early 15th century Pourpoints, Arming Doublets, Gambesons..

[Andrew Young]

Ever have one of those epiphanous moments when you realize what you assumed all along isnt necessarily the full truth. And then realize there appears tro be quite a bit of 'harmonious discord' among those who research and make arming clothes. I guess Ill leave my statement at....I know armour. But I thought I knew more about arming clothes than I did...and when researching to see what the latest thoughts on early 15th century arming clothes are, Im left scratching my head. (curiously its rather like looking for exhaustive references for german-worn harnesses of the same period. Not a whole lot out there to look at between 1390 and 1430 or so).

I think the main problem is that I cant seem to find any substantial evidence of arming clothes (notice Im being vague as the terms are often used interchangably) for harnesses between say, 1400 and 1415 or 1420.

Another curious interpretatino debate Ive noticed is how the legs and arms are attached. I talked to an armourer who felt confident many legs were attached directly to very sturdy hose well into the 15th century.....some seem to attach arms/ legs to the "padded gambeson" via points.....while another school opts for the otherwise unpadded sleeveless arming doublet with points. So if you go with the latter sleeveless doublet with points, where are the arms attaching?

It does not seem implausible that a sleeveless doublet could be worn under a more fully padded gambeson with points at the sleeves, yet Ive seen people attach the points directly to the bottom of the padded gambeson anyway....

_________
As for the evolution

...has anyone seen good examples of how the typical 14th century Charlie de Bois, barrel chested, slim waist approach style evolved into the versions we more commonly see such as ....How a Man Shall be Armyd" and so on....when did the poofy chest deflate?

I just wish I could see more pictoral evidence of knights in the actual process of arming during this period.

Comments and thoughts welcome folks.

thanks D

[Jeff J]

Between CdB and "How a man schalle be armed", I've seen nothing substantive.

I'd suggest, though, that an approach might be to take into account the tendency for the time of plate armor, right deep into the rennaisance, was for civillian clothing and armor styles to parallel-develop.

Regarding pointing legs, I'm in the "point 'em to the arming doublet" camp. Initially because of the aforementioned "How a man schalle be armed" document, that says to wear nothing under the doublette full of holes. This has worked very well for me. I know Bob Reed does likewise, and HE's arming doublets are made in a manner that works extremely well in the application.

[Andrew Young]

Hi Jeff

thanks for your imput. Indeed I do agree.

(Not sure if posting this is okay or not, but the revival clothing references are part of why I started head scratching:

http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/s ... _c1441.jpg
http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/s ... _c1427.jpg
http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/s ... _c1430.jpg
http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/s ... _c1440.jpg

All of those above seem roughly around 1435, give or take....and a bit after my desired period of 1400 to 1420.....but not necessarily out of consideration. What does bug me is where they are suggesting arm harnesses/spaulders are supposed to attach....a curious lack of points on the shoulder or arm.

_________

I think its conservative to go the way of the "pointed gambeson" (in some measure because the additional vest approch does add more layering and heat...something to think above in our end of the universe).

__________

I guess Im still bugged by this evolution...Id kill to see an intermediary style between the "CdB" and the "HAMSB-Armyd."

I do recall seeing some posts about that Keinbusch gambeson. I had always believed it was dated to 1420s....but now read its closer to 1460? Based on the one photo Ive seen of this think, it seems to lack the poofy chest and lack the puffy shoulders (mail arms might be the reason) but that would seem to put it in between. Unfortunatley between 1420 and 1460 we are dealing with 40-odd years...in which a lot happened.

oh, well, theres always a moving blanket.

[Henry of Bexley]

Revival's pourpoints and arming coats are two seperate things. The arming coats hold the arms and spaulders, while the pourpoint just holds the legs. It's a set-up that I use, as I have both from Revival, and works really well. However, I can't help but think that an integral garment fulfiling both purposes would be cooler. I just haven't seen one that can do both and match the lines I've seen for the mid-late 14th century. Also, having the sleeveless pourpoint allows for some shoulder support without having any chance of one's arm raising and causing the leg harness to get uncomfortable. I realize the grand assiste sleeve is supposed to avoid that and it does a decent job, but mine is an off the peg garment so there still is some minimal raising.

Well that was a ramble and a half. But what I was trying to get across is that Revival doesn't intend their pourpoints to hold anything but legs- the arming coat does the rest.

[Jeff J]

Those revival sketches are new to me. And VERY interesting! While the sketches are quite clear, I'd like to see the original artwork.

[Andrew Young]

And VERY interesting! While the sketches are quite clear, I'd like to see the original artwork.

ah-huh. I know what you mean....Id like to see the full context, ie, the full figure/person with respect to their costume/armour and other things in the picture....context can tell a lot

I started going through my 14th and 15th century files which are very large so its going to take some time. I do recall some Italian knights with curious pointing details, but I cant remember exactly. Ill have more time tonight...maybe scan some pictures, post em.

BlackSwan is doing something similar for Mandrake, if Im interpretting the info correctly:

http://www.mandrakearmory.com/Merchant2 ... _may_b.jpg

http://www.mandrakearmory.com/Merchant2 ... double.jpg

[Andrew Young]

But what I was trying to get across is that Revival doesn't intend their pourpoints to hold anything but legs- the arming coat does the rest.

That may be true, however I am bothered by the timespan here and am leary of filling in the gaps too quickly. The CdB style is fairly prevelant well up to 1390s....maybe even beyond. But the four-sketch evidence Revival is offering starts at 1427 if I am interpretting this correctly.

Between 1390....sheesh, lets say 1400 and 1427, thats 30 years!

And we all know that by 1350, equipment does evolve pretty quickly. Not saying some things which worked well, changed per se, but I am bothered by drawing or pulling together two elements that might otherwise have had an intermediary style or approach....especially since there are clearly different approaches to arming clothes with integral voiders, skirt etc (ie How A Man Shall be Armyd) that we do have by 1440s as well.....said in context of the fact that revival is showing 2 sketches dated to 1440 that appear to be very different approaches to arming-clothing.

[Guy Dawkins]

Those revival sketches are new to me. And VERY interesting! While the sketches are quite clear, I'd like to see the original artwork.

Somewhere on here Gwen pointed out that the original artwork, upon which the Rivival illustrations are based, all showed hose pointed to the garments.

This may have been over a year ago.

[Klaus the Red]

Since there are no substantial differences that I can see between full leg harness of 1380-90 and that of 1420-30, I can't think of any reason the suspension system should change radically. A foundation garment is a foundation garment, even if the cut changes a bit over 40 years. As to the armorer who thought leg harness should be attached to "very sturdy hose," I'd like to see someone try... and then I'd laugh as their harness came clattering down around their ankles and left them bare-legged. And FYI, Revival's arming coats are meant to hold up both arms and legs (hence the belt of eyelets around the hips), whereas the sleeveless pourpoint is just for the legs, obviously.

Klaus

[Andrew Young]

Somewhere on here Gwen pointed out that the original artwork, upon which the Rivival illustrations are based, all showed hose pointed to the garments.

Hmm, that would be interesting.

As to the armorer who thought leg harness should be attached to "very sturdy hose," I'd like to see someone try

my understanding is that he has already experimented quite successfully. The hose were very stout at the upper thigh and a bit padded I believe. ...but ah, yeah I had the same thoughts of the cuisses falling of and all that that scenario entails...

And FYI, Revival's arming coats are meant to hold up both arms and legs (hence the belt of eyelets around the hips), whereas the sleeveless pourpoint is just for the legs, obviously.

aside from the quoted plugs, they dont do much to ...ahem, point out that potential reality in light of their clearly separate poirpoint which is one of the reasons I sorta sat back and thought, 'hmm two separate garments. Interesting.'

But...see, if Mandrakes/BlackSwans pourpoint is very much the same animal....it make one rethink why? As in, if Gwen said the revival pictures were holding up hose...why do they now have a similar garment holding up....cuisses?

[Guy Dawkins]

And FYI, Revival's arming coats are meant to hold up both arms and legs (hence the belt of eyelets around the hips), whereas the sleeveless pourpoint is just for the legs, obviously.

Klaus

I've have not seen this belt of eyelets on any of their gambesons. They actually show the pourpoint under the gambeson.

[Guy Dawkins]

Somewhere on here Gwen pointed out that the original artwork, upon which the Rivival illustrations are based, all showed hose pointed to the garments.

Hmm, that would be interesting.

As to the armorer who thought leg harness should be attached to "very sturdy hose," I'd like to see someone try

my understanding is that he has already experimented quite successfully. The hose were very stout at the upper thigh and a bit padded I believe. ...but ah, yeah I had the same thoughts of the cuisses falling of and all that that scenario entails...

And FYI, Revival's arming coats are meant to hold up both arms and legs (hence the belt of eyelets around the hips), whereas the sleeveless pourpoint is just for the legs, obviously.

aside from the quoted plugs, they dont do much to ...ahem, point out that potential reality in light of their clearly separate poirpoint which is one of the reasons I sorta sat back and thought, 'hmm two separate garments. Interesting.'

But...see, if Mandrakes/BlackSwans pourpoint is very much the same animal....it make one rethink why? As in, if Gwen said the revival pictures were holding up hose...why do they now have a similar garment holding up....cuisses?

These are made by HE for sale by Mandrake. They are offered through mandrake to fill the need of the SCA fighter. Gwen will not sell them through HE because she does not belive that they are correct.

[Klaus the Red]

I've have not seen this belt of eyelets on any of their gambesons. They actually show the pourpoint under the gambeson.

There are two photos right on their site, under "arming garments" (and they have only this one item), of two different gentlemen wearing the coat, one in black, one in red. One fellow has a mail skirt pointed on, but on the other one you can't miss the eyelets and the points hanging from them. The primary photo in the category (the guy in the hat)appears to be the same garment in a civilian model, with no eyelets on it.

[Guy Dawkins]

I've have not seen this belt of eyelets on any of their gambesons. They actually show the pourpoint under the gambeson.

There are two photos right on their site, under "arming garments" (and they have only this one item), of two different gentlemen wearing the coat, one in black, one in red. One fellow has a mail skirt pointed on, but on the other one you can't miss the eyelets and the points hanging from them. The primary photo in the category (the guy in the hat)appears to be the same garment in a civilian model, with no eyelets on it.

I don't see that!

I've looked at both Rivival and Rivival.uk and I don't see this!

[Klaus the Red]

I'm sorry, that's my error. I said "Revival" when I meant "Historic Enterprises." Apologies for the confusion. I knew exactly what I wanted to say and it got lost on the way to the keyboard.

[Tailoress]

The Keinbusch garment is most definitely much later -- at least mid-16thc, but also quite possibly 17th century. Unfortunately, it's not currently on display at the museum. Must bug people about that...

-Tasha

[Tailoress]

some seem to attach arms/ legs to the "padded gambeson" via points.....while another school opts for the otherwise unpadded sleeveless arming doublet with points. So if you go with the latter sleeveless doublet with points, where are the arms attaching?

Here's a third option, and it's what I like to push: an unpadded arming doublet with points AND long sleeves. The arms and the legs get attached to this directly.

Here's one that's still being beaten to death by its owner, almost two years later, (though it's besmotered like all get out and has been patched and repaired a gajillion times!):



The hosen and braies are by Historic Enterprises. Gwen and I make beautiful music together, but she doesn't like to speak of our secret love.

-Tasha

[Alcyoneus]

If you are wearing full legs (cased greaves, sabatons, etc), then pointing the legs to the hosen should serve primarily to keep the armor close to the leg, so that it move well.

It makes perfect sense to me to have two upperbody pieces. The one with sleeves, to point the arms and possibly pauldrons to, while the sleeveless pourpoint/vest to help support the top of the legs, and pad for the torso armor.

[Andrew Young]

Good points Tasha.

It makes perfect sense to me to have two upperbody pieces. The one with sleeves, to point the arms and possibly pauldrons to, while the sleeveless pourpoint/vest to help support the top of the legs, and pad for the torso armor.

Well, ya know, something occured to me this evening.

Years ago, when I had my first full harness (ya know, the one youre embarrassed to show off) I think it was Joe Latta of blacksword who told me to make a curved leather belt with points. So I did, but with buckles and straps.

Funny thing is.....it worked incredibly well despite being rather crude.

And that got me to thinking.....follow the logic here a bit:

-13th and 14th century hose often attached via a belt.

- Taking a cue from civilian wear (not necessarily a bad idea given a long history of mutual influence) it would make logical sense that a belt mechanism or something along the same idea could have been used....at least in some cases. I do realize there are alternate approaches, however I think this is certainly a valid possibility based on what we do know.

It is also very curious that by the 1420s and certainly by the 1430s (a point at which it could be safely said that most good armor was truly hardened), cuisses have a growing tendency (no pun intended) to incorporate an upper lame, and shorter fauld. .....reflecting a civilian taste in upper body clothing as well (or the other way around). So that cuisse has to be attached somewhere, and while a 'pointed' belt or arming "vest" could have been used, it would seem as though this era (1430s onward) is approximately when we also start seeing voiders, skirts etc as attached directly to the arming doublet. The padded element of a gambeson affect being largely sloughed off (better armour) and the doublet now emerging as a true undergarment solely designed to support arms and legs.

Given that all of revivals images date to at least 1427 through the 1440s, this is where it would then make sense that we are seeing the origins of the arming doublet as less a protective defense gambeson and more of a structural foundation. It would also make sense that we are seeing this separate piece just prior to it evolving with voiders, skirt etc and superceding the need for a padded gambeson all together. But I think that part of the reason the doublet becomes more ideal and shortens a bit is due to growing height of the cuisses.

So, getting back to late 14th century approaches, the relatively shorter cuisses, the concieved necessity of a padded garment proper (of which extant examples show I think unconvincing evidence of points for legs) and pictoral examples also displaying little substantial proof of leg points, it would seem to lay enough ground work for suggesting the possibility of a "cuisse girdle." Correct me if Im wrong, but were'nt mail chausses attached via a belt? And, given that the 14th century quite literally opens with mail cuisses which are worn up to the 1340s. By 1360 true plate cuisses can be found, so I dont think its too much of a stretch to think that that chausses belt remained a throwback, holding up plate cuisses until at least the turn of the century.

If practical experience counts for anything, I would at least submit that the curved hip belt I had, worked really well. I did use a gambeson for my spaulders and arms.

I dunno fellas. Makes ya wanna get fresh and lift up a fauld and gambeson to see what those chaps had up there. "lol.....excuse me while I check out your points. "

[Guy Dawkins]

This is the old thread I was refering to.

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... c0467abe84