Hello all!
I'm looking to do a series of tests late this year on mid-13th century armour using a replica of the Waterford Bow and a moderately powerful longbow (~80lbs @ 30") that I think is representative of the period. I've been doing a lot of research on what armour would have been worn and how it was constructed but, apart from the Sleeve of St. Martin and the Haseley Knight, there seems to be little evidence of padded garments under mail in this period. Almost everything seems to point towards either an ordinary tunic or one with two external components, and the same goes for surcoats. Is there any evidence that the tunic worn under mail ornament surcoat worn over mail might have had one or more layers of wool or linen sewn, but not quilted, between the shell layers?
How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Moderator: Glen K
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
-
Gerhard von Liebau
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4942
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:34 pm
- Location: Dinuba, CA
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Jonathan, welcome to the Armour Archive!
You've opened a can of worms with this one, because something that has been taken for granted for decades is that by the 13th century mail hauberks were almost always worn over aketons. It would be great to compile what evidence there is to swing both ways, because you'll find that this is a hot issue of debate!
However, there is reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise in particular circumstances, such as images from the Maciejowski Bible (c. 1250) that show hauberks being used over tunics. There are several images showing the lower edge of tunics below the aketons which I won't bother with, because these two are much more obvious:
Removing a hauberk
Putting on a hauberk
The mid-13th century effigy of Jean d'Alluye reveals the sleeves of the garment worn under his hauberk because the mittens are pulled back. The otherwise detailed carving suggests that there are no quilt lines in the fabric of the sleeves (i.e. it's a tunic):
Jean d'Alluye
A German manuscript c. 1240 shows a warrior wearing mail over a green tunic, despite the fact that he also wears gamboised (padded) cuisses over his thighs:
Massacre of the Innocents
At the same time, there is also evidence that knights did wear aketons beneath hauberks throughout the 13th century. I can immediately cite some English effigies that reveal the lower portion of the aketons beneath the mail around the legs:
Sir Robert de Vere (1221)
Sir William Marmion (1276)
Sir Richard de Crupes (1278)
You've opened a can of worms with this one, because something that has been taken for granted for decades is that by the 13th century mail hauberks were almost always worn over aketons. It would be great to compile what evidence there is to swing both ways, because you'll find that this is a hot issue of debate!
However, there is reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise in particular circumstances, such as images from the Maciejowski Bible (c. 1250) that show hauberks being used over tunics. There are several images showing the lower edge of tunics below the aketons which I won't bother with, because these two are much more obvious:
Removing a hauberk
Putting on a hauberk
The mid-13th century effigy of Jean d'Alluye reveals the sleeves of the garment worn under his hauberk because the mittens are pulled back. The otherwise detailed carving suggests that there are no quilt lines in the fabric of the sleeves (i.e. it's a tunic):
Jean d'Alluye
A German manuscript c. 1240 shows a warrior wearing mail over a green tunic, despite the fact that he also wears gamboised (padded) cuisses over his thighs:
Massacre of the Innocents
At the same time, there is also evidence that knights did wear aketons beneath hauberks throughout the 13th century. I can immediately cite some English effigies that reveal the lower portion of the aketons beneath the mail around the legs:
Sir Robert de Vere (1221)
Sir William Marmion (1276)
Sir Richard de Crupes (1278)
-
Gerhard von Liebau
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4942
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:34 pm
- Location: Dinuba, CA
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Interestingly, we can even go into the early-14th century and find examples that might show hauberks being worn over tunics. This French effigy of Lord Haymon (c. 1300 clearly shows a quilted sleeve beneath the gambeson:
Lord Haymon
While this highly detailed Italian effigy from 1309 shows plain sleeves beneath the hauberk:
Carlo II d'Angiò
And here Heinrich I von Hesse (c. 1325) is shown both with and without armour, but the same unquilted sleeves with buttons appear in both his civil and martial dress:
Heinrich I von Hesse
Lord Haymon
While this highly detailed Italian effigy from 1309 shows plain sleeves beneath the hauberk:
Carlo II d'Angiò
And here Heinrich I von Hesse (c. 1325) is shown both with and without armour, but the same unquilted sleeves with buttons appear in both his civil and martial dress:
Heinrich I von Hesse
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
not to mention "aketon over maille", which is also plausibly documentable.
pain heals
chicks dig scars
glory lasts forever
chicks dig scars
glory lasts forever
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
There are numerous pieces of evidence for textile armor in the 13th century, and also in the late 12th century. Most are literary sources. Some mention textile armors worn in place of mail, some mention textile armors worn in conjunction with mail (without always specifying whether it's above or beneath the mail), and some specify the location in relation to the mail. A few sources mention construction methods or materials.
1180-1190 Aliscans
The baron throws it with great force
and it tears the brilliant hauberk (hauberc)
and pierces the aketon (auketon)
it even tears the vermilion gown (ciglaton)
and pierces the chest as far as the lungs.
1195 Itinerary of Richard I
Armatus quidem erat more peditum
satis competenter, ferreo tegmine capite munito; lorica
quoque, tunica etiam linea multiplici consuta, lineis
interioribus difficile penetrandis, acu operante artificialiter
implicitis; unde et vulgo perpunctum nuneupatur.
Also there were well armed infantry, with armored iron helmets on their heads,
also hauberks, tunics with multiple, sewn lines, the linen
interior difficult to penetrate, with widespread needlework,
which are commonly known as pourpoints.
1220-1230 Diu Crône
When the time came the following morning for every man to get ready for the tournament, many were plainly concerned with the contests ahead, because they dressed slowly and with care. They put on mail chausses (hosen), knee cops (schellier) over them, then a gambeson (wambeis) and a collar (collier). They had to have a hauberk (halsperc), of course, and two or three squires to tie on the coif (coifen) and arrange the armor (wâfen) so that it fit well. After that they needed a plate in front of their chest (vür die brüst ein blat): they had to have one in the arena since it was very useful in a joust. After everything was covered by a gambeson (wambeis) or a silk surcoat (wâfenroc sîdîn), they were indeed dressed like knights.
c. 1230 Chanson de Gaydon
3098 Ferraus s'arma sus en palais plennier:
3099 Les chauces lace sus espérons d'ormier;
3100 Auqueton et d'un drap de soie chier;
3101 Deseure vest .1. bon hauberc doublier,
3102 Fort, et tenant, et merveilles legier.
Feraud armed himself in a plenary palace
The chausses laced with spurs of pure gold added;
Aketon and a cover of costly silk;
and over he put on 1 good double hauberk,
Strong, and holding fast, and marvelously made.
5882 Sor .1. tapis ont armé Savari.
5883 Les chauces chauce, onques meillors ne vi,
5884 Espérons ot qui sont à or burni,
5885 .I. auqueton ot de Roie vesti,
5886 Puis vest l'auberc, qui fu fais à Châmbli.
5887 Cuirie ot bonne qui fu de cuir boilli,
5888 Cote à armer d'un dyaspre gaydi.
5889 Le hiaume lace, qui très bien li séi,
On a Savoy(?) carpet he armed.
The close-fitting chausses, better are not seen,
Spurs that are of polished gold,
Dressed in 1 aketon had of the King,
And then put on the hauberk, which was from Chambly.
A Cuirie that is good which was of cuir bouilli,
A coat of arms with cheerful, scattered decor.
The helm laced, which was very well his own,
c. 1250 King's Mirror/Speculum Regale/Konungs-skuggsjá
Above and next to the body he should wear a soft gambeson (blautan panzara), which need not come lower than to the middle of the thigh. Over this he must have good breast-plates (góðar brjóstbjörg) made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt ; outside this, a well-made hauberk (góðar brynju) and over the hauberk (brynju) a good gambeson (góðan panzara) made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves.
1298 Chronicon Colmariense
Armati reputabantur, qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream, id est vestem ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.
Thus considered armed, that he had an iron helm on his head, and his gambeson, that is, a thick tunic made out of linen and tow, or sewn with old rags, and above an iron shirt, that is a garment woven together of iron rings, through which no man was able to wound with the arrows of bows.
1180-1190 Aliscans
The baron throws it with great force
and it tears the brilliant hauberk (hauberc)
and pierces the aketon (auketon)
it even tears the vermilion gown (ciglaton)
and pierces the chest as far as the lungs.
