Aketon design

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:39 pm

Is there such a thing as a historically verified aketon pattern for about 1000AD - 1200AD? I'm making a couple and I don't really feel good about the historical accuracy of the pattern I'm using because it has set in sleeves.

Jeff and I have looked through about 30 books plus read everything Osprey has to say about them. I've seen a number of designs in the Osprey books and on various websites, but none of the designs give a hint of what they're based on which makes me very leery.

Is there an aketon pattern approved for use by Regia Anglorum or one of the other upper level Living History groups? I looked around online but couldn't find anything.

Any help would be appreciated.

Gwen

Anders Helseth · Post by **Anders Helseth** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:52 am

I am fairly certain no such thing exists.

Of course, one can never completely rule out the possibility that an aketon from the 4. crusade has miracoulously survived until the present, forgotten in a dusty loft somewhere - kept at the right humidity levels, in the dark and protected from mold, insects and animals by the local microclimate - but the chance is slim. One can always hope though...

I think I have seen some indication of set in sleeves before the 14.century sometime, but 2000kms away from my books and knowledgeable friends I cant find out just where right now. A little voice inside my head tells me to look at the dates for the Moselund tunic, and some of the textiles from Viking Hedeby(Haithabu), but dont get your hopes up too high.

If Regia or somesuch organisation has an approved aketon pattern it is probably "based" on the Bayeux tapestry.

Albrekt af Viborg · Post by **Albrekt af Viborg** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:35 pm

Gwen, I'm in the process of putting together a Regia kit (having joined up last year), and the word I've gotten is that there are no historically verified aketons from the period Regia covers. However, they do allow them to be worn, and my impression is that they base them on depictions on the Bayeux Tapestry that may represent padded tunics.

Take all that with a grain of salt, though. I'm new to the group and still learning, so I could be wrong...

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:51 pm

Thanks for the info guys. I figured there were no surviving aketons or surely I would have heard about that miracle somewhere!.

I just wondered what the artists in the Osprey series were basing their reconstructions on. I know from other books that some of their stuff is pretty far out there, so I'm trying to be careful.

None of the surviving clothes of this period have what we would call a set in sleeve, at best just a curve at the top where the sleeve joins the body. Stella Mary Newton places the date of the first true set in sleeve at about 1360 or so, so I think I've stepped off the edge of a cliff by putting them in this aketon.

I think I just want a slimmer silhoutte, and the early sleeve set is so bulky!! (note to self- this is not the 15th C!!!!

)

So Albrekt, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly does the aketon that Regia allows look like? Is it like the one in the "Knights of Outremer" plate?

Thanks very much for your help- I have until Wednesday at 8AM to get 2 of them done for a photo shoot

Gwen

Albrekt af Viborg · Post by **Albrekt af Viborg** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:14 pm

Ack! A deadline!

Well, the only online photo of a Regia gambeson I've found is on a website that seems to be down right now.

It was here, in the Library section, under "Warrior's Kit" (or something like that).

T. Finkas · Post by **T. Finkas** » Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:05 pm

What period is the Maciejowski Bible...around mid 1200's? There are some excellent depictions of what could be called aketons in those illuminations.

Tim

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:33 am

Exactly correct, Stud: mid 13th century.

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:02 pm

Gwen,

While this is prely a matter of conjecture, I have held the opinion that such a garment would be cut in the same manner as the shirts of the period. The sleeves should not be inset, and the body should be flared by the addition of gores at the sides. I have an unpublished article on the Macieowski gambesons where I also note the following features. These garments tend to bunch above the belt-line, thereby indicating the flare from the gores begins high, perhaps at the arm-pit. The sleeves all come to a point at the bottom, which does not seem to indicate a curved, inset arm-hole. Finally, the seams at the shoulders and the hems of non-dagged half-sleeves is bulging and rounded. This leads me to beieve that the components were stitced together after quilting / padding and cutting. It's only my opinion based on observation, so take it for what it may be worth.

Ernst

white mountain armoury · Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:39 pm

Gwen, check out Embletons Medieval Military Costume recreated in color photographs, soft cover. Provided you have it. There is a a decent 13th cent aketon recreation on page 13
There are also some earlier representations but most have a maile shirt on over.
If my scanner was running id post it.

Armourkris · Post by **Armourkris** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:17 pm

Stupid question here...

but what are set in sleeves???

i didnt know there was more than on way to do them

------------------
What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee:

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:37 pm

Thanks to all for the help. I'm up to my eyeballs in quilting and stitching, but will post photos of the thing at the end of the week.

Now back to sewing for me- just 12 hours to go!

Gwen

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:00 am

Ty, set-in sleeves fit into an armhole that is cut in a curve rather than just straight. It's the way shirt sleeves and jacket sleeves are attached to their garments. A set-on sleeve is just attached to a straight cut armhole, or a straight selvedge. It's the basic T-tunic attachment, and it doesn't let the sleeve fit the arm as well, so most such sleeves tend to be rather wide to compensate. A sleeve like the Charles de Blois coat with its huge trumpet-flares for sleeve tops (called Ã grandes assiettes) are like an extreme form of set-in.

------------------
"The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone..."

Ny Bjorn · Post by **Ny Bjorn** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 9:06 am

-It may be a bit late - deadline and all - but there are several fragments of tunics with set-in sleeves from Haithabu (roughly dated to the 10th century - early 11th)
Have a look in Inga HÃ¤gg's "Die Textilfunde aus dem Hafen von Haithabu" ISBN: 3-529-1920-8. On page 48 you'll find good line-drawings of two such fragments.

/N B

(Ehr - could we see some pictures of the finished result?)

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:23 am

3 people, sewing like maniacs, can made a hand-quilted aketon in one day (25 man-hours of work)

I've never made anything resembling a "gambeson" in my life.

This thing is GORGEOUS.

I'm so proud of myself.

Note: A quilted garment should be made 1 size bigger than the intended wearer.

The pattern fit Jeff, the aketon does not.

We're going to have to put Jeff in a tunic and hope this fits our other actor on the shoot.

When this is over I'm going to slit my wrists.

Photos? Of course. -After- I slit my wrists.

I have to be on set in 40 minutes with a tunic and an aketon that doesn't fit Jeff.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGG (wail of anguish)

Gwen

Ny Bjorn · Post by **Ny Bjorn** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:38 am

Great!

-Happy slitting then...

/N B

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:51 am

Gwen about how many inches extra did you make the aketon to have room to quilt it? I an about to make a pourpoint and want to make sure I don't make it to big or small.

Thanks
Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Ulfr of Wulf Den · Post by **Ulfr of Wulf Den** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:44 pm

How big is Jeff? You could always sell it to me!

-Ulfr

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 3:30 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gwen:
Note: A quilted garment should be made 1 size bigger than the intended wearer.

The pattern fit Jeff, the aketon does not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somewhere in one of the extant sources on padded military garments it mentions adding something like 2" to a pattern to account shrinkage during quilting. It is not clear that this is per piece or total, but I use per piece on a 4 piece heavily quilted gambeson. This accounts for both shrinkage due to quilting, a wider seam allowance which is easier to sew, as well as the size allowance needed for comfortable movement.

The other thing that people often don't account for well is that muscles pump up. I don't know how many times I hear complaints from fighters that the forearms of their sleeves end up too tight after they start fighting. Of course this is based on the individual you are sewing for. Some pump up more than others.

Juliana

T. Finkas · Post by **T. Finkas** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:02 pm

I know this advice is too late to help, but perhaps others who are working on aketons/gambesons will find it useful. If your gambeson turns out too tight, consider adding an additional strip of quilted cloth to the chest opening. Or, add a "spacer" strip to each of the side seams where the front and back panels meet, under the arms. The nature of the vertical quilt lines make adding these "spacers" nearly "seamless"!

Tim

------------------
Tim Finkas, Sculptor & Proprietor<A HREF="http://finkas.home.netcom.com/HSB/HSBMAIN.html" TARGET=_blank>
Historical Stud & Buckle Company</A>

Anders Helseth · Post by **Anders Helseth** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:34 am

It may be a bit late - deadline and all - but there are several fragments of tunics with set-in sleeves from Haithabu (roughly dated to the 10th century - early 11th)
Have a look in Inga HÃ¤gg's "Die Textilfunde aus dem Hafen von Haithabu" ISBN: 3-529-1920-8. On page 48 you'll find good line-drawings of two such fragments.
/N B



Thanks for confirming that I did not just dream up those early set-in sleeves Ny BjÃ¶rn!

Pity no one seems to listen....

Anders
It is handy to read german, nicht wahr?

white mountain armoury · Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:41 am

Bummer on the fit, it happened to me when my wife made me my lentner, the quilting definatly reduces the overall size.
Look forward to seeing the finnished product

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:17 pm

Well, we all survived. We feel like we've been dragged through the proverbial knothole backwards, but we're up and moving. The director especially liked the mounted combat stuff and poor Jeff's arm finally gave out after about 4 hours of "just one more shot".....

The aketon did fit the other fellow in the shoot well enough to get by, although the sleeves were ridiculously short. He was a trooper though, and came up with the idea of placing his arms behind his back when they were doing shots of the aketon so that his wrists didn't show at all. Made him look like he was doing some sort of "manly" pose, and saved face for me. Once he had the mail shirt over the aketon the sleeve length didn't really matter.

The shoot was for the History Channel's "Mail Call" show. We shot 2 separate segments yesterday, one on chain mail and one on weapons other than broadswords, focusing on 15th C. weapons such as spear/lance, pollaxe, mace and hammer. We have no idea when they'll broadcast but I'll post if and when we find out.

Many thanks for all of your input on this. If nothing else, I have a much greater understanding of what an aketon is and how it is put together and works. I took over 100 photos yesterday and will put up a few once I have retreived them from the camera and gone through them.

Gwen

Bartok · Post by **Bartok** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:46 am

I caught the mail and weapon posts, but I haven't been able to find the pictures of your aketon without mail over it... Have they been posted? I would really like to see it!

Bartok

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:19 am

Gwen: "Once he had the mail shirt over the aketon..."

Now I -am- curious. I'm still leaning toward the argument that whatever was worn under the mail, pre-14th C., was pretty minimal. If there was padded armor, it was worn over the hauberk. Have you found something that shows a quilted garment under the mail? Tim's suggestion to use the M-bible would have shown the aketon over the mail, as well.

The measurements will be in your inbox shortly...

-cheval-, who just dumped over $200 today on aketon materials -- needled cotton batting and bright red canvas duck, so I ain't that strict on my own kit, either

!

sersem · Post by **sersem** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:22 am

cheval, The effigy from Ouville l'Abbaye, France, dated by 13 C., shows the neck of an gambeson (source: "Knight Hospitallier (1) 1100-1306).

BTW, I have drawn my vision of mid-13C acetons and place it on http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http://armourer.fromru.com/articles/gambeson/

[This message has been edited by sersem (edited 01-25-2003).]

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:42 am

Sersem: "The effigy from Ouville l'Abbaye, France, dated by 13 C., shows the neck of an gambeson (source: "Knight Hospitallier (1) 1100-1306)."

Thanks for the quick reply. Is this an Osprey book you referenced? Do you have more details (ISBN, for instance)? Or, simpler for me

, can you scan the picture your talking about and post it or email it to me? I'll be keen to see if it's really a collar to a foundation garment (as opposed to the the commonly depicted "dog collar" gorget's of the period), and whether one can determine if it is, indeed, quilted.

With kind regards... -c-

sersem · Post by **sersem** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:45 am

Here it is:

[img]http://access.uven.ru/~sse/stuff/gambneck13c.jpg[/img]

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:39 pm

Thank you very much for your very informative information page Sersem!

I am embarrassed to admit that I did my research in 48 hours on the net and in Osprey books, without benefit of a copy of the Mac bible in house. When my copy of the Mac arrived at the beginning of this week I pored over it for several hours, and came to the same conclusion-that the body was covered by 2 separate garments, and the collar was a third piece not attached to the body of either garment.

It seemed to me that the outer garment was quilted and sleeveless, and that the sleeves were attached to the under garment although frankly I wasn't sure what the under one looked like. Having seen how bulky and awkward the armhole in mine was with the sleeve attached, I think the idea that the sleeves are part of a more lightly padded undergarment is logical.

No garments of this period have integral collars, so it seemed weird to me that this one would have an attached collar. Many of the neck protections in the Mac bible are different colored than the body, so that was another tip off that it's not all one piece.

