Aketon design

[cheval]

Gwen: "Cheval, you're saying the padded garment is worn -over- the mail? To me, it looks like it's either worn instead of mail or under mail."

This was my first conclusion, but others have brought forth evidence (Sersem, and at least one in the Mac) that depict a heavily quilted garment -- sleeveless or half-sleeved -- over the mail. With this, I am -eager- to concede that heavy padding was commonly worn over mail in the 13th C.; I just can't find substantive evidence that it was worn under mail prior to the 14th.

With respect to Sersem's and Marc Carlson's work, I am loathe to accept the definition for the garments (it does feel like we are splitting hairs on terminology) or the specific provenence of quilting -under- mail as commonplace in the 13th C. And Marc's description is of a 14th C. garment, which was the best distinction I have seen to date (gambeson >= 14th C., aketon <= 13th C.), though no more authoritative than many other suggestions I have seen.

I am intrigued by your interpretation of a two-piece "system"; one more lightly quilted with sleeves under a heavier, sleeveless quilted garment. It would certainly allow for a reasoned explanation of the detail of the shoulder "assembly" -- that, or they were insetting the sleeves outside-to-inside, vis-a-vis the body of the garment. Honestly, I was leaning toward this last, but I will have to get out my own Mac when it finally finds me in Holland and perform yet another careful analysis. In the one scene where the soldier is depicted donning his quilted armor, though, are the sleeves consistent with the idea of a single garment, or do they look like two garments already? I have to ask since I can't get to my Mac at the moment (buried under a ton of boxes in the garage).

Thanks to everyone for their contribution (though why a man wearing such ugly shoes would dismiss the idea of naked saxons in the Bayeaux is beyond me )... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 01-26-2003).]

[Anders Helseth]

Here is a little snippet on this topic written by Henk `t Jong on the 75 years list:

<B>"Henk 't Jong - tScapreel" <scapreel@t...>
Date: Fri Jun 1, 2001 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: [75years] Roman Continuation / leather under mail


Henk & Pauline 't Jong
tScapreel
Medieval Advisors
Dordrecht - Netherland


Hi guys,

Colin and Andy wrote:

> non-padded under-mail layers. We plainly have evidence for padded armours
> worn as outer layers throughout the 75 years period. So what on Earth is
> the reason to state that these are all-but "illegal" under mail before
> around 1300, then apparently popular afterwards? That, to me, seems like a
> nonsense.

We might not have much proof in pictures showing gambesons under mail before 1300 but there is written proof. Richard the Lionhearted received a 'alcottonem satis levem, nullo spiculo penetrabilem', a light silken aketon through which arrows did or could not penetrate from Saladin in 1190. I suppose he could have worn this singly, but he could also wear it under mail. Wolfram von Eschenback in his Willehalm (ca 1212) mentions a silk clad 'kollier' (padded
neck protector). Jean de Joinville took part in the 7th crusade (1270) with Louis IX and wore a 'gamboison d'estoupes', a padded jacket against the effect of arrows (which did not penetrate?)almost all the time. The inventory taken of the items left behind after the murder of count Floris V of Holland in 1296 mentions a 'wapenwardecors' a (padded) bodyprotector-armour worn
under the 'halsberg' or hauberk, which was made of cloth, not iron, as is clearly shown in the text. There are supposed to be instances of descriptions of cloth armour worn under mail (sorry guys: it's not 'chain'mail; that's a 19th c fallacy) in the 13th c Rules of both the Templars
and the Deutschritter. I have not got these, but somebody else on this list might have.(???)

Incidentally; my source, mrs. Zylstra-Zweens in 'Van weer en wapenen, 1250-1350'(1982) mentions the etymology of 'porpunt' middledutch for 'pourpoint' as: stitched through from middlefrench 'pourpoindre'. and 'wambuis' or 'gambeson' from 'filled with 'gambois' = hempfluff.


Cheers,

Henk </B>

Anders

[Anders Helseth]

Here is a little something I posted here some time ago:

Norwegian medieval sources on arms and armour from the 1250s to the turn of the century (Kings mirror, Hirdskraa) describe two different kinds of cloth armours.(Not in any precise way of course).

