As to the "last and only surviving jacks"...

There´s a nice (german) book by Heinrich Müller entitled "Albrecht Dürer. Rüstungen und Waffen" (ISBN 380532877X) dealing with arms and armour depicted in Dürer´s art.
In this volume there are two photos of surviving jacks, dated to the late 15th/early16th century.

One of the pictures shows TWO jacks in the Holstentor Museum in Lübeck. The one still on display there is the one that Tobias has posted, the other one must be hiding somewhere in the reserve collection.

The second picture shows another specimen which is in the possession of a museum in Stendal. It looks pretty much like the Lübeck one, but seems to be in a better condition. The chest portion is still there, that is;o)

According to the book, and combined with my own observations in Lübeck, here´s a few details.

Construction:
Two layers of stout linen canvas, interlined with compressed cotton batting, and quilted.
The outer layer seems to be cut on the bias to get the bulge of the padding to the outside(?)
No standing collars. Proof: Piping to all open edges on the Stendal specimen, piping fragments to the neckline of the Lübeck specimen.
The skirt is cut quite wide to allow for the legs. There´s only short slits (about 5 to 10 centimetres measured fom the lower edge).
Length: To just about mid-thigh, plus the daggings which must have reached to just below the knees.
As to the sewing: Quilting stitches (of course!), finely executed.
The Lübeck specimen (which is the only of the two that I could watch a little closer) seems to have been patched up quite often for there´s different stitches used for the finishing of the edges.

Closure:
On both, the Lübeck and the Stendal specimen, the skirt part is closed by means of regularly set eyelets, eight on each side, i.e. by four pairs of points or laced crosswise as shown in the photo posted above.
Since the chest piece of the Lübeck jack is lost, I can only refer to the Stendal one, which up the chest has eyelets for THREE pairs of points only! One set of eyelets is placed close to the neckline, one on breast level and one at waist level.

According to the description given in the book this jack used to be worn underneath metal armour since there are stains of rust upon the garment.
Given that a breastplate was worn with it, these three points were largely sufficient to keep the garment closed and fitting tightly to the soldier´s body.

If I were a soldier, I would prefer to get in gear quickly instead of having to tie the fashionable jingle-jangle of up to eight pairs of ties above waist level- but that´s only my opinion;o)

There´s no "porte piece" flap, for this is only necessary if the jack is meant to be worn as the sole defence for the torso for which purpose a multi-layered garment would be the better choice in terms of safety against penetration.

Hope, this helps.

Regards,

Ivo

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

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

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

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

I would like to apologise for mixing up the the terms, but...English is not my first language, so please have mercy upon me, my grammar and my vocabulary ;o)

As far as I understand the terms in question, an arming doublet is a more or less lightly padded garment to tie the hose to, to add some maille gussets and to be worn underneath full plate armour or "transitional" armour (i.e. earlier types of plate armour, ca. pre-1450).

A jack, as far as I got it, is a fabric armour for lighter armoured men-at-arms to be worn by itself (in this case ideally multi-layered to provide safety agains both shock and, to a certain extent, thrust, according to René d´Anjou)or as a "basic" armour for retainers and men-at-arms intended to be further strengthened by additional armour elements (i.e. a single breastplate, a maille shirt/mantle or the like).

That´s why I referred to the garment described above as a "jack".
Judging by their stout construction (just look at the pictures on Tobias´ site http://home.arcor.de/loksley/gonfanon/galerie/ruestwams/index.htm ), the Lübeck/Stendal armours are way too thick to serve as "classic" arming doublets.
The closure by means of just three pairs of points, the absence of any type of porte-piece and the text mentioning rust stains led the author(and me;o) to the conclusion that a breastplate was intended to be worn with it.

As to the scans: I haven´t got a scanner, but I´ll ask a friend of mine if he could possibly do me that favour, but it might take a few days to show up with results. Actually, the pics in the book are quite small (both would fit upon a postcard), but perhaps some fiddling with some graphics programme will help.

Regards

Ivo

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

My own jack is a test of the reliability of the construction of the jacks in Lübeck and Stendal. Though not completly made the same way as these jacks the test might serve to give an idea of if they are meant to be single defensive garments or meant to be used in combination with other armour. Or both.

During an event in Gruyéres, Switzerland, 1,5 years ago we tried the jacket with an ahlesspiess. Judging from earlier tests with the spear it was expected to just run right through it, but stopped about 2 cm through. It would probably not have given any severe wound.

