I need help with a project- the goal is to build a gambeson that I only have seen once, and that was at Anselm Arms- Its got the special design for arms that I have seen on some 15th century paintings, but I cant find a good source for the gambeson/arming doublet. The arm extends from a normal point, in to two cicles, that extends to the back of the piece.
It seems like this is a good idea to wear under armour, but were can I find any good sources for this- in paintings, or on the web-

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

Anselm carries a version of the Charles of Blois pourpoint made by David Randrup. He makes them only in black, and only at Pennsic.

Patterns for the garment can be found in the back of Blanche Payne's "History of Costume", there's one on the web somewhere, also I believe there's one in Brian Price's book.

It is generally agreed that the original was NOT an arming coat, but the pattern seems to work well in that capacity.

quote:

---

It is generally agreed that the original was NOT an arming coat, but the pattern seems to work well in that capacity.

Gwen

---

While I agree with that statement, my question is: Was it worn over armour (such as a maille shirt) or was it worn instead of other armour, in other words, on its own.

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Seigneur de Leon ]

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

In a word..."no".

The cut and fit do not allow for it. Also, the padding is not of a type that could be considered "armour" like in a jack or padded coat. There are too many arguments against it being a military garment and no evidence for it being one.

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

Rodric, I'm interested in your statement that mail skirts were worn under a quilted garment. This seems backwards to me, as it seems that the mail should be worn *over* a padded garment. Could you comment on the practice of wearing mail under, rather than over?

Thanks-

The practise of wearing mail under a padded garment (i.e. the padded jack), is fairly well documented, from paintings like the St, Ursula reliquary and other sources, commentary in Louis XI's ordinances, and the like.

In testing the defensive qualities of mail, the RA found that the best combination to keep out arrows is the jack over the mail haubergorn. If the mail is worn over the jack, the links trap an incoming point and channel the energy into one small spot, breaking the link and piercing the mail. If it is worn the other way round, the padded jack tends to repell the arrow, or if a 90% strike, it slows the velocity down to the point that the mail successfully stops it.

That said, this is using a textile armour itself, and most people in reenactment circles and elsewere confuse textile armour with textile foundation garments. The armour such as a gambeson or jack, if properly constructed, is too substantial to be worn under other armour such as plate, and does not fit tight enough to the skin to function correctly as a foundation garment.

As you well know, for a foundation garment to function correctly, it has to be as close fitting as possible while allowing movement. Most people seem to be unaware of the necessity, and do not use what seems to me the proper solution for pointing leg armour - to tabs in the arming doublet edge - such as you use, and so are unaware how this combination distributes the weight of the harness across the body.

Despite the occasional reference to pointing leg harness to hose, I've yet to see a good reproductio of arming hose that works - perhaps this is my own ignorance.

Anyhow, most of the confusion stems from a blurring of terminology, and an unclear understanding of the differences between foundation garments, and textile armours.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Rodric, I'm interested in your statement that mail skirts were worn under a quilted garment. This seems backwards to me, as it seems that the mail should be worn *over* a padded garment. Could you comment on the practice of wearing mail under, rather than over?

---

Hi Gwen,

I can speak to that. Any quilted garment designed to be worn *over* mail is called a "gambeson" (as opposed to a quilted garment worn *under* mail, which is an 'aketon'), and these were quite common in the 13th century. Blair says: "This view is supported by the number of texts that refer to the gambesons being worn over the aketon, hauberk, or, from the end of the thirteenth century, over plate armor." (Blair, p. 33). Of course, gambesons were often worn without mail (many of the paintings in the Mac bible portray this), but there's hard evidence for them being worn over mail as well. This picture: http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10rA.jpg shows a figure lying dead in the lower-right-hand corner who's wearing a short-sleeved gambeson (we can tell it is because the quilt lines are clearly visible) over an hauberk.

Moreover, on Walter von Hohenklingen's famous effigy (Edge & Paddock p. 76, among other places), we clearly see that he is wearing a quilted Lentner/jupon/whatever you wish to call it of the same sort as the one reserved at Chartres that once belonged to Charles VI. And, clearly visible under the hem of the garment, is a bit of mail. This *could* be simply a mail skirt, but I think it's safer to assume it's an haubergeon. In either case, I think it's clear support for the wearing of mail under quilted garments.

Having said that, of course, it's also clear that you're perfectly correct in that the Charles de Blois pourpoint could *never* have been worn over mail: It's much too fitted, and fitted in ways that would prevent it from working well over mail. The condition of the fabric, too, shows that it was never worn under mail (anyone who has ever worn a fabric garment under mild-steel mail will tell you of the marks the rings leave!), and the nature of the buttons on the sleeves clearly indicates that it was never intended to be worn as a military garment of any sort. For one thing, you'd *never* be able to get a 14th-century vambrace over those buttons!

Having said that, however, the *shape* of the CdB pourpoint is *superb* for an arming doublet because the grand aissette sleeves make it easy to move your arms without pulling the skirt of your garment up, a real problem if your cuisses are pointed to them as they should be. In order to do that, however, the garment must be quilted (for strength) lightly and the buttons on the sleeves must be replaced with laces. I have one that I wear with my Mac harness, and it makes the wearing of that harness much nicer!

[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: Hugh Knight ]

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

Specifically, the top button is a flat, then the buttons over the chest are round, and then at the waist they change back to flat. This would make sense if a breastplate with fauld were worn over this garment.

If this garment wasn't used as padding, why would they have gone to the trouble to change the shape of the buttons?

Or perhaps it was only for parade, and needed the buttons made this way so he could wear a breastplate.

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

-Chuck Davis

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chuck Davis:
Hi Gwen,
Do the references you cite for the CdB pourpoint not being used as armour mention the buttons?

Specifically, the top button is a flat, then the buttons over the chest are round, and then at the waist they change back to flat. This would make sense if a breastplate with fauld were worn over this garment.

If this garment wasn't used as padding, why would they have gone to the trouble to change the shape of the buttons?

Or perhaps it was only for parade, and needed the buttons made this way so he could wear a breastplate.

---

Hi Chuck,

I don't know why they did the buttons on the chest that way, but look at the buttons on the sleeves: You couldn't *possibly* wear a 14th-century arm harness over those buttons.

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

I think the buttons are original, and suspect that the flat ones are where they are so you don't have a big bulbous button at the top where your chin might run into it, or at the waist, where they would either interfere with a belt or feel weird when you sit down.

There are no attachment points for harness anywhere on the garment, and Jeff points out that breastplates circa 1360 don't have a fauld.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chuck Davis:
Hi Gwen,
Do the references you cite for the CdB pourpoint not being used as armour mention the buttons?

Specifically, the top button is a flat, then the buttons over the chest are round, and then at the waist they change back to flat. This would make sense if a breastplate with fauld were worn over this garment.

If this garment wasn't used as padding, why would they have gone to the trouble to change the shape of the buttons?

Or perhaps it was only for parade, and needed the buttons made this way so he could wear a breastplate.

---

Cad,

I have made a repro fo the CdB, the larger, round buttons over the chest have the effect of emphasizing the padded chest look, making it look much larger than if a flat or smaller button were used there.

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

Gwen, I can't agree with you that the Charles de Blois doublet was not padded originally. I have seen pictures and description of the doublet from the 1920s, when the garment was still in private hands, and long before a major conservation effort in the 1980s. The canvas lining and quilting stitches are already visible, including the points sewn to the interior atop the lining fabric. The quilting is described as being of cotton. I have operated on the assumption that the quliting serves the same purpose as chest padding in a modern mens' suit coat, to provide body and firmness to the garment. The first version of this pattern which I made was unpadded, and it tended to look like hell after a brief wearing, because being so close-fitting it wrinkled with every move. Padding helps it to hold its shape, and I think it is an early example of this type of "shape enhancement" quilting which show up on many surviving mens' doublets of the 16th century.

What I meant to say was that the garment is padded (as I expect any of those pidgeon breasted mid-late 14th C. garments to be), but it's not quilted like the Charles VI garment.

FWIW, I put a layer of flatting in my doublets for the same reason you cite- it helps the garment hold its shape and minimizes body wrinkles. I use canvas instead of padding to get a trimmer look.

Gwen

It's all led me to believe that under-armor garments looked to current fashion in cloth for their fundamental form, and were made as quilted editions of such clothing, rather than as an entirely separate, unvarying arming pourpoint. I speculate that were such a garment to have been used, it would resemble the Celtic-warrior-union-suits shown in some Celtic embossed silver -- begging for the moment the question of whether these were some more ritual than martial costume -- and equipped with points as needed.

I ramble, but it was a fun walk anyway.

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

I have been doing some work on my own with padded garments and pourpoints. It has been my observation that it is more the width of the shoulder seam and not actually the sleeve design that keeps the garment from pulling up when you lift your arms. One of the Burgundian ordinances (sorry no ref handy) referrs to a pourpoint with shoulders no wider than 4 fingers to attach hose to. This particular garment was to be worn beneath a padded jack.
The CdB design has similarly narrow shoulders.

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

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

I have been reading most of what's been written on padded garments on the forum, but I still have a couple of questions for you.

Here we go!

1. I’m under the impression that one can use a gambeson entirely on it’s own,
without any other type of torso protection. Is this correct, or am I wrong?

I’ve tried ”30 layers of white linen” (and maybe this would be referred to as a jack),
and it protects you from cuts, no doubt about that. But what about concussion damage? Any heavy axe or mace would easily break each and every one of your ribs into tiny splinters, even when you are protected by such quantities of linen cloth. This lead me to use thick
wollen cloth instead. I used ten layers, and the result was immensely thick and bulky.

To put it differently: is there any way to make some sort of
padded armour with the ability to cope with both penetration/cuts and
concussion? If this is the case – how is it donein a good way? And, if this
is not the case – how do you guys cope with concussion damage? Are you
wearing something underneath (padding or other), as suggested by for
example the Maciejowski Bible? Or are you just plain mean?

2. BTW - The pictures in the Mac. Bible suggests that two garments are worn.

Is it possible that the outmost one (the one that looks kind of like a sleeveless cotehardie) is worn as some kind of harness and the other (with sleeves) is worn as padding?

3. Different sources tell me different things: what came first – quilting
loose padding material (like raw cotton or sheep’s wool) between two or
more layers of cloth, or the ”30 layers of white linen”-model?

Or did they go side by side? Were the two methods combined in one and the same garment?

Or was there geographical differences?
Can a gambeson per se be made of layers of cloth, or is it labelled differently then (jack or arming doublet for example)?

4. How do you make a gambeson that doesn’t restrain movement as much? Are
there any key construction ways to succeed?

Every piece of advice would be really helpful – I’m beginning to despair…
all I’m asking for is the basic principles. Or, even better, a complete and
simple step-by-step-guide or a pattern for making gambesons

I’m looking forward to all of your opinions!

Cheers,

Peter Ahlqvist, Halmstad, Sweden

Gambeson/aketon are usually used to describe earlier period lighter garments for use over and under maile. Often both over and under at the same time.

How to make one - I've not done it myself, but have heard that you can machine stitch a few layres of linen together flat, then build those layers together into a curved body-fitting garment hand-sewn with help from an awl and a stout needle.

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

Thanks for your answer. To be a bit more specific - my question regards late 14th C gambesons (or the like).

Jeff wrote:

quote:

---

Besides, impact weapons weren't used very often because (I think) they are cumbersome and slow. A jack can be used alone, or supplemented with maile.

---

This sounds a bit peculiar - why would people be depicted using different impact weapons like maces, clubs and axes if they wore that slow and hence not used? A slow soldier is most likely a dead one, and I for my part would never go to battle with any weapon I didn't fully believe could do the job.

It is, furthermore, a well documented fact that axes were very widely used in Scandinavia for the greater part of the middle ages. Axes seems to have been used instead of halberds, of wich there is no known reference until the 15th C.

Do you have any reference referring to the terminology and use of gambeson/aketon?
Where is it mentioned that gambeson is worn outside of armour and aketon on the inside?

Could you please give me title of the works cited, full name of author and year of print/publishing (yada-yada-yada) ?

It would help a lot!

Thanks,

/Peter

'Quilted defences were certainly in general use by the second half of the 12th century and many texts of this period refer to them. Three terms are used, pourpoint, aketon and gambeson, but in what way the garments they denote differed from each other it is difficult to determine. On the whole it seems likely that pourpoint was a general term covering any type of quilted defence and that aketon was a plain quilted coat usually worn under the armour. Gambesons, on the other hand, are often described in early inventories as being made of silk or some other rich material, decorated with embroidery and coats-of-arms, a fact suggesting that, sometimes at least, they were designed to be worn as independent defences or surcoats. This view is supported by a number of texts that refer to the gambeson being worn over the aketon, the hauberk or, from the end of the 13th century, over plate armour. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of refernces to gambesons being worn under the armour and to aketons being worn independently, chiefly by the rank and file, and there are even a few references to decorated aketons. The answer to this rather confusing problem is probably that the terms were used very loosely and were to a very large extent interchangeable. For the sake of convenience the term aketon will be restricted here to the form of quilted coat worn under the armour or as an independent defence.'

So there's no definitive answer really. It all comes down to what a particular garment was called in a certain year and place and even then the local people might have used different words for the same quilted defence. I'm sick 'n tired of calling things pourpoint, gambeson, aketon, jupon, wambuis, etc because there's always confusion as to what one may mean by it. I now just stick to these modern terms: armouring coat being the quilted coat you wear under your armour and coat armour being the quilted coat you may wear over your armour.

And the bibliographical info on Blair's book:

Blair, Claude (1972), European Armour circa 1066 to circa 1700. London: Batsford. ISBN: 0-7134-07298.

It is a second edition. First one was 1958. Blair's book is still hold by many people to be one of the most complete and accurate general surveys of armour that is out there.

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