Problems with Conquest

Let's not forget that the muscle tisue of a dead piece of pork is not going to react the same as living, human muscle tissue over stretched skin.

Although, I certainly would not advise taking a sword blow, wearing maille, without a gambeson underneath.

I guess that just about covers it.

Hi Guys,

I might just point out that a gambeson is not worn under a hauberk. This is a fallcy right up there with 10lb swords on the battlefield.

A gambeson is quilted armour most often worn on it's own. The garment worn under armour to pad it is called an "arming coat".

Interestingly, it seems that in some cases, an arming coat was worn under a hauberk which was worn under a gambeson.
Cheers,
Stu.

Stu,I might just point out that a gambeson is not worn under a hauberk. This is a fallcy right up there with 10lb swords on the battlefield. A gambeson is quilted armour most often worn on it's own. The garment worn under armour to pad it is called an "arming coat". Interestingly, it seems that in some cases, an arming coat was worn under a hauberk which was worn under a gambeson.Say what?! Not to get caught up in semantics, but the term "gambeson" can actually refer to any quilted coat, whether worn under mail or by itself. Another term for the same thing is "aketon".Gambesons that were worn on their own were frequently simply called "jacks". Some jacks were fitted with metal plates on the inside (much like a brigandine, except that the plates were secured with heavy cord, as opposed to rivets)--and were thus known as a "jacks-of-plate".The very stylized gambesons with mail panels on the armpits, that were meant to be worn under full plate armor in the 15th and 16th centuries, are generally known as "arming doublets".In reference to your last statement, "soft" armor was sometimes worn both beneath and on top of mail (it was apparently effective against arrows)--crossbowmen during the Third Crusade are recorded as having done this.TFS

"A gambeson is quilted armour most often worn on it's own. The garment worn under armour to pad it is called an "arming coat"."StuMc...I believe you are confused.The arming coat, as TFS pointed out was still a type of gambeson.It was used under plate and had mail sewn to the armpits and other gaps in the armor.There is no reason to wear an arming coat under a mail hauberk. The padded gambeson was, as TFS pointed out, sometimes worn on it's own for less fortunate soldiers. But it was ideally worn under mail. That is not a misconception.

TFS and YL are correct. Gambeson Aketon Jupon are pretty much all the same thing.


Wilhelm

Hi Guys,

Is is a crop from a post bt SFI's armour expert Bob Reed.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5725

"There is a lot of confusion in terminology between textile defences, and foundation garments - these terms are not interchangable.

Gambesons and padded jacks (the first 14th century, the second 15th century) are primary defensive garments - not foundation garments worn under armour. They were made of up to 20 layers of linen, and then some werre additionaly stuffed with 'tow' (a by-product of linen cloth manufacture). While some additional defences could be 'tied' to them, or they could be worn over mail to make a very formidable defence, they are too thick in construction to be worn underneath armour, such as plate, as the end result would hinder movement - like a child in too many layers of winter clothing that can't set their arms straight down by their side. Plate armour conformed very closely to the body , and for it to function well, it must.

What was worn under armour were thinner, foundation garments called variously pourpoints, and arming doublets, wich were cut and tailored to fit closely to the body, and lightly padded. Earlier, garments such as akeatons were worn under mail, these are also more lightly padded than actual defensive textile garments such as gambesons and padded jacks".
Cheers,
Stu.

Stu,It appears that you are still playing with semantics. You have posted the opinion of one guy who claims that the various terms "are not interchangable". First off, I already stated that the type of padded jacket worn under plate was called an "arming doublet".As for the gambeson/aketon deal, let's see what other experts have to say:From Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock:Aketon A padded and quilted garment, usually of linen, worn under or instead of plate or mail.Gambeson A quilted, skirted doublet of cloth, often made of linen, stuffed with tow, wool, or grass. Worn by all classes either underneath a mail shirt, on top of it, or as a separate defense on its own.***From Arms & Armour by Frederick Wilkinson:A padded garment, known as a gambeson or aketon, was worn beneath the mail hauberk and this was sometimes used on its own as a form of armor.***From An Historical Guide to Arms & Armor by Stephen Bull and Tony North:...but underneath the breastplate is worn a padded 'gambeson' or jacket with a tight waist and puffed sleeves... [Description of the effigy of a 14th century knight]***From The Armourer and His Craft by Charles Ffoulkes:Aketon, see gambeson.Gambeson, a quilted tunic, XI cent.***From Arms and Armor in the Art Institute of Chicago:Aketon (Haqueton). A heavily padded garment worn under mail.***From A Knight and His Armor by Ewart Oakeshott:Gambeson a padded shirt that was worn under armor and acted as a kind of shock absorber that protected the body from the impact of hard-hitting blows. Also called an aketon.***From English Weapons & Warfare 449-1660 by A.V.B. Norman and Don Pottinger:Less wealthy troops, such as the townsmen and freemen of the 1181 Assize, wore only a gambeson. This was a tunic made of two thicknesses of cloth stuffed with wool, cotton, or old rags, and quilted like an eiderdown to keep the stuffing in posistion. Rather surprisingly, perhaps, this deadens a blow well and can be cut or pierced only with difficulty. Latterly, this quilted armour was worn under the hauberk as an additional defence, to take the weight of the mail and to prevent it rubbing the skin of the wearer. It was also called an 'aketon' from the Arabic name al-qutun, referring to its stuffing of cotton.***And finally, perhaps the most overlooked (and yet important) commentary concerning this subject, from The Medieval Soldier by Gerry Embleton & John Howe:Fabric armour--padded, stuffed, or many-layered, sometimes interlined with plates of metal or horn--was widely worn. Historians have tried to categorise subtle differences between terms--jacks, jazerines, pourpoints, brigandines, etc.--which were used more loosely by contemporary writers.(Continued Below)

I submit that Mr. Reed is doing just that--he is trying to "categorise subtle differences between terms"--"subtle differences" that do not appear to have been observed as much in Medieval and Renaissance times. However, let's break down what he said anyway..."There is a lot of confusion in terminology between textile defences, and foundation garments - these terms are not interchangable.See above. Gambesons and padded jacks (the first 14th century, the second 15th century) are primary defensive garments - not foundation garments worn under armour. They were made of up to 20 layers of linen, and then some werre additionaly stuffed with 'tow' (a by-product of linen cloth manufacture). While some additional defences could be 'tied' to them, or they could be worn over mail to make a very formidable defence, they are too thick in construction to be worn underneath armour, such as plate, as the end result would hinder movement - like a child in too many layers of winter clothing that can't set their arms straight down by their side. Plate armour conformed very closely to the body , and for it to function well, it must.No one here stated specifically that gambesons were worn under plate armor--YL was speaking specifically in relation to the padded defenses worn under mail. In any case, one of the authors I quoted used the term "gambeson" to refer to the padded jacket under plate armor too (and many of them make no distinction whatsoever between "gambeson" and "aketon"), and so it does not appear as if Mr. Reed is the final word on the subject. What was worn under armour were thinner, foundation garments called variously pourpoints, and arming doublets, wich were cut and tailored to fit closely to the body, and lightly padded.Again, I stated that already on this thread. Earlier, garments such as akeatons were worn under mail, these are also more lightly padded than actual defensive textile garments such as gambesons and padded jacks".Mr. Reed appears to be making a distinction between "aketon" and "gambeson" that did not really exist. Gambesons that were worn as a primary defense may have been thicker than those that were worn under mail--that is all. What Mr. Reed is trying to do is similar to the distinctions that people like John Clements do when they speak of a "sword" and a "rapier"--Clements insists that the so-called "true" rapier has no real cutting edge, and, while such rapiers certainly did exist, their is still the problem of the robust cut-and-thrust swords shown, for example, in Joachim Meyer's and Jakob Sutor's treatises--these weapons are shown making some really severe cuts (esp. in Sutor's book), and yet they are clearly labelled as rappirs...Peace, TFS

A bit off topic, but have any of you visted the armor exbit at the Natral History Meusum in NYC? Its a great hall, filled with armor from all over the world. Next time im there ill look a lot closer at the mille.

You won't find any at the Natural History Museum--it's actually at the Metropolitan Museum of Art...

:-)

I did see a giant, life sized model of a blue whale in a great hall in the Museum of Natural History, but he wasn't wearing any armor. :(

I did just invited Mr. Bob Reed of Swordforum to check out this thread on here.

Hopefully we can discuss this gambeson matter, further.

TFS, someone on the Swordforum invited us (more you, though) to discuss this further over there.I am "Carl M."They only accept names there, not aliases.Create a name and check it out if you wish.http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5725

I'm waiting for them to activate my account; things are a bit screwed up because I can't properly access my e-mail at the moment (though I was able to get the activation #)...

Cool. Took me till the next day.

Well, I can log on, and I have a profile, but I can't post anything as of yet--WTF!?

Make them come over here too, darn it. This is too interesting a topic to just simply move the conversation over there.

Make them come over here too, darn it. This is too interesting a topic to just simply move the conversation over there.I wholeheartedly agree...

They are probably activating your account. When it is activated just hit "post reply" on the bottom.

I think since I was the one who mentioned that we had a disagreement with Bob Reed's description, that it is only fair that we go over there.

I am already talking with Erik Schmid on that thread, one of the finest repro maille makers in the world. He had done work for the Wallace collection in England, as well as other prominent museums.

There are some big names on that forum (in the world of arms and armor).