Another test was with a sharp bodkin arrow, 100 lbs bow, 7 meters distance. First arrow missed the target and went deep into the tree behind. Second arrow hit the back of the jack, made it through but just 2-3 mm into the tree behind. It would probably have made a rather tough wound, but not lethal.

Therefore I think the garments could have been used as single defensive armours, but that you probably would want something more to protect yourself if you had the chance.

My jack weighs about 6 kg. I would easily wear a breastplate over it.

A picture can be found here:
http://www.olofsgillet.org/pentecost/IMG_0340.JPG

A description of the work (in progress) can be found here, not that it is not completed and that it is rather old. Please don´t remake my mistakes:
http://wwwt.historiska.se/shmmk/henrik/jack.htm

/Henrik

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

In the case of the spear there where only loose hay and packed hay-sacks behind. The spear was stopped by the jack itself (an ahlesspiess is conical) as it didn´t manage to get further in. It was only the arrow that had a tree directly behind.

If you had posed a question I would have answered it "the damage by the arrow would have been great, but not with the huge impact given by a unstopped arrow. The damage made by the ahlesspiess would have caused a bleeding wound, not lethal".

Another aspect, of course, is that these tests are made during circumstances where the blow or hit is under perfect conditions. I don´t think that would have been the case very often in historical times. I believe this affect the way our medieval friends think about it.

I agree otherwise.

/Henrik

After re-reading the article, I´d like to fill in a little addition to my last post concerning the construction of the said jack from Stendal.

It is made up of five layers of fabric.
From the outside to the inside, there´s

>2 layers of stout linen canvas
>1 layer of compressed cotton batting
>2 more layers of stout linen canvas

The text unfortunately isn´t as precise as a re-enactor would like it to be for a proper reconstruction, but if I understand it the right way, only these layers are quilted by means of linen thread.
One one of Tobias´photos you can see that portions of the depicted jack are worn through an there´s another layer of linen beneath it.

>1 layer of a (softer?) fustian lining

(...if fustian is the correct word for that ancient fabric with a cotton weft and a linen warp in twill weave.)

The front side (and only the front side) has rust stains, which give a good reference for a breastplate sans backplate to go with it.

As to the piping: On the photos this can be seen only on the the edges of the front and neck opening. There´s to little detail to definitely state if it used to be sleeved or not.

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

As to your debate about the safety of jacks against penetration: Any defence is penetrable. Even modern day bunkers an tanks. I think you are quarreling for nothing.

Of course a multi-layered jack according to René d´Anjou provides better protection...but someone has to pay for it. René decribes "his" model as "the best", made up of at least twenty-five layers of linen and a stag´s skin- just imagine the sheer material costs.
Even today.
For a jacket for my skinny body I´d need 2.5 metres of linen. Multiplied with 25, this equals 62,5 metres. Plus a stag´s skin to cover the whole thing. That´s round about $535 (roughly estimated) for the linen alone.
A fortune!
This type of garment is the equivalent to a Mercedes-Benz.

Of course, five layers of canvas and a layer of cotton batting are a humbler type of defence, but for sure they were in any case better than no defence at all. Henrik´s experiments, although seemingly not scholastic enough(?), to my mind do prove quite well that a garment constructed this way provides a good deal of protection, even if limited, against thrust, and it should be quite a good shock absorber.
And, as the rust stains from Stendal explain, can be altered by means of a breastplate.

My Interpretation (might be completely wrong):

René´s multi-layered "Mercedes" is something for the better-off or for the retainers of better-off princes or for its price purchased in "limited edition" for household troops.
It is desingned to be worn as a sole defence.

The Stendal-type garment is the "down-to-earth" version of a jack, more reasonable, probably more penetrable, but nevertheless, within its limits, quite servicable (i.e. protective) for the humbler man-at-arms or less well-to-do town militia man or retainer.
Probably this is the prototype of a "mass-production" item and thus the antipode of a "René-Type limited edition Mercedes" jack.
It could well be used as an inferior sole defence, but for better protection should be strengthened with some metal bits from the arsenal.

Since I can´t afford the equipment of a posh burgundian household man-at-arms but decided to find some suitable background for a towns militiaman in my hometown Hanau, I´d go for a Stendal- type jack.
Mind you, I am definitely not jealous to anyone who can afford the better (i.e. posher) sort. I´ll applaud for anyone wearing the posh stuff if it´s well executed.
I just refuse to believe that the "René-Jack" is the only authentic way of arming oneself with fabric armour.

Regards

Ivo

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

What is a ahlesspiess? Have you a picture?

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

quote:

---

What is a ahlesspiess?

