My account has been activated, but I'm in some sort of "holding phase" over there at the moment, so I still cannot post.I'm also in massive pain due to re-spraining my lower back.Anyway, while we're waiting for my account to actually get up and running at Swordforum.com, I thought that I would mention that Mr Reed may not be so much at odds with us after all. This is from one of his posts on that thread:I won't venture to outguess Dr. Niccole. The primary evidence we have from this era as to what is worn, or is not worn is in the form of contemporary commentators, and the occasional inventory. None of the padded defensive garments from then have survived. Terminology was a dicey proposition amongst the Medievals, and it might not be surprising to have a clerk write down 'gambeson' for underthings. (emphasis added) I know in the era I study, were you and I to wanlk into a Medieval armoury of the 15th century, to write down it's contents, we might look at a row of helmets hanging off pegs in a bean, and start classifying them as 3 visorless sallets, 2 chapel de fer, 3 sallets with visors. A Medieval clerk walking into the same room doing an inventory would probably look at the same row and jot down viii sallets and be on his way.Clarity of definition regarding textile defences is more of a late Medieval phenomenon - in the era I study, a difference is made between arming doublets and padded jacks, and slightly earlier pourpoints and gambesons. (Interesting)One thing we know for a fact - mail is a far more efficient defense used in combination with layers of textile, quilted or padded. It is far less effective when worn over a simple tunic.Definitely!TFS
Definitely interesting.
YL,
I'm in action, bro!
TFS
I'm heading over there.