| Author |
Message |
|
Shae Bishop
|
 Posted: Tue 18 Jul, 2006 6:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
What was the typical closure system? I see James's laces up the front and that Chuck's is also front opening. Not all jacks opened from the front did they? If not, how? It seems that the front opening would create a vulnerable line down one's body. Did the 2 sides overlap where they were closed?
Also, how common was it to have a colored jack instead of a natural colored one? Does anyone know of any instances of heraldric arms or the like sewn of embroidered on? I guess usually if one had a coat of arms and could afford to get a colored jack with it on it, one would spend the money on a breastplate or brigandine instead. I seem to remember that the Frazier museum had a reproduction jack with a red cross sewn on, but it was just a repro.
Sorry about so many questions and thanks to everyone for the helpfull feedback.
|
|
  |
 |
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Jul, 2006 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: | This illustration from the Osprey book on the War of Roses shows the purpose of a jack pretty well. Worn over a mail-shirt it provides considerable and especially affordable protection. Note the seperate arms attatched with points to the jack.
Usually the halberdier would wear additional jack-chains but these are omitted in the picture for clarity.
 |
careful with useing modern depictions to non-existent items  i dont know of any period art with tie on sleeves like a lot of modern reenactors use
hey guys, i'm at work i'll get ya more info on our jacks when i get home
|
|
  |
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Jul, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | Quote: | | The combination was considered proof against the heaviest longbows. |
Your not going to start this one again.... 
Shae,
Dan is right on about the design and such of the Jack. What could be worn is dependant on if they are in armour or not. If not I assume just their normal clothing. It does not have to be 30 layers though, it seems this was an optimal though. I have to say that a many layered jack gets VERY, VERY thick. I saw one made for a museum piece that could stand up on its own...... I would assume it to be very good defence, especially with a mail shirt over but I would not go as far as saying it was proof but surely it was good protection.
Randall |
Its gonna be rare that i get into this debate ever again.
Dan is actually somewhat right. It really depended on strength, angle and tip used.
In my testing using non period materials, the padded jack is about the toughest thing to get through. It takes power and it takes a REAL sharp bodkin. Spliting 3mm thick carbon 1075 thats been tempered with the 450 to 600lb crossbow is easy compared to hitting a 30 layer 8oz linen vest. Going through chainmail on a 450lb crossbow was easy compared to a padded vest.... Padded vests really are dubious creations when it comes to destructive testing.
The bolt doesn't seem to have a lot of power left ***IF*** it goes through. This was using a 325lb crossbow and a 2.5 oz missile. Anything heavier and the bolt went through - depending - read on.....
On the longbow with a needle bodkin the padding failed - to a point. it stopped the arrow and it seems to be about a 50/50 shot on if the would would be crippling or not. In my testing using 30 layers of 8oz linen, a 107lb long bow with a needle bodkin the vest STOPPED the arrow with 1/2" or less inside penitration at 60+ yards. At 40 to 20 yards the arrow would enter the inside with 1" to 5" of penitration. HOwever the rules seem to change on anything from 25 degrees from stright in. An angled shot would hit, enter and NOT make it thru to hit the inside.
Using the same arrow and bow with a modern field point was fruitless - the padding stopped it in all cases with one shot getting the tip (less then 1/8") inside. Using the same arrow and a medieval cone target tip was slightly better then the modern field point but was less then 1/4" on the best "blow through".
Medieval broadheads showed good penitration as did bodkins.
I would think a striaght in shot with 3 to 5" of penitration would cuase serious injurt if nothing else was worn AND it was over say the heart or lungs?? i would not consider a 1 to 2" penetration more then a real pain. Now i will say however if the arrow or bolt had a barbed tipp and the barbs entered the body you are gonna be in trouble. Infection and disease might create a bad day weeks later???
I should also note that the padding was over 3" progessive foam that was attached to a 130lb stand that could rock (trying to simulate a man)
Crossbows on the other hand did get stopped on angle shots but not near as well as an arrow. Crossbow shots blasted through on 25 degrees to straight on. Angle shots sometimes would find thier way in, sometimes not. When they found thier way in it was ranging from a painfull would to 3" to 9" of penetration. On lighter bows (upto 200lbs) the bolt was stopped cold with no damage to the inside. The majic area was 200 to 300lbs.
On light siege bows (upto 600lbs) the jack did not stop the bolt, all wounds would prove a painful experiance to fatal. BUT tip choice made this a game of kill or not kill. bodkins were the best. medieval broadheads (like the sinew twister) was very good. target tips still got in but none would be fatal (less then 2" inside penitration).