1195 Itinerary of Richard I
Armatus quidem erat more peditum
satis competenter, ferreo tegmine capite munito; lorica
quoque, tunica etiam linea multiplici consuta, lineis
interioribus difficile penetrandis, acu operante artificialiter
implicitis; unde et vulgo perpunctum nuneupatur.
Also there were well armed infantry, with armored iron helmets on their heads,
also hauberks, tunics with multiple, sewn lines, the linen
interior difficult to penetrate, with widespread needlework,
which are commonly known as pourpoints.
1220-1230 Diu Crône
When the time came the following morning for every man to get ready for the tournament, many were plainly concerned with the contests ahead, because they dressed slowly and with care. They put on mail chausses (hosen), knee cops (schellier) over them, then a gambeson (wambeis) and a collar (collier). They had to have a hauberk (halsperc), of course, and two or three squires to tie on the coif (coifen) and arrange the armor (wâfen) so that it fit well. After that they needed a plate in front of their chest (vür die brüst ein blat): they had to have one in the arena since it was very useful in a joust. After everything was covered by a gambeson (wambeis) or a silk surcoat (wâfenroc sîdîn), they were indeed dressed like knights.
c. 1230 Chanson de Gaydon
3098 Ferraus s'arma sus en palais plennier:
3099 Les chauces lace sus espérons d'ormier;
3100 Auqueton et d'un drap de soie chier;
3101 Deseure vest .1. bon hauberc doublier,
3102 Fort, et tenant, et merveilles legier.
Feraud armed himself in a plenary palace
The chausses laced with spurs of pure gold added;
Aketon and a cover of costly silk;
and over he put on 1 good double hauberk,
Strong, and holding fast, and marvelously made.
5882 Sor .1. tapis ont armé Savari.
5883 Les chauces chauce, onques meillors ne vi,
5884 Espérons ot qui sont à or burni,
5885 .I. auqueton ot de Roie vesti,
5886 Puis vest l'auberc, qui fu fais à Châmbli.
5887 Cuirie ot bonne qui fu de cuir boilli,
5888 Cote à armer d'un dyaspre gaydi.
5889 Le hiaume lace, qui très bien li séi,
On a Savoy(?) carpet he armed.
The close-fitting chausses, better are not seen,
Spurs that are of polished gold,
Dressed in 1 aketon had of the King,
And then put on the hauberk, which was from Chambly.
A Cuirie that is good which was of cuir bouilli,
A coat of arms with cheerful, scattered decor.
The helm laced, which was very well his own,
c. 1250 King's Mirror/Speculum Regale/Konungs-skuggsjá
Above and next to the body he should wear a soft gambeson (blautan panzara), which need not come lower than to the middle of the thigh. Over this he must have good breast-plates (góðar brjóstbjörg) made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt ; outside this, a well-made hauberk (góðar brynju) and over the hauberk (brynju) a good gambeson (góðan panzara) made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves.
1298 Chronicon Colmariense
Armati reputabantur, qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream, id est vestem ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.
Thus considered armed, that he had an iron helm on his head, and his gambeson, that is, a thick tunic made out of linen and tow, or sewn with old rags, and above an iron shirt, that is a garment woven together of iron rings, through which no man was able to wound with the arrows of bows.
Last edited by Ernst on Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
And cut whole from another, earlier posting -
There is this late 13th century French regulation, with translation attempt by Konstantin the Red in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=178394
With 3.25 lbs. or so of loose cotton, plus the weight of the fabric, I think you're looking at a minimum of 5 lbs. weight for the gambeson. Remember that's a bare minimum legal requirement, and others made for nobles may well have contained more cotton fill.
There is this late 13th century French regulation, with translation attempt by Konstantin the Red in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=178394
*Per Wiki, .4895kg. .4895 x 3 = 1.4785 kilos cotton in there, but who's counting?1296: Ordonnances des Metiers de Paris
Que nus (armuriers) ne puisse fere cote ne gamboison de tele dont I'envers et I'endroit ne soit de tele noeve, et dedenz de coton et de plois de toiles, et einsi que est qu'il soient dedenz d'escroes.
That we armourers could make neither cote nor gambeson of fabric, which the lining and outside not being of new fabric, and of cotton inside, and of more fabrics, and also that they be inside of rags.
It, Si Ten fait cote ne gamboison dont I'endroit soit de cendal et I'envers soit de tele, si veulent il que ele soit noeve et se il i a ploit dedenz de tele ne de cendal, que le plus cort ploit soit de demie aune et de demi quartier de lone au meins devant, et autant derrieres, et les autres plois Ions ensuians. Et si il i a borre de soie qui le lit de la bourre soit de demi aune et demy quaritier au meins devant et autant derrieres et se il i a coton, que le coton vienge tout contreval jusques au piez.
Item, if having made [neither?] cote nor gambeson of which the outside should be of cendal and the lining of tele [maybe tulle?], if desired that it be new and if there be (ploit) within of tele nor of cendal, which the shortest cut (ploit) be half of (aune) and half-quartered of the one at least in the front -- and also in the back, and the other (ploits -- portions, parts, quarters?) following suit. And if there is (borre) of silk which the bed of the (bourre -- same as borre?) should be of quartered of (one and the other?), at least in front and even in back; and if there is cotton, that the cotton should come all (contreval) unto the feet. (Perhaps toile, i.e. canvas or stout cloth rather than tulle, i.e. gauze-like fabric?- Ernst)
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 I'endroit de demi aune et demi quartier devant et autant derriere.
That (nules d'ores) henceforth could not make gamboised cotes with less than three pounds [livres*] of cotton in them, which they are not made (en sicines) and beneath are worked between hands, of which there should be a ply of old linen within the outer layer quartered of the one and the other in front and also behind.
With 3.25 lbs. or so of loose cotton, plus the weight of the fabric, I think you're looking at a minimum of 5 lbs. weight for the gambeson. Remember that's a bare minimum legal requirement, and others made for nobles may well have contained more cotton fill.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
It's certainly more easily seen in miniatures, and is attested to in the literature as well.hrolf wrote:not to mention "aketon over maille", which is also plausibly documentable.
- Morgan M.638 fo.10r-fln.jpg (44.92 KiB) Viewed 3087 times
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Thanks for those examples Gerhard and Ernst. hrolf, I do indeed intend to test textile armour over mail. There aren't many examples of it from this period, but I think it's worthwhile to do so anyway.
Here's a cleaned up version of my current notes on aketons and tunics (Ifound a couple more examples just after writing my post and added in those of the examples provided I didn't already have):
Archaeological
Aketon
The Sleeve of St. Martin: Carbon dated to between 1170 and 1270. Constructed of two layers, but the thickest part was around 8mm thick. Quilting was through the raw cotton stuffing. English information/details of a replica can be found here.
The Dublin leather fragment: Dated to between 1170 and 1190. More likely from a stand alone gambeson (c.f. Nicolle's comments on Guillaume le Breton's reference leather worn over a gambeson).
Textual
Aketon/Gambeson
1180-1190 Aliscans: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Aketon worn under hauberk.
: Initial find thanks to Ernst (AA), clearer translation found by Sean Manning. Infantry armed with hauberks and pourpoints, with the latter underneath. The pourpoint was made from multiple layers of linen.
[url=http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=2837197#p2837197]1220-1230 Diu Crône: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Gambeson under hauberk under mail under plate under gambeson (c.f. the King's Mirror).
c. 1230 Chanson de Gaydon: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Aketon under gambeson. Also an example of boiled rawhide worn over mail and aketon.
The King's Mirror: "soft gambeson" vs "gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened". Suggests the former is stuffed with cotton, tow or wool while the latter is quilted layers of linen (c.f. Records of the Armourers’ Company of London. Layered and padded?). Speculative. Do not build a case on this.
Close Rolls, Edward I: March 1277: Aketons are separate from gambesons. More gambesons than aketons. Significant? Possibly more likely to be damaged beyond repair?
Artistic
Aketon
BL Additional 11695 Beatus of Liebana (Silos Apocalypse): May be an aketon, but may just be the awkwardly rendered folds of a tunic. Later miniature suggests the latter might be the case. Dated 1109.
Haseley Knight: Dated to 1230. Can't find photo of actual effigy. Misinterpreted cuisses? Can't dismiss possibility.
