The Armour Archive

sounds like many of the problems yall are mentioneing with the pruipoint and or gambeson is more of a ... er... uhm... ahhh... how can i say this nicely

....an unmedieval body style problem?

....an unmedieval girth issue?

....ok sorry it's a more of a big fat beer gut issue than a equipment design issue.

sorry

That being said whatever Gwen comes up with is probably the closest to correct.

Murdoch, I appreciate your confidence in me but I DO NOT think the arming pourpoint is the historically correct solution, even if it works well for modern combat sports. I still think the arming doublet is the historically correct solution. When I get the 14th C. arming doublets into production -then- you can say what I've come up with is closest to correct.

Gwen

What is the difference between an arming pourpoint and an arming doublet? From what I'm gathering, basically the arming pourpoint is an arming doublet with sleeves?

....ok sorry it's a more of a big fat beer gut issue than a equipment design issue.

Yup, I get bit by this one all the time. I would like, for example, to wear a globose breast plate. But this style of armour is really supposed to be worn like a metal ribcage covering - it should end and curl in under the ribcage, following the ribs. But this only works if you have a relatively flat stomach. Fat guys can forget about wearing them, though I've seen more than one such breastplate where the armour is extended to also cover the gut, which looks just silly, to me.

Being fat sucks. Where's my miracle pill already?

Steve

Since I'm working on assembling my own 14th century kit, I'll jump in and ask; what about all those mid-century effigies and illuminations that show gambesons (or arming doublet, or whatever you want to call it) peeking out from under mail shirts? Some reach to just above the knee, which is what I'm basing my design on.

Personally, I think I'll simply tie the legs to the gambeson from the inside out, which should be comfortable and stop the length of the coat from interfering with the legs in any way. Having the lean medieval figure should also help.

Marc.

Steve i don't have that figure either

I'm built like a bulldog

legs never fit right , cuiesses are always too long that are wide enough and if they length is right the width fits children.


Oddly Jeff's Mediums and the stuff Rod makes for him self almost always fit me.

I ssoooooooo want a set of Jeff's spring Steel legs. I just gott get $700+ at one time long enough for him to get em in stock.

Should bought em at Pensic.


stupid stupid stupid (banging head on table)


Steve the FDA baned the miricle pill it had the side effects it said it did and was harmful if not taken as directed so of course they banned it

I'm built like a bulldog

legs never fit right , cuiesses are always too long that are wide enough and if they length is right the width fits children.

Axes of the dwarves! The dwarves are upon you!

I would like, for example, to wear a globose breast plate. But this style of armour is really supposed to be worn like a metal ribcage covering - it should end and curl in under the ribcage, following the ribs. But this only works if you have a relatively flat stomach.

I don't think it requires a flat stomach per se, but the relative size of your gut versus your chest is important. I'm just about finished reshaping a cheap breastplate I got on e-bay into a decent 14th century globose. I have a respectable beer belly, but I don't think this is going to affect the fit of the breastplate all that much. By my interpretation, which agrees with Steve's, the BP should come down no farther than the floating ribs, and my gut/spare tire is below the equator. The fauld, on the other hand, may not ride quite as closely as it should. Hopefully, my pourpoint will act as a corset.

And I've also discovered, as I finish sewing the buttons onto my new Charles de Blois pourpoint, that the beer belly exaggerates my profile and actually helps give my torso that 14th-century "s-curve" look. Weird, but true. Or maybe I'm just flattering myself.

Klaus

Klaus the Red wrote: And I've also discovered, as I finish sewing the buttons onto my new Charles de Blois pourpoint, that the beer belly exaggerates my profile and actually helps give my torso that 14th-century "s-curve" look. Weird, but true. Or maybe I'm just flattering myself.

Klaus

Ack, this reminds me of an ignominious moment in which I opened my mouth, inserted my foot, and then swallowed it good. It involved "natural padding", the 14thc male silhouette, and a badly-timed (but innocently intended) question about a certain man's Charles de Blois reproduction. All in all, my unwitting victim reacted with a lot more grace than I deserved.