The first kind "vapntreyu" (literally: arming shirt) seems to be somewhat thinner as it is worn under other armour or on its own. The Kings mirror describes this armour as made of soft linen. The "panzari" (lit:armour) is worn on its own or over other amour. According to the laws it can be used instead of a mail shirt. A panzar can be sleeveless.


The Hirdskraa (Laws of the Kings retainers) (1276-1306) state:

Ein skutilsvæin hver scal eiga alla & fulla herneskíu. tat e fyzt spalldener eda vapntreiu, brynkollo, hialm eda
stalhufu, sværd & spiot, skiold vrugan (?) oc plato, all til tokr, er & bucklare oc eigi sidar annat hvart handboge eda lasboge

Quick translation from old Norse, words in roughly the same place:

"A knight each shall own all and full harness. That is first spalldener(?) or vapntreyu, mail coif, helm or kettlehat, sword and spear, vrugan(?) shield and coat of plates, all good, also a buckler and every other (..man..) bow or crossbow"


Some extra notes:

- the spalldener mentioned in the text might be a padded garment for the shoulder neck, area, from its etymological similarity to other types of shoulder defence.

- Regarding construction; forget the idea of pockets filled with stuffing. After severeal years of study, I have found no indications of this technique whatsoever. Besides it is flawed as protection and needlessly time-consuming to make (I know, have done it).

What the surviving examples show (and there are several in Gemany, not published in English) is that regardless of the type of stuffing, the stitches go _through_ the stuffing thus avoiding the problem of unprotected seams. In several instances the stuffing is so thick - 4cms - that when the thickness is compressed to about 2 cms in the seams, it looks like stuffed pockets. (these sleeveless examples can be seen in Zeitschrift für Waffen und Kostümkunde nr 1 1993)

Here is my ca 1310 interpretation of this whole mess (Yes, it is the 4.time I post this picture, somehow it seems to stay relevant)



Personally I am convinced they used multilayered construction much earlier than we think, but I have little in the way of sources to show for it. (well, except the Greeks of course, but then again that is a bit too old)

[Theodore]

Gwen,
I agree with you on the two garment assessment and think it continued into the 14th century. I've moved and haven't unpacked too many sources so some of this is from memory. In Ffoulkes page 105 a knight with a pigface bascinet appears to have a sleveless puorpoint with another garment under it providing arm protection. In addition, in Fashion in the age of the Black Prince(title?) one of the appendixes lists a "pourpoint cu vambraces" which would indicate that the vambraces are attached to a garment separate from the regular pourpoint that the legs are attached to. If set in sleaves don't show up before 1360 it seem likely that the two garment arrangement continued until then.

Theodore of Haddington

[Ernst]

Henk's references still do not indicate that padded armors were worn under mail before circa 1300. Richard the Lionheart's could be worn alone or over mail; in fact, an English assize of arms first mentioning the gambeson in 1187 allows it as a substitute for mail. Likewise for the examples cited for Wolfram and Joinville. In fact, Joinville makes reference to using lighter armors when wounded or exhausted and unable to bear the weight of a hauberk. Only in the account of the Count of Holland do we get literary evidence of the padding going under the mail, and this is dated to 1296. I agree that padding was worn under the mail by the early 14th century, but when did the transition occur? I believe before 1250 is too early for most documentation to support, but by the 1280's it is possibly hinted at being done. The French effigy from Osprey is an excellent example. It is "13th century", but is that 1220 or 1295? Just as in the case with 15th century armors, 40 years can make quite a difference.

Cheval suggests we are splitting hairs on terminology. Many scholars suggest one armor may be over while the other under armor, but by the 1320's in England, the words "gambeson" and "aketon" are interchangable. Most of my sources relate gambeson=wambais from wamba=belly. Likewise aketon=algoddin=al qutun or "cotton". It could be that Northern European padded armors made with tow, wool, or hemp fluff were known as gambesons, while armors employing cotton batting were aketons.

