Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > General pattern for a 14th century aketon? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stuart

Look at this thread:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewto...highlight=

That doublet would be good for 1415 to maybe 1450 after that you want something more along the lines of what Hugh posted.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stuart W.





Joined: 23 Feb 2007

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 12:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My thanks to you both for your answers.

I'm at some what of a quandry with regards my exact needs. I'm looking to make use of a mail haubergeon (as you say, the hauberk is a bit early for what I'm looking for), but to mix it with plate greaves, poleyns and cuisses, along with vambrace rerebrace and couters. However, at present I wanted to try and avoid the breastplate and see if I could find any historical way of making use of the mail with perhaps a brigandine.

My purpose is to try and find a balance of gear to suit the period of around 1415 (pushing for the fact that I would not be wearing the most up to date equipment, but finding scraps more so than purchasing something new), but without diving in to a full harness (which is something for the future). Am I therefore really looking to set my sights back a few decades into the 14thC, or would I get away with mail under a jack with use of the plated legs, but only the gauntlets to cover my hands/arms ?

I think perhaps my ideas are conflicting with our historical information, and I'm probably chasing my own tail.

The link that James has given shows more of a Charles de Blois garment, and way too fancy for what I am looking for. I can see that custom garment is designed to have at least the arm armour attached over the top, what would be warn under the chest / back area for armour, or would a breastplate be put over the top ?

With regards the padded Jack over the top of mail, what garment is therefore best to have between you, your linen shirt and your mail ? I can't imagine that they would wear their heavy Jack's over mail, but not add any means of preventing the mail chaffing.

I apologies to the original thread owner if I'm diverging the thread somewhat ! Thank you again,
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I wear a maille shirt over my doublet with a sleeveless jack over that.

The design in the thread I posted is an early doublet style and would work fine for you.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 1:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just some info on period texts. I read alot of inventories and manyy admin accounts of the medieval period and just to confuse you much more the terms are not as catagorical as most use them now.

In the 14th century the term (h)aketon was used to whole century into the next. It often seems to denote any type of padded garment often listed for use with armour of both mail and plate (see EdIII req's from mid 14th for example pair of plates and aketon sin mail). I doubt very much they had any problem telling what it meant to them but it leaves us to try and appropriate terms for use to mean different garments.

The term jack to me seems to pop up common in the 2nd qrtr of the 15th and seems to mean a padded garment at times as well as other defences. Padded doublet appears in a number of inventories with plate armou so I assume it was worn under as well as they are 2nd half of the 15th. They also have a arming doublet and a padded doublet in one inventory which makes me think they are not interchangable terms but used in conjunction with each other (see probate inventories from Archd. of York).

I'd say find a few decades and satke it out. I agree with Hugh if you do late 14th and all plate armour but a breastplate it is unlikely. You could wear a multiplate set up but not mail alone. A well dressed yepman archer would likely have some plate armour but if he had that much on his limbs he'd likely have gotten some heavier defences for his torso.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stuart W. wrote:
I'm at some what of a quandry with regards my exact needs. I'm looking to make use of a mail haubergeon (as you say, the hauberk is a bit early for what I'm looking for), but to mix it with plate greaves, poleyns and cuisses, along with vambrace rerebrace and couters. However, at present I wanted to try and avoid the breastplate and see if I could find any historical way of making use of the mail with perhaps a brigandine.


Why do you want to avoide a breastplate? Are you doing a lower-class impression such as a gunner or bowman? If not, you need a breastplate.

If you want to wear vambraces (and by the way, when they're articulated together they're called vambraces with the upper part called the "upper canon", the elbow called the "couter" and the lower part called the "lower canon"; typically the terms "vambrace" and "rerebrace" are used when referring to unarticulated arms) then you will *need* a fitted doublet. It's really just that simple. There's no other way to hang your vambraces correctly.

