The Armour Archive

Once again, I try to pull all of my gear into the same time period. I can see how you can hang legs from an arming jacket in the 15th century, but I'm not sure how they did it in the 14th century. The jackets seem to long to use as an arming point, and Gwen says that the pourpoint attachment doesn't seem to be authentic. I would appreciate any advice in this matter. If you could even just point me in the right direction, I would be grateful.

Thanks

Noe

I lace mine at hip level on my 14th century arming coat just like a 15th century arming doublet. Only difference is that I have more colth covering the top on the metal legs.

Hmmm...I've always done it from a belt worn under my coat. This isn't period...? Can someone point me to some illustrations?

how does this work with a gut? I've tried hanging the legs from my arming coat and the best I can get is my leg harness hanging away from my legs. I adjusted the straps on the backs on the legs and it pulled weird.

Gwydion

I don't think anyone knows for sure. Never seen a piece of art on it or heard of a treist on it. Personally I hate belts, they never work for me.

I'm a belt-hater as well. I don't hang mine from an arming jacket, although that's the next mod on the list. I hang mine from a pair of arming shorts. The trick is that they have to be super super tight to stay in place. But once you get it, they feel GREAT, like you're wearing nothing at all.

A note - I did this based on the advice of an armouring laurel - I didn't ask for his sources, because he's a bud and I trust his word. So take that as you will.

Alejandro

I made a pair of arming shorts out of a pair of cut off blue jeans a little over a year ago. I'll have to admit they did work great. Much better than a belt. They may not be historic but they work, and when worn with hosen dont look to bad...Otto

Thanks for all the great advice, folks, although I guess we're all sort of in the dark on this one.

The problem I've found with pointing to the 14th century arming coats is the all seem too long, and the coat-tails would be caught beneath the thigh armour. Given how closely fitting the leg armour seemed to be, that's doesn't seem to work.

Nor does it seem likely that it pointed to the inside of the arming jacket. I've also seen this done, and it seems to result in the cuisse always pulling slightly away from the thigh.

The arming belt is a good possibility, except that we don&t have much indication that it existed, and, frankly, I've always thought they were too uncomfortable to wear for days on end. Furthermore, they can move out of position and, being under the armour, be very hard to put to rights.

Another possibility is the arming pourpoint. It would certainly be secure and hold it in the right position. The problems I see are that a) Gwen has, after much more research than I can do, determined that they were an unlikely choice. Furthermore, that would mean that a fighter would be wearing a shirt, a pourpointn, _and_ the gambeson. A pretty hot and uncomfortable proposition if you ask me.

Another thought that I had was pointing to the hose, which are in turn pointed to the gambeson; however, the gambesons of the time doin&t seem to have any arming points.

Is there anything I missed?

As James said, we really don't know. I've never seen documentation for any method of supporting the legharness from the 14th or 15th century. However, most 14th cent cuisses that I've seen have holes or rivets across the top where a leather pointing tab, similar to those seen on some vambraces, seems likey to have been pointed to something. Folks seem to be generally working on the theory that we know how they held their hosen up so it seems likely that they held the cuisses up similarly. This isn't unreasonable but it's supposition not documentation.

To your specific points:

The problem I've found with pointing to the 14th century arming coats is the all seem too long

It's really that you've found peoples attempts at 14th century arming cotes have been too long.

The arming belt is a good possibility, except that we don't have much indication that it existed, and, frankly, I've always thought they were too uncomfortable to wear for days on end.

We don't have much indication of anything ( anything meaning ways of supprting the legharness)as far as I can tell so I wouldn't count these out. Why do you think you'd need to wear it for days on end?

I've used a belt, not for days but for 6-8 hrs at a time and it wasn't uncomfortable and didn't shift around very much at all.

Another possibility is the arming pourpoint. It would certainly be secure and hold it in the right position. The problems I see are that a) Gwen has, after much more research than I can do, determined that they were an unlikely choice. Furthermore, that would mean that a fighter would be wearing a shirt, a pourpointn, _and_ the gambeson. A pretty hot and uncomfortable proposition if you ask me.

Johan Hill, armourer to Henry the VI describes a petycote of an overbody of a doublet with out sleeves as part of the clothing to be worn with armour. He doesn't say that it's used to hold the legharness up though.

