| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
 Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | 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. |
I understand and in may ways agree with you.
This is why I keep asking people to place things in the correct context with the proper disclaimers. I'd like to see those efforts repeated by others.
I do, however, expect there to be enough room for others and their interests. The simple fact is that people find value in varying things. It's important to allow that to continue.
I, for example, have absolutely no interest in Lord of the Rings movie swords. I don't even want to read topics about them. I don't, however, believe that people discussing them in the context of them being fantasy creations based on movie replicas in any way harms any discussion of historical weapons. I would feel compelled to be corrective if these things were portrayed as being historical and I would ask that they be placed in the proper context. But going beyond that and attempting to stop people from discussing them simply because they didn't jive with my own interests would be flat-out arrogant.
Getting back to this topic and others in the same vein, I've seen, as you have, this subject being discussed in an incorrect context with unsubstantiated conclusions being claimed. I've asked this not to happen and I've seen an effort to place this stuff in the proper context with the proper disclaimers. There's still room for improvement, but I'm happy to see it starting.
I encourage you and others to correct others when they are mistaken. I encourage you and others to ask for further information when it is needed. I encourage you and others to ask for things to be placed in the right context or to assist in doing so. I also expect you and others to allow for a variety of interests, even when you may personally not find value in it.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
    |
 |
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dan i dont see a gambison at all in that 14thc painting. i see a jupon. a coat that was worn over armour. seems kinda silly to be decked out in full legs, arms and a nice helm and only have a gambison on the most flesh bit of the body.
its hard to read some paintings. esp when they are painted later of an earlier time period. you have to sit and think, now is that armour of said time period or armour of the period inwhich the paintign was painted
|
|
  |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | | dan i dont see a gambison at all in that 14thc painting. i see a jupon. a coat that was worn over armour. seems kinda silly to be decked out in full legs, arms and a nice helm and only have a gambison on the most flesh bit of the body. |
So the question becomes "what is the difference between a gambeson and a jupon"? do we make the same distinguishment between the two as they did at the time? I agree that the two items in question are probably jupons. I picked that particular illustration because I only looked at it a couple of minutes earlier on another thread.  It probably isn't the best example to illustrate my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Coloured "Jacks". |
|
|
| Rod Parsons wrote: | 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. |
hi rod. i so want that book. its on my wish list 
http://www.replications.com/greys/Image%20Gal...ull/31.jpg
as to the arming doublet(red color) its of 4 layers of linen with the body stuff with raw cotton tow. the arms and (in the future voiders) are pointed to it. i wear a pourpoint vest out of linen to hold up my hose.(white color, you can see the very end of it peaking out the center of my arming doublet with the black points to my hose)
as to aketon i've read its what is under armour late 12th-13thc
gambison is under, over or armour itself 13-14thc
jupon is a coat over armour not armour itself 14thc to early 15thc
jack is armour itself 15thc
now those are jsut my assumptions on readings etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Coloured "Jacks". |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | as to aketon i've read its what is under armour late 12th-13thc
gambison is under, over or armour itself 13-14thc
jupon is a coat over armour not armour itself 14thc to early 15thc
jack is armour itself 15thc
now those are jsut my assumptions on readings etc. |
12th century English assizes imply that gambesons were worn as standalone armour at that time. I prefer the terms "aketon" or "pourpoint" for garments intended to be worn under armour.
Edit: Just found this is Blair's book (p.33)
"Quilted defenses were certainly in general use by the second half of the 12th century and many texts of this period refer to them. Three terms are used, pourpoint, aketon, and gambeson, but in what way the garments they denote differed from each other is difficult to determine. On the whole it seems likely that pourpoint was a general term covering any type of quilted defense and that aketon was a plain quilted coat usually worn under the armour. Gambesons, on the other hand, are often described in early inventories as being of silk or some other rich material, decorated with embroidery and coats-of-arms, a fact suggeasting that, sometimes at least they were worn as independent defences, or as surcoats."
FWIW this book: Claude Blair, European Armour: circa 1066 to circa 1700 (London: Batsford), 1958; even though somewhat dated, is still considered the definitive work on this subject. Anyone who is interested in Medieval armour should do whatever it takes to put a copy on their shelves. This should always be the first book you consult whenever a question arises on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | 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. |
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).
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. |
Dan, it is David, not dave..... I have always HATED being called dave - its all good tho
It looks like we agree then that shooting a 30 layer cloth article then is (your words) reasonably close to a period. I am glad we can get on the same page. I left the maille out of the first write up as you are very correct, the maille i tested is not period and i stated that. However the reader can decide that if what i used would be stronger, equal or not as strong and decide the value of the test. Personally i agree with you dan, thats why i didn't post it, but it was asked about so i posted what i did.
