The Armour Archive

Were these worn in conjunction with a gambeson or were they also worn seperately? I need something ASAP to complete my harness for a display I am doing for the Higgins display at a local museum. I was planning on making a padded purpoint and using it with my Churbourg breastplate and 14th cent legs.

A pourpoint takes the place of a gambeson. Both are garments worn over a shirt and under armor. In fact, I'm not entirely sure of the entymology of 'gambeson' but I think it is an earlier term?

I know of no evidence of the wearing of two padded garments at once, though welcome any that comes. My research in the area is almost entirely 15th C.

Warm regards and good luck on your construction,
Lyonnete

Lyonnete,

Randall Storey's thesis "Technology and Military Policy in England, c. 1250-1350" gives one example in chapter six.

http://medievalhistory.mysite.freeserve.com/thesis.html

"As late as 1297 men on watch in London were required to wear a gambeson and an aketon, and the aketon was assigned in addition to the hauberk in the national assessments of 1276-7, 1316, and 1322-3." The source lited is "62. Riley, Memorials of London, p.35.

Most modern dictionaries list the etymology of gambeson from wambais/wamba = belly (compare womb). Pourpoint is French meaning sewn or stitched but also shows up as early as the late 12th or 13th century, not that this is any help for the late 14th century question.

Pourpoint is a term used for a couple things. I have heard referring to the padded garment that goes under armor and also as a tight fitting vest that one hangs (points) your legs from.

Let's call a spade a spade... all the terms for quilted garments and surcoats are so interchangeable and confusing, we might as well speak in layman's terms. My take on the late 14th century is that one would wear a very tight-fitting foundation garment either over or in place of a shirt, to which one would "point" (hence "pourpoint") leg and arm harness. Since full plate harness was starting to become the norm by this time, such a garment need not have been as heavily quilted for protection as the versions from earlier centuries (gambeson/aketon). Mail or plate body armor would then go over that, followed by a heraldic surcoat (jupon or coat-armor), which could also be quilted.

Alternatively, there is a lot of pictorial evidence of the popularity of an external quilted garment with a close-fitting body and big puffy sleeves (coat-armor, jupon, or lentner). The garment of the Dauphin Charles VI in Chartres is a beautifully preserved example of this. So far as I know, there is no evidence as to what kind of armor would be worn underneath, though mail or a globose plate breastplate are logical choices. It is not impossible that fighters wore what we would call "low-profile" arm harness under this coat, but full plate arms with fans on the elbow cops would certainly interfere with sleeve movement, so the arms were probably covered in mail only if a mail shirt was worn.

A light foundation garment was most likely worn in combination with the external coat-armor for leg harness attachment, though it need not have been quilted since it was for support but not protection per se. My gut feeling is that there is no "rule" for 14th-century kit- there were probably any number of combinations of quilted and non-quilted soft garments, customized to the individual fighter's harness and taste.

Based upon the studies I have made and built my kit upon it is layers as follows - (BTW, if you did not know I am portray a late 14th century Englishman)

Layer 1: Loose fitting thin "fighting" shirt and braies

Layer 2: Sturdy and thin "pourpoint" vest for leg pointing and thinly padded chauses.

Layer 3: Thinly padded aketon/gambeson

Layer 4: The armor

I must say that since I switched from the often used kidney belt for leg support and started using the pourpoint as well as pointing my spaulders and arms to a aketon/gambeson instead of to the CoP (like many do) it made such a tremendous difference to my freedom of movement, even now, 5 (6?) months later I am still not utilized the full movement capabilities I was given with the change....

I guess those guys that spent all that time a few hundredyears ago knew what they weer doing.... go figure....

Klaus the Red wrote:A light foundation garment was most likely worn in combination with the external coat-armor for leg harness attachment, though it need not have been quilted since it was for support but not protection per se.

Excellent summary, Klaus! I would just note here that quilting is simply the stitching of two or more layers together; it does not automatically include stuffing or more than two layers to create padding. One could argue that even a light foundation garment would remain unpadded but could very well be quilted (perhaps a heavy outer fabric with one layer of light lining material) and remain light, but quite a bit more sturdy, thanks to the quilting of the two layers.

-Tasha

I agree with the "stuffless" quilting idea. The 15th century French ordinances speak of a linen pourpoint of two layers for the leg harness, only two fingers wide at the shoulders, "...that a man may float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease." (Paraphrase.) If this is acting as a set of internal suspenders for the legs, it makes sense to stabilize the two layers with quilting, lest the weight stretch and distort the linen too much. I still need to make an experimental one of these... I'm well sick and tired of my skanky ol' SCA belt.

Klaus

Klaus

I believe the sleeveless pourpoint in the reference you are referring too is not to hold up armor but just for hosen because it also says that you should not wear a shirt under that jack and thus no doublet to hold up your pants.

Other wise I totally agree with you on the 14th C arming coats.