Robert de Vere: Probably cuisses, but possibly an aketon. Dated to 1221.
Sir William Marmion (1276): Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Definitely an aketon.
Sir Richard de Crupes (1278): Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Also clearly an aketon.
Beinecke MS.229 Arthurian Romances: Right hand knight possibly wears aketon. Probably poorly rendered cuisses/poleyns (c.f. Fol. 156v). Dated 1275-1300
Tunic
UBL BPL 76 A Psalter of Ludwig der Heilege: Tunic under mail. Dated 1190
Musée Condé MS.9 Ingeborg Psalter: Tunic under mail, no evidence that an aketon might have been worn under the mail but been too short to show in artwork (c.f. the sleeves). Dated 1195.
AU MS.24: Tunic under mail. Looks to be no room for an aketon to be under it. Dated 1200
Morgan M.739 Book of Hours: Tunic under mail. Dated 1204-1219
BL Royal 1 D X Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1220
BSB Clm 835 Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1225
BL Harley 5102 Psalter, with canticles: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1225
Morgan M.43 Huntingfield Psalter: Listed as mail, but the two colours suggest maybe fabric. No quilt lines, possibly thick tunics? Mail often depicted by diamonds or diamonds with dots in this MS. Possibly unreliable overall. Dated 1212-1220
BNF Arsenal 1186 Psalter of St. Louis and Blanche of Castile: Tunic under mail. Dated 1225
Bib. Ste. Genevieve MS.1185 Bible: Tunic under mail. Dated 1220-1230
SB Bamberg Msc.Bibl.48 Bamberger Psalter: Probable tunic under mail, but might also be some kind of edging or integral lining. Dated 1220-1230
BMAG Hart 21117 Peckover Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1220-1240
ONB Han. Cod. 2554 Bible Moralisee: Mail over two tunics. A tight fitting under tunic and looser fitting over tunic (The Crusader Bible Fol. 16r). Dated 1225-1249
BL Harley 4751 Bestiary: Probably a tunic under mail. Slight possibility of aketon. Dated 1225-1250
BL Royal 12 F XIII The Rochester Bestiary: Tunic under mail. Dated 1225-1250
Angers BM MS.09 Bible Tunic under mail. Dated 1226-1250
BL Yates Thompson 12 Histoire d'Outremer: Mail over tunic. Dated 1232-1262
BL Additional 17687 B The Massacre of the Innocents: Mail over tunic, no aketon. Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Dated c. 1240.
SBB MS.theol.Lat.fol.379 Heisterbacher Bibel: Another example of mail longer than what is being worn underneath. Dated 1240
The Crusader Bible Fol. 3v: Gambeson worn over tunic, not aketon (c.f. Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries where mail or a gambeson is to worn over an aketon). Mail also worn over tunic. May be panic, but nearby figure is putting on cuisses. Gambesons seem very flexible. Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 10r: A gambeson worn over mail, surcoat worn over a gambeson. Dated 1240s
The Crusader Bible Fol. 11r. Two tone surcoats. At least two layers. Anything in between?
The Crusader Bible Fol. 13r: Example of tunic under mail, but also of mail apparently longer than whatever was underneath it The mail looks equally long, it's just that whatever is worn underneath varies. (c.f. the mid thigh length of the"soft gambeson" in the King's Mirror). Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 15r: Short sleeved mail shirt or maybe rolled back. No quilting, appears to be ordinary tunic sleeve. Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 16r: Interesting overtunics (two types) worn over ordinary tunics. Both inner and outer garments are made from at least two pieces of cloth. Significant?
The Crusader Bible Fol. 16v: More two tone surcoats.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 21r: Surcoats with only one colour. Single layer of fabric? Maybe for show/display rather than battle.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 27v: Another short sleeved mail shirt, more evidence of a tunic underneath. Strange clothing/armour worn by figure on far right. Some kind of rawhide or boiled rawhide armour? Fastens up side, doesn't look like surcoat, but no quilt lines.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 28r: Mail worn directly over tunic.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 35r: Saul wears only a tunic beneath his mail.
CCC MS.26 Chronica Majora: Tunic beneath mail. Dated 1240-1253
Statue of Saint Maurice: Armoured surcoat, but tunic under mail. Dated c. 1250
Cambridge MS O.9.34 Romance of Alexander: Cross hatching = liner or shadows? Unclear. Being placed over tunic. Dated 1250
BL Royal 2 A XXII Westminster Psalter: Two tone surcoat, two layers? Possibly some kind of breastplate underneath the surcoat? Dated 1250
TCL E. I. 40 Life of St Alban: Tunic over mail. Dated 1250
Cambridge R.16.2 Trinity Apocalypse: Two tone surcoat, two layers? Dated 1250
Jean d'Alluye: Clearly no quilting of sleeves. Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Mid-13th century.
BL Royal 1 D I Bible: Mail over tunic. Dated 1250-1299
BL Additional 19669 Histoire ancienne jusqu'à César: Another example where the mail extends beyond whatever is worn beneath. Dated to 1250-1300.
Douai BM MS.173 Psautier for the use of the Collegiate Church of Saint-Pierre de Lille: No aketon underneath. Tunic only. Dated to 1251-1300.
Morgan M.97 Psalter-Hours: Clear example of a tunic beneath mail (c.f. the Massacre of the Innocents and leg armour despite only tunic). Dated 1265.
Morgan G.2 Psalter: Unclear, but probably a tunic underneath the mail. Dated 1260-1280
One thing I've noticed is that the surcoats cover up the mail a lot, and quite often whatever is under the mail is too short to be seen. It could well be that a huge number of the manuscript images were meant to be understood as having aketons underneath the mail, but because they were shorter than the mail we just can't see them.
Here's a cleaned up version of my current notes on aketons and tunics (Ifound a couple more examples just after writing my post and added in those of the examples provided I didn't already have):
Archaeological
Aketon
The Sleeve of St. Martin: Carbon dated to between 1170 and 1270. Constructed of two layers, but the thickest part was around 8mm thick. Quilting was through the raw cotton stuffing. English information/details of a replica can be found here.
The Dublin leather fragment: Dated to between 1170 and 1190. More likely from a stand alone gambeson (c.f. Nicolle's comments on Guillaume le Breton's reference leather worn over a gambeson).
Textual
Aketon/Gambeson
1180-1190 Aliscans: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Aketon worn under hauberk.
: Initial find thanks to Ernst (AA), clearer translation found by Sean Manning. Infantry armed with hauberks and pourpoints, with the latter underneath. The pourpoint was made from multiple layers of linen.
[url=http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=2837197#p2837197]1220-1230 Diu Crône: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Gambeson under hauberk under mail under plate under gambeson (c.f. the King's Mirror).
c. 1230 Chanson de Gaydon: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Aketon under gambeson. Also an example of boiled rawhide worn over mail and aketon.
The King's Mirror: "soft gambeson" vs "gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened". Suggests the former is stuffed with cotton, tow or wool while the latter is quilted layers of linen (c.f. Records of the Armourers’ Company of London. Layered and padded?). Speculative. Do not build a case on this.
Close Rolls, Edward I: March 1277: Aketons are separate from gambesons. More gambesons than aketons. Significant? Possibly more likely to be damaged beyond repair?
Artistic
Aketon
BL Additional 11695 Beatus of Liebana (Silos Apocalypse): May be an aketon, but may just be the awkwardly rendered folds of a tunic. Later miniature suggests the latter might be the case. Dated 1109.
Haseley Knight: Dated to 1230. Can't find photo of actual effigy. Misinterpreted cuisses? Can't dismiss possibility.
Robert de Vere: Probably cuisses, but possibly an aketon. Dated to 1221.
Sir William Marmion (1276): Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Definitely an aketon.
Sir Richard de Crupes (1278): Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Also clearly an aketon.
Beinecke MS.229 Arthurian Romances: Right hand knight possibly wears aketon. Probably poorly rendered cuisses/poleyns (c.f. Fol. 156v). Dated 1275-1300
Tunic
UBL BPL 76 A Psalter of Ludwig der Heilege: Tunic under mail. Dated 1190
Musée Condé MS.9 Ingeborg Psalter: Tunic under mail, no evidence that an aketon might have been worn under the mail but been too short to show in artwork (c.f. the sleeves). Dated 1195.