You don't have to wear a shirt and a pourpoint and gambeson of linen doesn't strike me as being unbearably hot. I've worn a revival cotton gambeson, all 7lbs of it (!) pretty much all day in 90 degree weather with no ill effects.

Another thought that I had was pointing to the hose, which are in turn pointed to the gambeson; however, the gambesons of the time doin&t seem to have any arming points

I'm not really sure what you mean by gambeson here by the way, but I'm guessing that you mean the arming cote, to say weatther they had points or not.






[/i]

Noe, I'm flattered that you keep bringing my name up but I feel compelled to point out that I'm no expert. Yes, I've done a bunch of research and I'm married to an armourer so I talk about armour and armour related stuff a lot with someone who knows what he's talking about, but I'm still not an expert. The question of what to wear under armour is one I work with a lot, but that still doesn't qualify me as an expert.

It's always interesting to me that a point that seems to come up a lot in these conversations is comfort. "It couldn't possibly be right because it wasn't comfortable". My thoughts on this are that these guys weren't wearing these garments for fun, they were wearing them to survive in a life threatening environment. I've talked to firefighters, divers, race-car drivers and military pilots and they tell me their protective suits are as hot and uncomfortable as hell, but they wear them because they work. For me, "it couldn't be this way because it's hot and uncomfortable" isn't enough of a reason to throw out the idea of an arming coat under coat armour, especially when what little evidence we have points to that solution. The arming coats I'm making are 2 layers of stout fabric with no padding, so they're not excessively hot. The purpose of an arming coat is to suspend armour, not to provide protection, so padding isn't really needed.

In your hypothetical layering of shirt/pourpoint/gambeson, are you suggesting the armour would attach to the pourpoint or the gambeson? I'm confused because I would think the layers would be either shirt/arming coat (with attached armour pieces)/coat armour (like a lentner, which goes over the armour), or shirt/arming coat (with attached armour pieces)/surcoat (which leaves the arms exposed). I'm not clear on where the pourpoint and/or gambeson fit into your equasion.

Gwen

I don't find a purioint and a coat ncomfortable at all.

The comfort thing is kinda an issue. If it ain't comfortable to a point, soldiers won't wear it. As long as it doesn't impeed movement, most guys will suck up a little discomfort. Espically if it works.

I don't wear a high threat plate insert cause it's comfy i wear it because i don't wanna die. If it hurt to wear it, i'd be worried about it impeeding other activites i need ot be able to do.

Plus i look HUGE in my vest.

With all of our information on how the medieval mind viewed hanging hose and chausses-I have to believe that a pourpoint or arming cote would have been the proper way to do it.

Of course, our forbears generally didn't have to deal with beer guts.

But, I certainly have no reason to think they used a belt.

A pourpoint does tend to prevent you raising your arms over your head-but I doubt this would be the case on horseback because the leg harness would be largely supported by the horse and saddle.

That said, until I make my A&S competition entry of arming clothes, shoes and cap-a-pie armor-I'm going to stick to my belt for my SCA kit.

Baron Alejandro wrote:A note - I did this based on the advice of an armouring laurel - I didn't ask for his sources, because he's a bud and I trust his word. So take that as you will.

Alejandro

We are supposed to trust a Spaniard with a fish head avatar?

Hi folks:

Sorry for the many errors in both this and my previous message. I'm having to use a work computer. It is not private, and I am under serious time pressure.

When talking about 14th century gear, set your babel fish to translate any instances of "gambeson" as "arming cote".

As for pointing the cuisses, I agree; it seems to be way to go; my question is what to point them to. If pointed to the outside of the examples of arming cote depictions I've seen (as opposed to the reconstructions, the limitations of which I am all too aware), the cuisses wouldn't seem to fit the legs very well. The seem to be longer than they were to become in the 15th century. Pointing them to the inside ofthe arming cote also seems to have fitting problems.

My problems with comfort are pretty much those voiced by Murdock: a soldier in the field is only going to put up with so much for so long.

The belt is still an option, but it seems hang hard on the hips after a while, even without a beer gut to contend with.

I'm just trying to find a system that works, and that seems to be coherent. Any suggestions are appreciaate.