Concerning the Maciejowski images -- and I fear from recent threads we rely too much on the MB and Bayeaux while ignoring other contemporary sources -- gambesons over mail are seen at fo.10r on a downed knight. This figue has a red surcoat (no stitching lines visible) over a dagged, half-sleeved blue gambeson (stitching in rows clearly seen) over mail. Likewise, in fo.10v the shield-man protecting the crossbow-man has a sleeveless gambeson over mail. I attribute the heavy line at the sleeve join to several factors. First, the work follows artistic style from mural and stained glass work. Second, I believe the sleeves were quilted before sewing them onto the body, creating a noticable join. The rolling of thick material to make hems and seams can be seen in fo. 10r as well. The falling figure in the green gambeson at the left has noticable rolls at the bottom hems of the sleeves, while the figure with the red gambeson shows a siilar hump at the shoulder. These occur when rolling or hemming pre-quilted pieces. As has been noted, the figure in fo. 3v carrying a gambeson seems to indicate integral sleeves.

On the issue of collars, I think Gwen's point of no collared civilian garments is important. Likewise many have noted the often shown different color of the collar. (I might add that there are no depictions of a differing color sleeve.) Also, other contemporary sources mention gorgets renforced with various materials. In general though, I am in agreement with Steve that collars might have been in one piece, although I would change the qualifier to "possibly" rather than "probably".

As a final note, and one sure to draw flak, I still disagree with Anders statement that we should "forget the idea of pockets filled with stuffing" as a method of making such an armor. The argument that such a construction offers no protection at the seam seems odd. What protection did the hauberk offer in the middle of the ring? (Hint - two less layers of cloth.) Such a method is still used to make some protective equipment like hockey gloves or cricket gear. It is commonly used to stuff pillows. I am not saying that it WAS done, only that it is easily done. There is simply not enough evidence for 13th century armor to say it was never used as a technique in my view, and the language of "stuffing" is too imprecise. As in that wonderful line from "Lord of the Rings", "Much has been forgotten.."

[Gwen]

Anders, your information is BRILLIANT!! This is exactly the sort of solid evidence I was looking for. I freely admit I'm a stickler for knowing what contemporary evidence there is and you've provided it.

Your documentation of the "vapntreyu" and "panzari" are well in line with the "gambeson" and "aketon" arrangement put forth by sersem. There is no standardization in naming of clothing, so I don't expect to find any in the references to body protection, especially when we're talking about several languages. The idea is clearly the same though, and I'm convinced.

Henk provides contemporary evidence from Wolfram von Eschenback for a separate padded collar, which backs up what I see in the Mac. It just occured to me that I should look closely at the Manessa Codex to see what I can see in it, even though it is very crude. Out of curiosity, do the German examples of padded body defenses have attached collars?

BTW, if you have evidence of the Greeks using a layered defense, then it being used 1100-1300 shows a clear tradition of this type of armour.

I cannot thank you enough for your contributions!!!!!!

Gwen, who never thought she'd ever be so interested in armour stuff!!

Edited to add the following thoughts on "stuffing":

When hand sewing, it is actually quite easy to quilt though the padding material, and in doing so create a uniform thickness to the wadding. It is very difficult to stuff a long thin tube evenly, and the results of using this technique is very lumpy and uneven. There is a long history of clothing construction (and this padded armour seems to be more closely related to clothing than the metal armour which follows) in which the padding material is quilted through, rather than stuffed into channels or other pockets. Like the collar issue, I have to look around at what is being done contemporaneously as well as the tradition from which the technique is derived. Quilting through as opposed to post-stitching stuffing has many advantages which cannot be ignored:

• Easier and faster to do
• More uniform coverage
• No "dead spots" in the stitching area
• Less strain on the stitching itself
• Stitching through anchors the padding material in place preventing shifting during wear
• Stitching through anchors the padding material in place in the event of exterior fabric cut through. If the outside fabric of a stuffed channel is cut through, the wadding will fall out as there is nothing to hold it in. If the wadding is stitched through it will stay in place and continue to provide protection.

If this is the way the few extant ones are fabricated, I would be more inclined to follow that example until better or more conclusive evidence to the contrary came along. If we were suddenly to find a garment fragment that was stuffed instead of quilted through, or if a text describing stuffing were to come to light then I would certainly add that weight to the body of evidence.

For the moment however, there is a clear tradition in many cultures (Chinese, Mongolian, Italian, etc.) of quilting through rather than stuffing, and slightly later helmet liners which are fabricated by the quilted through rather than stuffed method. Here again we have some continuity of a fabrication method which, in my view, is pretty compelling.