---

imagine a bodkin arrow, the long slender four sided kind. increase the size, length and diameter of it. stick it on a pole. add perhaps a plate around the bottom of the shaft where it meets the wood to prevent blows to the hand. you've got yourself an ahlesspiess. they were predominantly used in eastern europe and germania, not so much in the west. don't think that i've seen any italian examples. higgins armourie has a couple examples.

daniel

who is currently procrastinating from writting his paper on urbanization and the roman identity.

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

Db

Ahlspiess: Here´s a lovely one from the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin:
http://www.dhm.de/gos-cgi-bin/dbsatz.pl?Objekt=ak201844&Datenbank=allwww

To give you the details and measurements (unfortunately metric only;o):

Dated: 15th century
Origin: German
Overall length: 243 cm
Blade length: 81 cm
Blade length incl. socket: 108 cm
Diameter of parrying disc: 12 cm

Regards

Ivo

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

The method of testing is what I am having concerns with. Now that I know (and thanks to Ivo's pic with dimensions) what an Ahlspiess is, how was it used on the coat? At 243cm long (30cm to the foot) this is surely a mounted man's weapon. Was the person weilding this using the weight and momentum of a horse in this test? To me the Ahlspiess, being a mounted weapon, would be designed to oppose ridgid armour and not soft armour as such. That is not to say that you could ride someone down with it. Rather you would not be wearing such soft armour, in a battle situation, when you are expecting to be met with such a weapon of war.

To my mind, a Jack is armour. It is not an arming coat. An arming coat is what is specifically worn under ridgid armour. I do not believe you would wear a jack and then ridgid armour on top of that.

Jack armour would probably be worn when riding out, after dark in the dangerous streets, but not in a war or battle situation. A Jack is to guard against an unexpected arrow or knife attack. It is more comfortable, less weight and more stylish than ridgid military armour.

So any testing should be with a dagger or shortsword or arrow from a non-war bow.

I would not wear an executive's bullet resistant vest onto a modern battle field.

What do people think about that idea?

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

Ahlspiess for mounted soldiers? Yes, why not, but why not for a unmounted soldier? I think we have a discussion rather similar to the one about jacks and arming coats, when it comes to usage. No matter the design ideas it could have been used by both types of soldiers.

About the test. The man made a running thrust with all his weight on it. He really tried to penetrate because he liked to show the efficency of his new weapon. He hit the thickest part of the rear upper parts. We did chose that weapon because of its looks. We both really thought it would make more damage than it actually did. With a sword or a dagger you would have a lot more problem to get through I think (judging from my own experieces with sharp needles).

You can see the spot it struck in this photo, about 10 cm down from the collar part, at the right side.
http://www.olofsgillet.org/pentecost/IMG_0339.JPG

To me, this is not a question about my "jack" beeing a jack or not. I made it to test how the construction of the preserved german ones really would function as opposed to the multi-layered garments. I think I had the answer that it proved to work as a single defensive armour maybe even better than the multi-layered (based on other experiments not mentioned here).

There are several other aspects of my jack (or aketon) that has not been disussed. It is rather stiff and hard to move in, wich can explain that the originals miss both collar and arms. It was unbelieably hard to make the way I worked with the needles, probably another technique was used. My jacket is also about half as thick as the originals, mostly because I didn´t figure out how to make it thick enough before I started to work with it. (Now I know of course, it is a very well kept secret )

I am looking forward to more tests and more experimenst, because I think that is what this is all about!

/Henrik

quote:

---

Jack armour would probably be worn when riding out, after dark in the dangerous streets, but not in a war or battle situation.

---

A jack was certainly not excluded from use in war. The following is from ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves: October I473 , according to this site http://www.geocities.com/thorvin.geo/ordinances.htm

quote:

---

The mounted archer must possess a horse worth not less than six francs, and should wear a visorless sallet, a gorget, a brigandine or a sleeveless mail shirt under a ten-layered jack....

---

Suppose, we are dicussing several things at the same time?!;o)

Firtsly: An Ahlspiess, as far as I know, is an infantry weapon. As to the length of the Berlin specimen- I am not sure as to wheter the pole is the original one, for there are illustrations from the 16th century depicting Ahlspiesse with a blade in similar proportion mounted on a way shorter
pole. So short in fact, that its full length reached something between shoulder and eye level, measuring some 150cm or so.
It is well possible that the weapon has been restored to it´s current impressive length some time in the 19th Century.