The pourpoint/gambeson combo would work well, but my concern was about the sheer bulk of it all.

I have, in the past, pointed my padded cuisses to the inside of my gambeson buttonholes just about waist-level. Thread the arming points through from the inside out, tie off, done. Now I'm pretty slim, so they were very comfortable to me, but the gambeson did tend to pull at the front and move around a bit, so I'm probably going to try a pourpoint and/or belt next time 'round.

Noe wrote:The pourpoint/gambeson combo would work well, but my concern was about the sheer bulk of it all.

I point my legs to the arming coat and wear nothing under it. I did for a while wear a linen shirt but it bunched up too much. Wearing just the arming coat was very confortable.

Forgot to add, I was one of the few who got an arming pourpoint from Gwen. It worked great. There may not be any evidence for it, but it felt good, looked good, worked good. A better solution than my bluejean arming shorts LOL...Otto

I think I know the armouring laurel Alejandro is referring to, and I've seen his arming shorts. I think the system would work quite well. Also, doesn't there exist documentation somewhere for a pair of 'arming hose' in some Spanish work? I suppose that doesn't necessarily imply that the arming hose were used to suspend legharness, but it could be possible...

Better than trusting some wandering Calontiri baron who can't decide which heraldry he likes better.

Ok, not to derail. Don't take my word as gospel, certainly. But once I got the arming shorts to fit right, it was GREAT. Don't use metal grommets, I tried that and they lasted LESS than 3 fights. Stitch the buttonholes, and reinforce the fabric around them. Joy & comfort, and you can get thwacked in your tidy whities.

Alejandro

This looks like a good way to do it.
http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drak ... 0slafr.htm
Just click on "Pourpoint och brynja" to see how the legs are held up.
They show lots of nice details about the outfit if you click on all the links.
To see other outfits click on the link under the picture.
And yes I know that it doesn't mean this is how it was done..I just thought it would be good to put a couple pictures out there to help people.

Pietro

Those photos illustrate what I was describing above and how I think it was done historically, based on my research.

Gwen

To go along with the pictures Pietro posted and what Gwen is talking about there is a later tapestry from Van der Wyden from about 1450 or 60 that shows an arming coat in a similar design with the exact points configuration the guys in Pietro's link used.

VERY interesting. Won't work with my current cote, but might with the new one I'm planning.

For now, though, I'm sticking to my belt. It works for me...

I fought for over a year in the Shirt/Pourpoint/Aketon configuration. Pointing my legs this way was far more comfortable than a belt -- much easier on my back. I also pointed my spaulders to the purpoint, through holes in the aketon. This helped keep the looser aketon in place.

The shirt was one layer of linen The Pourpoint two layers of linen with strategic reinforcemet and leather at arming points.

I found it less cumbersome than the belt and akeketon with the pourpoint holding everything in place. It was no hotter than when I fought with the aketon over bare skin.

Don't know if it is perfectly correct, but it is comfortable.

I don't know... I've been scratching my head for months about the problem of holding up plate legs, and I admit I'm still a bit confused.

Seems that the general consensus is to try one of three solutions:

1. Pourpoint -- which I understand is a vest-like garment with big armholes to decrease problems with arm-raising motions. The leather tabs on the cuisse top are laced to the bottom of the pourpoint.

2. Belt -- sort of self-explanatory, but experts contend that evidence of use in period is slight. Very cheap and easy to buy/make.

3. Arming hose -- some kind of garment like strongly-made shorts (or knee-pants?) belted at the waist, maybe with sewn-on laces or eyelets for tying up the cuisses.

What bugs me about a pourpoint is (and I may be way off base) that it transfers some of the weight of the leg harness to the shoulders. That would imply loading up the shoulders with the legs in addition to gorget, pauldrons, breast/back, and (indirectly, through points on the arming-doublet sleeve) the arm harness. Yipe! I thought that one of the benefits of plate was distribution of the harness's weight about the body -- it would seem a blessing to make the hips carry the lower parts of the harness.

