Gambeson channel stuffings....

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

In the redesign for my new gambeson, I had intended upon purchasing some linen tow to stuff the channels. Recently, however, I have acquired some 100% wool scraps (from wool garments I am making). Which would be better to use for the stuffing of the channels? I realize that one is cheaper (read: free) - but I am concerned with comfort level in the heat.

I have read a number of threads here that hold high both the qualities of linen and the qualities of wool insofar as heat and comfort level are concerned.

The rest of the gambeson will be layers of medium weight linen (possibly with a silk twill outer layer.)

[Buran]

I understand that there is/was one surviving period gambeson which was described by a conservator as being stuffed with "cotton wool". Am I misunderstanding this? In that case it would be cotton, not wool.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

My current gambeson is stuffed with cotton and it is hot. When the cotton fibers get wet, they expand and the breathability of the fabric is lost.

Wool and linen (and silk) are not supposed to do that.

I believe the Black Prince gambeson is stuffed with wool, but I could be mistaken.

[Mal Voisin]

I stuffed a 13th Century gambeson with flax tow and it worked just great. It was not as fluffy as cotton wool (batting), and wanted to settle into clumps. I just beat it with my hand while it was held upside-down. The fabric shell was linen, and I found the whole thing easy to clean and maintain. Very good in hot, humid weather.

I had to special order the tow from a weaver supply, and I haven't found a source since. What is your source of supply?

[chef de chambre]

Why do you think that gambesonss were sewn in channels? I sincerely doubt this was the case, and I would love to see evidence for the practise provided to the contrary.

Horizontal stitching is there to tack the stuffing in place - through the stuffing. Every padded piece from Northern Europe from the middle ages associated with armour (mostly helmet liners) work on this principle, and I have no doubt that gambesons were also constructed in this fashion.

A gambeson would be next to useless usless in defending against a thrust, or arrows, were it sewn like a quilt in channels. You are making a defensive armour - not a quilt, so I would recommend using what is far more likely to have been the correct technique, in preference to using a modern quileters technique. It seems silly to sweat the detail of the materials used in construction, and then use an entirely improbaly construction method in making such an armour.

If this is how padded 'armours' are normally made in most circles, I begin to understand why people discount their usefullness as a defence.

In regards to the heat question, the flax tow would probably be the less heat retaining. from descriptions, both wool and tow were used

[chrisvika]

Horizontal stitching is there to tack the stuffing in place - through the stuffing. Every padded piece from Northern Europe from the middle ages associated with armour (mostly helmet liners) work on this principle, and I have no doubt that gambesons were also constructed in this fashion.

Chef-

Not clear on what you are saying. Is it that gambesons should NOT be made by sewing the garment into tubes and than stuffing the tubes with wool/cotton/whatever? I have seen this practice advocated in tertiary sources, but find it dubious from a historical perspective. A friend of mine made one this way, and it came out far more rigid than anything I have seen in period artwork, in fact it could stand up on its own. It was forever after known as the "Michelin Man Gambeson". This would have made good protection, since it seemed almost bullet-proof, but severely limited the mobility of the wearer. I guess he would also be vulnerable to thrusts between the tubes.

To my eye, the appearances of gambesons in period artwork (for example, the Mac Bible, the Grunewald Resurrection, to name a few), are much more consistent with a garment that is made as a shell and lining, the stuffing sandwiched in between, and than stitched to keep the padding from moving.

The sources I've seen on later period cloth armour (jacks), suggests that they were made of many layers of fabric (linen), held together by lines of stitches through the layers.

[Tailoress]

Buran,

You are probably thinking of the Black Prince's heraldic jupon discussed in an article on the subject by Janet Arnold in The Journal of the Church Monuments Society, Volume VIII, 1993. The title of the article is The Jupon or Coat-Armour of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral. She mentions "cotton wool wadding" as the stuffing. She also makes it clear that it had been constructed by laying down of layers and then stitching, (as opposed to channel-stuffing, as mentioned above). There was a linen foundation, the cotton wool wadding, and then the silk velvet, apparently stitched together in red and blue sections as the background on which the heraldic charges were appliqued/embroidered. These charges were embroidered on separate sections of velvet and then appliqued to the velvet ground. It's worth noting that in the Great Wardrobe Accounts, Edward III's jupon was made with three ells of velvet, three ells of linen of Rheims, and three ells of linen of Paris. Arnold suggests that it's possible one of the linens was used as the "padding".

Someone here on the Archive sent this article to me electronically but it's on my other computer which is still not set up yet (we just moved) and so I can't offer to send it along at this time. Sorry.

-Tasha

[Tailoress]

A gambeson would be next to useless usless in defending against a thrust, or arrows, were it sewn like a quilt in channels. You are making a defensive armour - not a quilt, so I would recommend using what is far more likely to have been the correct technique, in preference to using a modern quileters technique.

Just to clarify -- modern quilters, just like historical quilters, use the sandwiching technique quite a lot. I'm not a modern quilter myself, but I've seen plenty of exhibits of quilts, from San Jose CA to Houston TX to the East Coast and the ones I've seen were all sandwiched with stitching, not channel-stuffed. Quilting, by definition, is the stitching of two or more layers of something together. Whether there's some kind of padding between or not, is another thing. That's simply "padding" or "stuffing". The quilting itself, is just fabric layers sewn together.

In regards to the heat question, the flax tow would probably be the less heat retaining. from descriptions, both wool and tow were used

I have never used flax or loose wool to stuff my arming garments, but having used cotton batting/tow, and seeing that it's quite well-documented (at least for the late 14th/early 15thc), I would recommend going with it. True, cotton won't wick the sweat away as much as linen might and doesn't breath as much, but it's historically accurate for this purpose.

I've posted a list of online sources for buying lots of good materials for making a plausibly historical martial garment or two in the past and with a quick search I found those links and will post them here again:


http://www.twinrockerhandmadepaper.com/ ... earfiber=N

Twinrocker, which is a bookmaking supplier, sells raw hemp, flax, and cotton.

http://www.nearseanaturals.com/browse.php?category=9

Near Sea Naturals sells organic, 100% natural batting in wool and cotton.

http://www.shepherdsdream.com/raw_materials.htm

Shepard's Dream also sells wool and cotton batting.


-Tasha

[BrandSpankedNewbie]

...In regards to the heat question, the flax tow would probably be the less heat retaining. from descriptions, both wool and tow were used

Believe it or not (I didn't until I tried it) the wool is not that bad when it comes to heat retention---or at least it makes up for it by having a nice wicking effect. Freaked me out the first time when I found myself dry and cool on the place where I was using wool-stuffed linen as padding. Do I know heat? Umm look at where I live.

[earnest carruthers]

I second chef, the sewn area between the channel becomes a weak point in that it is too thin and densley packed which is easily pierced, or if not you will feel a blow more, I speak from experience, ouch.

The stuffing should be sewn in, the sewn area retains a measure of flexibility and padding, even though it is slightly thinner than the rest.


As for cotton, Dave Key on another forum has a bit of info re this, it was apparently used for stuffing rather than fabric in England, cotton in sertainly mentioned as an item and a process.

I say more jacks on the field.

[James B.]

I would just like to toss in the fact that I read on a WWII reenacting site that "cotton wool" was a WWII era term for raw cotton. Raw cotton looks like shorn wool. Anyway Janet Arnold was in her 90s when she passed away so she may mean raw cotton and not a blend of wool and cotton.

There are 2 late 15th or early 16th century Jacks of German origins in museums, both are stuffed with raw cotton, no evidence of wool from what onlookers can see in the damaged areas. They too are layered and quilted not channeled stuffed

[James B.]

I would just like to toss in the fact that I read on a WWII reenacting site that "cotton wool" was a WWII era term for raw cotton. Raw cotton looks like shorn wool. Anyway Janet Arnold was in her 90s when she passed away so she may mean raw cotton and not a blend of wool and cotton.

There are 2 late 15th or early 16th century Jacks of German origins in museums, both are stuffed with raw cotton, no evidence of wool from what onlookers can see in the damaged areas. They too are layered and quilted not channeled stuffed

[Endre Fodstad]

There are 2 late 15th or early 16th century Jacks of German origins in museums, both are stuffed with raw cotton, no evidence of wool from what onlookers can see in the damaged areas. They too are layered and quilted not channeled stuffed

Three surviving jacks, in I Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der Hansestadt Lübeck and the Altmärkischen Museum im Stendal. The inner layers are fluffy cotton. On the outside of this, thick linen tabby weave. On the outer surface, twill linen weave. On the inner surface, twill cotton weave. All quilted and layered.

Also, the Black Prince arming garment. Quilted and layered. Inner and outer surface silk. Next layer, thick linen weave. Inside fluffy wool.

Third, the jupon of Charles VI. Quilted and layered. Inner and outer surface damasc silk. Next layer, thick linen cloth. Inside fluffy wool.

The Chronica Colmarensis (1198) describes and aketon as "wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam" or a tight/fast tunic of linen or "pasted" hemp, sewn together, or sewn together out of small pieces.

The Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris of 1298 state that gamboison should be made of cloth, téle, and on the inside
coton et de plois des toiles, or "folded cotton in many layers". Also, cendal (lower quality silk) is mentioned as covering and inner layer. In 1311 the Ordonnances call the gamboisons "tunics sewn through" and we are told that one shall use at least three pounds of cotton per aune (yard) unless made from "sicines" (whatever that is). Cotton here can mean "cottoned" wool.

The Armorers Company of London say in their 1322 ordonnance:

"“It was ordeyned for ye comon proffyt and assented that from henceforth all Armour made in ye Cytie to sell be good and concenable after ye forme that henceforth That is to saie that an Akton and Gambezon covered with sendall or of cloth of Silke be stuffed with new clothe of cotten and of cadar and of olde sendall and not otherwise. And that ye wyite acketonnes be stuffed of olde lynnen and of cottone and of new clothe wth in and wth out.It is ordeyned that all ye crafte of ye citie of London be truely ruled and governed every person in his nature in due maner so that no falsehood ne false workemanshipp nor Deceipt be founde in no maner wise in any of ye foresaid crafte for ye worship of ye good folke of all ye same crafte and for the common proffytt of ye peopleâ€Â

[Egfroth]

On the other hand, the word "aketon" is apparently from arabic al-kutun - "cotton".

Cotton seems to have been used for stuffing because, with its short fibres, it was a bugger to spin into thread.

[chef de chambre]

Horizontal stitching is there to tack the stuffing in place - through the stuffing. Every padded piece from Northern Europe from the middle ages associated with armour (mostly helmet liners) work on this principle, and I have no doubt that gambesons were also constructed in this fashion.

Chef-

Not clear on what you are saying. Is it that gambesons should NOT be made by sewing the garment into tubes and than stuffing the tubes with wool/cotton/whatever?

No chanel stuffing. Sandwiched materials, tacked together.

[chrisvika]

No chanel stuffing. Sandwiched materials, tacked together.

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying.

[Mal Voisin]

Why do you think that gambesonss were sewn in channels? I sincerely doubt this was the case, and I would love to see evidence for the practise provided to the contrary.

Horizontal stitching is there to tack the stuffing in place - through the stuffing. Every padded piece from Northern Europe from the middle ages associated with armour (mostly helmet liners) work on this principle, and I have no doubt that gambesons were also constructed in this fashion.

How about this:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10ra&b.gif

Except for the neck protection, all of the stitching runs vertically. It may pass through the stuff, but this does suggest channels (to many).

Your thoughts?

[Egfroth]

Yes, it certainly seems to have been the most common stitching pattern - at least in W. Europe. Though with the Byzantine kavadion, a diamond pattern was far more common. See a few (among all the lamellar klivania at http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/ByzAr ... 6424880530

[Tailoress]

Pardon my complete lack of understanding here... but what the heck does vertical stitching versus horizontal stitching have to do with whether something is sandwiched and quilted or quilted and then stuffed in channels? I understand that vertical channels might look less obviously saggy over time, but that's about the only thing I can figure would lead one to use vertical stitching for the channel stuffing idea... It also works just fine for the layering/sandwiching technique.

The Chartres cotte is vertically-stitched and it's sandwiched.

Many of these quilted garments weren't just vertically and horizontally stitched by the time of the 14th/15thc -- there are a lot of examples of circular stitching to outline the armholes. I'm thinking that too much emphasis might be being placed on the direction of the stitches in regards to how the garment is padded.

-Tasha

[T. Finkas]

I LOVE this discussion! I learn new things every time this is kicked around. And since I deal mostly in fabric, making me a fabric armorer, this is close to my heart.

I have heard the arguments for sewn through construction as opposed to stuffed. However, doesn’t the layer of loose material in some of the preceding descriptions possibly suggest a combination of both techniques? My question is why use loose materials if not to stuff them into completed tubes? Another thought to ponder is that solid quilting tends to make areas stiff and immobile, so maybe a use of both techniques is warranted?

I don’t have it at hand but a primary source, paraphrased, said that “softâ€Â

[James B.]

Three surviving jacks

Opps I forgot there are two in one museum.

Except for the neck protection, all of the stitching runs vertically. It may pass through the stuff, but this does suggest channels (to many).

Not sure why the Maj Bible art would suggest tube stuffing. The garment is not painted puffy or ridged. Anyone who has seen a channel stuffed arming coat knows its ridged and stiff.

[quote="Timothy_D_Finkas"]I don’t have it at hand but a primary source, paraphrased, said that “softâ€Â

[Gwyneth]

Another consideration on the sandwich quilting side of the argument:

It is easier to tailor a garment that is layered and quilted - the inner layers act as an interlining, so, you don't have to change your pattern measurements when making your pattern. Heck - they *are* an interlining - just a thicker, fluffier one.

As long as your outer fabrics are pre-washed and your quilting is no more than 2" apart, you shouldn't get significant shrinkage of your "stuffing" material. This is the recommended measurement I was taught when I began quilting (modern quilts), and it works well with minimal to no shrinkage of the inner cotton batting layer, and minimal to no effect on the quilt dimensions after washing.

Gwyneth

[morristh]

From a practical approach, IF I knew your armor was made of stuffed tubes, you have wonderfully built in targets for my arrows. Every stitch across your garment is thin in comparison to the stuffed area. Now for a SCAism its not a bad idea in that it spreads blows out (I think I remember T-Bob talking about some fellow he knows that put garden hose in the tubes) But I would think that historically it would have been layers.

my 1/2 cent

Tim

[J. Morgan Kuberry]

I fight in a channeled then stuffed linen gambeson. I had read in a tertiary source that this was correct. Next time, I'll be tacking the padding between the layers instead. The weak points between the channels aren't a huge issue because of the maille on top. However, the padding tends to displace, and I worry about the seams between the channels bursting when it bends.

[T. Finkas]

From a practical approach, IF I knew your armor was made of stuffed tubes, you have wonderfully built in targets for my arrows. Every stitch across your garment is thin in comparison to the stuffed area. Now for a SCAism its not a bad idea in that it spreads blows out (I think I remember T-Bob talking about some fellow he knows that put garden hose in the tubes) But I would think that historically it would have been layers.

my 1/2 cent

Tim

If you can pick out and target the stitch lines in my gambeson, whilst I am moving...I have let you get too $#%@ing close! Besides, if you can shoot that expertly, why no go for the eyeslit? Indeed.... <mumble>

[morristh]

If you can pick out and target the stitch lines in my gambeson, whilst I am moving...I have let you get too $#%@ing close! Besides, if you can shoot that expertly, why no go for the eyeslit? Indeed.... <mumble>

Ah now come come Tim, you're safe from me. With a modern bow and pin sights I do ok for an old blind man. With a period reproduction, I couldnt hit you with the bow let alone the arrow . But I would bet that there are those that could/can. Same principle applies with a thrust from a sword,dagger, other pointed item. The area of the stictching is way too thin. I would think, they would recognize this and do something different.

Hey in the end its mostly speculation.

Tim

[T. Finkas]

[chef de chambre]

From a practical approach, IF I knew your armor was made of stuffed tubes, you have wonderfully built in targets for my arrows. Every stitch across your garment is thin in comparison to the stuffed area. Now for a SCAism its not a bad idea in that it spreads blows out (I think I remember T-Bob talking about some fellow he knows that put garden hose in the tubes) But I would think that historically it would have been layers.

my 1/2 cent

Tim

If you can pick out and target the stitch lines in my gambeson, whilst I am moving...I have let you get too $#%@ing close! Besides, if you can shoot that expertly, why no go for the eyeslit? Indeed.... <mumble>

Yes, but that is not the object of classic late Medieval battlefield archery - classic Late Medieval Northern European archery with the warbow was designed to fill the air with rapid fire-indirect fire vollys. A chanel sewn gambeson would have been far too likely to have been vulnerable to such volly fire - you could very likely be hit in such circumstances- far more so than deliberate aimed fire at range.

It boils down to this, we really have no physical evidence, or clear documentary evidence for channel sewn defences then filled. We have documentation pointing to tack sewn defences - including ones incorporating soft stuffing, as well as physical evidence for the practise.

[Saint-Sever]

From an SCA combat perspective, don't get too wrapped up in the "protective qualities" aspect of the padding of the gambeson. As a Westie pad-boy, I have fought most of the last 15 years in padded arming coats and not much more. Whether they were of the heavily stuffed "I can stand up on my own" variety (what I wore at first) or the thinly padded "high-speed-low-drag" type (what I ended up with at the end), nothing padded with fluffy stuff takes much of the ouch out of the blows from a rattan baton. The garment provides a cool look and moral support, but not much else.

Alfred (Carlyle) and I are getting ready to do the prototypes for under-maille garments c. 1200 AD, with the preceding truth in mind. Alfred is planning on trying a 3-layer quilt of linen cloth, with the possibility of adding a fourth layer in the elbows, kidneys, and other places where it really hurts to get popped. My approach will be to use 100% wool army blanket as the "stuffing" layer instead of linen. The underlying thought for both of us is that when quilted, a light garment made of only 3 or 4 layers worn in conjunction with maille ought to provide the same amount of actual protection vs. "ouch" as most of the fluff-padded garments (that is to say, almost none), while giving the correct look and drape of the period garments.

If your sides are gonna ache regardless, then you may as well go for the good look, is our thought.

[chrisvika]

Apparently, they had all manner of wacky quilting patterns in Bohemia. I saw a lot of depictions in the National Gallery in Prague (Prague Castle). If you are interested, you can find many re-drawn in Medieval Costume, Armour and Weapons by Wagner, et al., which has recently been re-published by Dover.

-Christian

Yes, it certainly seems to have been the most common stitching pattern - at least in W. Europe. Though with the Byzantine kavadion, a diamond pattern was far more common. See a few (among all the lamellar klivania at http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/ByzAr ... 6424880530

[chef de chambre]

I don't know that a good reconstruction would have as little protective value as you imply. A 20 layer jack I have handled would certainly provide significant protection from concussive damage. Add to that the documentary evidence we have, and I would say your experience is likely from what you have worn not really closely resembling the originals in material or manufacture.

[Saint-Sever]

I don't know that a good reconstruction would have as little protective value as you imply. A 20 layer jack I have handled would certainly provide significant protection from concussive damage. Add to that the documentary evidence we have, and I would say your experience is likely from what you have worn not really closely resembling the originals in material or manufacture.

Yes, but a 20-layer jack is a different horse than an aketon, arming coat or gambeson, which are flexible throughout. A fabric jack, from the period description most of us are familiar with, is pretty much rigid, with the wearer "floating" within.

The arming garments I have worn were very similar in construction to the descriptions of fluffy-stuffed period garments discussed on this thread-- a layer of cloth, thick layers of cotton batting (or in one of the coats, polyester-- bad mistake heat-wise, as others have pointed out!), and another layer of cloth, all quilted together with vertical stitching. The batting gets compressed during the quilting, and becomes very dense.

The result is a coat that keeps the discomforts of belts, couters, vambraces et al. comfortably away from my delicate skin, but affords nearly no real impact reduction from the stout blows of a skilled gentleman armed with a baton. It does keep the links of my aventail from being driven into my chest or shoulders when I'm struck-- instead, I get really interesting patterned bruises when I get pummelled in spots covered by the aventail. However, when I've opted to wear a long-sleeved t-shirt under my houppelande instead of the arming coat, I have noticed almost no difference in how it feels to get hit.

Given the look and drape of aketons, gambesons and the rest (excepting jacks), they don't look all that thick or rigid. It may make sense that in the age of maille, the primary defense was the rigid shield and helmet, with flexible maille and its underlying clothing being the fail-safe. These light garments as depicted in the manuscripts could be interpreted as being consistent with this theory, being intended to keep the maille links from being friven into the body, but not to provide another rigid layer of defense against attack. As plate defenses become more prevalent, the shield becomes smaller and eventually is discarded, and externally-worn cloth armors in the form of jacks become heavier and more rigid, the better to approximate the protection of more expensive plate defenses.

[chef de chambre]

Hi Saint-Sever,

But earlier cloth armours, regardless of stuffing or layered construction, or some combination apear to have been more rigid - note the standing collars on the gambesons of the footsoldiers in the Macejowski bible.

Garments worn under armour aren't armour themselves - stand alone padded armours are, and I think they have more akin to the later jack than what you describe.

[Saint-Sever]

Chef--

I agree with you re: the infantry gambesons in the M-ski Bible. The big thread we had on this subject months back had lots of speculative comments on the depictions of these garments, one of the more interesting being that the body and sleeves were two separate parts.

After reading your comment, and after looking at the illuminations again, it seems to me that the artist intended his depiction to be interpreted as the sleeves and the body of the gambeson being separate. In particular, the odd, long dags on the hem of the skirts strike me as indicating that the body of the gambeson was a stiffer, more rigid garment than those being worn beneath the hauberks of the knights. I can't think of any other non-military garments in the Bible with this exact sort of dagging, but is a common feature on infantry gambesons. Since the dagging appears only on the gambesons, and only at points where the gambeson would resist bending in an inconvenient, restrictive way, a reasonable interpretation would be that this as a method of keeping the gambeson from interfereing with the free movement of the legs, for example, without entirely sacrificing protection. The dags act as pterges (or however it's spelled. The leather strap hula-skirt thingie on Roman and Byzantine generals' armors) for the legs.

The gambesons worn by knights under their hauberks don't seem to show this dagging however, and are depicted as being as flexible as the maille. This garment is more in line with the coats I've worn as part of my fighting kit.

Michael

Hi Saint-Sever,

But earlier cloth armours, regardless of stuffing or layered construction, or some combination apear to have been more rigid - note the standing collars on the gambesons of the footsoldiers in the Macejowski bible.

Garments worn under armour aren't armour themselves - stand alone padded armours are, and I think they have more akin to the later jack than what you describe.

[T. Finkas]

...In particular, the odd, long dags on the hem of the skirts strike me as indicating that the body of the gambeson was a stiffer, more rigid garment than those being worn beneath the hauberks of the knights...

Micheal,

Check out the artist's treatment of the waist of the gambeson as it is cinched in by the belt. If the depiction is accurate, the gambeson looks to be fairly soft and flexible the way it creases and bunches. I think this points to the gambeson being more likely softer/flexible than harder/stiffer. Note also the close fit of the sleeves around the arm and the wrist. I'd venture to say such a fit would only be possible with a softer consistency. It it were hard and stiff neither the wrist nor the elbow would be mobile enough.

Of course, to make such deductions is completely dependant on the presumtion that the artist is being "photographically accurate" to the subject matter---and to presume so might be somewhat of a stretch...eh?

Cheers,
Tim