Earliest gambeson was no gambeson????

[Glaukos the Athenian]

Ok, so where is the historical/archaeological evidence for early gambesons? I mean by the 12th century they are pretty much there, but what did Carolingian and Norman/Saxon warriors wear UNDER their hauberks or byrnies?

One would expect that the concept of a "subarmalis" was well known but can anyone give me an actual image or reference to padded garments worn over maille?

I am suspecting that in early period people might have just worn a couple of tunics layered for padding.

What did Vikings wear under their maille shirts? (any text reference from Stamford Bridge accounts?)

When one looks at the Maciejowski Bible, clearly one of the best pictorial sources out there, there is a certain slenderness to the figures in maille, and a bulkiness to figures in gambesons

Notice this very telling image: it shows Lot being rescued from the Sodomites.
Look on the right, the Sodomites have been caught unprepared, and are either donning armour or fleeing with it.
There is a figure in a brown tunic, donning maille right over it, without the benefit of padding. To the right a figure running away with what looks like a garment of soft armour over his shoulder. (clearly different in texture and color from the hauberk next to it)
Notice the figure on the floor, donning what appear to be GDFB padded cuisses.
The figures attacking on horse are wearing visible maille, the figures on foot, padded armour.
These are quite distinct. And I cannot find in the MB any figure wearing a gambeson that is also donning or wearing maille...

[img]http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/ ... otm3va.gif[/img]

There is a tunic visible here, but it does not appear to be padded
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/ ... tm13rb.gif

Now this is David, discarding the armour that Saul offered him. Underneath he is wearing a tunic, not a padded garment.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/ ... 28rc&d.gif

We cannot claim that the MB is accurate on some points and then dismiss others because they don't match our theory.
From observation of THIS source, it appears as if padded armour is distinct and separate from maille, and that maille is worn over a tunic, and not over a gambeson, at least here... Gambesons or padded coats of armour are used as a separate type.
That is why maille wearers don't look like the Michelin man.
They did not as the MB illustrator saw them...

[Glen K]

...but what did Carolingian and Norman/Saxon warriors wear UNDER their hauberks or byrnies?

Glaukos, you have just stumbled (perhaps unintentionally) into the greatest, most heated debate in all of 11th century medieval military material culturalism and/or serious reenactment. If you do a search of the Interptive and Historical Research forums, you'll find a plethora of threads where we've discussed/debated this issue time and again. Practical "living archaeology" experiments have, in my opinion, raised mroe questions than they've answered.

The biggest problem with your post above is using the Maciejowski (hey, I can still spell it without looking it up!) Bible to look at Carolingian and Norman/Saxon folks... it's two centuries too late for that. However, some of the observations you're trying to make can be applied to 10th/11th century artwork; it's just more conjectural because the art isn't as specific or as clear as the MB.

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

I think you're on the right track, though I certainly agree that we don't know where the heck this track is going! You've probably already seen discussions on several boards about padded armor and padding *under* armor prior to the Crusader era. Bottom line, there is doodly-doo for evidence! We're left to conjecture about wearing several tunics (though the artwork shows us ONE or NONE), or the possibility of hauberks with integral linings (which was certainly done in some eastern cultures).

But I think there is an agreement that stand-alone padded/quilted armor was thicker and bulkier than whatever was worn under mail.

I just can't shake this gut feeling that we tend to think padding is more essential under mail than warriors did back then. When a quick slice or tentative jab could lay open exposed flesh in a debilitating or fatal wound, mail may have been seen as a godlike metal skin. Maybe they just were not as worried about heavy impact (especially since heads were already covered by helmets).

Not sure what else to tell you! Picking apart Roman evidence is not going to be much help, here, especially since it is just as spotty and ambiguous. I'll be curious to see if this goes anywhere new, though!

Matthew

[Glaukos the Athenian]

I am tempted to think as Matthew suggests.

We see people suffering from heat at Pennsic all the time, because of heavy padded gambesons. I wonder if a simple, perhaps two layer tunic of sturdy fabric like denim might not do the same trick.