Just my way of looking at things, your mileage may vary.


[This message has been edited by Gwen (edited 01-26-2003).]

[sersem]

2Ernst: I've found a Metropolitan museum photos of those effigy.

Tomb Effigy of Jean d'Alluye, mid-13th century

But, unfoturnately, these photos has unsuccessful foreshortening.

[Anders Helseth]

<B> Ernst wrote:
I still disagree with Anders statement that we should "forget the idea of pockets filled with stuffing" as a method of making such an armor. The argument that such a construction offers no protection at the seam seems odd. </B>

Well, the modern "stuffed pocket" cloth armours I have seen only have stuffing in the pockets. This means that directly underneath the stitching and a couple of millimeters to each side, there is nothing but the shell fabric to stop an incoming blade or arrow. In the world I live in 2-4 layers of linen hardly stops anything. Are we perhaps speaking of different things?

<B>
Such a method is still used to make some protective equipment like hockey gloves or cricket gear. It is commonly used to stuff pillows. </B>

Yes, against blunt objects such a construction gives excellent protection. It is the sharp and pointy things that give you trouble. If they hit you in or near the stitching (say 25% of the surface area, if your pockets/channels are 4cms wide) they would pass right through.

Your mail might take care of the sharpness and pointyness, but at least in the Norwegian sources the "vapntreyu" is also used as stand-alone armour, without any differentiation being made from those "vapntreyu" destined to be worn underneath something.

A pocket construction might also work very well for padding your helmet, so I am not saying it is right out. But as stand-alone armour I do not believe in it.


<B>
There is simply not enough evidence for 13th century armor to say it was never used as a technique in my view, and the language of "stuffing" is too imprecise. </B>

I can only agree with you here. On a theoretical level we cannot deny the existence of _anything_. There is no such thing as negative proof in archeology or history. We can really only discuss probabilities. I apologise for careless wording on my part.

As in that wonderful line from "Lord of the Rings", "Much has been forgotten.."

Amen.

...but would this game be fun if we had all the answers?

Gwen: Nice that you liked the info, armour is fun isnt it? I will check on the collars by tomorrow. Oh, and read my first post on this thread (regarding in-set sleeves) again. Stella Mary Newton does not have all the answers either.

All the best,

Anders

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ernst:
I attribute the heavy line at the sleeve join to several factors. First, the work follows artistic style from mural and stained glass work. Second, I believe the sleeves were quilted before sewing them onto the body, creating a noticable join. The rolling of thick material to make hems and seams can be seen in fo. 10r as well. The falling figure in the green gambeson at the left has noticable rolls at the bottom hems of the sleeves, while the figure with the red gambeson shows a siilar hump at the shoulder. These occur when rolling or hemming pre-quilted pieces. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I agree with you that finishing hems or seaming prequilted pieces would necessarily produce a "hump". Typically you would not "roll" the batting, but wrap the fabric around the batting, or add a strip of fabric binding to cover the edge for a hem.

Seams in period were often not the typical seam we use while sewing a modern machine. From archeological finds, is just as likely for them to use butted seams or overlaped seams to finish a garment, and those would be more likely given the bulk of the materials and would not leave a particularly bulky roll. In garments that do not have inset sleeves that are a basic tunic, or tunic w/gussests pattern, there will be a natural roll of fabric when someone has their arms at rest.

Juliana

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
Seams in period were often not the typical seam we use while sewing a modern machine. From archeological finds, is just as likely for them to use butted seams or overlaped seams to finish a garment, and those would be more likely given the bulk of the materials and would not leave a particularly bulky roll. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forgot to mention that I did a set of test sample seams and finishing examples for a class on hand sewing techniques for garment construction from archeological finds, and many of the overlapped seams were extremely strong.

Juliana

[Russ Mitchell]

Would anybody be willing to post their references for this discussion? I am still in the early phases of rebuilding my library at all, let alone a library for this topic.

I do, otoh, have access to a very good ILL service...

Much appreciated in advance.
-Russ

[Gwen]

Stella Mary Newton does not have all the answers"

Good lord, do any of us??

it's fun to kick all the facts around though, isn't it?

Gwen, back to remaking this "aketon" because now it looks all WRONG!!!