AU MS.24: Tunic under mail. Looks to be no room for an aketon to be under it. Dated 1200
Morgan M.739 Book of Hours: Tunic under mail. Dated 1204-1219
BL Royal 1 D X Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1220
BSB Clm 835 Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1225
BL Harley 5102 Psalter, with canticles: Tunic under mail. Dated 1200-1225
Morgan M.43 Huntingfield Psalter: Listed as mail, but the two colours suggest maybe fabric. No quilt lines, possibly thick tunics? Mail often depicted by diamonds or diamonds with dots in this MS. Possibly unreliable overall. Dated 1212-1220
BNF Arsenal 1186 Psalter of St. Louis and Blanche of Castile: Tunic under mail. Dated 1225
Bib. Ste. Genevieve MS.1185 Bible: Tunic under mail. Dated 1220-1230
SB Bamberg Msc.Bibl.48 Bamberger Psalter: Probable tunic under mail, but might also be some kind of edging or integral lining. Dated 1220-1230
BMAG Hart 21117 Peckover Psalter: Tunic under mail. Dated 1220-1240
ONB Han. Cod. 2554 Bible Moralisee: Mail over two tunics. A tight fitting under tunic and looser fitting over tunic (The Crusader Bible Fol. 16r). Dated 1225-1249
BL Harley 4751 Bestiary: Probably a tunic under mail. Slight possibility of aketon. Dated 1225-1250
BL Royal 12 F XIII The Rochester Bestiary: Tunic under mail. Dated 1225-1250
Angers BM MS.09 Bible Tunic under mail. Dated 1226-1250
BL Yates Thompson 12 Histoire d'Outremer: Mail over tunic. Dated 1232-1262
BL Additional 17687 B The Massacre of the Innocents: Mail over tunic, no aketon. Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Dated c. 1240.
SBB MS.theol.Lat.fol.379 Heisterbacher Bibel: Another example of mail longer than what is being worn underneath. Dated 1240
The Crusader Bible Fol. 3v: Gambeson worn over tunic, not aketon (c.f. Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries where mail or a gambeson is to worn over an aketon). Mail also worn over tunic. May be panic, but nearby figure is putting on cuisses. Gambesons seem very flexible. Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 10r: A gambeson worn over mail, surcoat worn over a gambeson. Dated 1240s
The Crusader Bible Fol. 11r. Two tone surcoats. At least two layers. Anything in between?
The Crusader Bible Fol. 13r: Example of tunic under mail, but also of mail apparently longer than whatever was underneath it The mail looks equally long, it's just that whatever is worn underneath varies. (c.f. the mid thigh length of the"soft gambeson" in the King's Mirror). Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 15r: Short sleeved mail shirt or maybe rolled back. No quilting, appears to be ordinary tunic sleeve. Dated 1240s.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 16r: Interesting overtunics (two types) worn over ordinary tunics. Both inner and outer garments are made from at least two pieces of cloth. Significant?
The Crusader Bible Fol. 16v: More two tone surcoats.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 21r: Surcoats with only one colour. Single layer of fabric? Maybe for show/display rather than battle.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 27v: Another short sleeved mail shirt, more evidence of a tunic underneath. Strange clothing/armour worn by figure on far right. Some kind of rawhide or boiled rawhide armour? Fastens up side, doesn't look like surcoat, but no quilt lines.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 28r: Mail worn directly over tunic.
The Crusader Bible Fol. 35r: Saul wears only a tunic beneath his mail.
CCC MS.26 Chronica Majora: Tunic beneath mail. Dated 1240-1253
Statue of Saint Maurice: Armoured surcoat, but tunic under mail. Dated c. 1250
Cambridge MS O.9.34 Romance of Alexander: Cross hatching = liner or shadows? Unclear. Being placed over tunic. Dated 1250
BL Royal 2 A XXII Westminster Psalter: Two tone surcoat, two layers? Possibly some kind of breastplate underneath the surcoat? Dated 1250
TCL E. I. 40 Life of St Alban: Tunic over mail. Dated 1250
Cambridge R.16.2 Trinity Apocalypse: Two tone surcoat, two layers? Dated 1250
Jean d'Alluye: Clearly no quilting of sleeves. Thanks to Gerhard von Liebau (AA). Mid-13th century.
BL Royal 1 D I Bible: Mail over tunic. Dated 1250-1299
BL Additional 19669 Histoire ancienne jusqu'à César: Another example where the mail extends beyond whatever is worn beneath. Dated to 1250-1300.
Douai BM MS.173 Psautier for the use of the Collegiate Church of Saint-Pierre de Lille: No aketon underneath. Tunic only. Dated to 1251-1300.
Morgan M.97 Psalter-Hours: Clear example of a tunic beneath mail (c.f. the Massacre of the Innocents and leg armour despite only tunic). Dated 1265.
Morgan G.2 Psalter: Unclear, but probably a tunic underneath the mail. Dated 1260-1280
One thing I've noticed is that the surcoats cover up the mail a lot, and quite often whatever is under the mail is too short to be seen. It could well be that a huge number of the manuscript images were meant to be understood as having aketons underneath the mail, but because they were shorter than the mail we just can't see them.
Last edited by Jonathan Dean on Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
And, although most of these fall outside of the period I'm interested in, I've also found a few effigies and brasses from the very late 13th century/early 14th century that show aketons under mail or a gambeson either over mail or worn by itself.
Sir Mauger St Albyn (1294)
Oronsay Knight(1300)
High Ercall Knight (1300)
Iona Knight (~1300)
Maclean of Ross of Mull (~1300)
Sir John de Goshall (1306)
Sir Ralph Salaman (1315)
Sir John Malebisse (1316)
Sir Robert Nevill (1318)
Sir John de Dummer (1320)
Sir Geoffrey de Canterton (1320)
Sandwich Knight (1320)
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn ab Ynyr (1320) - Textile armour out the wazoo
Sir Stephen Alard (1325)
Sir Walter de Balun (1326)
Sir John d'Abernon (1327)
Sir Robert Shurland (1328)
Sir William Wyvill (1332)
Sir John Stapleton (1332)
Sir John Walkingham (1335)
Sir Mauger St Albyn (1294)
Oronsay Knight(1300)
High Ercall Knight (1300)
Iona Knight (~1300)
Maclean of Ross of Mull (~1300)
Sir John de Goshall (1306)
Sir Ralph Salaman (1315)
Sir John Malebisse (1316)
Sir Robert Nevill (1318)
Sir John de Dummer (1320)
Sir Geoffrey de Canterton (1320)
Sandwich Knight (1320)
Gruffydd ap Llywelyn ab Ynyr (1320) - Textile armour out the wazoo
Sir Stephen Alard (1325)
Sir Walter de Balun (1326)
Sir John d'Abernon (1327)
Sir Robert Shurland (1328)
Sir William Wyvill (1332)
Sir John Stapleton (1332)
Sir John Walkingham (1335)
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
That image and the Itinerarium Peregrinorum raise another problem. The writer of the Itinerarium tells us that in 1190, some pedites wore the kind of soft armour which has many layers instead of a stuffing of raw cotton or borre de soie. And that kind does not have visible stitches or a bumpy surface unless you want it to have them. So quilt lines are a good indication of stuffing, but lack of quilt lines are not good evidence of its absence.Gerhard von Liebau wrote:The mid-13th century effigy of Jean d'Alluye reveals the sleeves of the garment worn under his hauberk because the mittens are pulled back. The otherwise detailed carving suggests that there are no quilt lines in the fabric of the sleeves (i.e. it's a tunic):
Jean d'Alluye
There are also ways to hide quilting inside armour. I don't know all of them, but one would be to quilt it on a frame (like Jessica Finley does, or the Charles VI garment was made) but turn the flat side out instead of in.
From a practical perspective, I know someone who is perfectly happy wearing a doublet of three layers of linen under his haubergeon and breastplate. So some of the loose, flowing garments which we see in 13th century art could work.
