The Armour Archive

I can't sew, so they are greek to me but I know people who would make sense of this. If the garmet described would qualify as period for the 14th century and would be be functional for SCA combat I would look at getting one built.
http://www.barbute.com/articles/armingjack.htm



------------------
I hope that you will...
Farewell

Anradan

Pictures would be nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Anradan MacEwan:
<B>I can't sew, so they are greek to me but I know people who would make sense of this. If the garmet described would qualify as period for the 14th century and would be be functional for SCA combat I would look at getting one built.
http://www.barbute.com/articles/armingjack.htm
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally the armholes in the 14th c garments curve deeply toward the back shoulders and the front closure is not flat, but shaped. A diagram can be seen in Blanche Payne's History of Costume for both body and sleeves (FIRST EDITION ONLY - they dropped the cool diagrams out of the second edition...) The description does not quite match the extant patterns I've seen.

It is a reasonable description of draping, which is a period tailoring technique, but the text tends to neglect fabric and stuffing and such which is what would make it more authentic.

So the answer is, its kind of hard to tell without diagrams of what he expects the final pattern to end up or pictures of what he wants it to look like. There isn't really enough information, but a cursory review indicates some important information may be missing.

- Juliana

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Anradan MacEwan:
I can't sew, so they are greek to me but I know people who would make sense of this. If the garmet described would qualify as period for the 14th century and would be be functional for SCA combat I would look at getting one built.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I can't tell from the description if that's an accurate description of a late-14th-century arming doublet (not because the article's bad--I don't know if it's any good or not, since I don't sew), but you need to decide what harness you're building.

Usually the term "aketon" is reserved for the long-sleeved, knee-length quilted garment worn under armor from the earlier part of the century (e.g., hauberks and CoPs), while the terms "arming doublet" or "pourpoint" are used for the more fitted garments I think this article was intended to describe.

If you're looking for a poupoint, then many 14th-century reenactors are making ones built from the design of the Charles de Blois pourpoint. This is often mistaken for a military garment, but, in fact, it's not; it's clearly a civilian garment (for a host of reasons I'll go into if you're really interested). Still, the *design* is perfect for wearing under armor, and that's what I have.

I used to have a link to a detailed document (including patterns), but I lost it when I left my job. I downloaded a copy of the article, however, and I'm e-mailing it to you now. Let me know if you get it all right.

This article is specifically for the civilian version of the garment; you want to avoid the big buttons, for example. But the shape and concept is good (although I can't speak to the accuracy of the instructions; again, I know nothing about sewing).

Let me know if you have any questions.


------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B> Hi,

I can't tell from the description if that's an accurate description of a late-14th-century arming doublet (not because the article's bad--I don't know if it's any good or not, since I don't sew), but you need to decide what harness you're building.

Usually the term "aketon" is reserved for the long-sleeved, knee-length quilted garment worn under armor from the earlier part of the century (e.g., hauberks and CoPs), while the terms "arming doublet" or "pourpoint" are used for the more fitted garments I think this article was intended to describe.

If you're looking for a poupoint, then many 14th-century reenactors are making ones built from the design of the Charles de Blois pourpoint. This is often mistaken for a military garment, but, in fact, it's not; it's clearly a civilian garment (for a host of reasons I'll go into if you're really interested). Still, the *design* is perfect for wearing under armor, and that's what I have.

I used to have a link to a detailed document (including patterns), but I lost it when I left my job. I downloaded a copy of the article, however, and I'm e-mailing it to you now. Let me know if you get it all right.

This article is specifically for the civilian version of the garment; you want to avoid the big buttons, for example. But the shape and concept is good (although I can't speak to the accuracy of the instructions; again, I know nothing about sewing).

Let me know if you have any questions.