[Ernst]

I shall attempt to respond to several views, so please bear with me.

Gwen,
I am unsure that sewing long, straight, parallel lines in two layers of fabric by hand is any harder than quilting. To quilt through the batting, one needs a quilting frame and rather large room. This facilitates multiple seamstresses working on one piece simultaneously. For an individual working alone, using a flat stick, like a yardstick between layers, to evenly space lines is no worse than cartridge pleating around a dowel. But my experience is limited to watching older women work, and I realize medieval cloth tended to be narrower.

Sersem,
I regret that these are two different effigies. I am unable to see a gambeson at the neckline on your more recent online source. I do not see quilted gambeson sleeves where the mail mittens are thrown back, nor do I see evidence of a gambeson beneath the skirt. As far as I can tell, this newest link still gives no evidence of a gambeson under mail around 1250.

Anders,

You have noted that "2-4 layers of linen hardly stops anything." My point is that the air in the middle of a mail ring protects less. Likewise, I doubt a single line of stitching by a 40mm channel of stuffing will leave anything as large as 25% of the surface vulnerable. Perhaps 5-10% is a more likely figure. How does this compare to the percentage of holes to metal in a hauberk? No armor is invulnerable or impenetrable, so the question becomes does the reduction in personal injury provided by the armor outweigh the cost and inconvienence of wearing it? Do 2 layers of linen offer adequate protection from a chance crossbow bolt? Do 2 layers with some cotton or tow stitched between them really offer that much more?

FrauHirsch,

I greatly apprecate your knowledge and study concerning fabrics and fashion. Clearly, you don't think my view holds much water. Therefore I ask your opinion (and not trying to be cynical in any way), what do you believe best explains the "roll" at the end of the half sleeve on the green gambeson, or at the shoulder of the red gambeson toward the left of this miniature?

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/image/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10ra&b.gif

I certainly don't want to fight the whole world, since I am in agreement with many of you, and far more ignorant of historic evidence than others. Still, there are some forums where one is laughed off the board for suggesting that no gambeson under mail was worn in the 12th century. Sometimes the dissenting view is needed to promote thought.

[Gwen]

Uummmm, Ernst, I'm really not sure you understand the process of stitching a padded garment, although you seem to understand the method of making a quilt pretty well. Keep in mind that a quilt is a great big thing, many times larger than a garment. 3 of us worked together to stitch the aketon we made. Once the initial stitching was done we laid it out flat on a table and worked on it together. There was no frame, and we were working in an area only slightly larger than the 4' X 8' sheet of plywood my worktable is made of. One of my ladies quilted the small parts like the collar and gussets while sitting in a chair, and I finished the thing while sitting on the couch in my study. It didn't need to be flat through most of the process, and it definitely did not need to be stretched on a frame. Construction really wasn't any big deal, it was just time consuming.

As for the argument that
"the air inside a [mail] ring doesn't protect anything", it seems that you miss what makes mail work. The open area in the middle of the ring is so small that it is difficult for even a bodkin arrowhead to penetrate, and joined rings present a technically solid surface to a cut.

I'll let Juliana respond to your questions regarding her answer, but the line you see as a 'roll' at the edges of the garment's sleeves and hem look like they could just as easily be the fabric from one side brought over the edge and stitched down. I don't see a "hump", and knowing how other medieval clothing remains are stitched, folding pre-quilted fabric over on itself seems unlikely.

Gwen

[Ernst]

Gwen,

I did forget to respond to your earlier query concerning gambeson collars in the Manesse. Although this is closer to 1300+ in date, these gambesons do appear to have collars; interestingly enough, the stitching lines on these run vertically like the rest of the gambeson.

http://www.tempora-nostra.de/manesse/img/092.jpg

is somewhat obscured beneath the gown, but the castle defender here is more clear:

http://www.tempora-nostra.de/manesse/img/075.jpg

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gwen:
<B>I'll let Juliana respond to your questions regarding her answer, but the line you see as a 'roll' at the edges of the garment's sleeves and hem look like they could just as easily be the fabric from one side brought over the edge and stitched down. I don't see a "hump", and knowing how other medieval clothing remains are stitched, folding pre-quilted fabric over on itself seems unlikely.