How Heavy Were Doublets and Pourpoints? is concentrated on the middle of the 14th century, but might be helpful.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
The Latin is pretty clear. Here is the whole passage which might clear some things up, courtesy of York University and In parentheses Publications:Jonathan Dean wrote:1195 Itinerary of Richard I: Thanks to Ernst (AA). Infantry armed with hauberks and pourpoints, or infantry armed with either hauberks or pourpoints? Unclear. also unclear is, if they were worn together, which was worn on top.
ferreo tegmine capite munito is really "with his head fortified with an iron covering" not "with iron headpiece" so since it covers the breast, I wonder if it describes a mail or scale hood, or one of those iron caps with an aventail. I may be overthinking a "but the Bible in his pocket stopped the bullet" story though!A Classical Scholar and A Gentleman Well-Read in Mediæval History wrote:Furthermore, one of our body-guard, while walking in the ditch outside the city wall, either for the purpose of reconnoitering the weak parts of the wall, or to strike any of the enemy he could see with his sling, stopped at last; he was armed sufficiently like a foot-soldier, with iron headpiece, coat of mail (lorica), and a tunic of many folds of linen, difficult of penetration, and artificially worked with the needle, vulgarly called a pourpoint.
A Turk from the wall struck him with a dart from a sling with great force on the breast, so that it penetrated all the aforementioned, the iron armour descending from the head, and the coat of mail and pourpoint,
but it was stopped by a certain writing banging from his neck on his breast, and fell out blunted and twisted as from an iron plate. Are not the works of God manifest in the dart penetrating many folds of steel, and bounding back blunted from a little scroll? For the man was said to have worn suspended from his breast, the name of God on a scroll, thus proved to be impenetrable to steel. God is a wall of strength to them that hope in him.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
You could also start out by testing a 'low end' guess (probably just an unlined wool tunic and a linen shirt plus the mail) and a 'high-end' guess (probably 2 or 3 layers of linen stuffed with cotton and a linen shirt plus the mail). If the arrows pierce one but not the other you could try out possibilities in between.
I wish I knew how many layers made up a "linen tunic sewn together in many folds, called pourpoint in the vernacular" but I suspect that the thickness and weight were similar to garments stuffed with cotton which served the same function.
I wish I knew how many layers made up a "linen tunic sewn together in many folds, called pourpoint in the vernacular" but I suspect that the thickness and weight were similar to garments stuffed with cotton which served the same function.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Thanks for that information Sean, it's very useful.
I admit, adding another 960-1440 shots (5 shots per piece, two or three types of arrow per bow, two backing types, test with mail, boiled rawhide over mail, metal plates over mail and then two types of surcoat over the mail and boiled rawhide) doesn't appeal. I may need to revise my testing protocol.
Edit: I should say, the revision isn't so much because of the added samples so much as it's a realisation that the level of testing I had in mind was unreasonable in the first place.
I admit, adding another 960-1440 shots (5 shots per piece, two or three types of arrow per bow, two backing types, test with mail, boiled rawhide over mail, metal plates over mail and then two types of surcoat over the mail and boiled rawhide) doesn't appeal. I may need to revise my testing protocol.
Edit: I should say, the revision isn't so much because of the added samples so much as it's a realisation that the level of testing I had in mind was unreasonable in the first place.
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Similar tests have been performed in the past. The accuracy of the results are usually challenged on the quality and metallurgy of mail and arrowheads, draw weights of the bow, weight of the arrows, distance of engagement, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
And as one of those who has criticised other experiments I'm going to do my best to avoid the pitfalls of other experiments.
The Waterford Boe replica will be made slightly wider and thicker than the recorded measurements as Stuart Gorman has told me that there was significant degradation of the wood. I'll aim for dimensions that give a circumference half way between the present one and the circumference of the bow used in the Skeffington murder, but will ultimately leave it up to the judgement of the bowyer to make it as powerful as possible while still having a draw length sufficient for the arrow it was found with. The yew will be European, and ideally be from a branch and have around 20 rpi in order to best replicate the original.
The longer bow won't be so much a replica as a speculative approximation. Once I get Junkmann's "Pfeil und Bogen", I'll narrow down the design some more amd aim for something part way between the 9th/10th century Scandinavian bows and the Mary Rose bows. I'm thinking around 1800mm long, elliptical in cross section, 37mm wide and 28mm deep (or maybe 36mm wide and 29mm deep), but I'll have a better idea soon. The yew will be European and have around 40 rpi. The draw weight should come out to around 80-100lbs @ 30".
The arrowheads will be copies of finds. Those for the Waterford replica will be based on the Irish finds, while those for the longer bow will be based on British finds if there exists any significant difference in form or socket diameter for the period. Probably the bladed heads will be MP7 or MP8s, while the bodkins will be M7s or M8s. The metallurgy will depend on what I find in Serdon's thesis and Zimmerman's book in addition to David Starley's chapter on the subject. Any iron element will be made from Swedish wrought iron, though I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do any steel component.
Arrowshaft material, design and dimensions will depend on what artifacts remain. I still need to look into this in more detail, but some kind of light softwood (like aspen) seems likely at this point.
The mail I'll either make myself or find someone willing yo make the links for me and I'll assemble it. They'll probably end up being made from mild steel as I think having them made authentically will cost too much/take up too much time. I'll make sure to anneal the rings before assembly to remove any work hardening and bring them more in line with iron rings.
As for the textile components, they'll be hand sewn and designed based on existing examples. The linen, cotton and wool fabrics, where possible, will be from the early 20th century and the linen will be washed in vinegar to soften it before use. The canvas I have a line on will be on the inside, while the outside will be lighter, but still as tightly woven as I can find. Any felt will be hand made from sheep's wool that is as coarse as possible (cetainly not merino wool at any rate), and raw cotton, not cotton batting, will be used for stuffing.
I haven't fully worked out the target yet, but it will almost certainly be ballistics clay weighted and hung to simulate a human body. Precisely how this will work has yet to be determined. Both the depth of penetration and deformation of the clay will be measured.
The range will be as close as is safe/as close as the arrow will stabilise in. Some long range shots may be attempted after the main tests are done, but even with those a note will be made of the empirical tests regarding energy at range made by Mark Stretton and the difference in energy between the Waterford and the longer bow should be sufficient to demonstrate the penetration offered by the longer bow at range.
The tests won't be perfect, but I intend to make them as accurate as possible. If anyone has any suggestions or criticisms, I'd love to hear them.
The Waterford Boe replica will be made slightly wider and thicker than the recorded measurements as Stuart Gorman has told me that there was significant degradation of the wood. I'll aim for dimensions that give a circumference half way between the present one and the circumference of the bow used in the Skeffington murder, but will ultimately leave it up to the judgement of the bowyer to make it as powerful as possible while still having a draw length sufficient for the arrow it was found with. The yew will be European, and ideally be from a branch and have around 20 rpi in order to best replicate the original.
The longer bow won't be so much a replica as a speculative approximation. Once I get Junkmann's "Pfeil und Bogen", I'll narrow down the design some more amd aim for something part way between the 9th/10th century Scandinavian bows and the Mary Rose bows. I'm thinking around 1800mm long, elliptical in cross section, 37mm wide and 28mm deep (or maybe 36mm wide and 29mm deep), but I'll have a better idea soon. The yew will be European and have around 40 rpi. The draw weight should come out to around 80-100lbs @ 30".
The arrowheads will be copies of finds. Those for the Waterford replica will be based on the Irish finds, while those for the longer bow will be based on British finds if there exists any significant difference in form or socket diameter for the period. Probably the bladed heads will be MP7 or MP8s, while the bodkins will be M7s or M8s. The metallurgy will depend on what I find in Serdon's thesis and Zimmerman's book in addition to David Starley's chapter on the subject. Any iron element will be made from Swedish wrought iron, though I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do any steel component.
Arrowshaft material, design and dimensions will depend on what artifacts remain. I still need to look into this in more detail, but some kind of light softwood (like aspen) seems likely at this point.
The mail I'll either make myself or find someone willing yo make the links for me and I'll assemble it. They'll probably end up being made from mild steel as I think having them made authentically will cost too much/take up too much time. I'll make sure to anneal the rings before assembly to remove any work hardening and bring them more in line with iron rings.
As for the textile components, they'll be hand sewn and designed based on existing examples. The linen, cotton and wool fabrics, where possible, will be from the early 20th century and the linen will be washed in vinegar to soften it before use. The canvas I have a line on will be on the inside, while the outside will be lighter, but still as tightly woven as I can find. Any felt will be hand made from sheep's wool that is as coarse as possible (cetainly not merino wool at any rate), and raw cotton, not cotton batting, will be used for stuffing.