Having worn legs for some hours with a belt, and finding it somewhat uncomfortable, I tried simulating a pourpoint by getting a tight-fitting leather vest from a thrift store, punching holes in the lower edge of the vest, and tying the legs to the vest. The increased waist/hip comfort was undeniable. But I did feel the weight in my shoulders! Well, if it must be so, it must. But I hate to think of centering most of the weight of a plate suit on the top of my torso. Or does a properly-constructed pourpoint not work that way?

Another morsel of period information: the 16th century Spanish document, the Inventario Illuminado, has drawings of armor pieces in a Spanish royal armory. IIRC, there are a couple of drawings of arming doublets, with mail gussets and all, and these drawings do not show any kind of bottom structure for tying cuisses to; in fact, they look as if they halt way above the hips, like very short vests. Admittedly, the book is 16th century, and maybe I'm remembering wrongly. Any one else seen these pictures?

One other thing: don't some scholars suggest that in earlier centuries (11th, 12th, etc) that mail leggings were tied to girdles, or to braies? That would be anchoring pretty heavy leg harness to the waist. Or is there thought that pourpoint-like garments were used then, too?

Eric T.

"I am neither a thaumagturge, nor a dunce" -- Nero Wolfe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This looks like a good way to do it.
http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/drak ... 0slafr.htm
Just click on "Pourpoint och brynja" to see how the legs are held up.
They show lots of nice details about the outfit if you click on all the links.
To see other outfits click on the link under the picture.
And yes I know that it doesn't mean this is how it was done..I just thought it would be good to put a couple pictures out there to help people.

Pietro
Thanks Pietro, GREAT site !...Otto

Eric T

I don't use a pourpoint as in a 2 layer vest, I use a fitted arming coat that has points at the hips like the link Otto has above. The weight is really at the hips more than the shoulders, also most of the weight should be on the leg itself from the leg being strapped to it, the pointing to the arming coat helps keep the weight off the knee and keeps the cuisse from floating away if the leg strap is broken. Also proper armor should not weight so much that it drags the armor at the shoulders.

Eric T wrote:Another morsel of period information: the 16th century Spanish document, the Inventario Illuminado, has drawings of armor pieces in a Spanish royal armory. IIRC, there are a couple of drawings of arming doublets, with mail gussets and all, and these drawings do not show any kind of bottom structure for tying cuisses to; in fact, they look as if they halt way above the hips, like very short vests.

Clothing changes in the 16th century, some doublets loose the peplums and you then have pants over your hose. In the 14th century you don't have pants you have hosen with a garment to the mid hips to cover your underwear.

I believe in how a man shall be armed for the 15th century it tells you to point the legs to your arming doublet, which is why people speculate that they did the same in the 14th century.

Hello,
In regards to the hanging of 14th cen. legs, I use a pourpoint underneath my gambeson with no ill effects. The pourpoint has arming points at about the bend in the groin pocket, and doesn't attach directly to the metal. I have a peice of strong leather rivited on the inside of the cuisse that attaches about halfway down and grommet holes in the top of the leather for the points to tie in. The leather comes to just over the top of the cuisses. This helps for when you go down on your knees, the leather allows the legs to "ride" out a little and help reduce the strain and pull on your; a) back and b) pourpoint, while still maintaining protection to your upper legs.

The poupoint has no padding in the upper body and only a single layer of warm and natural cotton batting in the lower skirt. This helps to provide some strength in the place where the most strain will be exerted on the garment.

The heat issue... well, number one, this is an extremely active sport/martial art and we are going to sweat. Having said that, if you make your gambeson, pourpoint and shirt out of cotton or linen, as you sweat it will be wicked out and help to cool you off. Just make sure you keep WELL hydrated. Hope this helps.

Tryggvar-

There are several sources for explanations of the arming of a man in the 15th century - two in English (One the Hastings Manuscript James B. mentions, readily available in A&AoMK the other the Boedelian library manuscript mentioned by Cet, readily available in the back of Ffoulkes (which is useful for the appendices, and primary documents, even if the theories are very outdated) - nearly a decade earlier than the Hastings manuscript, and differing in detail). There is a teatise on Military costume in French dateing from roughly the same decade - 1446, which I believe at least glosses the subject.