Quote:
My purpose is to try and find a balance of gear to suit the period of around 1415 (pushing for the fact that I would not be wearing the most up to date equipment, but finding scraps more so than purchasing something new), but without diving in to a full harness (which is something for the future). Am I therefore really looking to set my sights back a few decades into the 14thC, or would I get away with mail under a jack with use of the plated legs, but only the gauntlets to cover my hands/arms ?


Going back into the 14th century won't change anything, not unless you go *way* back into the century. The nature of the pieces were different, but the same things were worn all the way back into the middle of the century almost.

You can wear a jack over mail if you're doing a lower-class impression, but not a knightly one. And the "scraps" argument is specious. Men with plate arms and legs, even commoners, were relatively high on the non-noble pecking order. the idea of a man at arms or even a professional archer or billman equipping himself with scraps taken from dead bodies is a modern meme perpetuated by those who want to try to do a more resplendant social class than they can actually afford to do.

Quote:
I think perhaps my ideas are conflicting with our historical information, and I'm probably chasing my own tail.


I mean no offense at all, but it sounds as if that might be true; you sound as though youv'e been listening to the myths of reenactment.

Quote:
The link that James has given shows more of a Charles de Blois garment, and way too fancy for what I am looking for. I can see that custom garment is designed to have at least the arm armour attached over the top, what would be warn under the chest / back area for armour, or would a breastplate be put over the top ?


Why is the CdB too fancy? I suspect it's actually a lot simpler than many 15th-century arming garments.

The CdB-style arming doublet wouldn't have *anything* worn under it, least of all armor. Where did you get that impression? The armor goes *over* the doublet. Let me quote how you would get armored from a real 15th-century MS on the subject:

"He schal have noo schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean lynyd with
satene cutte full of hoolis. The dowblet muste be strongeli boude there the
poyntis muste be sette aboute the greet of the arme. And the b ste before and
beyhnde and the gussetis of mayle muste be sowid un to the dowbelet in the
bought of the arme. And undir the arme the armynge poyntis muste be made of
fyne twyne suche as men make stryngis for crossbowes and they muste be
trussid small and poyntid as poyntis. Also they muste be wexid with
cordeweneris coode. And than they woll neythirrecche nor breke. Also a payre
hosyn of stamyn sengill and a peyre of shorte bulwerkis of thynne blanket to
put aboute his kneys for chawfygeof his ligherness. Also a payre of shone of
thikke cordwene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde thre knottis up
on a corde and thre coordis muste be faste sowid un to the hele of the shoo and
fyne cordis in the mydill of the soole of the same shoo and that there be
between the frettis of the heele and the frettis of the myddill of the shoo the
space of thre fyngris.
To arme a man
ffirste ye muste sette on Sabatones and tye hem up on the shoo with smale
poyntis that wol breke. And then griffus and then quisses and the breche of
mayle. And the tonletis. And the brest. And the vambras. And then glovys. And
then hange his daggere upon his right side. And then his shorte swerde upon the
lyfte side in a rounde rynge all nakid and pylle it oute lightli. And then putte his
cote upon hos bak. And then his bascincet pynid up on two greet staplis before
the breste with a dowbill behynde up on the bak for the make the bascinet sitte
juste. And then his long swerde in his hande. And then his pensill in his hande
peyntid of seynt George or oure lady to blesse him with as he gooth towarde
the felde and in the felde."

Quote:
With regards the padded Jack over the top of mail, what garment is therefore best to have between you, your linen shirt and your mail ? I can't imagine that they would wear their heavy Jack's over mail, but not add any means of preventing the mail chaffing.


You need a doublet (to hold up your cuisses if nothing else) and you don't wear a shirt, as you can see from the above.

Here's a link to a web page that's pretty good when it comes to a mid-fifteenth-century harness:
http://www.paladin-online.com/thekeep/ArmingPages/armingpage.htm
It has some mistakes (by which I mean no insult--so does my harness and almost every other one I've seen), but it's pretty reasonable.