I haven't fully worked out the target yet, but it will almost certainly be ballistics clay weighted and hung to simulate a human body. Precisely how this will work has yet to be determined. Both the depth of penetration and deformation of the clay will be measured.
The range will be as close as is safe/as close as the arrow will stabilise in. Some long range shots may be attempted after the main tests are done, but even with those a note will be made of the empirical tests regarding energy at range made by Mark Stretton and the difference in energy between the Waterford and the longer bow should be sufficient to demonstrate the penetration offered by the longer bow at range.
The tests won't be perfect, but I intend to make them as accurate as possible. If anyone has any suggestions or criticisms, I'd love to hear them.
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Well, it might well be that some of your tests mean that you don't need to try others. If the arrows bounce off the plates, you probably don't need to test whether they still bounce off the plates plus surcoat ... But yes, there are a lot of variables! And of course, we do not have many surviving examples of 13th century mail, and the mail which comes from India has problems ...
I think that some of the garments which you and Gerhardt found with no quilt lines and loose, flowing skirts or wrinkles like bracelets along the lower arms have an excellent chance of being regular tunics, whatever that meant exactly in 1250.
Also, we do have another 13th century quilted garment: the woman's aketon published in Medieval Clothing and Textiles 11 alongside the St. Louis shirt. It might be worth studying how they made it, because the workers who made it probably also made men's aketons and gambesons.
The plate armourers here can give their thoughts on "Swedish wrought iron." There are folks like Lee Sauders who can give you low-carbon bloomery iron for enough florins.
I think that some of the garments which you and Gerhardt found with no quilt lines and loose, flowing skirts or wrinkles like bracelets along the lower arms have an excellent chance of being regular tunics, whatever that meant exactly in 1250.
Also, we do have another 13th century quilted garment: the woman's aketon published in Medieval Clothing and Textiles 11 alongside the St. Louis shirt. It might be worth studying how they made it, because the workers who made it probably also made men's aketons and gambesons.
The plate armourers here can give their thoughts on "Swedish wrought iron." There are folks like Lee Sauders who can give you low-carbon bloomery iron for enough florins.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Yeah, there are definitely some variables I won't test. Gambeson over plate, mail and aketon, for instance, is unlikely to be penetrated even by a fast and heavy bow and from the period texts seems to be more oriented towards protecting from lances than from arrows.
The other issue is that the bow will be eventually be shot out, and if there are too many series of shots the later ones will have a disadvantage in penetration to the early ones. The fewer variables, the fewer the series and the more accurate the results will be. I'm currently rethinking my plans. It might be an idea to conduct an limited initial series of tests with the cheap bow I'm getting to get my aim in to test variations in construction and select the three best designs (stuffed aketon, tunic and layered aketon) for the proper trials.
I haven't been able to find any information on 13th century mail. Do you know of some examples? And yes, Indian mail is definitely problematic. Even the wedge riveted stuff, with a drifted hole, is too thin and has a slightly large ID than I'd prefer for a test. Now, if I could get some decently thick 7mm ID rings I'd be a happy man.
Thanks for the information on the woman's aketon! It doesn't look like any library I know I have access to has it, but I'll looking into some of the others and see if I can find one where I can read it.
I hadn't heard about Lee Sauders, but he might just be the ticket for the arrowheads. Some of the medium/high phosphorus bloomery iron might make for good, reasonably hard arrowheads.
The other issue is that the bow will be eventually be shot out, and if there are too many series of shots the later ones will have a disadvantage in penetration to the early ones. The fewer variables, the fewer the series and the more accurate the results will be. I'm currently rethinking my plans. It might be an idea to conduct an limited initial series of tests with the cheap bow I'm getting to get my aim in to test variations in construction and select the three best designs (stuffed aketon, tunic and layered aketon) for the proper trials.
I haven't been able to find any information on 13th century mail. Do you know of some examples? And yes, Indian mail is definitely problematic. Even the wedge riveted stuff, with a drifted hole, is too thin and has a slightly large ID than I'd prefer for a test. Now, if I could get some decently thick 7mm ID rings I'd be a happy man.
Thanks for the information on the woman's aketon! It doesn't look like any library I know I have access to has it, but I'll looking into some of the others and see if I can find one where I can read it.
I hadn't heard about Lee Sauders, but he might just be the ticket for the arrowheads. Some of the medium/high phosphorus bloomery iron might make for good, reasonably hard arrowheads.
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Was the Waterford bow 80lbs draw?
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
I'm also concerned that the bow is too light to be considered a war bow. Back when I was shooting, I used to pull 70lbs back to my ear... and I'm sort of a wimp, really. My suspicion is that 80lbs. is somewhere between a hunting bow and a war bow.RandallMoffett wrote:Was the Waterford bow 80lbs draw?
Mac
Robert MacPherson
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
The other important factor is the nature of the target. If the armor is supported on something heavy and rigid, it is much more likely to be penetrated than if it is supported by something light and yielding. The closer your target approaches the mass and density of a human being, the more valid your test will be.
Mac
Mac
Robert MacPherson
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
I don't know anything about 13th century mail, sorry. My medieval research focuses on linen armour and the 14th century.
In the period that I study, the high-tech weapon was what my guys called the Kimmerian bow: maybe 3 feet long along the curve, shooting a reed arrow about 2 feet long with a socketed trilobate head weighing 2-4 grams on a little wooden foreshaft about 6-7 mm in diameter. You could try to shoot one of those out of a high-draw-weight monster, but it would probably explode
The only sources before the 16th century CE which address the question which I know (Maurice around 600 and an anonymous and hard-to-date Greek treatise on archery) say that rate of fire, distance, and power are all important and that a horseman should ideally have a bow on the light side so he can still use it when he is weakened on campaign.
I am happy to accept very heavy bows (> 100 lbs draw) in a 16th century English, Turkish, Chinese, and Japanese context, but I don't think that all bows throughout history were like that.
Mac, I think that Strickland's idea of a special, heavy-draw "war bow" has spread like the flu. It might or might not be a good idea in a 15th and 16th century English/Scottish/Dutch/French context, but I don't remember encountering such a term in any of the archery cultures which I study.Mac wrote:I'm also concerned that the bow is too light to be considered a war bow. Back when I was shooting, I used to pull 70lbs back to my ear... and I'm sort of a wimp, really. My suspicion is that 80lbs. is somewhere between a hunting bow and a war bow.RandallMoffett wrote:Was the Waterford bow 80lbs draw?
Mac
In the period that I study, the high-tech weapon was what my guys called the Kimmerian bow: maybe 3 feet long along the curve, shooting a reed arrow about 2 feet long with a socketed trilobate head weighing 2-4 grams on a little wooden foreshaft about 6-7 mm in diameter. You could try to shoot one of those out of a high-draw-weight monster, but it would probably explode
The only sources before the 16th century CE which address the question which I know (Maurice around 600 and an anonymous and hard-to-date Greek treatise on archery) say that rate of fire, distance, and power are all important and that a horseman should ideally have a bow on the light side so he can still use it when he is weakened on campaign.
I am happy to accept very heavy bows (> 100 lbs draw) in a 16th century English, Turkish, Chinese, and Japanese context, but I don't think that all bows throughout history were like that.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
The Tofta coif is the most certainly identified piece of 13th century mail. It's demi-riveted construction with round rivets.Jonathan Dean wrote:I haven't been able to find any information on 13th century mail. Do you know of some examples
http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/bitstream/han ... sequence=1
The solid rings are phosphor-iron.
The riveted rings are 6-7 mm in diameter and, "The cross section of the ring is oval, 1.4-1.5 mm wide and 0.5-0.6 mm thick", and appear to be wrought iron.Lena Grandin, trans. Google wrote:The whole loose ring weighed 0.24 g when sampled. It has something
varying thickness, probably partly because of a variety of corrosion.
The ring (Fig. 2) is not completely symmetrical circular; its outer diameter
varies between 11.2 and 11.8 mm and its inner diameter between 8.5 and
9.4 mm. The ring width ranges from 0.8 to 1.4 mm, but is usually
about 1.1 mm. Its thickness is at most 1.2 mm, but significantly thinner
parts of 0.6-0.8 mm occur.