To give you a translation:
"Ahl-" comes from "Ahle", which means awl or bodkin.
"Spiess" terminologically is the footman´s spear as opposed to the mounted man´s "Lanze" which is a lance (you guessed it )

If this awl- shaped thing had been meant to be used on horseback, they surely would have called it "Ahl-Lanze"

Woodcrafter:

"To my mind, a Jack is armour. It is not an arming coat. An arming coat is what is specifically worn under ridgid armour. I do not believe you would wear a jack and then ridgid armour on top of that."

I´m afraid you´re referring to knightly equipment only, aren´t you?!

As far as I understand the problem, a jack is some type of cloth armour for retainers, men at arms or whatever term you prefer ( or is not in my vocabulary ).

It can be made in René d´Anjou´s "best" way, i.e. the multilayered (and covered in stag´s skin)"Mercedes Benz"- or stuffed with other material like rags, cotton batting, horsehair (to name but a few mentioned by writers that did a greater deal of research than my humble self) as in the extant examples from Lübeck and Stendal.

If depicted, it is mostly buff-coloured or easily discernible by its typically quilted structure. Generally, it is depicted as foot soldier´s equipment.
And: quite often one can see it worn with additional rigid armour like a single breastplate, jack-chains, with short or long maille sleeves (and even plate arms) projecting from underneath it when short-sleeved or sleeveless...

"[...], but not in a war or battle situation."

Well, many sources show cloth armour worn in battle or war situations.

But as I said, a jack (generally speaking) basically is a retainer´s armour, cheaper and faster to manufacture in greater amounts than plate or maille.
I bet, any soldier would have been grateful for one like Henrik´s as an alternative to running over the battlefield wearing no body armour at all.

Like you said: A jack is armour.
Cloth armour.
Less resistant than plate or maille, but nevertheless to a good extent protective, even against thrust. And its protective potential can be further improved by means of additional elements.

Henrik

As to your quilting: You could work the thing like a saddler, that is: By widening the stitch holes by means of a blunt awl pushed through between the threads of the weave.
Alternatively, sail-makers and leatherworkers use some kind of glove made of tough leather which covers the palm of the hand and which has a metal plate riveted to the part which goes over the root of the thumb. This metal plate has a little rim to it and is used to push the needle through more resistant fabrics.

Regards

Ivo

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

quote:

---

At 243cm long (30cm to the foot) this is surely a mounted man's weapon.

---

why?

you're looking at a 135cm wooden shaft under 4.5 feet long. the blade at 108cm would slightly above 3.5 feet. at 243cm, roughly an 8 foot weapon. has the pole been replaced? perhaps, or not. there are examples with longer poles and shorter blades and vise versa.

an ahlspiessis was carried as an infantry weapon.

daniel

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

Db

About the sewing technique; I did use a sail-makers tool, in the documentation (link above) you can read this: "I had to switch into using the larger needle, and a special tool which looks like a thimble turned and placed in a leather case to be held in the palm (originally for sewing sails, it gives more strength when pushing the needle through the fabric). With this "glove" and needle I managed to quilt the neck."

I tried awling the holes beforehand. That did not work because you can not press together both cloth and cotton enough to keep the hole when the needle and thread arrives. The only way, very hard, seemed to be to press hard and work through all fabrics with the sharpened needle. This is not very good, you ruin the cloth and are in real risk to hit your other hand with the point.

I believe the originals must have been made with another technique. I have an idea about this but need to test it first.

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

Thanks to Ivo for the Ahlspiess, what I saw in the picture did not look as if it was mounted on a wooden shaft. So I took the eight foot long weapon to be the whole metal part. I jumped to the conclusion that it was a lance-type weapon, not for use on foot. I completely failed to think of polearms.

Sorry to muddy the water here, but now I have a much better understanding of Jacks and a new weapon to add to my arsenal of knowledge

So to sum up, Arming coats would very likely be worn under ridgid armour by the knightly class. Jacks could be worn by the knightly class off the battle field when required. Jacks were required to be worn by archers and men at arms over chain shirts as battle field armour.

So now to how they were closed... If a Jack was required to be worn over a chain shirt, the front closure method would be sufficient would it not? It would also be in keeping with fashion. However there are depictions of closures being on the back as well... why? Was this to show he was rich enough to afford the servants necessary to dress him?

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

The Ordinances of Louis XI of France required 30 layers of cloth. Or 25 layers of cloth and a layer of stag skin, but not on the arms. The 'best' is 30 layers of cloth that has been pre-worn and stag skin on the body. It also mentions the 'port piece', 'port' being door and it closes off the opening of the lacing. It calls for large arm holes, close to the neck (not point of shoulder).

The Household Accounts of Sir John Howard, 1464, note the intended construction of his 'dobelete of fense' which is very probably meant to be a 'fighting coat' or Jack. It is made with four panels in the front and four panels in the back:

18 white fustian layers, 4 linen layers, topped with one black fustian for the front.
16 white fustian layers, 4 linen layers, topped with one black fustian for the back.
6 white fustian layers, 2 linen layers, topped by one black fustian for the sleeves.

So 23 layers front, 21 layers rear, 9 layers on the sleeves.

I am of the opinion that with the popularity of buttons in the 14thc, most arming coats (designed to provide padding under armour) were buttoned. Non-ridged wool stuffed buttons for the most part. There is little evidence for Jacks in this period. However by the 15thc, Jacks have developed into a recognized armour. So much so that people are ordering them, and specifying how many layers. Even then a debate seems to have raged how many layers 20 to 30.

Once you have that many layers, it has been noted, in this thread, that would make the use of buttons very difficult. And I certainly agree.

So buttons for the 14thc and lacing for the 15thc.

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

"So buttons for the 14thc and lacing for the 15thc."

I think it is quite hard to generalise. Since we´ve got but a few known examples of extant fabric armours.

I personally know only of three for sure (Lübeck and Stendal), the rest I heard of about examples in the reserve collection of the Royal Armouries or the Wallace Collection so far is not confirmed hearsay.

According to pictorial evidence, there´s a wide variety among of which there´s buttons, lacings and even straps and buckles.
Or, even worse, no visible closure after all, but the theory that the visible line to the front of a garment was an opening closed by concealed hooks and eyes.
There´s front openings and back openings.
Side openings to my mind are not that bad after all, for asian armour very often opens that way, but I do not know of any evidence for jacks opening sidewards.

As to buttons- there´s extant padded leather jerkins from the 16th century said to have been used for fencing practise which are buttoned. By means of long-shanked buttons.
Will take longer to sew them on, but technically should work pretty well.
Buttons for the 14th Century- one must not forget that firstly buttons were a very fashionable detail in 14th century clothing and secondly that padded fabric armour quite often was worn OVER armour and thus displayed the fashionable buttons.

As to the porte-pièce: I think this is intended to create a fahionably even and symmetric surface to the garment by closing the front edge to edge without decreasing of the protective potential of the garment.

To make the front with an "ordinary" overlap to it should have been in use as well as a more practical and less fashionable detail.

In short, according to pictorial evidence there should be something for any taste or theory throughout the 15th century with a solid basis of pictorial evidence.

Since I personally prefer to start with actual examples of things, I am going to make myself a jack after the Stendal and Lübeck specimens for firstly they are the best-described extant examples at hand and secondly because, to my mind, the equipment for a humble townsman shouldn´t be manufactured according to noblemen´s patterns.

Anyone seeking for knightly or posh household troop equipment will have to dig a little deeper

Knightly...another question about the four panels in Sir John Howard...is the body portion ordered to be comprised of four panels on front and back, or does this quotation include the sleeves as well?

Regards

Ivo

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

quote:

---

"And the xxiiij.(24th) Janever [1464], I toke to the dobelete maker of the Holte to make me a dobelete of fense (fighting coat)[probably what is now called a Jack but possibly an arming doublet], fore hevery for qwarter (for every four quarters)[the front two body panels] xviij. folde theke [possibly 19 layers of cloth, forming 18 folds?] of wyte fosteyn [fustian], and iiij. fold of lenen [linen] klothe, and a folde of blake fosteyn to pote wethe howete [to put on the outside]; and fore hevery bake quarter [the back two body panels] xvj. folde of wyte fostyen, and iiij. of lenen klothe, and j. of blake, for the kewferenge(covering); (now the sleeves are discussed) and fore the sleves j. folde of blake fostyen, and vj. of wyte, and ij. of lenen klothe;"
The Household Accounts of Sir John Howard

---

Another item we so far seem to have overlooked is the buttons and lace cording themselves. I have made alot of linen finger braided lace. Mainly for braise ties and ties for hose. Eight loop braid is perfect. I used linen thread which is relatively cheap. A running lace is shorter and therefore easier to make, as well as to do up. You will want about 1/3 more in length than the final product should be. This shrinkage is due to the weaving of the thread. I followed the method from ML Textiles and Fabrics book. It is easy to do, but you do not want distraction while doing it as you cannot put it down. A small practice cord, say for a pouch closure, will take about a half hour of time. Incidentally this also makes great lamp wick. A cord long enough for a front jacket closure would probably take an hour and 20 minutes. The book also describes cloth filled cloth buttons.

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