-Tasha

At least you didn't ask him if he was pregnant!

K

It was the male equivalent to that Bad Question. In fact, I was going to add to my post, "it's like asking someone if they're pregnant" -- just don't ask if you don't already know for sure. <grimace>

-Tasha

Murdock wrote:sounds like many of the problems yall are mentioneing with the pruipoint and or gambeson is more of a ... er... uhm... ahhh... how can i say this nicely

....an unmedieval body style problem?

....an unmedieval girth issue?

....ok sorry it's a more of a big fat beer gut issue than a equipment design issue.

sorry

That being said whatever Gwen comes up with is probably the closest to correct.

Hi Murdock,

Keep meaning to add this, but there were fat fellows in the Middle Ages as well, and the morbidly obese. We have a record in Steel from slightly later of the decline of the physical condition of Henry VIII, but there is at least one extant Gothic German armour that was made for an, how shall we put it, Tubby fellow? It is in the collection of the RA as I recall, and part of an equestrian display.

Read the accounts regarding the English beiong entertained at Piqueny in 1475, as Louis XI was wooing them into a treaty, and thus ending Edward IV invasion of France - there were two enourmous table set up outside of the town gates, the boards literally groaning with food - all spiced, and wine set up near it 'in plenty, although no water was to be had', to paraphrase de Commynes - and seated bejind the tables, in a display of bonhomie, and to encourage English indulgence was the most portly and genial members of Louis XI court - high lords every one.

The only thing that dragged the English away from Picquany (every tavern and hostel in the place was open, with Louis footing every Englishmans bill, down to the lowliest bowman) was Edward eventually becoming concerned about his now uncontrolable army of drunks and gluttons, who kept sneaking back in at all hours against any orders to the contrary. He asked Louis to turn the English soldiers away, Louis refused, saying he could not possibly do anything so inhospitable, but he gave Edward permission to send in his guardsmen to roust the soldiers out, and get them moving to Calais.

While I've diverted a bit, some of the very same French lords listed amongst the obese chaps at the table are also listed as being active before and after the event militarily.

I'm sure there were chubbies then too

But the problem "they" are encountering now is apparently due to their girth not the garment design.

Also the examples you gave are not 14th century.

I can't find a depection of a "fat" 14th century armoured man. (what we would consider fat now)

I also can't find too much armour made to fit anyone even my size made in the 14th century. Much less the 270+lb fellas we have now.

I think that it is possible that they were simply less "husky" as rule. Different diet, more active lifestyles.

Course i'm guessing.

Now in my puripoint i actually kinda get the big chest tiny waist look and with the body armour i get a fair facisimile of the silioute in the paintings.

I'm not "thin" i have a bigger belly than i'd like but the garment seems to do the work.


BTW yall i bought one of Gwen's puripoints from Rod, have't tried it on yet. Also bought a buncha wool garb! IT was CCCCCOOOLLLLDDD!!! and WET and miserable most of the War.

Hello.

Things are getting more and more blurry as the thread goes on.

First off...the two- fold linen "waistcoat" that came up was from the ordinances dealing with the wearing of a jack. It says that the man shall wear no shirt, a sleeveless doublet of two layers of linen (to hold his hosen up) and over it his 25 layers plus a stag´s skin jack (i.e. standalone fabric armour, not cushion underneath plate!). Within this he should "float and be at his ease", means, this garment should be tailored to not restrict any movement.

Immobility caused by padded garments or the padded garments riding way up on the wearer when lifting an arm is an issue of poor patterning, fitting and tailoring, not of a padded garment as such.

The arming pourpoint/doublet on the other hand served both purposes, holding the hosen where they belong and provividing some degree of padding against chafing and discomfort caused by the plate armour that was supposed to be worn with it. This did not serve as a standalone fabric armour.
It´s purpose was to keep the wearer from pressure and chafing of the plates, and to provide the points to tie armour elements to.
Most arming doublets that I am aware of reach down to about hip level, and I have more than once read that with full armour, even in the joined-hose era, single leg hosen were used due to the position of the lower hem.

As far as I understand the 14th century coat armour, as the third group, these were intended to go over it all.

So my solution for 14th century would be a lightly padded hip- length arming doublet to which arms and legs and single leg hosen are pointed, with a shirt underneath it (or not, as James indicated. Or with a shirt that is tailored to actually work with the rest?). This should have properly tailored sleeves in order to allow for movement. Add shirt of maille, if desired. And over all of this the arming cote.

Regards

Ivo

On the subject of pointing both one's hose and one's leg harness to the same garment: it seems impractical to try to place the eyelets for the points in the same location for both. Obviously, a separate set of points must be used for each.

Though the photos available to me are quite fuzzy, the Charles de Blois pourpoint appears to have sets of points sewn in on the inside of the peplum perhaps 3-4" from the bottom, all the way around (3 pairs per leg, I think). I know this isn't a military garment, but I think I'll try setting up my next fighting pourpoint the same way with these integral points inside for the hose; then I'll add eyelets 1-2" higher up in front for pointing the leg harness to the outside through the leather attachment tabs. This way, the tops of the hose will end up inside/under the peplum all the way around, and the leg harness will overlap the peplum just slightly in front.

Has anyone ever tried an arrangement like this, and if so, what were the results?

Klaus

Hi all,
Sorry to get to this conversation late. A few comments.

We need to remember that most 14th century man-at-arms were mounted. To me this means that lacing the leg harness to the arming clothes would not be pulling too much on the shoulders, as they would be seated upon a horse. Perhaps those that have worn armour on horseback could address that.

One of the things that really gets to me is the comment that research does not show much evidence for using a belt system to hold up the leg harness. The absence of evidence does not preclude that it was never done It just means that it was less lightly to have existed. The belt solution is so simple that I feel it had to have been used somewhere at somepoint. But that is only my opinion.

Somewhere I have a picture of what I would call a full arming garment with sleeves. I would be interested in seeing documentation for arming clothes without sleeves.

Thanks for the information.
-Chuck Davis

Klaus the Red wrote:On the subject of pointing both one's hose and one's leg harness to the same garment: it seems impractical to try to place the eyelets for the points in the same location for both. Obviously, a separate set of points must be used for each.

It occurs to me that in such a situation a man may resort to lacing his hosen to his braies belt (the old stand-by and quite comfortable) and would use the arming cotte to hang his legs.

I would call this an educated supposition at this point, nothing so sure as "documentably provable".

-Tasha

Well murdock, as a "tubby fellow" (or as one lady put it: padded for extra comfort) I can say that 90% of the problem people encounter is most likely an issue of not using the right waist. I buckle my jeans about 2-3 inches above my pubic hair. That's my "apparant waist", my actual waist is where my body bendsif i do a side bend. Ie OVER my hipbones. Putting suspensory devices (belts, braies, ETC) at that level means that i never worry about them slipping down, the hipbones and love handles stop it.

I had a good diagram of the difference, but its no longer online since easyspace ended thier free hosting.

-+G

It occurs to me that in such a situation a man may resort to lacing his hosen to his braies belt (the old stand-by and quite comfortable) and would use the arming cotte to hang his legs.

Yes, but my gut feeling (no pun intended) is that there is no practical way to point flat-topped hose to a braes girdle. I've never tried, but I think it only works with the older style hose (ie, Bocksten) with a single point in front. We see quite a few depictions of corresponding braes with two slits in the drawstring/girdle casing at the hips to thread the hose points through, but I have never seen anything to suggest that multi-point hose were intended to be tied up this way. Think about it- this is tension at six or more different locations, rather than just two, trying to persuade a man's underwear to come down. I'm confident that the older-style hose went out of use in fashionable fighting kit at the same time that the old knee-length hauberk was phased out in favor of the hip-length plate body armor. The last thing I would want in battle is my underwear flapping in the breeze and exposed bare skin at the backs of my thighs.

Klaus