Again.... the testing i did was with none period materials. 8oz linen - 30 layers and ranges of 20 to 100 yards were shot on 4 different targets. Take it for what its worth...... The material is going to make GREAT bedding for my sugergliders and they thank you for the excuse to rip stuff up
David
|
|
 |
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David,
very interesting. I suppose that is what one would assume from armour that it did its job in most cases, although I am suprised it worked better than the tempered 3mm breastplate but do not see that as impossible in the least.
Also were the jack tests done with a mail vest over and alone? What were the differences?
Not sure if this helps but I think Matthew Strickland states that anything over the lungs or heart of 2inches is a fatal hit. The 3 inch hits to the upper chest likely are kills and those to the stomach likely would be as well, although perhaps a slow lingering death from septicemia....
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Valeriy Rog
Location: Ukraine, Kyiv Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shae Bishop, speaking of colouring, the coloured jacks were not typical, unlike the gambesons in the late 14 and early 15 cent.
Compare jack  and gambeson 
As for the osprey image, this one is based on the van Eycks pikeman http://alliance.medieval.ru/papers/jacks/36ursu06.jpg (see the sleeves also). You can find more interesting information in the Dragon#3.
|
|
 |
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
a friend of mine has a web page on jacks but i cant find it. i'll shoot him an email today
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | David,
very interesting. I suppose that is what one would assume from armour that it did its job in most cases, although I am suprised it worked better than the tempered 3mm breastplate but do not see that as impossible in the least.
Also were the jack tests done with a mail vest over and alone? What were the differences?
Not sure if this helps but I think Matthew Strickland states that anything over the lungs or heart of 2inches is a fatal hit. The 3 inch hits to the upper chest likely are kills and those to the stomach likely would be as well, although perhaps a slow lingering death from septicemia....
Randall |
Interesting you ask about the mail.
yes i did BUT the mail is not anywhere near period material so i left it out. The mail i used was based off period example but made with modern steel. It was butted together and not rivited.
Here is what i found out using non period material - i have no idea if wrought rings would act the same way i assume they would but......
Mail over a jack makes the chain mail easier to pierce. the cloth was/is rigid giving the mail something to slam into when its hit and giving the missile something to push it against making the missile pass through it. Now, with a 107lb longbow and a needle bodkin the tip would break the link it hit and carry into the jack. Differences in penitration were noted - meaning the chain DID slow the arrow down but the whole protection system was still compromised. This of course depended on range to the target and the angle in which it was hit - center of mass was always shot for. But a off center shot gave the "wearer" increased survivability bigtime" as did if the missile hit were the mail was loose - read on....
At angle the chain over cloth REALLY shined. the arrow would skip and glance off the cloth while being caught in the chain. the chain would shift and move and take all energy out of the arrow leaving the cloth untouched in many cases - only straight on center of mass shots would do any damage. When leaving the mail loose and an inch before the cloth the mail stopped the arrow, it would still damage the links, but it would not penetrate as well. I am assuming this is due to the chain soaking up the hit - not having anything solid behind it???
Crossbow - again, the cloth and mail failed. Tests were better if the mail was not up against the cloth. It took over 350 to 400lbs to fail the mail/cloth combination however and only a sharp bodkin would do it - cone points and modern field points had issues on the cloth and maille. the same thing happen on angle shots - the cloth was generally untouched - the mail caught the missile and jumped/shifted taking the force of impact. HOWEVER if the shot landed near a point that was contacted to the target the mail would break.
this leads me to believe missile fire off a crossbow had to hit maille that was not loose to impart its energy and do damage as loose mail is a bear to get through. Maille pressed against anything solid - got pierced.
At 600 lbs from 60 yards the jack and maille failed (in my testing). It was never a complete front to back failure but the bolt was imbedded on the inside of the jacks opposite (back) surface. This leads me to believe it would take 900 to 1500lbs to get a blow thru but that has not been tested nor will it at this location. Should also note that several links that were cut imbedded into the cloth and one was found imbedded on the back (opposite) side of the jack. A shot like this drug metal into the armor and would have likely drug it into the body - infection etc????
I believe from what i'm seeing 3mm plate fails for a few reasons.
The bodkin hits... immediately the cutting edges wedge the armor and bite it. the edges shear the armor - ANY hole made by a bodkin screams bodkin hit (assuming it pierced) as the edges leave a tell tall 3 or 4 cornered split on the inside were the metal folds over. The millisecond the metal is cracked the bolt has nothing more to do to the steel and can then carry on into what ever else it needs to impart its remaining energy onto - for good or bad. Plate metal shears operate the same way - it is a very effient way to crack metal open, the bodkin was designed for this reason.
Testing with field points, cone points and bodkins off the same weight missiles and same weight weapons point to the truth in the bodkin and how well it cuts open armor. the design (i think) was also used on war hammers and other hand weapons with spikes????
It is likely that armor might have been worn loose in some regard - like maille and cloth (to a smaller degree) as again cloth seems to be a VERY good protective layer if made right. Hitting targets that can fold and move takes energy fast and they might have known this. But thats spectulation on my part.
I am not saying at all my testing fails cloth armor - to the contrary, it shows it was a REAL good way to wear something light and be protected against hits. But with all things, varables in distance, power, tips and circumstance (and archers/crossbowsmans aim) things could go bad for the wearer.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that Davids test with the plate demonstrates the necessity of a good gambeson under one's plate armor. Personally I'd be pleased to see similar tests conducted with a gambeson beneath the plate.
One assumes that plate was adopted because it was at least as effective as mail, so the results of his test suggest that a more complete plate armor set-up would be necessary to understand its effectiveness.
Not a criticism, just a suggestion. And I'd like to thank David for conducting the tests and sharing the results.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
I agree that that is the progression. I would just like to see the tests. Watching these things work is so much better than just hearing about it..... I saw a video of David's and thought it was very nice.
Another item is that jacks mostly were replaced by almaine rivets in England during Henry VIII time so they had to have had more defensive properties to spend more on them but once more as David mentioned and you their are lots of factors involved.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I read somewhere but can't remember the source that jacks / gambisons that were considered the best against arrows were the ones that were thick and loose ( Fluffy !? ).
So apart from making an all cloth jack of many layers it might have been also stuffed between some layers or in the middle with softer and looser stuffing. Anyway, what I remember reading said that the softer the better when it came to stopping arrows.
The " art " of making jacks may have been more complicated and subtle than we know ? One intended to mostly protect against hand weapons might be different than one intended to mostly defeat projectiles ???
Another thing I find very interesting is that IF only perfectly 90°hits had a high probability of penetrating this would mean that only a very narrow band of vulnerability on the target would be available to any archer from any specific angle: Only the perfectly aimed or lucky shots would be effective.
If the armour gives you 90% protection coverage and leave only a 10% zone of vulnerability it is doing a great job and it is well worth wearing. If one judges the effectiveness based only on 90° impacts one gets an exaggerated impression of how easy a piece of armour is defeated.
With maille a soft gambison, even if not very heavy, will give superior protection if it gives a very soft surface letting the maille move easily. Oh, I wonder if this means that having one's maille tailored a bit oversized would be better than having it more closely tailored ? It seems that one advantage, stated before on some topic thread, that I also can't remember, was that tailored maille is lighter because fewer links are used or wasted on a loose fit ! There may be a point were TOO close a fit stretches the maille tightly and is counterproductive and makes links easier to pierce ?
Just a theory, I'm asking others if this makes sense to them also, or if they have information contradicting these speculations. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: Maille, loose vs tight |
|
|
To catch and stop a shaft I would always go for loose maille rather than tight. With loose the point can still find a hole, but greater movement allows the weight of the maille to come into play with a greater range of movement in absorbing and defeating the energy of the shaft.
There is a parallel in how backstop netting works. When it hangs in loose folds the movement and weight are far more effective in catching and stopping a projectile, even with a sharp.
When the netting is tight and the point sharp, most of the deceleration comes from the fletch catching as the shaft passes through.
Using backstop netting, where a tighter single layer catches and stops a target pile out of a low weight (30 lb) bow, a field point from a stronger (60 lb) bow passes through. With a second layer of loose folds the field point is caught and stopped, but a bodkin tipped Standard Arrow out of the same bow shoots through both layers, only the deceleration as the fletch follows through slows down the shaft so that it carries only about 12 to 15 paces beyond.
Through the tighter single layer the heavier sharp tipped shaft goes much further.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here are some references for jack in period paintings. there is a tan and red one that can be seen as well as whiteish ones
Jan Van Eyck. Cucifixion c. 1440.
Rogier van der Weyden. Cucifixion c. 1460.
Jean Fouquet. Unknown Illumination c. 1460. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
King René's Tournament Book. Varying Illustrations c. 1460s.