Gwen</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gwen,

That is exactly what I was thinking.

Ernst,

I can't open that link right now, maybe too many folks are accessing it, but I'll let you know when I can see it later on today.

Juliana

[Anders Helseth]

<B>
Ernst wrote:
You have noted that "2-4 layers of linen hardly stops anything." My point is that the air in the middle of a mail ring protects less. Likewise, I doubt a single line of stitching by a 40mm channel of stuffing will leave anything as large as 25% of the surface vulnerable. Perhaps 5-10% is a more likely figure. How does this compare to the percentage of holes to metal in a hauberk? </B>

I think you need to reconsider this comparison. The holes in a proper mail garment is not big enough for anything but needles to go through without spending a lot of its energy penetrating. Bodkins are not that small, or mail rings in general that big.

<B>

Do 2 layers with some cotton or tow stitched between them really offer that much more?

</B>


The german cloth armours I am referring to do not contain _some_ cotton or tow. They are according to the paper (my translation from german) "stuffed so tight the author was not able to pierce it with a needle". They are 4cms thick (yes, read that again), 2cms at the seams and quite stiff. To me it seems they would function rather well as stand-alone protection.

As to the collars on them, I forgot to check, but as they are mid-15century I believe that is irrelevant to our discussion.

[lorenzo2]

I have found the historical portions of this thread really interesting. However, I have found myself wondering if there might be some additional practical benefit to stuffing a padded garment intended to be worn under armor after sewing the tubes besides protection. The benefit would be accelerated heat loss through the portions of the garment with only two layers of cloth and no padding. If one regards the padded garment worn under armor as padding only, not as additional protection against penetration, then any way of dissipating heat would be a major plus. Anyone with practical experience in this matter of fighting in a padded under armor garment with pocket vs. through quilted stuffing?

[Steve S.]

I can tell you from experience what it is like to wear the tube-style. I have a fully hand-sewn gambeson made of linen, with tubes "stuffed" by pulling long, rolled tubes of cotton batting through them. This has the advantage in that the stuffing cannot "settle". The ends of the stuffing-tubes have been tacked down so that they cannot pull back from the end of the tube they are stuffed into.

When seated on top of a horse, one can very appreciably feel the breeze blow through the seams in the garment. It's very refreshing!

I have not worn a gambeson made with true quilted layers of fabric, so I cannot comment to what that feels like.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
Highly authentic, affordable riveted maille.

The measure of a man is not in the steel of his skin but in the steel of his heart. - S. Sheldon

[Steve S.]

Ernst:

Thanks for finding the examples of gambesons with integral collars!

I have to say I'm not surprised, but I'm glad to have convincing evidence, too.

Steve

[Ernst]

I suppose I should add that my gambeson was made by quilting through the batting in the "approved method", having been hand-sewn by my mother while my wife did the tailoring from a less-than-perfect "Period Patterns". I mention this to help show that I am not held captive by the intellectual concept of stuffing, but consider it a viable alternative.

In discussing this thread with my wife over lunch, it became clear to me that we really don't have a clear understanding of how these armors worked. Many claims that these armors exist to absorb impact, which mail was susceptible to transmitting to the wearer, neglect the fact that the earliest evidence like the Mac Bible, or the Morgan Beatus Liebana of c.1220, or the mace-wielder from the Catalonian Beatus BN New Aq. Lat. 2290 wear their gambesons over mail. Even literary sources from the Conquistador period seem to suggest these armors exist from the need to defend against missle weapons.

Are the 40mm thick armors padded or indeed layered like a jack? The writings on padded armors seem to stress "loose" cotton, or "soft" linen.

It also seems my link to the figures in folio 10 is not working, but any on-line Mac Bible should provide a number of examples of this roll (or cuff, or hem) on the bottom of un-dagged half-sleeves.

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ernst:
IIt also seems my link to the figures in folio 10 is not working, but any on-line Mac Bible should provide a number of examples of this roll (or cuff, or hem) on the bottom of un-dagged half-sleeves. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The roll could be a cuff, and just rolled back by the wearer. It is quite loose and that is a possibility.

The shoulders on the other hand look to me like the sleeves are either attached to an undergarment and coming out of the armscyes of a sleeveless over garment, or they could be tied or laced inside the garment. The other ones similarly show a gap. Clearly they are not attached at the edge of the overgarment, but they could be attached within the armscye a few inches or be part of an undergarment. Both would acheive that look.