Bartok, I'm afraid that you're going to have to wait a bit longer to see a picture, as I'm going to rework this garment I made into 2 separate garments per sersem's page. I think he's got the right of it, and now I want to reconstruct this armour "properly"!

I'll be sure to post pictures, don't worry about that!!!

Gwen

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 3:37 pm

I just went back and read the last few posts and looked at the pictures in the Mac again.

Cheval, you're saying the padded garment is worn -over- the mail? To me, it looks like it's either worn instead of mail (maybe those soldiers couldn't afford mail) or under mail.

Jeff and I talked to Steve Sheldon about this and looked at the Regia site, and they seem convinced a padded garment was worn under mail. I will admit several of the illos in the Mac seem to show the sleeveless garment worn over mail, and in many it's unclear what's under it.

My understanding of the layering is this:

Gambeson is the lightly padded garment with sleeves worn over a tunic. May be worn alone by poorest soldiers or combined with:

Aketon sleeveless padded garment, worn either:

over the gambeson
over gambeson and mail
worn over gambeson and under mail

Man am I ever confused now. [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/confused.gif[/img] Can anyone shed more light on this for me?

Gwen

[This message has been edited by Gwen (edited 01-25-2003).]

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:47 pm

The page about gambesons and aketons is very interesting.

I'm not convinced that the collar is a separate item. In some pictures the collar is the same color as the garment it butts against. In cases where it is a separate color, perhaps it is the padded collar of a garment worn beneath everything else?

It's hard to say for certain, that's for sure. I myself am comfortable with the conclusion that quilted garments of different levels of sophistication were worn both under and over maille by 1250.

Here you can see what an integral collar looks like when worn with a gambeson under a full shirt of maille:

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

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:25 pm

Thanks for the pic Steve, I have a few more questions (but you knew you were opening yourself up to that by posting a picture, didn't you?

)

Have you found any civilian garments that have an integral collar? I ask because if the shape of the rest of the garment is based on a civilian garment, I just can't ignore the collar issue.
I see your padded garment is much shorter than the hauberk, yet most of the ones in the Mac seem to be much longer. Can you explain why?
Can you add any information to the "mail over padded garment / mail under padded garment" question?

thanks so much to everyone for their input, this is very interesting!!!!

Gwen

Oh, and Steve- I'm quite sure those shoes are wrong for the rest of your outfit, and your hose seem to be a bit -loose-.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 1:44 am

Hee hee!

Firstly, I have to beg off on the clothing answers a bit - as you know my thing is maille and I relied heavily on Brian Gerring, our resident clothing (and other things) expert. He had much experience from another Living History group he was in, Norman Normanorum (or something like that), and carried it forward a hundred plus years to fulfill our needs for Novae Militiae, circa 1189. The gambeson, and all of my clothing for the time period, is based on his information. Incidently, he did cite references in all his handouts that he provided to the group. Unfortunately he stipulated that the information could not go outside of the group, so I can't share his handouts with all of you, even if I could lay my hands on them!

That said, no, I don't know of any civilian clothing with collars for that time period. It does not give me heartburn that military clothing might be different. In fact, one could argue that if you had to have a quilted coat to wear for battle, and you had to have a quilted piece to cover your neck, why not make them integral? The idea of extending torso defenses into head defenses is not unknown for that time period - the maille coif often extends up from and is integral with the hauberk.

In the picture I am wearing a hauberk that was made for a customer, and he requested it to be much longer than what I usually wear. This is why it extends so much further than my gambeson. That said, I do wish my gambeson was a bit longer. Next time...

I don't have anything else to add to the "mail over padded garment / mail under padded garment" question. I am satisfied that quilted garments of varying styles were worn both over and under the maille. That much is certain. I don't sweat the details of the various styles of the garments themselves because in all likelyhood we will never know (cop-out, I know). Also, if there's one thing I've come to believe in the years of studying stuff like this is that there is never a definitive "this is the way it was done". There must have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, of different people producing garments like this. So if we want to know, for example, whether there was ever a case where a quilted collar was part of a quilted shirt, I'd bet the answer was "probably". Were there quilted shirts without an integral quilted collar? Again - probably. Some people probably liked their quilted clothing crotch length, some people probably liked theirs knee-length. Some people probably liked integral mittens with their gambeson (Brian's did), while others probably didn't. Many soldiers probably had no choice about what they got, while others probably had their quilted clothing custom made to their exact specifications. All of the collars in the Mac Bible, as I recall, seem to be buttoned closed, or suggest buttoning. I chose ties for mine, and even though I have not documented this I'm comfortable with it, as the technique works and I feel certain that it was likely done.

I can appreciate agonizing over the details when it's "your thing" - I do the same thing with maille, of course. Clothing isn't my thing and there comes a point where I go "Hmmmm - close enough!"

I know I'm also waffling on this issue a bit, too, because one of my personal mottos for living history is to portray the "documentably common" and not the "documentably probable" or the "documentably obscure". Obviously this issue of quilted clothing for this time period needs a lot more research before we can be comfortable in our knowlege of what was common.

I guess the point of all my rambling here would be that as far as clothing goes I have decided that I can't know everything about everything (yet!

) but I'm happy enough with what I know about quilted clothing at the moment to feel comfortable with my level of ignornace.

That is to say, I think what I'm wearing, at any rate, is probably pretty close - close enough that I have lots of other inaccuracies to work on with my kit before I worry about a better gambeson.

You are right - the shoes and hosen are just plain wrong!

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

sersem · Post by **sersem** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:24 am

I'm not sure about SCA, but, afaik, there are no exact definitions for terms "gambeson" and "aceton" in the reanactment clubs I know (I could be wrong, of course).

So I've used as a start point following definition:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A military tunic, worn especially in the 14th c., made of leather or thick cloth, sometimes padded; it covered the trunk and thighs, and was originally worn under the habergeon, to prevent chafing or bruises, but was sometimes used as a defence without other body-armour.

Marc Carlson Glossary<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we address to common sense, then we'll see that when gambeson is worn under mail, it MUST have long quilted (or padded)sleeves. If you desagree, just try to get a light strike to you arm that is protcted only my mail sleeve. The tip: don't use rattan, use dull steel sword. ;-)

I prefer to use the term "gambeson" for garments with long sleeves worn under mail or
sometimes used as a defence without other body-armour.

Aceton - is a quilted garment with (or without) short sleeves worn over mail or other armour. Of course, poor warrior could wear only aceton.

It was my vision of definitions. :-)

Gwen, I desagree with you in some points. If you take a good look at the pictures on my page, you'll see that short-sleeved aceton were worn over mail. So, if I follow your logic, I should attache those short sleeves to the hauberk. :-)

)) Ain't it funny? I think that sleeves were attached to the gambeson (or aceton), not to the under garment. But! The sleeves were stitched into gambeson (Oh, my poor English!). Just look at the solid thick seam here. Of course, it is Ã mere surmise.

As for padded gorget - I'm sure that it is a separate item. Defferent colouring was mentioned already. And I have seen few examples in M-Bible, where gorget was worn over hauberk (mail tunic with attached mail coif). So, it was separated from any quilted garment. Could it be attached to garment? Interesting question. Don't know. Have no evidence. I rather lean to the opininon that it couldn't.

Gwen · Post by **Gwen** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:41 am

Hi sersem-

Any disagreement is a translation glitch, because I see the same thing you do and you drew on your information page.

I looked quite carefully, and there were no seam lines on any of the tunics, gowns or other clothing in the Mac, which is why I believe the careful line at the armhole denotes something. I agree that what we're seeing is 2 or more layers.

Based on what I see so far, it looks to me like the gambeson and aketon were sometimes worn over a tunic. On some of the Mac illos you can definitely see three layers.

I understand that the mail must be worn over something, but it appears to be worn over a regular tunic in some cases. I don't understand this, as it seems that if a guy could afford mail, he should be able to afford a gambeson and aketon.

So little hard information, so much speculation!!

Gwen

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:59 am

"I understand that the mail must be worn over something, but it appears to be worn over a regular tunic in some cases. I don't understand this, as it seems that if a guy could afford mail, he should be able to afford a gambeson and aketon."

Yes, I agree. Sometimes the artwork has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some period artwork (Bayeux Tapestry, I think, for one) show people naked after having their maille pulled off of them. I think that's pretty unlikely!

The Mac Bible, of course, is extradinary in its detail, and so I'm not so eager to discount details shown in it. But, for all that, it is a limited medium, obviously.

Steve