</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ah,
Yes, the "aketon" for under a CoP is what I am looking for. There are so many different terms for what, on the surface, seems like much the same thing. As of 8:30 am central time I hadn't received the article. Which addy did you send it to? If you sent it to the tony.dryair address try sending it to anradanmacewan@sk.sympatico.ca
Thanks Hugh.

PS still digging for just the right kit. I like the Black Princes kit in the "charter" pic though. Wish I had the cash to get one of Mac's Helms!


------------------
I hope that you will...
Farewell

Anradan

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
<B> Normally the armholes in the 14th c garments curve deeply toward the back shoulders and the front closure is not flat, but shaped. A diagram can be seen in Blanche Payne's History of Costume for both body and sleeves (FIRST EDITION ONLY - they dropped the cool diagrams out of the second edition...) The description does not quite match the extant patterns I've seen.

It is a reasonable description of draping, which is a period tailoring technique, but the text tends to neglect fabric and stuffing and such which is what would make it more authentic.

So the answer is, its kind of hard to tell without diagrams of what he expects the final pattern to end up or pictures of what he wants it to look like. There isn't really enough information, but a cursory review indicates some important information may be missing.

- Juliana

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Juliana! Any links to good instructions on the net? My library has real trouble with alot of the titles I ask them to find.
If you were to point out one point in particular that seems lacking what would it be?


------------------
I hope that you will...
Farewell

Anradan

for a poupoint, then many 14th-century reenactors are making ones built from the design of the Charles de Blois pourpoint. This is often mistaken for a military garment, but, in fact, it's not; it's clearly a civilian garment (for a host of reasons I'll go into if you're really interested). Still, the *design* is perfect for wearing under armor, and that's what I have.

The pattern I mentioned in Blanche Payne is for this pourpoint. The reason the pattern works for military use is due to the way the armscyes and sleeves are constructed. In period, seams tended to be placed for one of two reasons 1) fabric conservation and 2) engineering using fabric bias to provide stretch where you need it.

The armscyes are deep with the curves over the pectoral muscles in front and the shoulder muscles in back. These curves, which end up partly on the bias, allow more give for athletic movement in just the right places for combat.

The sleeve is cut in a number of pieces. The end result is that the sleeve placement at its neutral position is horizontal with the arm out straight to the side, not hanging down at the side like most modern suit coats. This neutral position means that you don't need a slit at the armpit to raise your arms and there won't be as much excess bulk when you want to lower your arm.

The sleeves are cut to be bent at the elbow. The partially bent sleeve allows you to straighten your arm, but you can bend your arm without excess fabric bulk inside the elbow. Overall this pattern allows a garment that is fairly fitted, but still provides good mobility.

The Company of St. George here in Caid has been using this pattern quite effectively for many years. I believe that it is Master Gareth's gambeson of this type shown in Brian Price's armoring book.

As a side note, I've occasionally seen women's garments cut with the same armscyes. In general I'd avoid the thought that there is one and only one way to cut a garment, even in period many variations can be seen, however one certainly may assume that what worked for them is the best place to start.

Juliana

[This message has been edited by FrauHirsch (edited 03-21-2002).]

Pattern: http://home.fox.nstn.ca/~swan/artifact/article_aissiette.html
Costume description: http://home.fox.nstn.ca/~swan/research/nn_1.html
Picture of Extant garment: http://www.virtue.to/articles/extant.html

One reason the extant garment wasn't a military garment because it was not padded. One would have to extend the pattern by some 2-3" in all directions, or better, pre-stuff it then recut it after stuffing to allow for fabric shrinkage which would occur during stuffing. I would still allow about 3/4" to 1" larger cut around the seams than a civilian pourpoint to allow for the additional bulk of a stuffed garment. Then fit on the person and take it in until it fits correctly.

I would first suggest making one out of scrap cloth. The draping method they suggest is ok place to start for general sizing, but the pattern for the pourpoint doesn't really match their instructions.