My first real question is - WAS ALL maille worn in battle rivited? Was butted end malle not used? I ask this as an honest question as i really do not know....
I am very curious to see you say you have spent years trying to educate people, i think this is great and we are on the same page again in this noble endeavor, i really respect you for this. Can you tell me (us) how you have done this? what you have personally tested? spec, weapons used to do this - basically the stuff i have done? i would LOVE to both see what you have done and (if i may) quote your findings as i do shows, plus maybe offer insight to things not thought of or done and perhaps even the weaponry to do it
Again, not trying to start trouble, but perhaps our mutual research can bring truths out, i am ALWAYS willing and wanting to help out the fellow researcher.
Unfortunately however i feel we are debunking myths - like this jack test that was reasonably close (your words) to period, we found some things out and i plan on editing the video and releasing it sometime. But you are right - the maille test needs to be put away until i can get my hands on some period maille or close approximation.
again, i look forward to telling us of your research and how you came across this knowledge to teach others - teaching is truly a great job.
Regards,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: Pourpoint |
|
|
So according to the definitive source it seems that a pourpoint is quilted armour? Or is it that pourpoint is a more general term used for any garment carrying apertures "for the points", including what we call an arming jack, rather than just the small waistcoat version of the pourpoint which is used only to support hose.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like Dan stated from Blair fabric armour terms do NOT follow a very clear pattern. Having looked though inventories, assizes, and other documents from the 13th-15th I doubt it will ever be clear as it is possible the work jack just mean common. Aketon seems to refer to both a stand alone garment and under armour in the same statue from Edward II in the SAME sentence. Basically Blair defines them in his book but clearly states as Dan quoted it is not ever going to apply wel to Medieval sources. Basically I call it under armour for lack of a better term but usually use aketon as well as it is by far the most common term in the 14th I have seen in England.
as to aketon i've read its what is under armour late 12th-13thc
gambison is under, over or armour itself 13-14thc
jupon is a coat over armour not armour itself 14thc to early 15thc
jack is armour itself 15thc
Chuck.... Aketon, the term is used very common in English sources in the 13th and 14th perhaps into the 15th but I do not recall at the moment (focused heavily on 14th right now, crunch time).
Gambeson in accounts can be both under armour and over armour. Blair choses it to represent his over armour so I assume does so as it more commonly denotes such.
Dan,
do not want to start a fight either but I think like Nathan, that David's results are interesting. HE specifically stated it was ahistoric so if people are not intelligent (not trying to sound harsh, promise, could not think of a nicer way to say it) enough to recount the experiement done as David explained it that is their issue, he did all that is expected of him. I agree it is frustrating to have to debunk peoples misconceptions but having known you for awhile from online boards at times/rarely your comments come off unhelpful and somewhat arrogant. I do not know your education, career etc., nor am I making a character call on you personally or your intelligence, I think we all know you are quite in the know, but I know some of the top men in this field and they do not talk down to anyone (at least when I am there) so why should we. I spend all my free time in the storage of museums, armouries and academic gatherings to better myself and do not think that makes me 100% right just informed. Different views keep the field moving forward. One of my friends at the RA does not think arrows penetrated plate, I agree with him in part but disagree somewhat. We are both doing research on the same thing and have no problems. It you do not like his testing then take the time to plan out how you would do it. Lets go forward with this, I see not reason these tests could not be made perfectly sound.
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Like Dan stated from Blair fabric armour terms do NOT follow a very clear pattern. Having looked though inventories, assizes, and other documents from the 13th-15th I doubt it will ever be clear as it is possible the work jack just mean common. Aketon seems to refer to both a stand alone garment and under armour in the same statue from Edward II in the SAME sentence. Basically Blair defines them in his book but clearly states as Dan quoted it is not ever going to apply wel to Medieval sources. Basically I call it under armour for lack of a better term but usually use aketon as well as it is by far the most common term in the 14th I have seen in England.
as to aketon i've read its what is under armour late 12th-13thc
gambison is under, over or armour itself 13-14thc
jupon is a coat over armour not armour itself 14thc to early 15thc
jack is armour itself 15thc
Chuck.... Aketon, the term is used very common in English sources in the 13th and 14th perhaps into the 15th but I do not recall at the moment (focused heavily on 14th right now, crunch time).
Gambeson in accounts can be both under armour and over armour. Blair choses it to represent his over armour so I assume does so as it more commonly denotes such.