What it doesn't look like to me is like the sleeves are sewn to the body garment in a thick roll.

The different color around the edges of the shoulder seam suggests a binding to me.

Course this is just my opinion, but I have made several jacks with the sleeves separate and laced them in and it does create an edge like that at the shoulder.

Juliana

[cheval]

Juliana: "The shoulders on the other hand look to me like the sleeves ... could be tied or laced inside the garment."

I'm liking this one more and more. The idea of the sleeves attached to a seperate undergarment doesn't work for me in light of the fact that this same effect is depicted with mail. For this to work, the mail would have to be sleeveless, which we know it was not.

I'm certainly leaning toward a non-or-lightly-quilted undergarment, and the idea of a high and non-or-lightly-quilted collar to prevent chafing from the gorget is equally attractive (with the prevalence of the "dog collar" gorget in the 13th C., though, I don't think padding the garment collar is necessary -- the gorget itself can be padded). The only problem I have with the idea of the high collar is the same as Gwen's -- in the absence of examples on civilian garb, it's hard to provenence. Remember, this needs to be a pull-over garment, and a collar would necessarily need fastenings to work. Without evidence of fastenings, I'm not sure we can even successfully speculate on the existence of a seperate, attached collar in any case.

I especially like the idea of tying the sleeves off at several points around the "seam", but I've yet to see anything that resembles points. My first guess is that they were permanently attached, even if they were not attached completely around (allowing for the gaps Juliana mentions). With detachable sleeves, however, one could effect both the half-sleeved and sleeveless aketon look with a single garment (wardrobe economy, in this case).

Thanks to all for the wonderful posts and references!

-cheval-

[Marshal]

This is a fascinating thread!

With regard to the "breathability" premise as support for the stuffing method, I must say that I have not had any problems with my haqueton made via quilting, linen stuffed with about 3 fingers of cotton. But even assuming the tube method were cooler, I am still a bit dubious that anyone who was wearing one of these when his life might be on the line would place a higher value on comfort than protection. That seems to me to be an instance of our modern sport attitudes intruding into an historical question. We don't have to worry about being killed on the battlefield, and we can afford to address other priorities than the ability to stop sharp pointy things...but could our ancestors?

[Ernst]

I think we are actually in close agreement on how the sleeve might be attached. I conceive the front and back might be of one long piece, or the shoulder seam would have been straight rather than sloped. It seems surcoats of this time have a "square shoulder" look to them as well. In fact many scholars believe some sort of stiffening was beneath the shoulders to gain this appearance. The lower half must need be flared to obtain the folds often seen above the belt, and I believe this would be obtained by gores running from the arm pit to the bottom. It seems that the sleeve was sewn in after the arms-eye was finished. My point here being that a double thick layer of padding exists at this point forming a "bulge".

Looking through other examples, Goliath's gamboised cuisses have a "roll" at the bottom, and the guard to the Nebuchadnezzar's right in the Morgan MS 429 also has the roll at the end of the sleeve. The line appears rather far away for binding or bias tape. (The MS 429 example is in Osprey's "El Cid..." on p.13 for those who have this source available.)

This "roll" or "cuff" is never found at the bottom hem of a gambeson as far as I have seen -- an interesting omission I suppose.

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>I especially like the idea of tying the sleeves off at several points around the "seam", but I've yet to see anything that resembles points.
-cheval-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 16th c sleeves, they use lacing strips on the inside of the armsye of the body garment, the sleeve then laces tightly to the lacing strip most of the way around, the points or ties do not show at all. The points end up "hidden". I have no provinance for this nor the "under garment", both would acheive the same effect visually which seems to be all we have to go by.

If you think about it, the laced on sleeves would be a logical precursor for inset sleeves.

Juliana

[FrauHirsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ernst:
[B]I It seems that the sleeve was sewn in after the arms-eye was finished. My point here being that a double thick layer of padding exists at this point forming a "bulge".
B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see what I would term a "bulge".

Juliana

[Gwen]

Is there any evidence -at all- for a laced on sleeve this early??? The earliest I can think of is about mid 15th C., and what we're talking about is about 200 years earlier than that.