S.U. Kainov, trans. Dmitry V. Ryaboy, 'Medieval Russian Armour workshop in Gomiy" (Gomel, Belarus)
Likely dated to the destruction from the Mongol Invasion of 1239:
There's also the highly corroded Lena (or Kungslena) hauberk, found near the Lena Battlefield (31 January 1208).The fragments of maille fabric contain from 1 to 200 rings, over 600 rings total. Half the fragments has rings with a circular cross-section (wire diameter 1-1.5 mm), half -- with a flat cross-section (1x2; 1-1.5x3; 1x3 mm). The diameter of the rings is 6, 9, and 14 mm. It is certain that many fragments formed different sheets of maille. The mail-making process looks unfinished: there is one ring left unriveted, and several chains of single rings.
http://www.djurfeldt.com/patrik/kungslena.html
http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=114730&g=1
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Randal,
I haven't heard of any replica of the Waterford Bow being made, so it's hard to say. I've seen some eyeball estimates that put it at 50-60lbs, but Stuart Gorman (The Technological Development of the Bow and the Crossbow in the Later Middle Ages) has emphasized that the bow experienced degradation and would be thicker and wider than it presently is. I suspect that increasing both dimensions by 10% will give both a good margin of error and a pretty strong bow, maybe even up to 80lbs.
Mac,
The Waterford Bow was found in situ with a 60.5cm arrow that had a needle bodkin for a point, and the two half-bow fragments (which suggest bows of roughly 120-140cm and have the same profile) were found in the same area and context (St Peter's Church, mid-12th century), as other military arrowheads (one socketed bodkin and one tanged bodkin) and a socketed multipurpose (barbed) head. Additionally, the same basic bow type shows up in two separate manuscripts around the same time, in a military context.
I think that, all the evidence combined, it's reasonable to assume that the Waterford Bow and those like it were used in warfare. I'm not going to go full Clifford Rogers and claim that only shortbows were used until the superiority of the longbow was discovered in the early 14th century, but I do think Rogers and Richard Wadge have proved their case that smaller bows were quite common up until the second or third decade of the fourteenth century in England. And, if they existed, they would inevitably be used in warfare when a county levy was called up or if a retinue archer preferred it. Remember, munition arrows were a thing of Edward III. The previous kings all preferred crossbows.
Regarding draw weight, there are a number of reasons why I'm suspicious of 100lb+ warbows for the period. First and foremost, only the Hedeby Bow has dimensions that would permit a draw weight greater than MR80A0907, which Will Shearton found to come out to around 100lbs. The low quality of the yew he used doesn't matter because, so far as I can find, all the bows and bow fragments we have from the Middle Ages were from saplings or branches and were not high quality Italian yew. A Wassenaar Bow replica did come out at 106lbs, but that was at 26", not at 30". Those 4 inches mean a lot less energy than an equivalent draw weight longbow. The Ballinderry Bow, based on the MR80A0907 replica, probably only drew 80-90lbs. The bow of a county levy (or Welsh guerrilla) is unlikely to have drawn any more than this and may have drawn less. With every man supplying his own arrows, each man could use what he liked and I doubt many would have kept both a war bow and a hunting bow.
Secondly, there are the socket diameters. So far I only have Halpin's list of Irish finds, but the 13th century finds almost never exceed 10mm, and even the 14th and 15th century finds are mostly 10mm or under. Since shorter, less powerful bows were probably used and even the longbows probably didn't need to be particularly powerful, I'm not taking this at face value and intend to go down to Canberra and raid ANU and the National Library for the books used by Jessop in his typology to look and see if English finds suggest heavier bows. Still, if the London Museum's Type 16 arrowhead collection is anything to go by, under 10mm for military arrowheads might be the norm.
And, I should add, when I say "80lbs", I'm just spitballing. Once I decide on the appropriate dimensions and profile, the only requirement other than European yew with around 40 rpi (to give the benefit of the doubt to the longbow) will be "not more than 100lbs @ 30" ". Any more than that and I'll need to delay the tests by six months to a year in order to work up to the draw weight. If any of the armour resists the bow (and I seriously doubt that most will), then I'll start looking for a warbow archer with a heavier bow who is willing to shoot at the samples I'll provide.
With the test set up, I have a vague notion of putting ballistics clay in a frame and attaching it to a weighted bag that is hung from a tree with limited movement to best simulate the resistance of a human body and the ability of the human body to move backwards when hit. I've got until September or October to figure it out.
Sean,
Humfrey Barwick and Barnabe Riche also mention that archers are weakened on campaign and can't shoot as far.
Ernst,
Thanks for those! That's more data for the collection and confirms that I should use a solid/riveted mix. I'm assuming that the Russian solid links are 1-1.5mm thick and 2-3mm wide rather than the reverse. Some of the 9mm solids sound like they would make a pretty dense weave if used with 1.5mm diameter riveted links.
I haven't heard of any replica of the Waterford Bow being made, so it's hard to say. I've seen some eyeball estimates that put it at 50-60lbs, but Stuart Gorman (The Technological Development of the Bow and the Crossbow in the Later Middle Ages) has emphasized that the bow experienced degradation and would be thicker and wider than it presently is. I suspect that increasing both dimensions by 10% will give both a good margin of error and a pretty strong bow, maybe even up to 80lbs.
Mac,
The Waterford Bow was found in situ with a 60.5cm arrow that had a needle bodkin for a point, and the two half-bow fragments (which suggest bows of roughly 120-140cm and have the same profile) were found in the same area and context (St Peter's Church, mid-12th century), as other military arrowheads (one socketed bodkin and one tanged bodkin) and a socketed multipurpose (barbed) head. Additionally, the same basic bow type shows up in two separate manuscripts around the same time, in a military context.
I think that, all the evidence combined, it's reasonable to assume that the Waterford Bow and those like it were used in warfare. I'm not going to go full Clifford Rogers and claim that only shortbows were used until the superiority of the longbow was discovered in the early 14th century, but I do think Rogers and Richard Wadge have proved their case that smaller bows were quite common up until the second or third decade of the fourteenth century in England. And, if they existed, they would inevitably be used in warfare when a county levy was called up or if a retinue archer preferred it. Remember, munition arrows were a thing of Edward III. The previous kings all preferred crossbows.
Regarding draw weight, there are a number of reasons why I'm suspicious of 100lb+ warbows for the period. First and foremost, only the Hedeby Bow has dimensions that would permit a draw weight greater than MR80A0907, which Will Shearton found to come out to around 100lbs. The low quality of the yew he used doesn't matter because, so far as I can find, all the bows and bow fragments we have from the Middle Ages were from saplings or branches and were not high quality Italian yew. A Wassenaar Bow replica did come out at 106lbs, but that was at 26", not at 30". Those 4 inches mean a lot less energy than an equivalent draw weight longbow. The Ballinderry Bow, based on the MR80A0907 replica, probably only drew 80-90lbs. The bow of a county levy (or Welsh guerrilla) is unlikely to have drawn any more than this and may have drawn less. With every man supplying his own arrows, each man could use what he liked and I doubt many would have kept both a war bow and a hunting bow.
Secondly, there are the socket diameters. So far I only have Halpin's list of Irish finds, but the 13th century finds almost never exceed 10mm, and even the 14th and 15th century finds are mostly 10mm or under. Since shorter, less powerful bows were probably used and even the longbows probably didn't need to be particularly powerful, I'm not taking this at face value and intend to go down to Canberra and raid ANU and the National Library for the books used by Jessop in his typology to look and see if English finds suggest heavier bows. Still, if the London Museum's Type 16 arrowhead collection is anything to go by, under 10mm for military arrowheads might be the norm.
And, I should add, when I say "80lbs", I'm just spitballing. Once I decide on the appropriate dimensions and profile, the only requirement other than European yew with around 40 rpi (to give the benefit of the doubt to the longbow) will be "not more than 100lbs @ 30" ". Any more than that and I'll need to delay the tests by six months to a year in order to work up to the draw weight. If any of the armour resists the bow (and I seriously doubt that most will), then I'll start looking for a warbow archer with a heavier bow who is willing to shoot at the samples I'll provide.
With the test set up, I have a vague notion of putting ballistics clay in a frame and attaching it to a weighted bag that is hung from a tree with limited movement to best simulate the resistance of a human body and the ability of the human body to move backwards when hit. I've got until September or October to figure it out.
Sean,
Humfrey Barwick and Barnabe Riche also mention that archers are weakened on campaign and can't shoot as far.
Ernst,
Thanks for those! That's more data for the collection and confirms that I should use a solid/riveted mix. I'm assuming that the Russian solid links are 1-1.5mm thick and 2-3mm wide rather than the reverse. Some of the 9mm solids sound like they would make a pretty dense weave if used with 1.5mm diameter riveted links.
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Jonathan,
It looks like you are better informed about this than I am, so I'll just pipe down now.
Mac
It looks like you are better informed about this than I am, so I'll just pipe down now.
Mac
Robert MacPherson
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
The craftsmen of old had their secrets, and those secrets died with them. We are not the better for that, and neither are they.
http://www.lightlink.com/armory/
http://www.billyandcharlie.com
https://www.facebook.com/BillyAndCharlie
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
I have seen it some years ago (like 11) and my photos are pretty poor. I also would have to relook at context but are we sure it is a war bow? Do we have any data on it as far as dimensions and weight?
RPM
RPM
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Randall,
The Waterford Bow was 1258mm long and 25cm wide and 20cm deep at the thickest point. A 648mm fragment from a mid-12th century context measured 31cm wide and 21cm deep, while a 714mm fragment from the same site as the other fragment 23.4cm wide and 16.6cm deep at the thickest point, but this is not representative of what the original bow would have been as the last 25cm was whittled down for possible use as wattling.
All information from Halpin's thesis. Stephen Fox has also posted a diagram of Irish bow finds and their cross sections from his Masters thesis (which sadly isn't available digitally), showing the very interesting design of the Anglo-Norman bows.
The Waterford Bow was 1258mm long and 25cm wide and 20cm deep at the thickest point. A 648mm fragment from a mid-12th century context measured 31cm wide and 21cm deep, while a 714mm fragment from the same site as the other fragment 23.4cm wide and 16.6cm deep at the thickest point, but this is not representative of what the original bow would have been as the last 25cm was whittled down for possible use as wattling.
All information from Halpin's thesis. Stephen Fox has also posted a diagram of Irish bow finds and their cross sections from his Masters thesis (which sadly isn't available digitally), showing the very interesting design of the Anglo-Norman bows.
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Jonathan,
Thanks for the numbers and sources. I can interlibrary loan thesis from work so I'll see if I can get a hold of it. I'll also send the numebrs to a friend of mine who has worked in assesing some other historic bows for draw weight as well if that is ok.
I was able to get pretty close to several of the Mary Rose bows. Sort of an interesting fight still sort of blowing back and forth over the exact way to figure draw weights due to their degeneration but always curious to see the whys.
We had started doing some tests with heavy weight bows. They are rather interesting. I also found some records of materials for arcehry goods during a few projects I have been working on that someday I'd love to work more with.
Thanks!
RPM
Thanks for the numbers and sources. I can interlibrary loan thesis from work so I'll see if I can get a hold of it. I'll also send the numebrs to a friend of mine who has worked in assesing some other historic bows for draw weight as well if that is ok.
I was able to get pretty close to several of the Mary Rose bows. Sort of an interesting fight still sort of blowing back and forth over the exact way to figure draw weights due to their degeneration but always curious to see the whys.
We had started doing some tests with heavy weight bows. They are rather interesting. I also found some records of materials for arcehry goods during a few projects I have been working on that someday I'd love to work more with.
Thanks!
RPM
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Halpin's thesis is all online. If you could get a hold of Fox's thesis (Artefacts of the Mind: A Kinesthetic Journey Through the Reconstructed Processes of Viking age Bow Production in Ireland) and see what his views are, that would be incredible.
I don't mind at all re:sending the numbers off. The more information and the more opinions by experienced bowyers, the better. Would you mind asking him what the draw weight would be like if the Waterford Bow had its width and depth increased by 10% as well?
I don't mind at all re:sending the numbers off. The more information and the more opinions by experienced bowyers, the better. Would you mind asking him what the draw weight would be like if the Waterford Bow had its width and depth increased by 10% as well?
-
Dan Howard
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Personally I don't think that textile armour was ever worn under mail. Anything under the mail would be an arming garment, providing negligible protection on its own. Textile armour seems to have always been worn over the top of mail.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment by Pen & Sword books.
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Dan,
Almost a De Ja Vu moment.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php ... n&start=22
And as before just because something has multiple purposes does not negate its other uses. We have sufficient evidence to assert there is indeed some protective quality to these aketons.
I gladly agree that the heavier textile garments are over mail and offer superior protection and were seen such but the lighter garments are doing more than avoiding discomfort and chafing, they do for sure add some level of protection over the standard clothing of the day.
But of course I value your argument. I get what you are saying.
Actually been meaning to rereading your ancient armour and arms book come to think about it.
RPM
Almost a De Ja Vu moment.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php ... n&start=22
And as before just because something has multiple purposes does not negate its other uses. We have sufficient evidence to assert there is indeed some protective quality to these aketons.
I gladly agree that the heavier textile garments are over mail and offer superior protection and were seen such but the lighter garments are doing more than avoiding discomfort and chafing, they do for sure add some level of protection over the standard clothing of the day.
But of course I value your argument. I get what you are saying.
Actually been meaning to rereading your ancient armour and arms book come to think about it.
RPM
-
Dan Howard
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
I suppose it comes down to how you define "armour". We have reports that Russian greatcoats stopped sword cuts during the Crimean War but that doesn't make them armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment by Pen & Sword books.
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Yes but we also know that they used the term aketon for a number of items that were different but still categorized them as the same thing... armour. We also have accounts that they indicate disbelief when the aketon failed when used under mail also indicating armour. To me there is much more stacking toward it being armour than not.
RPM
RPM
-
Jonathan Dean
- Archive Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:57 pm
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
What I wonder is if the combination of aketon and mail offers more protection than individual tests suggest they should. For example, if an aketon reduces penetration compared with bare clay by 20mm and mail allows an 80mm penetration, I wonder if together the penetration might not be 40mm or 20mm rather than 60mm.
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
The line between "armour" and "clothing" is a semantic question not an empirical question (personally I see armour as a kind of clothing) which is why I assembled and translated those descriptions of aketons, pourpoints, and quilted doublets worn under armour. Then we can see how much protection a 1340s English doublet for wearing under armour, or a 1437 Burgundian pourpoint for wearing under armour, provide!
Edit: Also, for what it's worth, Edward III's doublet "for wearing with his plates" was made by his armourer. So to a 1340s English mind, an armourer made light quilted garments as well as heavy ones.
Edit: Also, for what it's worth, Edward III's doublet "for wearing with his plates" was made by his armourer. So to a 1340s English mind, an armourer made light quilted garments as well as heavy ones.
Last edited by Sean M on Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
DIS MANIBUS GUILLELMI GENTIS MCLEANUM FAMILIARITER GALLERON DICTI
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
VIR OMNIBUS ARTIBUS PERITUS
Check out Age of Datini: European Material Culture 1360-1410
-
RandallMoffett
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: SE Iowa
Re: How might a tunic worn under mail have been constructed?
Jonathan,
I've wanted to do a rather extensive study of this nature for years. The problem is getting enough materials that are comparable together to make such comparisons possible. There is no question you can get better protection with mail by adding a textile armour. The problem in this case is under mail you get to a point it limits the mobility of it and therefore the function. I have spend a fair number of years playing with this to find what worked best. You can get a bigger mail shirt but to keep the period depictions and remaining shirts means they cannot be as thick as you often see for many textile armours, at least under.
Sean,
That is true and in the test I am not sure it will impact them except the over vs under might have a different impact on the test and we know you cannot have a 30 layer jack under a mail shirt for an example. He's doing mid 13th so none of that 15th century stuff sadly!
RPM
I've wanted to do a rather extensive study of this nature for years. The problem is getting enough materials that are comparable together to make such comparisons possible. There is no question you can get better protection with mail by adding a textile armour. The problem in this case is under mail you get to a point it limits the mobility of it and therefore the function. I have spend a fair number of years playing with this to find what worked best. You can get a bigger mail shirt but to keep the period depictions and remaining shirts means they cannot be as thick as you often see for many textile armours, at least under.
Sean,
That is true and in the test I am not sure it will impact them except the over vs under might have a different impact on the test and we know you cannot have a 30 layer jack under a mail shirt for an example. He's doing mid 13th so none of that 15th century stuff sadly!
RPM