another on the topic of gambesons

[Glen K]

So, after a significant hiatus from thinking constantly about 11th/12th century stuff I've begun, well, thinking about it again. I'm not sure why, but the period I've chosen to be fascinated by is also the period in which we have the least knowledge of foundation garments for armour, specifically mail. Before and after this period, we have evidence of foundation garments for mail; logic and experimental archaeology indicates (nay, screams) that mail is greatly more protective and easy to wear with a padded undergarment. Yet, the hard evidence is totally lacking.

Not that those of us who have looked (or at least tried to look) at this issue before don't already know all this. But a couple of recent posts by folks here about later-period subarmalii [sic] got me thinking... Most of us who use gambesons* with mail have gambesons that are built kinda like clothing of the time: full, bulky, generic, and certainly not fitted. For the later periods, not only does the arming coat have a very close, custom fit to the person, but the individual pieces of armour attach directly to it with ties and/or buckles. As Steve (o' FC) pointed out in another post, this makes all the difference in the world in terms of weight distribution and mobility. So, I began wondering, what if some of these aspects were applied to the (still theoretical) under-mail gambeson of the 11th/12th centuries?

Now, unless someone has some evidence that I haven't seen (and I'd love it if you did), having a hauberk tie on to a gambeson isn't something that has a verifiable historical basis. I'm not even sure how it would work if we tried it. However, the idea of a more fitted gambeson for mail intrigues me, especially when you go out on a limb and assume that someone who could afford mail would probably have it somewhat tailored to them. I say this based on the illustrations of the time indicating "bagginess" in some areas and "form fit" in others. by the time you get to, say, 1200 the illustrations are basically the person's outline with mail drawn on. In the past, I'd always just assumed this was the artists' shortcut to show a complicated garment... but what if it wasn't? What if, just if, it was a reflection of how these things sometimes fit? For that to work, the gambeson couldn't be the big, bulky thing we often have it be in our interpretations.

Which brings us to the gambeson itself. by 1200 we're pretty sure of SOME type of padded garment. Most folks who make one base it on some later evidence, especially the visible ones shown in the Mac Bible. However, these were meant either to be OVER armour or used on their own, which means the thicker the better so as to increase protection. Something underneath must still provide some padding, but perhaps not as much as those external gambesons would necessitate.

All this to say: What are ya'lls thoughts on this? Am I barking up the wrong tree and/or assuming to much? Or is it worth trying to make a thinner, form-fitted gambeson and see how it behaves under some mail? Anything you can add, or some illustrations you might can provide to guide us through this question, would be much appreciated.

GK



*For the purposes of this conversation, by "gambeson" I mean the padded garment that goes under mail with no rigid reinforcement.

[Ernst]

There are literary references to aketons, gambesons, and pourpoints in the second half of the 12th century. Prior to that? Maybe it's some unknown differences and another term would have been used, like the shift in describing mail body armor changing from broigne to hauberc. Undoubtedly contemporary people made a distinction between these. We distinguish between slacks and jeans, though some future generation might look at pictures of both and see them both as the same garment.

At any rate, I think people thiought about textile armor in the same way they thought about clothing. I doubt you would find a form-fitting, tailored gambeson when tunics themselves are not form fitted.

[Wulfhere]

Female clothing of the time certainly was laced and taken in to drape attractively. Women's bliaut-style gowns presented a much more "tailored" look than the clothing of earlier centuries.

It appears that many "bulky" interpretations of the garments worn under mail in that period are influenced by the cloth armor visible in the Maciejowski Bible and the bulky undergarments worn in some illustrations. An argument could readily be made that these depictions aren't adequate to represent the garments hidden beneath mail. Additionally, the illustrations remaining from the period do not depict mail-clad heroes as bulky and shapeless: They often appear lean and agile.

[Steve S.]

Brian Goering's gambeson was very well fitted as I recall, with integral mittens. It was very nice.

Also, there is some thought that perhaps maille garments were in fact lined. Thordeman makes this suggestion for the purpose of brass rings in the Wisby finds. When I was at the Royal Armoury at Leeds this was also suggested. There is no evidence that I am aware of though.

Maybe we over-padded our gambesons? I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed. This being the case, if you made these things super thick they would be stiflingly hot.

Just thoughts.

Steve

[Steve S.]

These guys' stuff looks pretty fitted:

http://www.bouvines1214.org/spip.php?article8&lang=en

Steve

[Wolf]

FARB!!!!!!!!!! BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Glen K]

Also, there is some thought that perhaps maille garments were in fact lined. Thordeman makes this suggestion for the purpose of brass rings in the Wisby finds. When I was at the Royal Armoury at Leeds this was also suggested. There is no evidence that I am aware of though.

That's something I always forget to consider, but you're right. It would solve some issues, but create others. For example, even if the gambeson-liner was attached only quasi-permanently to the mail, it would still be some work to remove it for cleaning purposes, which I think they had to have done fairly regularly. Has anyone here seen anyone experiment with such a setup?

Maybe we over-padded our gambesons? I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed.

I think that's also a key point. Yes, I think we did over-pad our gambesons, by a good bit. That's why I'm really be interested in building a quilted gambeson with two outer layers of linen and maybe just one or two, three at the most, layers of wool in between and quilt the sucker. I'd be quite interested to see how it behaved on foot as well as horseback, as well as just wearing it all day under X and Y conditions.

In the last few recent demos I've done, I've actually just put on a linen shirt, two wool tunics, and put the mail on over that. It's remarkable how much more... flexible... I feel like that instead of with the gambeson underneath. It cools a LOT better too. Would that really be enough protection, though, to the folks in The Time who knew what they were doing? The Great Question of armour is always weight/mobility vs. protection ; I'd just love to know what the state of the equation was in AD 1100.

[Effingham]

Of COURSE we overpad. We are concerned about concussive hits with big, fat sticks. THEY weren't.

[Glen K]

Of COURSE we overpad. We are concerned about concussive hits with big, fat sticks. THEY weren't.

Not me, you SCA dweeb. I'm thinking simply historical.

[Glen K]

At any rate, I think people thiought about textile armor in the same way they thought about clothing. I doubt you would find a form-fitting, tailored gambeson when tunics themselves are not form fitted.

Yep, and that's what I keep coming back to time and again as far as the actual cut of the garment. But I also have to think they wouldn't have been cut quite as "big and floppy" as a plain tunic was, either. Maybe not form-fitted, but not cut much bigger than they'd need to be. I've done the big/bulky gambeson, and I can tell you it is far too binding, too hot, and too uncomfortable to have been practical in combat. It's what induced me to do the linen-shirt-and-two-wool-tunics treatment that I've come to personally prefer.

I do realize that we're just playing a big speculation game, but it does help me think through stuff...

[Ernst]

Since the Bouvines' reenactors have been brought up, I should bring up this recent discussion of two passages from Guillaume le Breton of that battle. Randall Moffett, Dan Howard and others have already commented there.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

From the Gesta Philippi H. regis Francorum:
http://www.archive.org/stream/uvresderi ... t_djvu.txt

Girardus Scropha cultellum quem nudum in manu
habebat, dédit in pectus ejus ; sed ipsum propter
armorum densitatem, quibus milites nostri temporis
impenetrabiliter muniuntur, ledere non valens, ictum
reiteravit* ;

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/S ... vines5.htm

Gerard La Truie, who was nearby, struck him in the middle of the chest with a knife which he held unsheathed in his hand, and when he saw that he could not pierce through (because of the thickness of the armor with which warriors of our time are equipped and which is impenetrable), he gave him a second blow to make up for the failure of the first.

Guillaume gives us a second account of the same attack by Gerard against the Emperor Otto in the Phillipide, lines 1514-1516:

Advolat, et strictum dat eidem Scropha cutellum
Pectoris in medio, nee cedere ferrea ferro
Arma volunt, quibus Otho suos muniverat artus

Here we learn that Otto's unyielding arms are made of iron, and we would expect a mail hauberk as standard equipment for the year 1214.

The debate is whether the density or thickness of arms refers only to the mail, or to the increased use of padding (gambeson for this discussion) beneath the hauberk. Regardless, we find that arms in 1214 were considered to be thicker and impenetrable compared to armor in earlier times.

[Glen K]

Ernst,

As usual, you are an impressive and unstoppable font of information.

In the link you provide to myarmoury.com, Dan Howard says:

Medieval mail was pretty carefully tailored to fit the owner. You should be able to knock 5-10% off the weight of a modern mail shirt just by fitting it properly.

This is something that I agree with, based primarily on illustrations from the period. So here's a question, though: why would the trouble be made to tailor a mail garment, but to leave the gambeson bulky (or even quasi-bulky) under it? Depending on how tailored the mail is, I don't see how the gambeson couldn't mimic the cut of the mail without being incredibly uncomfortable.

Regardless, we find that arms in 1214 were considered to be thicker and impenetrable compared to armor in earlier times.

A great quote, which is grist for the mill vis a vis a thinner, quilted garment that I was talking about above.

[Mac]

Dan Howard says:

Medieval mail was pretty carefully tailored to fit the owner. You should be able to knock 5-10% off the weight of a modern mail shirt just by fitting it properly.

Glen,

I'd like to look more closely at this on two points.

The first is tailoring to an individual person is not nearly as important as tailoring to any person. The leap between the shapeless sacks that are sold as hauberks today and ergonomically shaped hauberks (in small, medium, and large) is so vast as to overshadow the nicety of bespoke fit. I am sure I am preaching to the quire, but there are still some folks who are so daunted by the idea of individual fit that they won,t even try to go for generic fit. We should not let "perfect" be the enemy of "a hell of a lot better".

The second is that the savings in weight that one gains by tailoring the bodice and arms, should really be spent on flaring the skirt. The guy on the page that Steve kinked to looks pretty good..... until you look at the skirt.


In order to move his legs enough to fight, he has had to split the hauberk all the way up past his pubic bone. This is a serious breach of defense. His lower abdomen and his femoral arteries are there for the pick'n. The slits should not extend any higher than the seat of his saddle.

There should be enough material in the skirt that the legs can move freely and the slits should hang closed when not in the saddle.

Mac

[Karl der Walder]

I am sure I am preaching to the quire,

I think and hope you mean choir.

[Mac]

I am sure I am preaching to the quire,

I think and hope you mean choir.

Why, thank you Karl! That's exactly what I meant.

It's funny, when you get off on the wrong foot, the spell check sometimes just makes things worse.

Mac

[Ernst]

Mac,
I thought it might have been a slip from too much manuscript research! But I agree whole-heartedly about the skirt. I few rows with a couple of expansions over the hips does wonders to cure this gaposis.

Glen,
I recall a previous conversation on the archive where someone suggested one of the reasons we see gambesons worn over mail in the early pictoral sources was that it was cheaper to make the gambeson bigger than it was to make the hauberk bigger. It's a balance, I suppose. I've found 20-25mm of padding beneath mail to be more than adequate in SCA bouts. Some might think that's too much. Likewise, tailoring something too tightly can be as binding, if not more so, than added bulk. I have been troubled by the ability to find gambesons and aketons in literary accounts from 1170, yet not finding clear evidence of them in pictoral source until c. 1220, and then over the mail. Even the Maciejowski Bible from the 1240-1250 period doesn't show gambesons in scenes such as Saul being stripped of his armor. Maybe we could hypothesize the earlier versions to be mere vests with no sleeves or skirting to show themselves beyond the edge of the mail, but I know of no contemporary garments made this way.

This is the same timeframe when we see the open-back chausses. I suppose one reason for that might be expense, but another might be the need to mass produce chausses without the ability to produce a well-tailored pair for each man who could afford them. The Bouvines1214 group uses this as a method of distinguishing rank, with upper nobility being able to afford fully enclosed chausses, while average knight make do with the open-back variety.

The "density= thickness" debate is far from settled in my view. A man with an impenetrable mind might be both described as "dense" or "thick as a brick". A crowd which you can't work your way through can be dense or thick, as can the smoke in a room. Thickly planted forests are dense. Perhaps the mail was more crowded over the chest through the use of thicker wire. Perhaps the addition of a gambeson beneath had made the defense thicker.

[RandallMoffett]

Glen,

Seeing how earlier Roman and right after under armours are hard to gauge design and make I'd suspect you'd have an impossible time proving this either way.

That said after rereading Gerald of Wales I suspect the thing often translated as leather is actually a aketon so I think we can push solid use of mail and aketons toward the 3rd quarter of the 12th easy.

I'd avoid form fit in this idea. More fit but not form fit. We see a near constant fitting from the first images and remains of these garments over the 13th to 15th centuries. It would seem off if this was not the case going the other way. I still lean more to the idea of a lining of some sort, perhaps padded but I have just as much evidence for this as an individual aketon under it until the Gerald account.


Ernst,

"The "density= thickness" debate is far from settled in my view. A man with an impenetrable mind might be both described as "dense" or "thick as a brick". A crowd which you can't work your way through can be dense or thick, as can the smoke in a room. Thickly planted forests are dense. Perhaps the mail was more crowded over the chest through the use of thicker wire. Perhaps the addition of a gambeson beneath had made the defense thicker."

I think you'd have to find other uses of mail like this. To my current understanding this is not used for mail in this way, closest we maybe get is the description of double mail. That said I have seen thickness used in measuring depth or layers in this period.

Mac,

Could he not just add triangles at the front to fix that over rip the thing apart at the hips at the side?

RPM

[Mac]

Mac,

Could he not just add triangles at the front to fix that over rip the thing apart at the hips at the side?

RPM

Randall,

If he just adds to the edges of the slit, the lower corners will get pointy and the sides will still be tight. I think I would rip the skirt from edge to waist in six places; one over each thigh in front, one over each thigh in back, and one over each hip. When knitting it back together I would add one "idle" ring every four rows.


Mac

[Ernst]

That said after rereading Gerald of Wales I suspect the thing often translated as leather is actually a aketon so I think we can push solid use of mail and aketons toward the 3rd quarter of the 12th easy.

Got the passage for comparison? If that's what is intended, Gerald isn't alone as a literary source mentioning padded textile defenses in conjunction with mail during the 3rd quarter of the 12th century, as we read the same in Chretien de Troyes, the Guilaume d'Orange cycle, and Provencal chansons from Antioch, though the 1181 Assize of Arms' wambais, is not mentioned under the loricam but as separate armor. There may be post 2nd Crusade influence, or one from Spain to explain the use of Arabic based terms like aketon or jupon, but gambeson and pourpoint seem to be words native to Europe. The problem is finding any reference at all to the gambesons before about 1160 or so.

I think you'd have to find other uses of mail like this. To my current understanding this is not used for mail in this way, closest we maybe get is the description of double mail. That said I have seen thickness used in measuring depth or layers in this period.

Of course most of our surviving mail dates from later centuries, but it is not unusual for mail body armor to have heavier wire in the torso than the sleeves or skirt. The idea that all rings used throughout a hauberk had to be the same diameter and thickness is not borne out in extant mail shirts. The late 12th century references to doubling are equally confusing, sometimes speaking of double mail, sometime of double hauberks, and sometimes of hauberks "where the mail is doubled". Then there's the Breton's account of an iron plate beneath the hauberk worn in his joust with Richard, so we know additional means of reinforcement were being sought after during the second half of the 12th century.

[RandallMoffett]

Mac,

Good point. I have plans to get back into mail making some. Years ago I really liked seeing how adding and removing a row of links altered the shape... that said the time investment is pretty heavy. I have been slowly getting mail making gear together so I can start on chausses. We'll see where I go next.

Ernst,

Hard to say. The vast majority of mail hauberks and habergeons I have been able to handle had the same size links throughout the shirt, sleeves, torso or otherwise, or more or less the same. Maybe it was possible but my feeling is not the most common.

In fact my gut feeling is the mass of mail shirts and such made was unfit and likely something akin to off the peg. When we see hundreds and thousands of shirts being sold, amassed and transported by kings and upper level lords for war I doubt the few armourers often present would be enough to handle such and under taking (I figure these armour making guys were there for the people sitting on cushions not the riff-raff). That said the continued importance of mail hauberks and the tie to knighthood likely also means the knightly hauberk was something perhaps different, maybe better fit but I have no evidence of that. I'd like to get a well fit one together but I will have to really prep myself for something as insane as a hauberk.

RPM

[Glen K]

The first is tailoring to an individual person is not nearly as important as tailoring to any person. The leap between the shapeless sacks that are sold as hauberks today and ergonomically shaped hauberks (in small, medium, and large) is so vast as to overshadow the nicety of bespoke fit. I am sure I am preaching to the quire, but there are still some folks who are so daunted by the idea of individual fit that they won't even try to go for generic fit. We should not let "perfect" be the enemy of "a hell of a lot better".

I'd avoid form fit in this idea. More fit but not form fit. We see a near constant fitting from the first images and remains of these garments over the 13th to 15th centuries.

These are excellent points. While I've had a few hauberks, they've always been of the generic connected-series-of-cylinders construction. I'm thinking what I'd really like to do is get some chausses and a couple of hauberks of butted so that I can do some easy-modified experimenting with fitting, skirting, expanding and contracting rows, etc. Nothing "form fit", but at least tailored to a human shape rather than that of a drainage pipe. Maybe once I get some things figured out, I can aim higher and recreate the result in riveted.

Which still leaves the question of what to have under the mail. I suppose that speaking with ya'll has simply reinforced the narrative that already exists: We simply don't know. As such, to go with my "customized" butted mail, maybe I'll work on a fitted-but-not-form-fitted, thin-ish quilted garment underneath (which obviously I'll need to do first). Probably machine-stitched, again to save time and effort for getting the "real thing" right later on.

[Tailoress]

Maybe we over-padded our gambesons? I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed. This being the case, if you made these things super thick they would be stiflingly hot.

Unfortunately, I was one of the proponents of that theory, that arming garments may have been less-stuffed or not stuffed and that quilting layers of fabric was all that was needed. However, after way more research, I have changed my mind. I think that a) they were absolutely padded (just not the way we modern people do it), and b) if they needed it to be close-profile, they simply made the channels smaller. Like, way smaller.

More on this another time. I'll be presenting on information close to this topic tomorrow at K'zoo. Maybe after that it will be published (or maybe not; we'll see).

[RandallMoffett]

Glen,

The only thing I suspect we can do is go from the closest evidence we have and make guesses from there. We know they start using aketons in the 12th, alone and with mail. We do not know what they were then but if we move along the 13th we have artistic evidence. Then moving to the 14th we have all three, written, artistic and remains. I think by using that we can get as good a guess as we will but that said I am still not sure some of the 11th and 12th century art is showing a liner, which may or may not be padded ;p

Tailoress,

I'm with you!

[Ernst]

Here's a Swedish article arguing for textile linings inside the Wisby coifs. Google translate does a passable job of making it readable in English.
http://www.djurfeldt.com/patrik/cupps.html

Hellman did find evidence of fabric inside the mail on extant coifs, some with the skull in situ, both over the head and beneath the square panel. I am not as certain that these aren't remnants of the cloth coif and a shirt as opposed to a lining, but I'm not a speaker of the language, and my understanding might be restricted by translation.

[Konstantin the Red]

The first is . . . there are still some folks who are so daunted by the idea of individual fit that they won't even try to go for generic fit. We should not let "perfect" be the enemy of "a hell of a lot better".

I'd avoid form fit in this idea. More fit but not form fit. We see a near constant fitting from the first images and remains of these garments over the 13th to 15th centuries.

These are excellent points. While I've had a few hauberks, they've always been of the generic connected-series-of-cylinders construction. I'm thinking what I'd really like to do is get some chausses and a couple of hauberks of butted so that I can do some easy-modified experimenting with fitting, skirting, expanding and contracting rows, etc. Nothing "form fit", but at least tailored to a human shape rather than that of a drainage pipe. Maybe once I get some things figured out, I can aim higher and recreate the result in riveted.

Which still leaves the question of what to have under the mail. I suppose that speaking with ya'll has simply reinforced the narrative that already exists: We simply don't know. As such, to go with my "customized" butted mail, maybe I'll work on a fitted-but-not-form-fitted, thin-ish quilted garment underneath (which obviously I'll need to do first). Probably machine-stitched, again to save time and effort for getting the "real thing" right later on.

You know, the only "if" I see in any of this is the decision to undertake it and the allocation of the personal man-hours to do it -- even if it's just laying hold of a previously completed butted shirt on which to experiment. Nothing wrong with that if somebody's got a butted shirt he's not using.

Heck, the last butted shirt -- shirt, period, but butted it is -- I made was a half-sleeve mantletop after the manner laid out in the Arms & Armour Forum lo-these-quite-a-few-ago. It hasn't got the first mile on it, f'cry eye. Want to sort out if I can make the hem in dags ondé without it looking like a graceless improvisation. Haven't gotten that sorted either!

The first riveted mail project will be a camail; no sh...irt.

An all-riveted full 'berk would be a mighty fine "Man oh man are you crazy, doing all that for a hobby" project. Now why the hell am I talking about me??

[Konstantin the Red]

I am sure I am preaching to the quire,

I think and hope you mean choir.

Why, thank you Karl! That's exactly what I meant.

It's funny, when you get off on the wrong foot, the spell check sometimes just makes things worse.

He's still valid -- though in an echoey sort of way. Or the foot he got off on was the center foot.

The quire is that part of the church the choir sits in and sings out of, and they are as related etymologically as they are in space, iirc.

[Konstantin the Red]

Maybe we over-padded our gambesons? I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed. This being the case, if you made these things super thick they would be stiflingly hot.

Although it is cold, dank, cloudy Europe we are talking about here. Seriously, most of the Continent doesn't get enough sun by American taste. They don't generally get baked enough to end up stiflingly hot.

Same reason jacket-and-tie, and woolen at that, is the perennial fashion for the sober -- even somber -- professional. Sunny America doesn't need that kind of insulation, and we have to modify it, really more than we usually do. Europe, however, does.

[Steve S.]

Unfortunately, I was one of the proponents of that theory, that arming garments may have been less-stuffed or not stuffed and that quilting layers of fabric was all that was needed. However, after way more research, I have changed my mind. I think that a) they were absolutely padded (just not the way we modern people do it), and b) if they needed it to be close-profile, they simply made the channels smaller. Like, way smaller.

Do you mean "stuffed" here? Because obviously they were padded. Quilted or stuffed, they were padded.

Steve

[Konstantin the Red]

I think that poster meant, by his next and parenthetic phrase, that it was not stuffed. That leaves quilted, which we already know is handier for mobile parts like arms, and capable of releasing body heat better.

Stuffing kinds of methods, when they work at all, seem best to work in places with hardly any moving parts, like all around the skull inside a helmet.

[Ernst]

I am sure I am preaching to the quire,

I think and hope you mean choir.

Why, thank you Karl! That's exactly what I meant.

It's funny, when you get off on the wrong foot, the spell check sometimes just makes things worse.

He's still valid -- though in an echoey sort of way. Or the foot he got off on was the center foot.

The quire is that part of the church the choir sits in and sings out of, and they are as related etymologically as they are in space, iirc.

Actually that's a choir as well. A quire is a set of bound pages used in the making of a codex or book.

We now return you to your regular topic.

[mordreth]

Of COURSE we overpad. We are concerned about concussive hits with big, fat sticks. THEY weren't.

Not me, you SCA dweeb. I'm thinking simply historical.

Actually my gambeson is not overly thick (1/2 inch), and is made of layers of cotton batting, some wool batting, and some scrap wool fabric (interionr) quilted. Under mail it absorbs impact like crazy, by itself notso hotso.
In Long Island heat / humidity the first ten minutes wearing it is gross, once the fabric starts absorbing moisture it becomes quite tolerable

[mordreth]

I am sure I am preaching to the quire,

I think and hope you mean choir.

Why, thank you Karl! That's exactly what I meant.

It's funny, when you get off on the wrong foot, the spell check sometimes just makes things worse.

He's still valid -- though in an echoey sort of way. Or the foot he got off on was the center foot.

The quire is that part of the church the choir sits in and sings out of, and they are as related etymologically as they are in space, iirc.

Actually that's a choir as well. A quire is a set of bound pages used in the making of a codex or book.

We now return you to your regular topic.

Another little know fact is

[Konstantin the Red]

Well... I think he's little known...

[Harry Marinakis]

11th/12th Century is

...the period in which we have the least knowledge of....

foundation garments...
clothing...
tents...
shoes...
accessories...
bags...
etc.

The 11th/12th centuries are a real PITA

[Tailoress]

Unfortunately, I was one of the proponents of that theory, that arming garments may have been less-stuffed or not stuffed and that quilting layers of fabric was all that was needed. However, after way more research, I have changed my mind. I think that a) they were absolutely padded (just not the way we modern people do it), and b) if they needed it to be close-profile, they simply made the channels smaller. Like, way smaller.

Do you mean "stuffed" here? Because obviously they were padded. Quilted or stuffed, they were padded.

Steve

Sure, "stuffed" works just as "padding" does -- perhaps more accurately, because it was loose stuff, not like our modern batting. They were quilted to hold the stuffing in place. When I refer to "padding" I mean loose stuff, not extra layers of fabric. The point I'm making is that if they were a martial garment, they had stuffing and they were quilted. The two went hand in hand.