To make it authentically you would use fustian. This is a heavy linen or linen/cotton blend. Then you would quilt it in rows, then you would stuff the rows with wool or possibly cotton (there is some argument as to whether cotton-wool is unspun cotton or unspun wool). Do not use polyfill batting or you will BAKE. If you don't care about the insides too much, quilting stores do sell 100% cotton batting.

Juliana


[This message has been edited by FrauHirsch (edited 03-21-2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
<B>Pattern: http://home.fox.nstn.ca/~swan/artifact/article_aissiette.html
Costume description: http://home.fox.nstn.ca/~swan/research/nn_1.html
Picture of Extant garment: http://www.virtue.to/articles/extant.html

One reason the extant garment wasn't a military garment because it was not padded. One would have to extend the pattern by some 2-3" in all directions, or better, pre-stuff it then recut it after stuffing to allow for fabric shrinkage which would occur during stuffing. I would still allow about 3/4" to 1" larger cut around the seams than a civilian pourpoint to allow for the additional bulk of a stuffed garment. Then fit on the person and take it in until it fits correctly.

I would first suggest making one out of scrap cloth. The draping method they suggest is ok place to start for general sizing, but the pattern for the pourpoint doesn't really match their instructions.

To make it authentically you would use fustian. This is a heavy linen or linen/cotton blend. Then you would quilt it in rows, then you would stuff the rows with wool or possibly cotton (there is some argument as to whether cotton-wool is unspun cotton or unspun wool). Do not use polyfill batting or you will BAKE. If you don't care about the insides too much, quilting stores do sell 100% cotton batting.

Juliana

[B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can I say?
[B]Thank-you very, very much! </B>

On a side note: It seems from discussions on other boards and threads about Gambeson's there is some contention as to the "stuffing" of the tubes. What is your view on this?


------------------
I hope that you will...
Farewell

Anradan

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Anradan MacEwan:
<B>
Ah,
Yes, the "aketon" for under a CoP is what I am looking for. There are so many different terms for what, on the surface, seems like much the same thing. As of 8:30 am central time I hadn't received the article. Which addy did you send it to? If you sent it to the tony.dryair address try sending it to anradanmacewan@sk.sympatico.ca
Thanks Hugh.

PS still digging for just the right kit. I like the Black Princes kit in the "charter" pic though. Wish I had the cash to get one of Mac's Helms!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're talking about an aketon to go under a CoP then the highly-fitted Charles de Blois pourpoint about which FrauHirsh and I have been talking is completely innappropriate for you (although it *would* be appropriate with the BP harness you mentioned above).

The aketon is a mich simpler garment, and more like what the typical SCAdian wrongly calls a "gambeson" (which is actually a quilted garment worn *over* other armor). An aketon is a knee-length (more or less; there will be a lot of generalizing here) garment. It had long sleeves which I believe laced up the inside of the forearm to judge from the fact that some harnesses, e.g., that of John d'Abernoun, were worn with plate vambraces. I suspect (but can't prove) that they laced up the front, and were split in the back to permit riding a horse. Some seem to have had a collar, some apparently did not. I don't think you really need a pattern for this; and reasonably adept seamstress should be able to make it quite easily.

You said something about "stuffing tubes"; a friend of mine, who has her laural in medieval military textiles, has told me that's just not right. You have to quilt a layer of batting between two layers of fabric. Apparently the "tube stuffing" is just something invented by a SCAdian who didn't know how to quilt.

By the way, did you ever get the document I sent you about the pourpoint? I sent it to the address on your profile.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B> If you're talking about an aketon to go under a CoP then the highly-fitted Charles de Blois pourpoint about which FrauHirsh and I have been talking is completely innappropriate for you (although it *would* be appropriate with the BP harness you mentioned above).

The aketon is a mich simpler garment, and more like what the typical SCAdian wrongly calls a "gambeson" (which is actually a quilted garment worn *over* other armor). An aketon is a knee-length (more or less; there will be a lot of generalizing here) garment. It had long sleeves which I believe laced up the inside of the forearm to judge from the fact that some harnesses, e.g., that of John d'Abernoun, were worn with plate vambraces. I suspect (but can't prove) that they laced up the front, and were split in the back to permit riding a horse. Some seem to have had a collar, some apparently did not. I don't think you really need a pattern for this; and reasonably adept seamstress should be able to make it quite easily.

You said something about "stuffing tubes"; a friend of mine, who has her laural in medieval military textiles, has told me that's just not right. You have to quilt a layer of batting between two layers of fabric. Apparently the "tube stuffing" is just something invented by a SCAdian who didn't know how to quilt.

By the way, did you ever get the document I sent you about the pourpoint? I sent it to the address on your profile.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rhys,
I am confused. Someone please clarify this for me.
I am basing my comments on an article I gleaned from the net located at:
http://www.stbonifacebunbury.org.uk/Papers/Sir_Hugh_paper.htm
In this article the author discusses the aketon "Over this he would don his aketon, a short, thickly quilted jacket, probably with tight wrist-length sleeves..."
Over this would go the hauberk and then "Over this again was worn a plate defence, of which the commonest form throughout the 14th century was that usually refrred to in contempoery English texts simply as the plates, and in modern terminology as the coat of plates."

Am I missing something or is this source incorrect? (it is only one source I realize it could be flawed. I hope not as it is the best single description of the type of armour combination for the period I hope to represent.

------------------
I hope that you will...
Farewell

Anradan

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Anradan MacEwan:
<B> Rhys,
I am confused. Someone please clarify this for me.
I am basing my comments on an article I gleaned from the net located at:
http://www.stbonifacebunbury.org.uk/Papers/Sir_Hugh_paper.htm
In this article the author discusses the aketon "Over this he would don his aketon, a short, thickly quilted jacket, probably with tight wrist-length sleeves..."
Over this would go the hauberk and then "Over this again was worn a plate defence, of which the commonest form throughout the 14th century was that usually refrred to in contempoery English texts simply as the plates, and in modern terminology as the coat of plates."

Am I missing something or is this source incorrect? (it is only </B> one source I realize it could be flawed. I hope not as it is the best single description of the type of armour combination for the period I hope to represent.

</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh for pity's sake! If I would have read your post you didn't say that the aketon was inappropriate. Only the fitted syle of aketon was inappropriate.

Upon reading this article again, it doesn't describe the aketon other than saying "a short, quilted garment".

Anradan...working towards a meager understanding of 14th century armour.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B>
You said something about "stuffing tubes"; a friend of mine, who has her laural in medieval military textiles, has told me that's just not right. You have to quilt a layer of batting between two layers of fabric. Apparently the "tube stuffing" is just something invented by a SCAdian who didn't know how to quilt.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the people who I've heard argue that stuffing is the ONLY period method were all hard core 14th c re-enactors here on the west coast not affiliated with the SCA. They actually presented some documentation that discusses stuffing from a primary source, but I would not rule out quilting over a batting as a period method either. There is some logic to stuffing as wool batting would take more effort to make than just wadding and jamming it up the tubes right out of the wool bag. The problem with the verticle tubes is that if you don't stuff it really tightly, then over time gravity will eventually overcome and it will end up in a puffy wad at the bottom of the garment with the body area left with little or no padding.

If you cross quilted it after stuffing, this would prevent some of the slippage. If you stuffed and packed the tubes very tightly so that it would never slip down, then the garment ends up not very flexible and might be VERY heavy. This has been discussed on the archive before by people who used this method.

My guess is that they did both. It is easier to quilt modernly just due to the ability to buy batting in rolls.

I would recommend using the 100% cotton quilt batting in several layers or use layers of terry cloth between the outside layers of linen. I have used moving blankets too, but they don't wash as well as the batting or terry cloth. In period, there is some disagreement between researchers as to whether the padding would be wool, or cotton or a mixture of both. Wool would probably be the most common.