Dan,
do not want to start a fight either but I think like NaAthan, that David's results are interesting. HE specifically stated it was ahistoric so if people are not intelligent (not trying to sound harsh, promise, could not think of a nicer way to say it) enough to recount the experiement done as David explained it that is their issue, he did all that is expected of him. I agree it is frustrating to have to debunk peoples misconceptions but having known you for awhile from online boards at times/rarely your comments come off unhelpful and somewhat arrogant. I do not know your education, career etc., nor am I making a character call on you personally or your intelligence, I think we all know you are quite in the know, but I know some of the top men in this field and they do not talk down to anyone (at least when I am there) so why should we. I spend all my free time in the storage of museums, armouries and academic gatherings to better myself and do not think that makes me 100% right just informed. Different views keep the field moving forward. One of my friends at the RA does not think arrows penetrated plate, I agree with him in part but disagree somewhat. We are both doing research on the same thing and have no problems. It you do not like his testing then take the time to plan out how you would do it. Lets go forward with this, I see not reason these tests could not be made perfectly sound.
Randall |
If i can add to this too please
Dan, i am not trying to fight you, make you look bad OR even argue with you. I do not discredit a thing you say. What i am trying to do is test things and build towards more accurate period testing.
I am seeing what can be done as i wish not to make close as i can period type things and test them only to find out the testing was for not. Whats the point then?
I am SURE people you have quoted like strickland and such have done the same thing and the only thing holding me from that caliper of testing is the materials - which i have access to and the ability to make.
In the beginning i asked you to make the stuff to test - you do not have the ability or knowhow (your words) to do so and i can respect that.
I asked you to find me sources, specs etc. You gave me very little to work with but still "flamed me" in open forum - its all good - i'm not mad or complaining. MY THINKING is you and i can and should work together.
YOU have the knowledge - I have the knowhow and ability. So why not work together?
If i am correct dan it sounds like you are very smart and talented, your knowledge of referances is excellant, but again i feel maybe you have not delt with the weapons first hand we are discussing. "book smart" as they call it. See - i am NOt book smart at all, i am the sort that builds it and trys it... unfortunately these two types can clash hardcore. so lets merge the two intelligences and see what happens on reproduction period stuff using reproduction period weapons - heck - worst that can happen is you and i get to release new findings that is used in college and research format
In closing and NOT meant as a flame or insult at all to you dan, i just think we can work together and yes at times you have been very ugly towards me - but thats cool, people can agree to disagree, AND STILL work together with their corresponding knowledge. I (again) offer my knowledge and skills in the weapons side of things to you, if you wish to use them point me (in detail and spec) at the target and lets see what happens.
If your not interested in that or doing this then we can agree to disagree, but that means all comments that are not helpful or in a helpful direction - have to stop.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Valeriy Rog
Location: Ukraine, Kyiv Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
In dispute truth arise, but only when the points are reasonable. Personally me I dont see any crime in using not riveted mail as such really existed (the price on riveted ones was great, even not everybody among us can afford one). But of cource Davids tests have given different result than it could be received 500 years ago %). Nevertheless I consider this test a cool experiment which hepled us to learn more of jack'n'mail arrow protection
I also support Chuck in his statement:
as to aketon i've read its what is under armour late 12th-13thc
gambison is under, over or armour itself 13-14thc
jupon is a coat over armour not armour itself 14thc to early 15thc
jack is armour itself 15thc
The terminilogy is a bit slippery ground but nobody can deny the widely used names fixed for sertain garments. Chucks list is a good example.
As for the topic "What was worn under the jack" i've nothing new to add except a little summary:
- cyvil clothes (I mean doublets) in case the jack had sleeves
- arming doublet for fixing armour legs and arms (however I've seen the jack alone with laces for the armour legs)
- over doublet a mail could be worn. I also wear armdoublet, mail and jack. This enough for tough fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
Valeriy Rog
Location: Ukraine, Kyiv Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way what do you think of the rivets (as I think these are revets) on the jack? What is the purpose for them?
 
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Valeriy Rog wrote: | By the way what do you think of the rivets (as I think these are revets) on the jack? What is the purpose for them?
|
quilting rivets maybe. one of our guys has quilting knots instead of sewn lines he wants to get some tinned nailes and put them inplace of his knots like this painting. but thats jsut myguess
a HUGE problem we are having here is the same old debate of what is what. usa and uk and german and french etc etc all use different names for different things. i've heard an arming coat/jacket called an arming jack, a pourpoint called a gambison and an aketon called a gambison, what i call a pourpoint(sleeveless vest) called a doublet. i think we're debating age old arguements that can only be fixed if we all agree here whats called what just as other boards have done. but that doesnt make it right or will continue to influence other cultures or online boards etc
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall and David,
It is not your job to tell another poster how to act. It's the job of the Moderators. We've spent more time dealing with the junk associated with multiple posters in these threads than you know. Way too much time, actually. It's not a poster's job to suggest behavior. Leave that unpleasantness to us.