Being unable to fight because of heat prostration could be as dangerous or more dangerous than a bruise under your maille...

The question is whether the gambeson is protecting the wearer from the enemy or from his own armour.

My goal here is to create a correct 1066 look in my armour, while maintaining an acceptable level of protection. Many of the gambesons I have seen sold commercially are simply too thick, and the polyfill stuffing in some of them makes them downright dangerous in hot weather (although nice and cozy in cold weather for an archer or footman interpretation)

I am beginning to lean towards some type of thick tunic with stealth SCA armour in the right places to avoid blunt trauma rather than wearing a heavy coat and working out with it in the middle of the summer...

[RandallMoffett]

One really needs to branch out of artwork, which is of limited use in such a question, and hit period texts. By the early 13th there is so much lit. on this subject for the late 12th on this is a moot point. Before that yes you have room to debate if it was or wasn't but after I think it shows a lack of familiarity with the written sources than a real historic occurrence. Written text to me almost always trumps the ambiguity of artwork and its interpretation.

Here are some places to start for texts.

De Joinville's chronicle
The inventories of the clos of the Galleys of France
William the Breton
Calendar of the Misc. Inquisitions of the Kings of England
The Plea and Memoranda Rolls of London
The Letter Books of London
Tower of London Inventories
Bertrand Guesclin's Chronicle
Scalacronica

Just to name a few off my head. But each has examples of the wearing of an aketon/gambeson under (or at times over) mail. I think arguing that in general knights did not wear mail with padding from the late 12th century on is untenable a position. But as Matt said there is really 0 evidence for it before hand. I see not problem with throwing a few tunics on if you like and having a go of it. Might I suggest just making a special mail undershirt of a few layers of something made of natural materials.

Now if people are having heat issues with aketons now-a-days in fighting I could not say what the issue is. Incorrect materials, not keeping enough water in them, drinking non-water beverages before a fight, there are lots of issues I'd look at before blaming paddings exclusively, though I guess excessive padding is possible, but I think less likely than other contributors.


To be honest there is a picture in the MAC bible that to me shows David and Jonathon wearing what looks like a gambeson under their mail. In the end it is open to debate but you can see it with sewn channels peeking from the neck hole of the hauberk. To me I use artwork to get an idea what things in written text may have looked like unless I have no other choice, it is just to slippery a slope.

Good luck with your pursuit!

RPM

[Glaukos the Athenian]

You are absolutely correct, I have an almost complete lack of familiarity with the written sources, my specialty having been in the past Classical Antiquity and not the Middle Ages.

But please also notice the specific subject of my inquiry is the middle to the end of the 11th century or from Hastings to Jerusalem.

I suspect that there was a substantial degree of learning and cultural acquisition immediately after the first crusade, in particular about fighting in warm climates.

Now I took your advise as to the first source and found this
http://books.google.com/books?id=jnADiX ... e&q&f=true

Where Joinville wears a gambeson alone with a steel cap, but not necessarily with maille over it. That is because they were attacked by surprise in the middle of the night. In fact he clarifies that he could not wear his hauberk because of the wounds he received the day before, not because he did not have time to don it over his gambeson. So it appears that rather than go unarmored, Joinville chooses to fight in footman's soft armour rather than no armour at all...

I am not arguing the existence of a gambeson, rather I am looking for a specific quote where a padded garment is worn under the hauberk.
Thus far Joinville (I am reading it online) is not giving me that. There are people waring one or the other, but I cannot find anyone wearing BOTH.

[RandallMoffett]

First,

I'd recommend reading all of a resource before making to finite a comment, never good to jump the gun. The short duration of your post after mine seems to indicate you did a search function which will not help find the info you are looking for. Second you will find them if you look but you might need to change your terms you are searching for. Perhaps Jazerant. A Jazerant is mail between TWO padded sections which appears very often in de Joinville. Third look at the version you are reading, it includes condensed or edited sections so it might be missing somethings. Last he does not say the gambeson is footman armour, only due to wounds he and his men could not put the hauberks on. That does in no way say one does not wear padding with mail though.

One of the best accounts is William the Breton. He relates the joust of De Barri and Richard of England. Richard gets hit with a lance which goes through his mail, then his metal chest plate then stops as it is piercing his aketon.

Here are some more-
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

Good description of arms and armour are rare in medieval texts so you need to get your feet really, really wet before you are going to make much progress. Do not worry that is just how it is. I promise after over six years of full time readings of period texts I am still finding new information every time I crack open a book.

Enjoy the ride!

RPM

[Dan Howard]

If people consider the likely possibility that a lot of medieval mail had integrated padded liners then the problem goes away

We also need to use consistent terminology. Personally I use "aketon" when referring to a garment that is designed to be worn under mail and "gambeson" when referring to standalone armour. The two are completely different items. So, by definition, no gambeson was ever worn under mail. It is purely semantic but it is impossible to discuss this subject without everyone using the same terminology. The problem is that the sources are not so accommodating. It is often impossible to tell whether an inventory listing a "gambeson" is describing standalone armour or a padded underarmour. There are few similarities between the two. You can't wear a gambeson under mail. It is too thick.

[fghthty545y]

What's up with this picture on the MyArmoury feature?
http://www.myarmoury.com/view.html?feat ... mail16.jpg

You'd think it's all showing mail, though why are the figures shown with distintly diffirent reprensations of it?

[Dan Howard]

There are heaps of mail variants. The artist might be trying to depict two different styles of mail. Maybe a denser weave or different link sizes.

[James B.]

I am not sure everyone wore padding under maille in the 15th century. You see tons of depictions of soldiers and archers wearing just maille, or maille and a jack and there is no indication the doublet under it is padded what so ever. You read about; lords stock piling shirts and issuing them to their guys but there is no indication they had padded garments issued for under.

We don't even have indication in "How a Man Shall Be Armed" that there is padding in the doublet mentioned there, it states:

He shall have no shirt upon him except for a doublet of fustian lined with satin, cut full of holes. The doublet must be strongly built; the points must be set at the break in the arm in the front and back. To lace the gussets of mail must be sewn onto the doublet also at the break in the arm and at the underarm.

Maille and plate then go on that harness.




I think the aketon became important during the crusades because they faced many archers; many test have been done on padding and maille and they show the two combined protect against arrows the best.

[RandallMoffett]

James,

Yes it is possible by the 15th that is happening and I think we can safely say the padding needed especially under plate is limited. I think it is possible but the evidence for it, especially lacking padding under mail for the 15th century is hardly strong. To me the Hastings MS could easily be talking about the lining and foundation material as it is written. This seems to be the one shred of evidence that there is for unpadded arming clothes under plate and while I think it very likely it means unpadded I'd be more happy with some supporting evidence. We have dozens of accounts during the 15th of use of padding under mail and plate so to have one, albeit, well done account reverse them all makes me uncomfortable.

As far as why lords stocked up mail and shirts and not jacks. Since men of almost any standing were expected to own a jack it seems the lord easily could just provide mail or a brig. It could also be that they had already bought padded jacks and the information is just missing. What if the shirts are more for ID like livery coats? I'd hesitate either way to assume that means the lord expected mail not to be worn with padding from such evidence as it is likely one of the most common individual defences in Europe at the time and we know from various sources it was recommended the two be worn together as a type of standard.

Padded doubtlets, padded coats, jacks, there are all sorts of names in the 15th I have seen listed in inventories of military equipment that indicate it was a common system of use to wear, plate, mail and paddings together. A type of padded brig or hauberk also seems to have been in use, Sir John Fastoff having some very interesting examples at Caister Castle around 1460. Artwork more and more is becoming supplemental, or at the least a last resort to text as it is in my opinion has many more limiting factors.

I am not sure men faced less danger from archers in the 14th or 15th centuries either. Everyone that could tried improving their archery forces in the 15th and most had some success. From England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Italy and Spain we see relatively large numbers of archers in use in war. And Eastern Europe seems always to have had a relatively strong archery trend so I'd hardly say that they faced less chances of danger from bows and crossbows than a soldier during the crusades.

So yes it is possible I am not sure we could firmly decide how often it was done but my estimate/guess from the sources I am familiar with is padding under mail was still the norm or standard.

RPM

[Glen K]

There's lots of good info in this thread... but most of it is still POST 11th century!

Dan: your point is a good one, but for there to be evidence of an attached, cloth-based mail liner there to be evidence of a cloth-based mail liner... And while your effort to create a consistency in terminology is a good one, we're hamstrung by the fact that no such consistency existed in period, and as such doing so is problematic and artificial.

When I first started doing the "11th century thing", I was looking at the sources Glaukos and Randall are referring to and extrapolating backwards... just like everyone else was. After thinking, researching, and wearing reproductions, I' ve become more and more convinced that a padded "gambeson" subarmalis was simply too impractical, limited movement too much, was too hot/uncomfortable (even with period materials), and as such I stopped using one. I went to wearing a couple of wool tunics, and haven't looked back. At this point, based on practical experience, lots of guesswork, etc. I think what probably happend is a heavy wool tunic with, perhaps, some "double layering" (not padding/quilting) in a couple of strategic points like elbows and the tops of shoulders.

Don't ask me to write an academic paper on this, though, because as I said it's mostly guesswork. I spent about a year doing fairly in-depth research on this topic for 11th century, and I can tell you I ended up with far more questions than I answered. My Ultimate Conclusion (tm) is that, for the 11th century we simply don't know, and probably never will.

[madmongo]

Whilst I cant comment on the historical sources of it which I am finding very interesting, personally I find fighting in mail with few under tunics underneath extremely comfortable in any weather (you add more in winter, less in summer) and suprisingly seems to bear up well to 90% of incoming blows.

[Godric of Castlemont]

So second the comments of others, I fought (SCA) for more than a few years with a padded gambeson. Then I was fighting at a West/AnTir war and was nearly incapacitated in a battle from heat, so I crawled to the sidelines and stripped off the gambeson and continued to fight in a linen shirt under mail. And low and behold the mail I was wearing was no less protective. That was several years ago and I have not worn a gambeson since. I should also add that I am not a fighter of much account, I get hit.....A lot..... Every where..... I add that as there are some "super dukes" on the boards here I would not suggest getting armor tips from, they are good enough to just not get hit where they don't want to get hit. Us mere mortals gotta take the bruises as they come.

[RenJunkie]

But what about the remaining 10%? There's a lot that can happen in that 10% it didn't bear up to well.

Whilst I cant comment on the historical sources of it which I am finding very interesting, personally I find fighting in mail with few under tunics underneath extremely comfortable in any weather (you add more in winter, less in summer) and suprisingly seems to bear up well to 90% of incoming blows.

Thanks!
Christopher

[Sander Marechal]

In my opinion it matters a lot what your gambeson is made of. It should be linen, not cotton. And preferably the stuffing should not be cotton as well (try horse hair, or a layered gambeson instead of a padde one). It's also important to drink plenty in the hours before using it. A linen gambeson can keep you quite cool but it needs to be soaking in your sweat. But that only works with linen and it only works if it's wet.

It's also important that a gambeson fits well so that the linen is properly touching and hugging your body. If it's too big, the linen can't cool you. On that account, don't wear anything under your gambeson. Putting on a cotton T-shirt under your gambeson is a sure-fire way to overheat, even if the gambeson is properly wet and made out of linen.

[Eltz-Kempenich]

There is a source from Beha Ad-din, a secretary of sorts of Sal Ad-din in the 3rd Crusade that clearly states that the soldiers were wearing mail hauberks AND gambesons. What is meant by "gambeson" in this instance is unclear, however.

[James B.]

James,

Yes it is possible by the 15th that is happening and I think we can safely say the padding needed especially under plate is limited. I think it is possible but the evidence for it, especially lacking padding under mail for the 15th century is hardly strong. To me the Hastings MS could easily be talking about the lining and foundation material as it is written. This seems to be the one shred of evidence that there is for unpadded arming clothes under plate and while I think it very likely it means unpadded I'd be more happy with some supporting evidence. We have dozens of accounts during the 15th of use of padding under mail and plate so to have one, albeit, well done account reverse them all makes me uncomfortable.

I am not saying there is no padding under maille and plate I am just saying I don't think it is universal especially with archer types who are often depicted as just having maille or maille and a jack over a regular doublet.

If people were wearing maille without padding in the later middle ages why could they not have go without in the earlier eras?

I am not sure men faced less danger from archers in the 14th or 15th centuries either. Everyone that could tried improving their archery forces in the 15th and most had some success. From England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Italy and Spain we see relatively large numbers of archers in use in war. And Eastern Europe seems always to have had a relatively strong archery trend so I'd hardly say that they faced less chances of danger from bows and crossbows than a soldier during the crusades.

So yes it is possible I am not sure we could firmly decide how often it was done but my estimate/guess from the sources I am familiar with is padding under mail was still the norm or standard.

I would say archer became more of a factor but my point stands, do you think archers put on a padded doublet, then maille (wear maille was worn), then a jack or do you think it was just a standard doublet, maille and then a jack? There are many manuscripts of men on foot be they archers, spear men, or with pole arms wearing just maille and a helmet, if they did not have a jack would they have a padded doublet?

Again I just don't think it is universal to wear padding.

In my opinion it matters a lot what your gambeson is made of. It should be linen, not cotton. And preferably the stuffing should not be cotton as well (try horse hair, or a layered gambeson instead of a padde one).

The evidence for the padding to be raw cotton from the word Aketon (means cotton), to the documents from the guilds that made padded military items, to the fact that all extant padded body garments are stuffed with cotton and most extant helm liners too; why do you feel cotton should not be used for stuffing?

I use raw cotton in a linen shell and find it most comfortable even in hot humid American summers.

[RandallMoffett]

James,

Sorry I sould have been more clear. I do not think one would see the akton, mail, jack combination often, or perhaps at all. That would be a great deal of layers for certain.

And to say again, not saying it was impossible just to me the evidence is indirect over direct while with mail and padding or jacks the evidence is very direct.

I still go back to my orignal statement about heat issues and gambesons and aketons. Usually a user error or manufacture error. I have fought at for hours in 100 plus in full gear with a heavy aketon with no issue and know scores who do the same. The key is making a proper aketon, hydration and avoiding soda, 'the drink' etc. In the end it is unimportant. If you are trying for historic gear from the 12th on sans aketon is not likely. They had to worry about real weapons hitting them, crushing them and people with the intent to kill them, which I guess is unlikely in anything we do no adays, even with the super dukes included.


RPM

[Glen K]

There's also the inescapable fact that mail works a lot, LOT better with some sort of padding underneath. We know this today from experimenation at places like the RA; I might be giving our forebearers more credit than they deserve, but since their lives depended on and (to a certain extent) revolved around this sort of thing, I have to imagine that they had a better grasp on it than we did.

[James B.]

There's also the inescapable fact that mail works a lot, LOT better with some sort of padding underneath.

Or over, it seems to me that padding over maille and bits of plate was the big thing at the end of the 14th century, look at the Charles VI coat armor or the Black Price coat armor; late 14ht and early 15th century art show these type of garments being common place in that time frame.

Some written references and art shows jacks layered over maille in the mid to late 15th century also.

However some has to make the discovery at some time; we know people on the first crusade are impressed by the Easterners padded garments and start using the technology then; but is there good evidence before then? At Hastings for instance.

[Glen K]

...we know people on the first crusade are impressed by the Easterners padded garments and start using the technology then...

Do we? It sounds like you've been reading waaaay too much Nicolle...

I'd believe the "padded stuff works better in a hot climate so the crusaders (first) brought it back from the middle east" argument if it wasn't for the fact they'd already been in the just-as-hot northern Mediterranean for a century, and kicking ass at that.

[Dan Howard]

There is a source from Beha Ad-din, a secretary of sorts of Sal Ad-din in the 3rd Crusade that clearly states that the soldiers were wearing mail hauberks AND gambesons. What is meant by "gambeson" in this instance is unclear, however.

All the passage says is that they were wearing mail and felt. There is no way to tell whether the felt is a padded underlayer or whether it is an additional layer of protection worn over the top. Why would you think he would use the term "gambeson"? He is writing in Arabic, not French.

[Dan Howard]

Do we? It sounds like you've been reading waaaay too much Nicolle...

I'd believe the "padded stuff works better in a hot climate so the crusaders (first) brought it back from the middle east" argument if it wasn't for the fact they'd already been in the just-as-hot northern Mediterranean for a century, and kicking ass at that.

Glen is right. Climate has no effect what so ever on what sort of armour a soldier chooses. The only piece that might cause problems is an enclosed helmet, but we saw at Towton the problems that enclosed helmets can cause even in a snow storm. Climate is irrelevant. Heavy armour has been worn in Middle Eastern deserts since the Bronze Age.

[Godric of Castlemont]

There is a source from Beha Ad-din, a secretary of sorts of Sal Ad-din in the 3rd Crusade that clearly states that the soldiers were wearing mail hauberks AND gambesons. What is meant by "gambeson" in this instance is unclear, however.

All the passage says is that they were wearing mail and felt. There is no way to tell whether the felt is a padded underlayer or whether it is an additional layer of protection worn over the top.

There was a reference in a book of mine to some far eastern armor possibly made from thick felted wool. Have to see if I can track down the reference. Not being used as a gambeson but as the armor its self. In the passage you are referring to could it infer that an individual soldier was wearing mail and felt or that the soldiers (as a whole) wore mail and felt (two differing types of armor)?

[Dan Howard]

I cited the passage in the myarmoury article on mail.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

"They were drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."

Source.
Bahā'al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.

There are some ambiguities. The first is that I don't know the original word from which "vest" has been translated. The second is that we can't tell whether this "vest" was worn under or over the mail.

[Dan Howard]

And while your effort to create a consistency in terminology is a good one, we're hamstrung by the fact that no such consistency existed in period, and as such doing so is problematic and artificial.

We make up terms to describe things all the time. It doesn't matter what you call them so long as everyone uses the same terms. If gambeson and aketon is standardized then there would be far less confusion. A decent writer would define any ambiguous terms he uses before he starts anyway. Doesn't really matter which ones he uses. This thread already uses "gambeson" to mean two different things. It creates needless confusion. Just pick one and stay consistent with its use. It doesn't matter what the sources use - they can't spell anyway

[Dan Howard]

I would say archer became more of a factor but my point stands, do you think archers put on a padded doublet, then maille (wear maille was worn), then a jack or do you think it was just a standard doublet, maille and then a jack?

Again, this problem resolves itself if one considers the possibility that the mail had its own lightly padded liner.

[Rod Walker]

I thought long and hard about the padding under mail problem when I was putting my kit together for the 12thC solid lance/steel coronel joust I did with Joram. I decided to go with 2 layers of linen under my mail,,,,, that was it.

Solid timber lances with steel coronels,,,,, mail, 2 layers of linen.

I took a hit to my chest in practice with a solid balsa tip and I felt it but was fine. I took strikes from Jorams sword edge and was fine,,,,,, and Joram doesn't muck about, he doesn't pull them much at all. We wanted to see what would happen fighting in the correct armour using the correct weapons in a tournament sense.

Now, these guys were tough. It would be very easy to be badly injured doing this,,,, but I guess that was the whole point. The armour of the period actually protected us both very very well, again, that was the point.

I'm of the "don't need much under the mail" school of thought. I also think that padding works better over the mail.

[Wolf]

me says no padding for 11th century. if you do you are a farb like glenk of the blue under tunic hahah

[Dan Howard]

me says no padding for 11th century. if you do you are a farb like glenk of the blue under tunic hahah

If there was no liner then there must be another reason for the edging on Norman mail.

[Russ Mitchell]

Or it's not leather but bronze rings depicted.

[RandallMoffett]

James,

I think the progress of padding over armour might be far less standard than you make it sound. By an large through the 14th and into the 15th my guess is under padding is much more common in text. That said there are many accounts with both. I have rarely found a text that lists over padding over. At Agincourt for example I do not know of any evidence from text of over armour but in most of the major French and English sources of men that were present they agree the 'gambeson' was under the mail and plate defences.

Regardless I am not sure having the padding over, under or inbetween make much difference. It seems wearing something, padded or not, was very common throughout the high and late medieval period into the 1410s or 1420s so it is hard to say how common any of the systems of defence were.

The 'Jupon' of the Black Prince. Something I have been very interested in as well. I contacted a number of textile specialists while I was in Southampton to get some information on it. Of the half dozen people I found who were familair with it, I know only two people who have actually handled it. Both who had looke at Prince Edward's 'Jupon' all agreed the size is much to small for armour under, the torso and sleeves. Further the sleeves are not straight across around the elbow and very irregular, which seems to indicate they were longer than the elbow at one point, perhaps long-sleeved. To me, unable to handle it etc. I see nothing to make me think it has to be a jupon. The only argument for it being so is a poorly thought out one saying it is too fancy to wear under armour which is just silly. He likely had PE written on his braes for crying out loud and lovely leopard designs on them. I have found no evidence that makes me think it is an overarmour though if anyone has some I'd love to see it.

Rod,

I think it is good to have modern first person accounts on how such combinations work and help deal with the gaps in our hard and fast evidence. Up until the last quarter of the 12th century we have very limited evidence for padding under armour in Europe. Clearly these guys were tough and could have done as you do is such padding was around for use. There is no doubt that mail is better than nothing. I'd much prefer mail over nothing myself. But they were pragmatic as well. They did everything they could to avoid pain, injury and death. My guess is that as soon as padding came around they added it to there kit as soon as they possibly could.

So to me the question lands on what evidence there is of c. pre1200 under armour padding. There is not much and to me the individual needs make their choice when we are left with such grey areas as you did. I am thinking about doing a wool and linen tunic with a few layers for my 10th century England kit as under armour for the same reason. There seems no proof of padding for this era under the mail. I like the extra defence and want a tunic that will keep the other ones from getting dirty all the time.

I would never have jousted without padding... to be fair I was unsure how I felt about jousting in mail. I took hits with a lance when I played with jousting that I would really wonder how I would have fared without my heavier harness. You are much braver than I am! To be fair though it may have been that I would have been fine. Since I do not figure I will ever get into jousting again it is unlikely I will ever know.

This really is a fantastic post. I think textile armour is probably one of the least done types of armour from the medieval period and it is sad as after spending as much time as I have looking in primary documents they are very much a major part of military life in the High and Late medieval period.

RPM

[Halvgrimr]

There's also the inescapable fact that mail works a lot, LOT better with some sort of padding underneath. .

Im curious as to what leads them/you to believe it works ALOT better with padding?
Seems to me it stiffens up the body and limits mobility/movement...especially while on horseback.


Ive been hit really hard in mail (both on purpose in the SCA and many accidental times doing rebated steel), usually with little more than layers of linen.

Sure it hurts in most case but I'm not missing limbs or incapacitated in anyway.

As I have always said multiple layers under mail serve a similar purpose as any later period padded garment IMO.

Padded armour is great in reducing the effects of impact weapons (swords on mail, axes, maces, clubs, ect) but we have to wrap our modern minds around the fact that for the most part these weapons weren't in use in the main body of the army (at least as primary weapons) in large scale battles like Hastings.

We have to remember that the weapon of choice in this period is the spear (keeping in mind references to swords only being drawn after a warriors spear is lost) and while padding helps when being poked it isn't a deal ender IMO. If ones mail does its job whats underneath shouldn't matter (official padded garments or just multiple layers of clothes)

If a sharp spear or lance penetrates the mail, I cant imagine that a padded garment would afford much more (if any) additional protection from said sharp object, especially a lance which is going to have MUCH more force behind it thanks to its equine powered delivery system:)

Are the RA's results/research on this manner online?
Id like to take a look at what they came up with.