Simon Marmion. Crucifixion c. 1470. John g. Johnson Collection, Philadelphia
Hans Memling Scenes from the Passion of Christ c. 1471. Galleria Sabauda, Turin
Hans Memling. Crucifixion c 1480. Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest
Housebook Masters. Road to Calvary c. 1480. Rijks Museum , Amsterdam
Hans Memling St Ursula Shrine c. 1489. Memlingmuseum, Sint-Janshospitaal, Bruges
Hans Memling . Passion (Greverade) Altarpiece c. 1491. Museum für Kunst- und Kulturgedichte, Lübeck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: Coloured "Jacks". |
|
|
There are a number of colour illustrations in "The Great Warbow" from a British Library manuscript source of single coloured and parti coloured gambesons and jupons circa 1358 where they appear to be quite thick and generous in fit and are worn over an haubergeon.
I notice that Chuck describes wearing a thick jack over an arming doublet. Is this arming doublet padded like an arming jack, or is it a doublet of more common thickness, providing attachment points for hose and maille?
I had thought that the garment under your arming jack was there to hold up your hose, so it might be either a pourpoint or a doublet.
Also, what is the distinction, if any, in terms of thickness, length, use and the dates when these terms were in common use, between aketon, jupon and gambeson?
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: | | [b]Going through chainmail on a 450lb crossbow was easy compared to a padded vest.... |
How do you know? Have you tested some of Erik's mail since we last had this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | David Ruff wrote: | | Going through chainmail on a 450lb crossbow was easy compared to a padded vest.... |
How do you know? Have you tested some of Erik's mail since we last had this discussion? |
Dan, he doesn't know if this was true historically. Nor does he know if it's true for historica-recreations such as Erik's mail.
That is why he said "In my testing using non period materials".
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | David Ruff wrote: | | Going through chainmail on a 450lb crossbow was easy compared to a padded vest.... |
How do you know? Have you tested some of Erik's mail since we last had this discussion? |
Dan, he doesn't know if this was true historically. Nor does he know if it's true for historica-recreations such as Erik's mail.
That is why he said "In my testing using non period materials". |
I wish Dave to stop making any statements at all about his mail tests. They don't help.
Shooting a 20-30 layer jack of modern cloth will yield results reasonably close to what one would expect from a period article. Shooting anything other than a decent replica of riveted mail will yield nothing useful since they have nothing at all in common with the original article. The differences between Erik's mail and Dave's mail are many many times greater than 20 layers of modern linen and 20 layers of "period" linen (so long as the weight of each layer is similar).
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Shooting a 20-30 layer jack of modern cloth will yield results reasonably close to what one would expect from a period article. Shooting anything other than a decent replica of riveted mail will yield nothing useful since they have nothing at all in common with the original article. The differences between Erik's mail and Dave's mail are many many times greater than 20 layers of modern linen and 20 layers of "period" linen (so long as the weight of each layer is similar). |
Okay. You've made your point and expressed your wishes. It isn't necessary to continue to repeat it. I agree with you in terms of the limited value it has, but I also find it interesting. Having said that, i discount all of it when trying to convey it to the historical stuff. But there's still an interst to me.
For many others, this info is interesting and even "useful" if conveyed in the proper context. So long as David adequately disclaims his backyard research as just that without making claims as to how it relates to history or historical accurate tests, the value of such tests can be determined by the reader.
Anyway. Mileage varies. So long as things are couched correctly, then let it be. If it's not of interest to you, then don't read it.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Anyway. Mileage varies. So long as things are couched correctly, then let it be. If it's not of interest to you, then don't read it. |
It is of interest to me because people constantly take this type of test and try to claim that this is how Medieval armour functioned. I have spent many years trying to educate the public and slowly things seem to be turning around. Every time this subject comes up and nothing new is being contributed - even worse - myths that have been debunked for decades are being rehashed, I feel as though those years have been wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shae Bishop
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Shae Bishop, speaking of colouring, the coloured jacks were not typical, unlike the gambesons in the late 14 and early 15 cent.
Compare jack and gambeson |
So it was not uncommon for gambesons to be worn as their own armour in the 14th century? Period art does make it look that way in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only thing illustrations show is what the outermost layer was.
Take a look at the Piotiers image:
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/p...iers04.jpg
There are a couple of people wearing what appears to be quilted gambesons but it is impossible to see what is underneath. One should also keep in mind that padded defenses of the 12th century are not the same as padded defenses of the 14th century. We define "jack" and "gambeson" as different items. Add to this the fact that primary sources do not distinguish between items as clearly as we do. For example, I can think of half a dozen different types of armour that are all referred to as "jacks". Sometimes that same type of armour has a different name depending on the time period. For example, a "jazerant" in the 12th century is called a gestron in the 14th. There are fashion differences but the armour is essentially the same thing (mail sewn between padded cloth).
Last edited by Dan Howard on Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic
