|
Author
|
Topic: a question on jack construction
|
|
|
Reinhard von Lowenhaupt
Member
Member # 119
|
posted 09-22-2001 05:11 PM
    
Fitz,
The amount of shrinkage will, of course, depend on the weight of the linen, and the space between your rows of stitching. The best suggestion is to use a little of your linen measure the dimensions, then sew a couple of rows of quilting stitches and re-measure. Multiply the 'loss' by the number of rows needed for your girth, and you should have a fairly adequate measure of how much excess is needed.
I'm not sure about the historical accuracy of this, but using silk thread should help extend the life of you stitching, as well as stopping the quilting threads from stretching. Hope this helps.[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Reinhard von Lowenhaupt ] -------------------- Per Mortem Vinco
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
hauptmann
unregistered
|
posted 09-23-2001 12:08 PM
I would recommend against silk thread.Silk has the problem that it will deteriorate in sunlight and when sweated on. If you quilt your jack with silk, it's likely that you will have to requilt it rather soon, unless you don't wear it and keep it indoors. Yes silk is strong but given the above, I don't think it's the best choice for quilting a jack. I recommend a medium weight wet or dry spun flax or hemp linen thread, probably 20/2 or 20/3 spin. Wax it with paraffin or beeswax and it's quite strong. Harness needles have small eyes and blunt points so using those will allow you to pull the thread through rather easily and will go between the weave threads, not splitting the thread of the weave or cutting it. [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: hauptmann ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Key
Member
Member # 17
|
posted 10-05-2001 10:03 AM
I'd be interested to know here the 12 layers of Linen comes from for Chrales's ordinances ... the quotation I have runs as follows ..."And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."
Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 10-05-2001 10:53 AM
Hi Dave,That would be from the ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves, published October of 1473. It is in the section describing the equipment of members of a lance - specifically the mounted archer "... The mounted archer must possess a horse worth not less than six francs, and should wear a visorless sallet, a gorget (I'd translate bevor or standard), a brigandine, or a sleeveless mail shirt under a ten layer jack...." -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 10-05-2001 11:29 AM
So here is another reference to the "pourpoint" being worn under the jack. When I asked Gerry E about it, he was only aware of the reference in "How a man shall be armed".Bob, is there any reference to a "pourpoint" like garment in your source? I see now why CoSG only allow those who own jacks to own pourpoints! Dave, does the White Company have the same restriction? Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 10-05-2001 08:34 PM
Hi Gwen,To my knowledge, the Louis XI ordinance, and the Hall manuscript are the only two direct references to these sleeveless hose holder-uppers. Considering the first is cica 1430, and the second 1483, it seems to bracet our era nicely. The only other way I could concieve of wearing a jack, considering it's thickness, is if the jack were to carry the poinbts for the hose. What I don't know would fill a warehouse - but I have never seen a jack carrying points for hose. Considering the sorts of fellows who had inventories made up of their possessions when they deceased tended to be of a different class than the fellows who would wear jacks into a battle, I don't see it odd that there are not a lot of written references to them. Your lord might provide you with a jack to hopefully ward a blow in battle (consider the Howard household accounts), I reckon he would figure you to be too sorry a chap if you couldn't provide your own means of holding your hose up while wearing it. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
McIntosh
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 10-08-2001 12:43 PM
Seigneur de Leon Are you thinking that the chauses/hosen and the cuises are attached to the pourpoint seperately but at the same time? I have come to the conclusion that cuises may have been attached to reinforced hosen and then the hosen attached to the pourpoint. The reinforce may have been linen stitched in rows or corduroy. It would only have neede to go to mid-thigh. In a 1470-90 tapestry about the Trojan War Hector is being armed. You can see the points on the hose for securing the cuises. This should not be too much of a shocker as we have seen and readily accept a reinforced sleeve carrying an arm harness.-------------------- McIntosh
Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
hauptmann
unregistered
|
posted 10-09-2001 12:02 AM
I have been using an arming doublet for several years to which I point my hose AND my leg harness. Quite some time back I tried pointing the same leg harness to a reinforced pair of leather hose and found them very ineffective and painful to wear. The waist band of the hose must be so tight to carry the weight that it’s agony once you’ve got them on. All my research indicates that with plate leg harness, one should suspend the cuisses from points on the arming coat/doublet. It would seem logical too, that one should point the hose to the same garment. It is clear from “How a man shall be armed” that there should be no garment other than the arming doublet worn on the upper body. In fact, this document specifically says “he shall have no shirt upon him.” Reducing bulk under harness is of prime concern in wearing plate and it seems that the same reasoning follows in the wearing of a jack. This is especially true given that a jack should be so close fitting as to require the wearing of a sleeveless garment underneath to carry the hose. I expect that this is because the sleeves should fit very close to the arms. It is very feasible to point cuisses of a plate leg harness to the same sleeveless “poupoint”, when wearing this arrangement with a jack. The primary factor in functionality of the doublet/pourpoint as carrier of the cuisses is that the garment be properly fitted. This is critical. The waist must lace very tightly about the hips, but the rest of the body of the garment should be somewhat loose fitting above the waist so as to not transfer the cuisses' weight to the shoulders. This is easily accomplished by undersizing the waist to hem area so it laces snugly, then lengthening the waist to armpit area so at no point during motion does it become taught from waist to shoulder. I recommend that the eyelets for pointing the hose be put directly in the doublet, and that peirced leather strips or tabs be stitched into the inside of the garment to which you would point the cuisses. If you do not wish to pierce holes in the garment for the hose, you can attach more leather tabs for the hose points instead of doing the eyelets.
IP: Logged
|
|
Seigneur de Leon
Member
Member # 65
|
posted 10-09-2001 12:28 PM
quote:
I recommend that the eyelets for pointing the hose be put directly in the doublet, and that peirced leather strips or tabs be stitched into the inside of the garment to which you would point the cuisses. If you do not wish to pierce holes in the garment for the hose, you can attach more leather tabs for the hose points instead of doing the eyelets.
Excellent, Herr Hauptman! Thanks for the response. I assume then, without adding any extra holes, I can either take the hose points through the fauld eyelets in the doublet, and then tie the fauld with what remains, or use two points in the same eyelets, one for each. quote:
It is clear from “How a man shall be armed” that there should be no garment other than the arming doublet worn on the upper body. In fact, this document specifically says “he shall have no shirt upon him.”
I also saw this line but was unsure of what conclusion to draw from it. I assumed they were referring to an overtunic. [ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Seigneur de Leon ] -------------------- VERITAS IN INTIMO
VIRES IN LACERTU
SIMPLICITAS IN EXPRESSO
Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
McIntosh
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 10-09-2001 02:24 PM
Dear Jeffery,
I wish to hear more of the cuise/hose combination that you found deficient. Was the waist band the only thing that was holding the hosen up? Or were they pointed to the doublet and still had to be that tight? How did you point the cuise to the hose- along the top edge or some other way?-------------------- McIntosh
Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
hauptmann
unregistered
|
posted 10-09-2001 08:47 PM
Jef,When you mention the "fauld", do mean a mail skirt? I usually call the skirt plates on a breastplate the "fauld". I am unfamiliar with calling a mail skirt a "fauld". I do not recommend using eyelets through the doublet for double duty on hose and a mail skirt. I am unaware of any primary references for pointing a mail skirt to the doublet, so I am unsure as to how this should be handled. When I have provided mail skirts to my clients, I have attached a leather belt with a buckle for wear; no attachment to the doublet. I suppose if you wanted to point the skirt to the doublet you could stitch more eyelets into the doublet, though I would hesitate in recommending this. McIntosh- My attempt at pointing cuisses to hose, as mentioned above, was discouraging and nearly ten years ago. I know more now than then, but after lots more research over that time, I am still aware of no references to pointing cuisses to reinforced hose, and am still unconvinced of its historical validity. If you have a reference, I'd be glad to know about it. If you don't have any basis for the idea, I don't think I can add anything or make any recommendations, as I don't believe it's the right way to go. I'm a strong believer in pointing cuisses to the doublet since it's worked for me for years, and there is at least a little evidence for pointing things to a doublet and none that I'm aware of for pointing to hose. It should also be noted that in most cases, the bulk of the weight of cuisses should be borne by properly fitted greaves. If the greaves wear on your instep, chances are they don't fit properly. I'd say my over-riding consideration for my theory that pointing to hose isn't right is knowing the general construction of hose in the late 15th century. We (Gwen and I) have done beaucoup research and experimentation on 15th C hosen, and have never run across any evidence for hose reinforced even in the seat for riding. Bill and I have worn out several pairs of hose (due to saddle wear) and would really like to find evidence for some sort of reinforcement, but haven't found any so far. I'm certainly open to anything you can enlighten me on.
IP: Logged
|
|
Seigneur de Leon
Member
Member # 65
|
posted 10-09-2001 09:13 PM
quote:
I do not recommend using eyelets through the doublet for double duty on hose and a mail skirt. I am unaware of any primary references for pointing a mail skirt to the doublet, so I am unsure as to how this should be handled. When I have provided mail skirts to my clients, I have attached a leather belt with a buckle for wear; no attachment to the doublet. I suppose if you wanted to point the skirt to the doublet you could stitch more eyelets into the doublet, though I would hesitate in recommending this.
Well, obviously I've been labouring under a misconception. I assumed it was attached that way, although after failing at my attempt with the mail gussets, I confess I haven't actually fooled with the fauld (Which is what I have read a chain mail skirt being called. I also refer to a steel band skirt as a fauld. I'll post my sources if I can find them). Both of my mail skirts are normally attached to a gambeson through eyelets attached to an inner belt grommetted to the gambeson. (Quit groaning Gwen.) Both of these are 14 guage galv. butted mail & part of an SCA harness so are inappropriate to this application. (Don't worry, I never used my "neat stuff" for SCA.) -------------------- VERITAS IN INTIMO
VIRES IN LACERTU
SIMPLICITAS IN EXPRESSO
Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
McIntosh
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 10-11-2001 11:36 AM
Hauptman, I belive that in Medieval Soldier there is a passage concerning reinforced hose. My copy is on loan but I will check when I get it back. I believe that it comes from a Spanish work and is detailed in the section about arming doublets, also the tapestry piece that shows Hector being armored. This is in Medieval Tapestries by Cavallo ISBN 0-87099-644-4. The tapestry is scenes from The Story of the Trojan War. On page 230 you see Hector with a lot of points on his hose at various places: mid-thigh, inside and outside of knee etc. Later he is shown mounted and at least the greaves are held in place by the points. The top of the cuise is very low and can be seen below his brigandine but the bridal obscures the point where the points would be. The point here is that there is no other support shown except for the possible use of the points seen earlier and obviously used to secure the greaves.
This tapestry is not alone in showing that hose sported points for other things. On page 199 there is a fellow with an extraneous point that is placed about mid-thigh too low to help in ceeping the hose attached to the doublet.He still has his breastplate and arm harness but no cuise on. I think he has removed the cuises and not changed out of arming hose.
This is my basis for pursuing the reinforced hose idea. I am in the process of making a test pair and will let you know how it goes.-------------------- McIntosh
Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
hauptmann
unregistered
|
posted 10-16-2001 03:27 AM
I suggest you find several primary references (3 is a good number) for the "reinforced hose" idea before you believe it. Using one reference (probably unfootnoted and uncited) from Embleton and a (probably allegorical) tapestry is at best unreliable. I don't want to discourage you, but I think it would be a shame if you spend a lot of time trying out something that is based on someone elses possibly misguided speculation.Chef will back me up in my view of using allegorical references as a view of reality. You can't necessarily take what you see as real. Knowing the physics of a leg harness from having built literally dozens of them for my clients and wearing them in foot combat for nearly 15 years and on horse for the last 5 years, as I've said above, I believe in the pointing to the doublet idea, but not to the hose. The references you cite here do not convince me otherwise. It would help me to see the detail from the tapestry, as I do not have the book you mention. Could you post the pic in another thread (I think we're getting a bit off topic.)? I will look up how Embleton refers to them and see if he has a verifiable and legitmate reference for the idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cornelius
Member
Member # 216
|
posted 10-17-2001 01:34 AM
HI ho
Question about hose under leg harness.There are references to 'blanket' wraped around the knees - we have been using a version of padded chausses (no, they are not right) and are in the middle of try to find out a better way of doing this. I do not feel confident in Brian Prices' solution.
Would there have been speciffic set of hosen to wear under leg harness?
Could some thing have been simply stiched onto the hose?
Does anyone have any ideas?  Cornelius
Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
Gwen
Member
Member # 126
|
posted 10-17-2001 02:24 AM
If the references say the "blanket" is wrapped around the knee, why do you assume it needs to be stitched on or built in in some way?I don't know what "Brian Price's solition" is, but I know that this weekend Jeff decided to wrap a piece of wool around his knee over his hose and under his knee cop and he said it worked great. As a matter of fact, what he said was "Why didn't I do this before? The reference is in all the books, it's simple, and it works great. Duh!" It wasn't anything fancy or complicated, just a thick wool "towel" from the horse cleaning supplies basket. The piece went all the way around his knee about 1.5 times and was about 5"-6" wide, and he wrapped it around his knee before putting on his harness. He wore his harness almost all day, walked, rode and did some fighting and the wrap stayed put without any fuss at all. Gwen
Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 10-17-2001 11:45 AM
Hi All,I've been using 'bulwarks' for over a year, and it does indeed work great. Just tuck'em like a towel, and the strap of the polyen holds them in place (as well as the top of the greave. I use a thinner wool than blanket (extra red wool from our livery jackets St. Andrews crosses). -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Phillipe de Pamiers
Member
Member # 171
|
posted 10-22-2001 10:45 AM
Hauptmann,In your post from 10/9 you mention your arming doublet. What are you using for your pattern and what type of material? Is it a single layer of fabric, lined or multiple layers? Do you have any additional padding under your arm harness or on the shoulders? I am glad to hear that the wool wraps worked well. I am interested in trying this and wondered what weight of wool you used? blanket weight or a little thiner? -------------------- Phillipe de Pamiers
Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
jcesarelli
Member
Member # 146
|
posted 04-11-2002 09:12 AM
Are there specific quilting patterns that are historically correct?-------------------- Joseph It is the very difficult horses that have the most to give you. Lendon Gray
Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
hsu
Member
Member # 306
|
posted 04-19-2002 04:48 AM
"Are there specific quilting patterns that are historically correct?"In Germany three quilted garments dated to 15th century are preserved, they are all stuffed with cotton and armless. The quilting pattern of these are simliar to drawing no 10 on page 13 in Company of St Georges Dragon nr 3. The Dragons are put online at:
http://www.companie-of-st-george.ch/dragons_1.phtml cheers /Henrik
Registered: Apr 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
posted 10-11-2001 01:21 PM