Visually, there is the illumination accompanying the Hastings manuscript. There is a portugese Altarpeice with doners portraits who are kneeling in arming doublets (covered with brigandines, but with the arms exposed) and hosen from the 1480's. There is a tapestry dating to the 1450's or 60's depicting the archers of the Scottish archers of the guard in undress, guarding the louvre, in arming jackets. There is at leas one illumination by Loyset showing an off-duty soldier in an identical garment swilling wine at a table. I believe there is a tapestry in the Met showing the Arming of Hector (the armour is slightly fantastic, but the details of how it goes on should be kosher). These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure there are more out there.

For the 14th century, you are on your own.

chef de chambre wrote:There are several sources for explanations of the arming of a man in the 15th century - two in English (One the Hastings Manuscript James B. mentions, readily available in A&AoMK the other the Boedelian library manuscript mentioned by Cet, readily available in the back of Ffoulkes (which is useful for the appendices, and primary documents, even if the theories are very outdated) - nearly a decade earlier than the Hastings manuscript, and differing in detail). There is a teatise on Military costume in French dateing from roughly the same decade - 1446, which I believe at least glosses the subject.

Visually, there is the illumination accompanying the Hastings manuscript. There is a portugese Altarpeice with doners portraits who are kneeling in arming doublets (covered with brigandines, but with the arms exposed) and hosen from the 1480's. There is a tapestry dating to the 1450's or 60's depicting the archers of the Scottish archers of the guard in undress, guarding the louvre, in arming jackets. There is at leas one illumination by Loyset showing an off-duty soldier in an identical garment swilling wine at a table. I believe there is a tapestry in the Met showing the Arming of Hector (the armour is slightly fantastic, but the details of how it goes on should be kosher). These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure there are more out there.

For the 14th century, you are on your own.

You guys in the 15th century have it so easy.

Guy Dawkins wrote:

chef de chambre wrote:There are several sources for explanations of the arming of a man in the 15th century - two in English (One the Hastings Manuscript James B. mentions, readily available in A&AoMK the other the Boedelian library manuscript mentioned by Cet, readily available in the back of Ffoulkes (which is useful for the appendices, and primary documents, even if the theories are very outdated) - nearly a decade earlier than the Hastings manuscript, and differing in detail). There is a teatise on Military costume in French dateing from roughly the same decade - 1446, which I believe at least glosses the subject.

Visually, there is the illumination accompanying the Hastings manuscript. There is a portugese Altarpeice with doners portraits who are kneeling in arming doublets (covered with brigandines, but with the arms exposed) and hosen from the 1480's. There is a tapestry dating to the 1450's or 60's depicting the archers of the Scottish archers of the guard in undress, guarding the louvre, in arming jackets. There is at leas one illumination by Loyset showing an off-duty soldier in an identical garment swilling wine at a table. I believe there is a tapestry in the Met showing the Arming of Hector (the armour is slightly fantastic, but the details of how it goes on should be kosher). These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure there are more out there.

For the 14th century, you are on your own.

You guys in the 15th century have it so easy.

You would be surprised. I was reading an author the other day (in a recent text) considered fairly authoritative who made the claim the only depiction of an arming doublet was the Hastings manuscript illumination. Just made me shake my head.

I would not be at all sursprised if there was information out there from a 14th century source concerning the subject - in French or German. It just needs to be dug up - it might even be published in French or German, but us Anglophones may not know about it.

This is why languages other than English are important to re-enactors, and medievalists in general.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus

You are probably all aware of this but in case it is new to anyone:

A techniqie that I was shown which apparently works really well is to make yourself a thick belt (go for about 2 inches) and then create 'braces' for the shoulders to help hold them up. Therefore some weight goes on your hips and some on your shoulders.

This is all quite common. The difference is that you loop the braces over the opposite should to normal i.e. the left attachment on your belt goes over your right shoulder and vice versa.

Apparently this makes the armour much more comfortable and easier to carry as when you lift your leg the weight is transferred to the other shoulder over the leg that is still on the floor.

Am I making any sense?

(I have never tried this due to extreme laziness but I have been told that it works).

Noe, if you're still wondering about hanging later 14thc legs, I recommend trying an arming cotte with grande assiette arm construction and pointing your legs at hip level on the cotte. (Make the cotte tight across that area.)

Here are some examples from a recent thread on the Construction forum:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=42735

-Tasha