Padded Gambeson

[Sir Humphrey]

I'll be making myself a padded gambeson to wear under my hauberk soon.  This is the basic garment style that I plan on making out of hemp twill and a linen liner.  Am I on the right track for circa 1300?

Thanks

[Ian]

Yes, definitely in an appropriate style for a maille harness.

[Sir Humphrey]

Sir Ian, could I also point gambeson currises(sic) to the gambeson or maybe even mail chases?

[Ian]

I don't think that style of gambeson is really designed to be load bearing for things worn on the legs since it doesn't have a girdling waist like a pourpoint.

[Sir Douglas]

I don't think that style of gambeson is really designed to be load bearing for things worn on the legs since it doesn't have a girdling waist like a pourpoint.

I will confirm this from personal experience. I made an aketon/gambeson similar to the one you posted and that style is definitely not meant to carry anything on the legs. Most of the weight goes to your shoulders and, after a long day of carrying around mail chausses, you end up like a hunchback trying to fight it.

[Sir Humphrey]

Thanks Ian and Douglas,

Is the issue just shaping the garment to fit the hips and to sinch up tight just above the hips so it will take the weight?  If so, I can make it do that. 

If not pointed to the gambeson, would one have to have a belt or some other device under the gambeson to hold up mail chauses?

[Sir Patrick]

Go with a purpoint to keep the weight from digging into your hips. A c-belt will work as well, but not as comfortable.

[Ian]

Thanks Ian and Douglas,

Is the issue just shaping the garment to fit the hips and to sinch up tight just above the hips so it will take the weight?  If so, I can make it do that. 

If not pointed to the gambeson, would one have to have a belt or some other device under the gambeson to hold up mail chauses?

You could make it do that, but there's no evidence of a garment that did that that early in the century.

The short answer to your other question is no one really knows!   Joe Metz uses one of the revival clothing vest garments (revival calls it a pourpoint, but it's really not).  You could also use a belt, but it would be much less comfortable.

[Sir Ulrich]

If you're wearing a surcoat with your maille you can cheat like I do and clench a belt around your midsection and it would reduce the weight by 2 thirds on your shoulders. Just be sure to have your hands up and have someone else help put it on or you'll end up with flexibility issues in the armpit, of course you can remedy that by adding gussets in the armpit, I have yet to do that with my maille as it's riveted. Best thing to wear chausses with is a Pourpoint which can be purchased at Revival Clothing, will cost a bit but it's better than a c belt and allows more flexibility, does cost about 30-40% more but it's worth it honestly.

[Sir Edward]

As others have said, no one knows for sure how the mail chausses were attached, but the likelihood is that they were simply attached to a belt of some kind, similar to how the fabric clothing chausses were pointed to the braies.

I use a belt for mine, and I can share my my experiences with this. I've found that it works best to attach at the sides, like fabric chausses, rather than the front.

Also, the belt needs to be beyond tight. Not just "wow, kinda tight"... but all the way into "OMGWTF TIGHT!" territory.   As in, however tight I would make it for pants, I need to tighten it about 6" beyond that, minimum. This is quite uncomfortable at first, but after a while you get used to it, but it will ache after a few hours.

If not tightened enough, they'll seem comfortable at first, but after maybe an hour they will become extremely painful, because the belt can work itself down over the corners of the hips.

Part of the problem with mail chausses is that they have decent amount of weight, and there is no natural structure to your body that holds the weight, since they taper downward. With every step, they want to work their way off your legs. You can mitigate some of this by lacing it in a variety of places, particularly right below the knee (top of the calf muscle). A tight lace here will help keep it from riding down too much.

[Sir James A]

Thanks Ian and Douglas,

Is the issue just shaping the garment to fit the hips and to sinch up tight just above the hips so it will take the weight?  If so, I can make it do that. 

If not pointed to the gambeson, would one have to have a belt or some other device under the gambeson to hold up mail chauses?

You could make it do that, but there's no evidence of a garment that did that that early in the century.

The short answer to your other question is no one really knows!   Joe Metz uses one of the revival clothing vest garments (revival calls it a pourpoint, but it's really not).  You could also use a belt, but it would be much less comfortable.

I think it's still correctly called a pourpoint, at least for us. It's based off a civilian clothing garment called a pourpoint, there's just no evidence yet as to it being used with armor.

The most important part is that nobody really knows, so it's hard to say what is right or wrong.

[Ian]

It's not quilted, so it cannot be considered a pourpoint.  Revival's using an outdated mistranslated version of the word to call their garment a pourpoint.

[Sir Humphrey]

Ian,  I am suspect of several of the garments they have listed.  I decided I should not trust their products at face value when I saw this.  Ren Fair tights for $49.95 listed as "simple hose."  http://www.revivalclothing.com/simplemedievalhose.aspx

Another reason to make your own stuff if you have the capability.

[Ian]

Ian,  I am suspect of several of the garments they have listed.  I decided I should not trust their products at face value when I saw this.  Ren Fair tights for $49.95 listed as "simple hose."  http://www.revivalclothing.com/simplemedievalhose.aspx

Another reason to make your own stuff if you have the capability.

Yeah I've been burned by trusting them in the past... their tie on garters that I used as trim are made from rayon and sold at Joann's (I was in the store and saw a roll of it and my jaw hit the floor), but on their website they're 'based on contemporary artwork.'  That bycocket I made used that trim, now I've got to take it off, as I'm fairly certain synthetic fabrics aren't contemporary for the 14th century.

There's also no evidence for a vest-like garment to hang your hose from in the 14thc, there are 15th century examples of such a garment, but they imply both in the name and reinforce it with sketches at the bottom that it's a 14th century garment.

For an interesting discussion on the real meaning behind the word pourpoint read this: 

This is from a thread on the Armour Archive written by Tasha Dandelion Kelly, who's opinion on medieval garments I trust very much.

I used to believe this as well until quite recently, because it seems to make so much sense, but actually the word pourpoint stems from a Latin term -- perpunctus or prepunctus (one of which means "pierced", the other "pierced through"; not sure which is which without digging through my research). Etymologically, it's unclear which prefix is technically correct, because the French language has a history of interchanging them somewhat as the language evolved.

The meaning of the word pourpoint does not have anything to do with something being tight-fitting for the purpose of pointing armour to it, i.e. "for pointing" -- as is commonly believed and perpetuated by many knowledgeable folks, including published historians. What it refers to, in fact, is that the garment is quilted (i.e. "pierced through"). This is how French historians interpret this word, and I'm going to take their word for it, as they know their language better than native English speakers do.

I'm sure that the concept of "pointing" also derives from the same Latin root, as it does indeed involve piercing something. Just the same, it's a coincidence and a modern interpretive twist to the original meaning of the period word pourpoint.

Pourpoints are padded, quilted garments, plain and simple. It does not matter if they're worn under the armour or over the armour.

If you're going to point armour to a tight-fitting garment, I'd just call it an arming garment or arming cotte, or something like that.... unless it's quilted, in which case, go ahead and call it a pourpoint.

[Sir James A]

Interesting, I never saw that post from her. My "pourpoint" from revival is lightly padded, but not quilted. Hmm.