I'm not trying to be hard-headed, and certainly not demeaning fo your effort--I applaud anyone who wants to put a good harness together--so I hope this doesn't come across that way (I'm told I often sound harsher in print than I am in real life), but you will need to re-examine what you're doing and start from scratch. Start by studying the real equipment worn by various kinds of men and then gear your kit toward one that you can afford. *No* kit can be done both well and cheaply, but some can be done *more* cheaply than others. For example, a 15th-century archer might have no limb armor at all or just jack chains sewn to his jack and just a simple sallet or steel cap on his head. That impression would save you a lot of money. Conversely, a well-equipped man at arms from the 15th century will need (at a *bare* minimum):
Shoen
Breeches and chausses
An arming doublet
Probably sabatons (however there were lots of times when these were left off, so you can avoid them if you must)
Greaves (closed, not open!!!!)
Cuisses
Vambraces
Pauldrons (some early Italian harnesses didn't have plate pauldrons, but then you need more mail)
Either a haubergeon -or- mail voiders, fauld and standard
Brestplate with fauld
Backplate with culet
Gauntlets
Helmet
Weapons

A harness like that costs many thousands of dollars (even for a lousy one that doesn't work at all) and may take several years to acquire, armorers today being what they are.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org


Last edited by Hugh Knight on Wed 14 Mar, 2007 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Stuart W.





Joined: 23 Feb 2007

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Again, thank you for all of your replies.

By too fancy I merely suggest that in my personal tastes the CdB is more of a fashionable item. In keeping with a tradition of my own, I would prefer to avoid being on the edge of the fashion and play safe with a more conserved look (though I confess to having a love for some Gothic armour).

Hugh, I am making a pm to send your way, I hope that will be ok please.
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar, 2007 2:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stuart W. wrote:
By too fancy I merely suggest that in my personal tastes the CdB is more of a fashionable item. In keeping with a tradition of my own, I would prefer to avoid being on the edge of the fashion and play safe with a more conserved look (though I confess to having a love for some Gothic armour).


Be careful about applying a modern fashion sense to medieval gear: It is guaranteed to lead you astray. The CdB-style arming doublet needn't be fancy at all. Just two layers of linen stitched together (that's what mine is). The fancy material is innappropriate for an arming garment (remember, the real CdB pourpoint is a very fashionable *civilian* garment, not a military one!) and the buttons are completely wrong for going under the lower canons.

Quote:
Hugh, I am making a pm to send your way, I hope that will be ok please.


I'll be happy to try to help.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 12:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is from the St. Ursula's Shrine. If you have not checked out the site of James B for the section on Jacks I would do so. (By the Way James the R.A. just examined a basically full jack layer for layer. I am going to ask Karen Watts when I am there next week about what she found. If interested I will give you the info I get plus publishing info.)

Here is a soldier with only a jack for torso protection (bottom left)
http://www.wga.hu/art/m/memling/4ursula/36ursu06.jpg

Here is one wearing a jack under a breastplate (bottom left)
http://www.wga.hu/art/m/memling/4ursula/36ursu05.jpg

For artwork of the medieval period go to the British library website and go to manuscripts. They have an online digital section that brings up all sorts of neat period artwork.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,178

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
Here is a soldier with only a jack for torso protection (bottom left)
http://www.wga.hu/art/m/memling/4ursula/36ursu06.jpg
RPM


I could be wrong but it looks to me that he might be wearing a maille shirt under the jack ?

Could be just a maille collar if over the jack ( hard to see without zooming in very close )
and a maille skirt ? But my impression is more of a maille shirt.

Fabric armour seems to be used over, under, over & under maille or plate and by itself at times.

Funny I've seen this painting before and never noticed the possibility of there being a maille shirt
under the jack. Eek! Laughing Out Loud

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 5:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean,

The other man is in a mail skirt at least as well. Who knows. With fabric armour it went either way I assume. I wear padded garments under my armour and mail but that is not to say it could not be done otherwise. I am thinking of making a heavy duty surcoat with some padding over my mid 14th harness?