Everyone,
Pre-emptive warning: Tread lightly here. I am sick to death of archery-related threads degenerating into meaningless sniping. So far, we're on the up-and-up here, but I'm starting to smell trouble. Don't let that happen. Let's keep it on the up-and-up.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
Last edited by Chad Arnow on Thu 20 Jul, 2006 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: Names again |
|
|
The very name pourpoint would suggest that a primary function is to provide for the attachment of points.
Is the common use of the name for a small waistcoat to which points are attached then a misuse of the name, or is any such garment a pourpoint, quilted or not?
I would suggest that aketon is a term acquired from the Arabic, possibly being in the first instance specific to a cotton filled garment in Outremer and then perhaps becoming a more widely used name.
Is a jupon necessarily quilted or less so than a gambeson? Is a "surcoat" if not quilted and bearing a heraldic device a jupon or a gambeson?
Is jack a specifically English term of a particular period?
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
ah, but then there are those that state teh the pourpoint and jupon are the same garment coat that goes over teh armour in the 14thc.
and jack, i dunno i think its teh english name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: |
quilting rivets maybe. one of our guys has quilting knots instead of sewn lines he wants to get some tinned nailes and put them inplace of his knots like this painting. but thats jsut myguess
a HUGE problem we are having here is the same old debate of what is what. usa and uk and german and french etc etc all use different names for different things. i've heard an arming coat/jacket called an arming jack, a pourpoint called a gambison and an aketon called a gambison, what i call a pourpoint(sleeveless vest) called a doublet. i think we're debating age old arguements that can only be fixed if we all agree here whats called what just as other boards have done. but that doesnt make it right or will continue to influence other cultures or online boards etc |
I think thats true, i have seen different names and think its based on area your living in and what your use to hearing it called. definately a learning curve calling it other things.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: re |
|
|
Also you can clearly see where the underarm is open, not attached to the body of the garment, giving a wider range of movement with such a fitted garment.
Interesting to compare with the paintings of mid 14thC padded coats worn over haubergeons described as gambesons or jupons on p. 200, 216 and 237 of "The Great Warbow" which appear to be less closely fitted
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chuck,
No I agree with you on the definitions, the only item I was trying to bring up is period use of the terms. I have no problems with defining them for clarity here on the discussion board.
Chad,
Not trying to make your job harder. I will avoid posting anything of that nature in the future... Just thought it seemed a bit harsh.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a litte observation...
It seems to be a common assumption that cloth armour is cheap; This isn't necessarily the case.
Making a 20+ layer cloth armour takes a LOT of textiles. If you asume a loom width of 75 cm, a sleeveless, knee length armour would take about 22 meters of linen canvas. If you look at the prices of textiles in the period, this is by no means cheap.
In fact, one reason cloth armour became less common in the 16th century could be that mass produced light plate was cheaper...
(If you do some creative math based on this page, http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/prim...plies.html , the plate "light armour" is cheaper than 22 m of cloth...)
(Plate and plate is also DEFINITELY not the same... Looking at the inventory of the Higgins museum, breastplates range from 2,5 to 10 kg, indicating a huge variety of thickness... )
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Just a litte observation...
It seems to be a common assumption that cloth armour is cheap; This isn't necessarily the case.
Making a 20+ layer cloth armour takes a LOT of textiles. If you asume a loom width of 75 cm, a sleeveless, knee length armour would take about 22 meters of linen canvas. If you look at the prices of textiles in the period, this is by no means cheap.
In fact, one reason cloth armour became less common in the 16th century could be that mass produced light plate was cheaper...
(If you do some creative math based on this page, http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/prim...plies.html , the plate "light armour" is cheaper than 22 m of cloth...)
(Plate and plate is also DEFINITELY not the same... Looking at the inventory of the Higgins museum, breastplates range from 2,5 to 10 kg, indicating a huge variety of thickness... ) |
Great thought. Now using modern linen (30 layers) seemed to do well against damage. But it being more expensive to create then a light plate set up would one opt to go with something that stops damage **IF** they were able to afford it or was given it? surely they would have known the benifits of each?
Shooting modern steel thats been hardened and tempered upto 3mm thick (not period i know but as an example) doesn't stop what i have been firing at it as well as a cloth layer set up. Granted i HAVE NOT fired at plate wrough as of yet, i am using modern 1050 and 1075 thats been hardened and tempered.
So i guess the question then becomes do you go with cheaper or better protection? or both?
Truely the heavier armor would afford better protection but at the cost of weight and not being able to move as freely. As weapons went forward i would assume the "arms race" followed suit?.... Again more questions then answers.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic