leather re-enforced with iron, or a cuirie made from iron?

This reminds me I need to start a thread to discuss cuir bouilli.

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: Fri 05 May, 2017 4:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Line 6402. I wonder if this cuirie is meant to be leather re-enforced with iron, or a cuirie made from iron?

This reminds me I need to start a thread to discuss cuir bouilli.


I have perhaps overextended myself by saying "covered", as ferrée largement is, I think, more "amply with iron" than specifying whether the iron is above or beneath. This certainly sounds like an early coat of plates. While Guillaume le Breton, Heinrich von dem Türlin, and the anonymous author of the Konungs skuggsjá all mention a plate or plates beneath the hauberk around 1220-1250, wearing this above the hauberk sounds much more akin to what we expect for c.1260 or 1270. Perhaps the use of plates is much earlier than we believe, due to their being hidden in the art?

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: Fri 05 May, 2017 6:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes this well could be an early form of coat of plates. There probably isn't a good English translation for "ferrée largement". The best I can come up with is largely/mostly ironed, by which I mean that the cuirie had a good amount of iron on it.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Håvard Kongsrud




Location: Norge
Joined: 10 Mar 2015
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi, sorry for the long hiatus. Two points to be made:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
Jason O C wrote:
Anyway getting back to the King's Mirror. If we take the description of the horse's equipment literally, it doesn't seem to match any other evidence that I'm aware of.

Firstly the author says that the layer of padding under the mail could be decorated as one likes. Why would you decorate this layer if is is going to be covered by mail? No one is going to be able to see it anyway.

Secondly the "grima" is supposedly padding which goes over the mail, but only covers the horse's head and neck. I haven't ever seen or heard of an item of equipment like this, how about the rest of you guys?


These are some of the reasons I suspect that the current interpretation of the text in King's Mirror might not be 100% accurate. Earlier in the thread Håvard Konsgsrud said;

Quote:
I would advice against a too close reading of the text. Some artistic license. And the writer got some critisism from Blom 1867 for mixing up the layers of the horsy stuff


Perhaps the author of the King's Mirror made mistakes?

What Blom 1867 remarks about the text is this issue exactly (p 95): "Kongespeilet nævner et saadant Chabraque [a cover], en Grime, over Forparten af Hesten; paa dennes Kryds skulde da altsaa Brynjen være ubedækket, et Arrangement, som synes meget lidet rimeligt, og som eiheller gjenfindes paa de gamle Afbildninger." "The King's Mirror mentions such a chabraque/grime, over the front part of the horse. On its croup should thus the mail be uncovered, an arrangement which seem to be less than reasonable, and which is also not found in the old depictions."

The second point:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
Håvard I think that the vapn part of vapnrokkr wasn't used to indicate that a surcoat bore its owner's arms. I think that the vapn in vapnrokkr indicated that this surcoat was to be worn with armour, just as the vapn in vapntreyju indicated a treyju to be worn with armour.
On the contrary, the parts i referred to in most cases mentioned vapnrokker when listing places where the protagonists 'coat of arms' were shown.

And finally a tiny distinction:
Stephen Curtin wrote:
I think that both of these garments, as well as the cuisses and sleeveless panzar, were made from multiple layers of linen. As all of these garments are described in a similar way, I think that they were all made in a similar way. I don't know of any evidence for arming hoes that were padded and quilted, so if the hoes weren't padded and quilted then I don't think that the other garments were either. This is why multiple layers of linen makes sense. Each of the above garments could be made from multiple layers of linen. Even with a different number of layers, each garment could be said to be made like the others.
I have no disagreement with you on the multiple layers of linen for an arming garment. It is just that these multiple layers can be quilted together, the layers of linen in itself constituting the padding.
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 11 May, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi again Håvard. Thank for elaborating on what Blom had to say. As for vapnrokkr, I won't argue against you on that as I'm unable to read the original sources.

Håvard Kongsrud wrote:
I have no disagreement with you on the multiple layers of linen for an arming garment. It is just that these multiple layers can be quilted together, the layers of linen in itself constituting the padding.


Yes these multiple layers of linen could have been quilted together, or not, unfortunately the text is silent on this matter. While you're here Håvard, here's a question I asked earlier which you might have missed.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Håvard. Here's another one for you. As you know the hirdskraa has three levels of armour for the different levels of society expected to go to war. 

Knights were to have a vapntreyju, mail shirt, and a coat of plates. 
Hirdsmen were to have a vapntreyju, and either a mail shirt or a panzar. 
Candle Bearers and Guests were to have a styrka vapntreyju (strong arming tunic). 

So why do you think that there is a distinction made between panzars and styrka vapntreyjus? Wouldn't both be stand alone textile armours?

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Håvard Kongsrud




Location: Norge
Joined: 10 Mar 2015
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
While you're here Håvard, here's a question I asked earlier which you might have missed.

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Håvard. Here's another one for you. As you know the hirdskraa has three levels of armour for the different levels of society expected to go to war. 

Knights were to have a vapntreyju, mail shirt, and a coat of plates. 
Hirdsmen were to have a vapntreyju, and either a mail shirt or a panzar. 
Candle Bearers and Guests were to have a styrka vapntreyju (strong arming tunic). 

So why do you think that there is a distinction made between panzars and styrka vapntreyjus? Wouldn't both be stand alone textile armours?
Ah, yes. Missed that one. The short answer is that I'm not sure wether the distinction in this text is significant or not, but if it is, it might have to do with the one beeing intended to be worn above a padding garment and the other considered a standalone arming garment? I believe three points are relevant: 1. The distinction is made in this text alone. 2. This text is one of the earliest recorded uses of the word vapntreyju in old norse prose. 3. The text is writen by and for a closed martial elite.

The original text with some variations:
1. «Gestir skulu æiga styrka[sterga/goda] vapntræyiu, stalhufu, skiold oc sverd, spiot [ok bucklara], Handboga með ij tylftum brodda. Slik en samu uopn skulo kertilsvæinar æiga sem aðr varo skild gestom.» - Guests and Pages should have strengthened vapntræyiu.
2. «Hirdmaðr skal oc æiga vapntræyiu oc uttan yfir panzsara eða bryniu, þar með stalhufu oc sværd oc skiold goðan, spiott oc bucklara oc handbogha með þrim tylftum brodda» - Squires should have a vapntreyju, covered by either a mail shirt or a panzar
3. «En skutilsvæin hverr skal æiga alla oc fulla herneskiu. þat er fyrst spalndener eða vapntræyia, brynkollo oc bryniu med brynhosum oc brynglofum. hialm eða stalhufu, sværd oc spiot, skiolld uruggan[/goðan] oc plato, altiltækr er oc bucklare oc æigi siðdr annat hvart handboghe eða lasboge.» - Knights should have vapntreyju or spaldener, mail shirt, and a coat of plates.

The most interesting comparison is the contemporary Landlaw in which the highest class of farmers (those owning more than 18 mark beyond their clothes) should have "panzara eða bryniu". In this source, addressing the populace rather than a martial elite, no reference is made to an arming garment worn beneath mail, and the older and proably more common word panzar (dating at least back to the early 14th century Sverre's saga). The panzar in this source seem to have the same meaning as the styrka vapntreyju rather than the panzar of the hirdskraa. I've been postponing presenting a check of all instances of the words vapntreyju and treyju, while doing the work on related words, but it's forthcoming...
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: Sat 13 May, 2017 12:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for your thoughts on the Hirdskraa Håvard. I look forward to hearing what you find on the words treyju and vapntreyju.
Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jason O C





Joined: 20 Oct 2012

Posts: 114

PostPosted: Sun 14 May, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It is interesting that there is a distinction made between styrka vapntræyiu and a panzar worn over a vapntræjiu. You would think that both of these set ups would function pretty much identically.

Jason
View user's profile Send private message


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