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
This is from the St. Ursula's Shrine. If you have not checked out the site of James B for the section on Jacks I would do so. (By the Way James the R.A. just examined a basically full jack layer for layer. I am going to ask Karen Watts when I am there next week about what she found. If interested I will give you the info I get plus publishing info.)


Sweet Randall I would love to see it and know what volume of their books they publish it in. Do you know the country of origin on this jack, is it English? Happy


Sorry for the slight derail there

Stuart

The CdB garment is cutting edge in 1360; by 1415 pourpoints like that are going out of style and being replaced by early doublets much like the garment in the thread I posted. That early doublet would be going out of style in the 1440s and by the 1450's would be well out of date.

Here is my jacks page

http://www.replications.com/greys/Standards/C.../Jacks.htm

This image is from 1440 most of the others are post 1450:

http://www.replications.com/greys/images/Stan...0_Jack.jpg



Jean

He is wearing a maille shirt, when you see close ups of the painting it is clear there are links in the armpit. I would not wear a tie on sleeve style without a tight fitting tailored maille shirt under it.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stuart W.





Joined: 23 Feb 2007

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Many thanks for all of your replies, the picture building in my head is growing sizeably !

So for a more 1450's period mail haubergeon, one could get mail with three quarter arms, wear it upon an arming doublet (say for example the one from HE), and wear a sleeveless (or half sleeved) jack on top. Add the lower cannon and couter, with gauntlets, open faced sallet, appropriate leg armour attached to the arming doublet (or even pourpoint), making sure either the mail or the jack has appropriate neck protection. Would this sound feasible ?

Of course I could use the arming doublet then to remove the haubergeon at a later date and equip myself with breasteplate, plackard, voiders, pauldrons etc.

I've been looking at the earlier Churburg impressions, again giving me the use of the 3/4 arm length haubergeon, but use it with the likes of the Revival 'gambeson' (& pourpoint for cuisses, I use the term gambeson in quotes as that's what they name it, and I'm referring to its use underneath mail, not on top). This time adding a Churburg breastplate #14 to complete the look ?

I figured if I'm going to get some quality mail, I would make the most out of it Happy

I've spotted more of Muriel's work, probably much more suited to be worn underneath mail (ie no buttons and non-baggy sleeves) - http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=71133 - this one based from the Revival 'gambeson'.

I hope that I'm beginning to be put on the right track now. The resources here are a great help in learning more, thank you.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 15 Mar, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stuart,

I think you still may do whatever time you chose but you armour might shift (or your time period). If you go back to second half of the 14th you could do plate limbs with a Coat of Plates. You could also go with splinted as well. Still need mail and the padded garments but it is still open to you.

I think what I recommend is finding what you like and doing the reseach to make it work. In the end you might find out most of the items you like are mid 15th. It will help your decision.

I am thinking of wearing a vest pourpoint under my padded armour as I need something to keep my leg armour up without relying on greaves (I am using splinted and they only cover the front). Brian Price had some good pictures of something of this nature from the 15th century and it makes sense.

Chris Gravett seems to think they were held up like hose in the 14th. I do not know. I guess it could work but I have not had good results (lets just say the armour staying up is the least of my problems).

James,

It was a nice padded multi layered jack from a private collection I think. Karen Watts said that the raw cotton was layered between linen layers and then sewn in. As they were looking at the piece it became clear that some of the loose wool fibers had been held in place by the sewing. I will get more info as I can. I hope to chat with her for a bit while I am there. I will definitly get the article info. It should have been printed or will be soon. They just finished looking at it in Nov. 2006. It was english 15th but possibly early 15th. She mentioned some interesting things about padding and unpadded garments and their use with armour as well. Very nice person and extremely into textile armour.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Another arming doublet description:

As described in the Ordinances of Louis XI- "a doublet (pourpoint) without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses"

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven H wrote:
Another arming doublet description:

As described in the Ordinances of Louis XI- "a doublet (pourpoint) without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses"


Hi Steve,

I think you'll find that's not an arming doublet. Chausses are medieval leggings--tall socks, if you will, not armor. Mail chausses existed, of course, but long before Louis XI who reigned in the 15th century. Chausses were tied to the breeches (aka braies) in the 13-14th century (and probably before, I just don't know those periods so I don't want to comment), but in the 15th century things were different. I have a picture somewhere of Swiss troops stripping off their doublets to stand in just their shirts, pourpoints and chausses. Chausses were also pointed to doublets, of course, but they'd been doing that since the late 14th century (e.g., the CdB pourpoint we discussed above).

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483) wrote:

And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."


As is clear from the context this is a descripition of military garments, not civilian garments. The ambiguous term 'chausses' should be taken to mean the military meaning of chausses therefore and not just socks. This evidence, when combined with the pictures presented earlier, show that one of the patterns for an arming garment is a sleeveless vest-like design, in addition to the CdB pattern.

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 22 Mar, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven H wrote:
From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483) wrote:

And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."


As is clear from the context this is a descripition of military garments, not civilian garments. The ambiguous term 'chausses' should be taken to mean the military meaning of chausses therefore and not just socks. This evidence, when combined with the pictures presented earlier, show that one of the patterns for an arming garment is a sleeveless vest-like design, in addition to the CdB pattern.


Sorry, no. They were worn under jacks, yes, but only to hold up chausses--leggings. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest they supported any armor whatsoever, and I do have evidence they were worn to hold up woolen chausses. Guys have to wear chausses even in full armor, jacks or what have you. That they are worn with military garments doesn't make them arming doublets, I'm sorry, any more than a moden soldier's briefs are armored because they're worn wwhen he wears a flak jacket. Your text says chausses, and that's all it means--chausses. Not cuisses.

If you go here: http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/dragons_1.phtml and download Issue #3 you can see some great info on jacks (including the article you copied the excerpt from) and a suggested design for a sleeveless pourpoint--but nothing about holding up armor with them. The article suggests they were worn to minimize heat when wearing a jack. The web site is Europe's Company of St. George--one of the premier LH groups in the world. Their clothing ordinances state:
"Doublet
Woollen, with sleeves. Must be fastened with "points" (laced to the hose). Sleeveless doublets (pourpoints with wide cut arm holes - like modern waist coats) may only be worn under a jack or by those who own jacks."

As you can see, they're talking about the pourpoint being a replacement for a doublet for holding up hose when worn with a jack--not about leg armor.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Thu 22 Mar, 2007 6:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steve

Hugh is right, in this context the pourpoint is meant to hold up a pair of joined hosen/chausses (English/French word for the same thing). The men the ordinance is talking about are not likely to own any leg armor what so ever. In that ordinance they call for a heavily padded jack with sleeves that you are unlikely to wear a normal doublet under so you need something to tie your hosen into.

BTW doublet and pourpoint mean the same thing too again it is English word vs. French word.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Sat 24 Mar, 2007 12:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James,

I do not know if the word doublet can be used straight across like that. Doublets in some inventories I have seen clearly are all sorts of different things but all use the term doublet. I assume they knew what it meant but I figure doublet could mean a padded jack a poirpoint a normal civi garment and likely half a dozen other bits. I think when the term defensive doublet or doublet of defence is likely a padded one. There is a will from york that lists a whole suit more or less and a doublet of defence that I assume was worn under the armour. He also has a arming doublet listed as well (York Archdio- probate inventories). What the difference is can only be guessed as no description apart from that is used. It is in english so mistranslation likely is not a problem I think. Just interpreting what it is.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > General pattern for a 14th century aketon?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 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 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum