another on the topic of gambesons

[Steve S.]

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.

OK, I think we are talking about two different things here.

At one time the line of thinking was that the stuffing was literally stuffed into sewn channels, rather than being quilted through the padding.

So when I said:

"I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed."

And you said:

"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."

I assumed that you were saying you were one of the proponents of the theory that padded arming garments were stuffed into tubes rather than quilted through the padding.

When I say "stuffing" I am thinking of padding that is literally stuffed into quilted channels/tubes.

The general consensus today is that the padding was quilted in place, right?

Steve

[Tailoress]

OK. We're both getting lost in each other's vocabulary short-hand. Let me make myself clearer.

I used to be a proponent for simply layering fabric together and quilting it. No padding, no stuffing, no nuthin'. That is what I was talking about below. I think this would be incorrect for the 14thc.

In a whole separate form of ignorance, I also used to be a proponent of the "sandwich" concept of padding/quilting which was to lay down a sheet of padding like a sandwich layer between two sheets of fabric and then quilt it all together. This was due to my myopically narrow experience using modern quilt batting, which of course lends itself to this approach. I don't think this was done in the 14thc either.

Now, I believe that loose tow or possibly fabric scraps were in fact placed between tubes of quilting in the 14thc. I cannot speak for others as to what the general consensus is, but that's MY consensus. Details about an advanced technique for doing this will be forthcoming in my paper on the pourpoint of Charles VI of France. It'll be out in the next month or so, in the journal Waffen- und Kostuemkunde.

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.

OK, I think we are talking about two different things here.

At one time the line of thinking was that the stuffing was literally stuffed into sewn channels, rather than being quilted through the padding.

So when I said:

"I think it's fairly well accepted these days (?) that the gambesons, like all quilted things, were actually quilted and not stuffed."

And you said:

"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."

I assumed that you were saying you were one of the proponents of the theory that padded arming garments were stuffed into tubes rather than quilted through the padding.

When I say "stuffing" I am thinking of padding that is literally stuffed into quilted channels/tubes.

The general consensus today is that the padding was quilted in place, right?

Steve

[RandallMoffett]

Not sure I think the stuffing is what was done, at least universally. Several of the liners I have seen have thread going through the stuffing material and foundation layers. If stuffed in this would not have worked. And some of these were filled with plant matter where stuffing would make sense. That said until we can take one apart it is hard to say. I was luck as we had some lined helmets where the wear was along the bottom where several channels ended so I could see the threat clearly.

RPM

[Tailoress]

I've seen one 16thc helm liner which was pad stitched so that the stitches went right through the loose stuffing. But that's my only sample, and two centuries later than I'm thinking about, so it's hard for me to conclude anything from that. I will note that the stuffing seemed to be loose linen tow, not cotton, silk, or wool. Same type of stuffing in the mysterious arming garment at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

All in all, for an arming garment worn on the body intended for 14thc portrayal, I'd default to stuffing between quilt lines, but I will grant that there are always more ways than one to achieve an effect, and our sample size is exceedingly small from which to draw definitive answers, like "This is the only way it was done," or "This was by far the most popular way it was done."

[Glen K]

Here I try to have a completely decent conversation about 11/12th century real history, and the loser 14th century mafia tries to take over. Typical.

Tasha, has your research gone even a little bit back to see how far such a "stuffed tubes vs. multiple layers-tacked-together" would apply? The big conundrum is that in the period of predominantly mail armour , the mail needs much, much more padding for "active protection" (i.e. working in conjunction with mail defensively) than is needed in the later (c.1330s+) era where plate predominates and the padding is as much to make the plate comfortable/bearable to wear than for active defense, if not more so.

However, my personal (i.e. anecdotal!) experience says that while stay-puft padding w/ mail protects pretty well, it significantly limits mobility, and drastically reduces longevity in the armour due to heat/sweat issues. I realize that the mobility/flexibility vs. protection compromise is at the core of armour history, but I'm just trying to guess where the 11th/12th centuries fell on that continuum....

[Tailoress]

Tasha, has your research gone even a little bit back to see how far such a "stuffed tubes vs. multiple layers-tacked-together" would apply? The big conundrum is that in the period of predominantly mail armour , the mail needs much, much more padding for "active protection" (i.e. working in conjunction with mail defensively) than is needed in the later (c.1330s+) era where plate predominates and the padding is as much to make the plate comfortable/bearable to wear than for active defense, if not more so.

I've looked back to the armour guild guidelines in Paris in 1296, and it appears they were using cotton and silk to stuff gambesons then. No clear mention of layering fabric, but also my French is spotty, so I could have missed it, maybe.

However, my personal (i.e. anecdotal!) experience says that while stay-puft padding w/ mail protects pretty well, it significantly limits mobility, and drastically reduces longevity in the armour due to heat/sweat issues. I realize that the mobility/flexibility vs. protection compromise is at the core of armour history, but I'm just trying to guess where the 11th/12th centuries fell on that continuum....

There is this great gisant in the Louvre from 1325 (when they were still wearing head-to-toe mail, btw) showing an aketon peaking out at the neck and the wrists with very closely quilted channels; we're talking maybe 1/3 of an inch between each channel. That is one way to get stiffness combined with better mobility.

[Ernst]

As long as we're taking 13th century sources, there's that quote from Charles ffoulkes from 1311 calling for 3 livres (@ 5,076 grains per livre, a little over two pounds) of cotton per elle (elbow to fingertip, or do the French use some other more rigid measure?). A demi aune is mentioned (an aune is about 47" per online sources). My translation skills aren't good enough to tackle the whole passage, but it seems to suggest about a pound per linear foot of fabric (45"-48") for stuffing is about right.

http://www.archive.org/stream/armourerh ... t_djvu.txt

Que nules d'ores en avant ne puisse faire cote gamboisee ou il n'ait
3 livres de coton tout neit, se elles ne sont faites en sicines et au
dessous soient faites entre mains que il y ait un pli de viel linge
empres 1'endroit de demi aune et demi quartier devant et autant
derriere.

[Wulfhere]

I forget the source, but at least one period writer advised that the hacketon should be "pierced full of hooles" for ventilation and worn without a shirt beneath it. If I recall correxctly, the quote was somewhwere in Ffoulkes. Carefully placed eyelets would certainly add comfort.

[James B.]

I forget the source, but at least one period writer advised that the hacketon should be "pierced full of hooles" for ventilation and worn without a shirt beneath it. If I recall correxctly, the quote was somewhwere in Ffoulkes. Carefully placed eyelets would certainly add comfort.

That is a late 15th century text "How and man shall be armed" its talking about a arming doublet for a judicial duel.

[Glen K]

I truly appreciate everyone's input. I think that after Gettysburg I'm going to make myself an "experimental" setup with the following details:

Gambeson
1) Natural materials but machine sewn for ease of construction and reworkability
2) quilted layers rather than padding, and not overly excessive at that
3) Tailored, but not form fitted not just to myself but to the hauberk

Hauberk
1) pre-made butted that I will modify/tailor to go with the gambeson
2) Aiming for c. 1180 (3rd Crusade 'n' such) so attached coif w/ ventail, long sleeves w/ integral mittens, chausses.

I already have my riveted Norman hauberk, so I'll be able to try a non-fitted hauberk with a fitted gambeson to see how that might work. I can also use my old, non-fitted gambeson with the tailored hauberk to see what arises from that.

Any thoughts or suggestions from folks?

[Caius705]

You're doing this for costume, not combat, right?

[Glen K]

I'm doing it in an attempt to learn more about the relationship between fit, padding, and mobility for 11/12th century armour. I'm not sure I'd classify that as "costume," but it's certainly not for SCA sport combat.

[B. Patricius]

I'm doing it in an attempt to learn more about the relationship between fit, padding, and mobility for 11/12th century armour. I'm not sure I'd classify that as "costume," but it's certainly not for SCA sport combat.

Huzzah!

if I may add to this discussion, my key timeframe in experimental archaeology is late 12th early 13th century. Again, as discussed earlier, in my own research of primary and secondary forms of research it is quite lacking. But, as a whole, it seems they started to wear a three piece under-layer, most notably the Knights Hospitaller and the Knights Templar in chronicles. What we do know from documents of both sides, is these men could ride into battle, fight on, and if lucky ride out looking like a pin cushion.

In my own experience thus far, having based nothing on anyone else's work, what seems to work the best, and fit the profile of the period appears to be this:

inner layer of padding (I'll call this one the aketon)
this layer, for me anyways, is highly mobile yet not having the highly tailored look of the later period pourpoints. It's all in the armpit and shoulders, and matches the gores of period textile non-armour garments (think, period t-tunic). This layer also has very, very fine channels, about 3/4" and only has about an 1/8" of padding, except the elbows which is done only for my re-enactment group (not SCA), which are an added layer, so about 1/4" of padding.

middle layer - period hauberk with integral coif and ventail, and integral mittens
this layer, I'm still constructing, which if anyone has made mail before, and I know some of you have, yeah, that's going to be a while. My materials, are 17ga annealed rebar wire, about the closest, affordable, and easy to get thing I could find that's similar to period iron maile. I believe it's key the metal is malleable, to protect from the cutting and percussive blows.

outer layer of padding (I'm calling this one the gambeson)
this layer has fairly deep armpits with broad shoulders in the back and a narrower (not by too much) chest. best way I can describe this easily here is a schematic looking from above of: /O\ basically the O is the hole for the head and the slashes being the arm holes. This garment is 1/4 - 5/8" thick depending on the area, I added a bit to my injured spots on my person and for back/kidney protection, basically think a back brace worth of an extra layer of batting. These channels are heavily lofted in comparison to the gambeson, being the channels are 2".

This garment, as far as wearing the two padded layers and borrowing a hauberk for a bit, feel a lot lighter than they weigh. I'm also used to carrying a ton of weight myself, I played sousaphone in school and have worked construction. Using shinai, wooden wasters, and Rawlings synthetics, it works admirably. The wooden wasters, I feel the shot and know it, the other two, I just feel it. I'm sure rebated steel would be similarly between the wooden wasters and rawling synthetics depending on the manufacturer.

I don't know how historically accurate all this is, minus, thankfully 50 years later we do have evidence of these layers and how they were made, and it's all machine sewn with cotton "warm & natural" batting... so it's not remotely accurate to the period anyways in regards to construction minus the overall "look." But it looks and feels amazing, and highly mobile. The fact is, if it didn't work, they'd have gone with something else. If it doesn't seem to work well for us, it's safe to say we're wrong in our execution.

[Konstantin the Red]

B-Pat, welcome and well come; the usual habit around here is the reverse of your usage of "aketon" and "gambeson." It's only a local convention, to spare you or anyone else having to labor through what it is you mean this week -- the quicker to get to the meat of a matter.

[RandallMoffett]

B.,

Some good points. My own thought is they could do it many ways. I figure stand alones were thicker than the under armour ones but I have no proof for this besides some accounts pointing out they are different without any more detail than that. I suspect these under aketons tended to be about the same thickness and that the over ones were done to further increase protective quality. Since they do not seem universal it could be expense or personal preference for less armour and more movement that limited use.

RPM

[B. Patricius]

Konstantin, sorry about the mix-up. I usually refer the inner garment as an aketon and the outer layer as a gambeson as well. I just thought earlier in this thread it was described reversed! I know from reading period texts, well translations therein, it can get confusing. I also modified my post to reflect this. Over on the myarmoury forums they set it up as aketon under, and gambeson over as well, so it's what I'm used to anyway.

Also, thanks for the warm welcome!

M'lord Randall,
I totally agree it could have been done a variety of ways, in any number of situations. It's much like today's military, they have a "set uniform" but I know plenty of guys who change things here and there for their own personal reasons while still making muster.

For example for experimental archaeology's sake, right now in May, things are just starting to heat up around here, breaking 100 degrees regularly. Thank goodness it's a dry heat, but it's still wicked hot! So, my current kit only has these layers from skin out:
braies (inverted "T" style with no center seam)
shirt (based off of St. Louis)
hose (bocksten)
my double layer sleeveless gambeson
some elbow and knee protection (think sport pads)
my cappae
my helm

that's it. Because of the heat, and the types of weapons my group uses, I adapted my kit thusly. I think it's safe to say it was similar for them back then too. I do know Sergeants were less armoured than knights, so maybe they didn't have a full hauberk, or the two layers of padded garments, and later on they still had strip chausses rather than full hose. But beyond that, it's all pretty vague.

[Glen K]

So, step one has been taken, as I have acquired some butted pieces. Next step is to find a cheap-but-not-discount-bin-plaid quasi-appropriate fabric to try this experiment with. I'll be hitting the local Hancock to see what's what, and I suppose I need to start documenting exactly what I'm doing. It might make a neat nerd-reenactor reference article.

---

I think what I'm going to go for with the gambeson is, lord help me, something like Museum Replicas carries except for a) natural materials, b) differential padding, and c) proper dimensions to work under a hauberk. :



There's another place in Australia that has something similar to what I have in mind, i.e. tailored and close-fitting but not "form fitted."

http://www.medievalshoppe.com.au/armour ... at-xl.html

[B. Patricius]

Glen,

any chance are you making this? I'm wondering because of your reference to Hancock, which I assume is Hancock fabrics. If I'm wrong, than the error is definitely mine. If you are making it, good go! If for nothing but the experience combined with the money saved and still doing it plausibly close to right. Needless to say, I've enjoyed my journey with mine. If you need any help with it, please post up and I'll try to help where I can. I didn't use any of the resources via the SCA when I started either, if that matters at all. It was a personal preference sort of thing. I make my own patterns as I'm definitely not "average sized." Only after finishing my gambeson did I see Ms. Kelly's work and others. It did come in handy for my aketon, particularly with getting the arms to move freely.

[Ernst]

Find a cheap white muslin. Get rid of the silly neck laces, lengthen the sleeves and skirts. Keep us notified.

[Glen K]

B.,

Yep, I'm going to make the gambeson (so yes, Hancock's is the fabric store ), so I can play with the shape/size/amount of padding, and I'm going with butted for ease of tailoring of the mail. I've personally never done a tailored gambeson and tailored hauberk; to be honest, I don't know if anyone else has tried it for 11th/12th century, either. If they have, won't somebody hook me up with them?

Since it's experimental, the gambeson isn't going to be what I would call "living history quality;" I'm still going to use natural materials, but probably mostly cottons for cost and ease of working; everything is going to be machine sewn to save time. But, since I'm machine sewing, I think I'm going to go with the "more, narrower channels" approach. Not to the point of the Blois pourpoint or anything like that, but certainly not the 2" wide that my other gambeson has either.


Randall,

What, you don't like the sexy laces at the neck?

[Tibbie Croser]

Glen, if you look in the home decor remnant section at Hancock, they may have some heavy cotton twill. I recently picked up a nice remnant of khaki denim. The reverse side is alternating tan and white threads; it looks rather like fustian or hemp.

[FrauHirsch1]

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.

Small channels or quilting even without stuffing would also make it a firmer garment.

[FrauHirsch1]

I think what I'm going to go for with the gambeson is, lord help me, something like Museum Replicas carries except for a) natural materials, b) differential padding, and c) proper dimensions to work under a hauberk.

I would also change the construction pattern such that it is based on an extant pattern with an underarm gusset, rather than the modern armscye on the sleeves - Modern sleeve patterns will bind pull up the body of the garment when arms are raised.

I would also change up the quilting pattern under the armpit and on the inside of the elbow. More channels will be less flexible, less channels or no channels and less padding there will be more flexible.

Many things that are more difficult with modern sewing machines (like custom quilting pattern changes) is easier when sewing by hand.

[Ernst]

Indeed. There are a few effigies where the quilting lines seem quite close at the neck, but wider at the bottom hem. The Isenheim Altarpiece pourpoint (or whatever term you prefer) gets narrow lines at the waist, broadening at the base and over the chest.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gr ... christ.jpg

Then there are a few Germanic miniatures which show vertical lines, but the wrist quilting changes direction or gets tighter.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/psalter ... ms54/4121/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/psalter ... ms54/4127/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/psalter ... n186/6427/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/codex-m ... m-848/949/

Of course we are left with conjecture for the earlier 12th century designs.

[Konstantin the Red]

Find a cheap white muslin. Get rid of the silly neck laces, lengthen the sleeves and skirts. . .

Yes; where that MR model's sleeves ended is really where the steel vambraces should end, with the sleeves continuing another inch or so, possibly tapering down in thickness for complete convenience under gauntlet cuffs. That gamby was a little short in the sleeve for him.

Gambies did often enough get inventive with the stitchlines in the sleeves, check Eduard Wagner's Tracht und Waffen. Rather less commonly, Wagner's pix show varied stitchline arrays in body and skirts as well. Don't recollect he copied off from the Isenheim altarpiece in his tome, though. No biggie, as various pics show the spray-pattern stitchlines of that gamby to advantage, cf. in TOMAR.

Isenheim panel, clickable -- nice and big, too big for here. Note the quiltlines at the wrist of the upflung hand.

[B. Patricius]

my aketon and gambeson are both made from cotton and machine sewn too. My gambeson is lofty with two layers of "warm and natural" cotton batting at 2" intervals. My aketon is one layer of warm and natural with 1" channels. I also made a padded hood and an arming coif, both single layer of batting in each as well. Basically when it's too hot out for the hood, I'll wear the coif. I like the hood because of the extra shoulder and collar bone protection it provides because of its mantle. I also recommend using a gusset for the sleeves, it helps tremendously when raising your arms like I do when practicing longsword. A good square gusset, like in extant patterns for tunics works rather nicely.

I'm not 11th century, but I am late 12th early 13th and for arming garments, there isn't too much of a difference. Lots of mail, with a padded garment underneath. The biggest difference between our kits will be the difference in helms and shields mainly.

[Glen K]

I would also change the construction pattern such that it is based on an extant pattern with an underarm gusset, rather than the modern armscye on the sleeves - Modern sleeve patterns will bind pull up the body of the garment when arms are raised.

Good advice; it helps reaffirm my plan to base this off of a period shirt/tunic, just basically taking that basic cut and turning into a stuffed-tubes version.

I would also change up the quilting pattern under the armpit and on the inside of the elbow. More channels will be less flexible, less channels or no channels and less padding there will be more flexible.

Exactly; that's what I meant (but stated unclearly) when I said "differential padding." My plan is to have NO padding in the inside elbow and armpit, tighter/lighter padding in the arms, and thicker padding in the body and especially the shoulders.

[RandallMoffett]

'Quote:

I would also change the construction pattern such that it is based on an extant pattern with an underarm gusset, rather than the modern armscye on the sleeves - Modern sleeve patterns will bind pull up the body of the garment when arms are raised.


Good advice; it helps reaffirm my plan to base this off of a period shirt/tunic, just basically taking that basic cut and turning into a stuffed-tubes version.'

I'd be careful with this. For certain periods the manufacture of even tunics varies wildly. All the 14th century textile armours seem to have pretty well developed arm scythes that I can think of. A properly made arm and torso will get most of the issues with pull corrected but that said if you add the gusset in you still may have that issue if not done right. That said the way arms are made now are different. Think of the Charles VI for example. Just well fit. So just adding a square, triangle or whatever may be very, very wrong for you and may not even work.

The idea of padding the coat different between the body, limbs and such is something I have liked very much. As well the close sewn channels will indeed make it stiffer.... not always bad. Think of the neck for example. It can be almost rigid if you sew them small. Want it to bend more and not so crucial to protection, wide channels.

Also make sure to add some extra material as with the padding it will shrink the edges some.

Good luck!

RPM

[Tailoress]

The primary element that determined stiffness in the period was the density of the padding. If density remained constant, the next affecting element was loft. Finally, width between quilted lines came last.

I'm not talking about the use of a modern quilt batting. If you use a loose tow, you can control all three of these elements and create a garment of extremely varied stiffness, depending on how those three elements are applied.

[Glen K]

Hmmm.... ya'll are making me seriously consider doing the gambeson LH quality rather than hack-and-slash experimental type....

[Tailoress]

Hmmm.... ya'll are making me seriously consider doing the gambeson LH quality rather than hack-and-slash experimental type....

That way lies madness, Glen. But the payoff is amazing.

[FrauHirsch1]

Its not that much more in cost, and the same amount of work.

[Glen K]

Well, my initial thought was to make a "modern" mock-up to get the pattern, padding, etc. right and then once I perfect [sic] it, to make a "good" one. But with as much time and material as I'll be putting into it, maybe I just do one up right the first time.

The mail, though, I can assure you will still be butted. This time.

[Konstantin the Red]

If my experience is anything like typical, your mockup-fit-experiment-cut-and-try-thing would become your liner/working pattern pieces anyway. That's what I did. All the fiddling, all the fudging, all the experiments and adjusting all went on with one of the layers of the garment. Once fit was proved, I unpicked the basting stitches and set about cutting out and assembling the rest of the CdB I made. This was pretty laborious, but remarkably straightforward.

In anything laid out "in quarters" in the fourteenth and fifteenth century style, one needn't use curved seams in the skirt-quarters of the garment; straight seams and a conical shape works just fine with male hips. It's the womenfolk need the curved seams in there for a good lie to that part of the coat.

[Tibbie Croser]

By the way, I think Glen started by talking about 11th/12th-century gambesons. So, I don't think he'll need to be as concerned with snug tailoring to the body.

I assume that textile armor tends to follow contemporary fashion, so that Glen's gambeson would follow the tunic patterns of the era. I guess that would be basic panel-and-gore construction, not necessarily with a waistline?