[Stephen Curtin]

Good point Jason.

[Jason O C]

Stephen. The idea that words like aketon and gambeson could refer to tunics and surcoats, as well as padded garments, would explain the differences between the visual and literary evidence. The problem is that you haven't presented any evidence to support this idea. All the evidence we do have for aketons and gambesons suggests that they were made from either many layers of cloth or from loose fibres sandwiched between layers of cloth. I think a better explanation of the difference between visual and literary evidence is that, arming garments like aketons were not used universally. Check out this image from the mid 14th. This image comes from a time where there can be no argument that padded arming garments were in use, and yet this figure seems to be wearing his mail over a normal tunic.

Jason

[Jason O C]

Another thing to consider is, both the King's Mirror and Du Crône, describe the; top of the line, high end, heaviest armour available at the time. Let's say you compared the equipment of two men. One wears a tunic, mail shirt, and surcoat. The other wears aketon, mail shirt, and sleeveless gambeson. I reckon that, all else being equal, the second man's equipment would probably weigh about 8 - 10 lbs more than the first man's. Perhaps this was a factor in deciding between the two options.

Jason

[Stephen Curtin]

Jason. More good points. If you've followed this entire thread, then you'll have noticed that my opinion has swung back and forth on whether or not aketons (using the definition from OP again) were used before around 1300. The more I think about it, the more I think that aketons probably were used, but not by all. The idea that the words aketon and gambeson could sometimes refer to stout un-quilted tunics and surcoats was just speculation to explain the apparent lack of arming garments in the Maciejowski Bible. As you say Jason, there is no real evidence to back up this speculation, so it's probably wrong. I still think that there's more to the text of the King's Mirror than the standard translation suggests

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?

[Dan Howard]

The name "aketon" is derived from the French "alcotton" which is derived from the Arabic "al qutn". It suggests that they were adopted after European interaction in Outremer during the 12th C Crusades. I'd suggest looking for 12th-13th C French sources to try and track down the earliest use of "alcotton". It is likely that this word will appear much earlier than the first instance of "aketon".

[Mart Shearer]

Aymeri de Narbonne, c. 1205-1225, ll. 2811-2

[Dan Howard]

[Stephen Curtin]

This is great Mart. This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping someone would share, solid evidence for a quilted arming garment stuffed with raw cotton dated to well before 1300. Thank you.

Here's something you said earlier Mart, that I'd like discuss:

[Jason O C]

Another nice find Mr. Shearer. Thank you for sharing.

[Stephen Curtin]

Jason. Pretty much all of the garments are said, or implied, to be made from linen which is discribed as soft and "vel svörtuðum" (which I take to mean well worn). Now the fact that a lot of emphasis has been placed on the linen needing to be soft and worn, makes me think that this softness played a large roll in the function of these garments. If these panzars were made from linen shells, stuffed with cotton or tow, then the softness of the linen wouldn't matter so much, because the loose fibres would provide all the softness needed. So that's why I think the garments in the King's Mirror were made from multiple layers of linen, rather than stuffed with cotton or tow.

If I remember correctly both the London armourer's regulations of 1322, and the ordinances of Louis XI mention the use of old worn cloth for the internal layers of textile armours. Also I can't remember which sources mentioned this, but some writers noted that the softer a textile armour was, the better it protected. Old worn linen would of course be softer than new linen. This is why I think soft and well worn linen is a better translation than soft and thoroughly blackened, but that's just my opinion.

If I am correct (not that I'll ever be able to prove it) and the arming garments in the King's Mirror were made from multiple layers of linen, then it makes sense that each garment would be made from a different number of layers. The hose might have only been 1 or 2 layers, while the panzar intended as stand-alone armour might have been up to 30, and all of the other garments being somewhere between these two extremes.

[Stephen Curtin]

Jason. Here is the other issue that I have with the text of the King's Mirror.

With the exception of the "brjóstbjörg" (breastplate(s)), both the horse and the rider are equipped with three layers of protection, a mail harness sandwiched between two linen garments.

As both of the rider's linen garments are called panzars, and both of the horse's linen garments are said to be made in the manner of panzars (gört sem panzari), I think that it's fair to draw parallels between the two sets of garments.

The rider's inner layer is called a "blautan panzara" (soft panzar), and it reaches down to the middle of the things.
The horse's inner layer is called a "kovertúr" (covering), and is made from "blautum léreptum" (soft linen) and "vel svörtuðum" (well worn). The author does mention that the covering can be decorated as one likes, which is strange as this layer goes underneath everything, so any decoration wouldn't be seen.

So anyway. Both inner layers are described as soft, though only the kovertúr is said to be "vel svörtuðum", and I'm not sure if this is significant or not.

The rider's outer layer is called a "góðan panzara" (good panzar), and is said to be made in the manner already described except without sleeves. I'm not sure if this manner already described refers to the thigh length of the soft panzar, or to the well worn cloth of earlier garments.
The horse's outer layer is called a "grima" (caparison), and is made from "stirðu lérepti" (stiff/rigid linen).

This is what confuses me. I could understand if the good panzar was said to be stiff or rigid, but caparisons, as far as I know, were soft and flexible, basically the horse's equivalent of a surcoat.

This is also where I got the idea that the rider's good panzar might actually have been a surcoat. If the horse's caparison is said to have been made like a panzar, then maybe a panzar could be made like a caparison. Hence panzar sometimes = surcoat. Of course this all relies on me being correct about grima meaning caparison.

[Mart Shearer]

[Mart Shearer]

[Stephen Curtin]

Mart from what I can find online, klæði can mean either cloth or clothing, and lérept means linen in Old Norse. Perhaps we need someone with more experience with the language to chime in, but given the context I think my interpretation fits fairly well.

[Dan Howard]

[Stephen Curtin]

Here are the dictionary entries I've found for léreft and klæði:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Icel...mit=Search

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Icel...mit=Search

[Jason O C]

[Mart Shearer]

Gríma is a mask or face covering.

[Stephen Curtin]

Yep from what I've found grima meant a mask or a hood. Now a caparison covers the whole horse, but the grima is only discribed as covering the head and neck, so this is one argument against grima = caparison. This could be because the function of the grima was to protect the bridle, so most important bit to describe was the head and neck area.

[Lafayette C Curtis]