I think laced on sleeves on garment of this period is a pretty huge leap of faith that few scholars would countenance. If you want to get an approximation of the look in a costume it might work OK.

Gwen

[Anders Helseth]

Ernst:

No, in this case the filling is positively identified as cotton fibre.

Based on that, I would not classify them as jacks, although they look quite similar.

On the subject of multi-layer construction, I have a pet theory on multilayered garments being in use earlier than what is usually thought, but that is a matter for a separate discussion.

Funny, that you have have made a stitched-through version; I spent almost 100 hours making a stuffed-pocket one!

My doubts on its usefulness as stand-alone armour is partly based on its performance.

[This message has been edited by Anders Helseth (edited 01-29-2003).]

[lorenzo2]

Several people have commented that the stuffed pocket garment would offer less protection than the through sewn version. I agree. Stuffed pocket garments are for padding underneath armor not as stand alone armor. Apparently they don't work very well as exterior armor and so I can't imagine them being worn that way. However, I am still thinking that we are seeing two different garments in sources like the Mac Bible, one for outside wear for protection and one for under armor padding. Furthermore, it seems likely to me that there would have to be a padded garment beneath the metal armor even in those cases when a quilted garment is worn on top of the metal armor. In this case in particular the added heat removal of a pocket stuffed interior garment would be a definite advantage. I believe that we have all had the experience that being overheated causes a major reduction in fighting ability and therefore garment construction had to make allowances for this condition.

[Christopher Anselm]

Is this an Aketon?

[img]http://www.printroom.com/_vti_bin/ViewImage.dll?userid=forttusken2001&album_id=129481&image_id=0¶m=72237[/img]

I am making an arming coat to wear under a brig and I am going to quilt it with cotton batting between layers of trigger cloth. Is this a reasonably period garment for late 14th early 15th century?

I used to think a gambeson was not worn under armor but from this discussion I am confused about the correct terminology.

So here are all the terms I have heard can we define the time periods and what and how they were worn?

Aketon
Jupon
Gambeson
Arming Coat
Jack



------------------
Christopher Anselm of Windsor

Windsor Armoury
http://members.aol.com/WindsorArmoury/

[Red Simon]

I was looking at the pictures and thinking of why the sleeve would be attached that way. It occurs to me that that point of the shoulder is an obvious target for someone striking at a person and would also be eligible to be hit if a blow is deflected off a helm. Would it then not be prudent to make sure there is ample protection in that area?

My guess is, the sleeve is sewn to the body in such a way that there is no visible seam where the sleeves attach. One way to do this would be to make a sort of double stitch, so there would be two layers of padding around the seam.

On the subject of the means of padding or stuffing a coat like that, I think one should also take into consideration the increased cost of a garment that has several layers of cloth, which has to be woven and is expensive, in relation to just two layers of cloth with loose material, which can be found most anywhere on campaign and is much cheaper.

There is also the possibility that a garment was padded first, then sewn through. Wool, for instance, could be felted lightly so that it forms a semi-uniform padding layer and then sewn between two layers of cloth.

At the moment, I am making a gambeson out of two layers of cotton with several layers of cotton batting in between. I will see about taking pictures of the result and posting them here.

Red Simon.

[Jurgen]

I have a dim memory of a discussion with(if I remember correctly) Bob Charron a number of years ago. It was a discussion about some of the chronicles of the Crusades. He talked about a non-combat encounter between the two sides where one of the individuals involved was wearing a mail shirt sewn completely inside a cloth coverning. This individual ended up cutting it open with a knife in the encounter to show that he was in fact armoured. That's all I remember about the discussion. I wish I knew what the source was, I'd be intrigued to see if there is any other discussion about this garment.

Jurgen

[sersem]

Ooops.

[This message has been edited by sersem (edited 01-30-2003).]

[Ernst]

The effigy of Jeand'Alluye is frm the abbey of la Clarte-Dieu, north of Tours, and now resides at the Cloisters in New York.

Osprey identifies the photo in its book as being from Ouville l'Abbaye, now residing in the Musee des Antiquities, Rouen.

Are you suggesting that a padded garment worn under a hauberk would protect the torso, but not the full length of the arm?