But this all depends on how authentic Anradan wishes to be. Primary sources on quilting and/or stuffing would of course be helpful. I don't have time this week to dig through the books I have that might be able to clarify.


Juliana

[This message has been edited by FrauHirsch (edited 03-22-2002).]

Is there good documentation for using wool as stuffing? I remember somebody quoting a source that mentioned "cotton wool", but this is cotton, not wool.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Buran:
Is there good documentation for using wool as stuffing? I remember somebody quoting a source that mentioned "cotton wool", but this is cotton, not wool.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you please document this? There are a number of textile scholars who say that "cotton" is the general term for the "fluffy state" of wool.

Juliana

Sir Rhys,
I'm interested in the host of reasons the Charles of Blois pourpoint can't be classified as a military garment. I've read that it only appears quilted because of how it is preserved, but I've also read that this is exactly what he wore during the battle of Arras. Is this just a fanciful story?
Gaston de Clermont

Common British usage of the term "cotton wool" refers to little balls of cotton like you'd use for padding asprin bottles, cleaning off makeup etc. I'm not sure if your sources meant this meaning or not.
Gaston

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clermont:
<B>Sir Rhys,
I'm interested in the host of reasons the Charles of Blois pourpoint can't be classified as a military garment. I've read that it only appears quilted because of how it is preserved, but I've also read that this is exactly what he wore during the battle of Arras. Is this just a fanciful story?
Gaston de Clermont</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there are lots of reasons you hear, but I don't trust some of them because they depend on documentation no on ever seems to be able to provide. The single biggest proof against it is simply this: The buttons on the sleeves would prevent the lower cannon of your vambraces from fitting correctly, and the sleeves are too tight to prevent any arm protection from being worn underneath. In addition, I suspect that the material is much too fancy for a foundation garment (not that a rich noble mightn't have been able to afford to do so, but rather because it's insufficiently tough). Finally, the points which remain inside are linen and kid, which would be fine for supportng woolen chausses, but would be drastically insufficient for holding plate cuisses; also, there are points front and rear, which is how hosen were worn, but are unnecessary for cuisses. Believe me, we tried this, and the cords that tie your cuisses to your pourpoint must be *stout*. Oh, and one other thing, there don't appear to be any attachment points for any other armor, such as vambraces.

No, it seems clear this is a civilian garment designed to be worn beneath a cotthardie and used to give the fashionable "pigeon-chested, wasp-waisted" look of the period, and to hold up one's chausses. I *do* believe there's every reason to believe that this *design* (without the buttons, etc.) is perfect for arming doublets of his period. It's just that this *particular* garment probably wasn't one such.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clermont:
<B>Common British usage of the term "cotton wool" refers to little balls of cotton like you'd use for padding asprin bottles, cleaning off makeup etc. I'm not sure if your sources meant this meaning or not.
Gaston</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Modern terminology is not really relevant to period textiles.

But thanks,

Juliana

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
The single biggest proof against it is simply this: The buttons on the sleeves would prevent the lower cannon of your vambraces from fitting correctly, </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And wouldn't we expect there to be wear marks, especially with this kind of fancy fabric?

Juliana

SyrRhys,

Concerning the Charles de Blois pourpoint: Thanks for supporting a suspicion that I have long held. I've been wanting to make a pourpoint, and that was the clearest picture that I had, but I couldn't reconcile the buttons.

------------------
The defining characteristic of fanaticism is the inability to understand why everyone else is not a fanatic.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
And wouldn't we expect there to be wear marks, especially with this kind of fancy fabric?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to admit it, but I simply have never seen pictures that were clear enough to tell me that one way or the other. Besides, I'm not sure that would really mean anything; after all, what if it was made but never worn? That might explain its survival (I don't think that's the case, I'm just saying that the absence of wear marks might not be indicative of anything).



------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"