| Author |
Message |
|
Sean Smith
|
 Posted: Tue 04 Mar, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Some of the 13th century texts talk about a "curie" of leather. Unfortunately, we dont really have any good idea what they are talking about. The closest anyone has found has been something akin to a leather breastplate/backplate worn under a surcoat. And that was from extrapolating based off of the side of an effigy, which had Y shaped straps, under the "folds" of the surcoat. Others have speculated that it is the larger shirts with the pointed shoulders in the Mac Bible.
But again, that is far from a gambeson or aketon like object. Both the curie and the aketon are mentioned in the source I am thinking of. Cant recall the reference right now. One of the Assise of Arms, perhaps?
|
|
  |
 |
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Mar, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: |
Actually, I was speaking from experience there. I own three different gambesons - one cotton, two linen - one 13th c, two late 14th c, and I fought in a long, quilted leather gambeson for a few demos back in the late 90s, during my reenactment days. It breathed much less well (sweating into the lining did not help, the way it does with a fabric gambeson), and the surface retained heat much more readily. Issues of authenticity aside, it looked nice, but I didn't enjoy wearing it...
Greg |
That's good to know. I'm glad someone here has done an actual comparison.
Perhaps, perhaps, in cold, wet climates the leather faced gambeson would be advantageous. But was still rare to non-existent.
I don't consider the use of leather for holding together splints to be 'leather armour', because, as you said, it's like fabric in how it's used.
-Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
 |
|
|
Allan Senefelder
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Mar, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | it's like fabric in how it's used. |
Then why not use fabric, certainly cheaper than leather according to the cattle hearding economy/ or lack thereof during the period under discussion mentioned earlier. Were the wearers simply showing off that they could afford leather rather than fabric ( hardly noticible at say a five foot distance under the plates of splinted armour) or was there an additional protective quality to using leather instead. If no one can really tell that one is "showing off" ones wealth at a few feet away, whats the point of bothering? It can't be simply that one shows bare leather armour for tounaments as in the arm harness sighted by Ffoulkes, the unltimate expression at this period of knightly show and wealth, and quickly covers it up on the field of battle, where no one can tell its there beneath the plates but it is still some how an expression of wealth and status. This makes little sense to me. There has to be a more substantial reason for it being used "like fabric" when fabric was cheaper to obtain according to the economic theory of the cattle hearding economy not being present, advanced. Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Mar, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part of it may have to do with the ability for leather to hold its shape far easier than fabric. The other thing is that we do not know how stiff the leather was. The other thing is that a few layers of fabric would have far less cutting resistance (between the splints) vs. leather.
So unless we are talking about quilted fabric being used under splints, leather is preferable. Splinted armour also generally does not need to breathe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Tue 04 Mar, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Smith wrote: | Some of the 13th century texts talk about a "curie" of leather. Unfortunately, we dont really have any good idea what they are talking about. The closest anyone has found has been something akin to a leather breastplate/backplate worn under a surcoat. And that was from extrapolating based off of the side of an effigy, which had Y shaped straps, under the "folds" of the surcoat. Others have speculated that it is the larger shirts with the pointed shoulders in the Mac Bible.
But again, that is far from a gambeson or aketon like object. Both the curie and the aketon are mentioned in the source I am thinking of. Cant recall the reference right now. One of the Assise of Arms, perhaps? |
Yes and there is also a curie mentioned a being worn by Richard I (but also a "plate of iron upon his breast"). There are also several Italian carvings and effigies, particularly from the Kingdom of Naples, where leather "plate" armour was quite the vogue in the 1320 - 1350 period, that are suggested "curies", but none can be sure.
But again, let's not conflate issues. I think we all largely agree re: soft leather armours, it is the hardened leather armour that I was pointing out has seen a fair bit of use worldwide, including a transitional period in Europe.
There were also leather breastplates, as I recall, at the Windsor tournament, but that was truly "sporting equipment", as the sword were whalebone, as well.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed 05 Mar, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Allan Senefelder wrote: | | Quote: | | it's like fabric in how it's used. |
Then why not use fabric, certainly cheaper than leather |
There are effigies with men in quilted cuisses with studs in them that are speculated to be splints just like the speculation of leather with splints.
| Greg Mele wrote: | | There were also leather breastplates, as I recall, at the Windsor tournament, but that was truly "sporting equipment", as the sword were whalebone, as well. |
King Rene's book also recommends some curi-bolli leather sport armor for tournaments.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Thu 06 Mar, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen just to please get a little organization on this question of whether Leather was/was not used as stand alone armour,read the article "Evolution of Japanese Armour" on the front page of this site. Armour made of lacquered leather WAS worn as stand-alone armour in Japan as it was in China and Central Asia.Japan and Chna went to metal armour of course as soon as their metal-working infrastructure was up to it as it is far superior.Central Asia never did because it is hard to keep a blacksmith's forge going in your yurt, espically when you hit a bump  As I have posted before in the thread on Leather lamillar armour. Lacquered leather is the ONLY feasible stand alone armour that I have ever heard of and can cite sources for,(like the article in the front Page and Rene Grousset's Empires of the Steppes".) In later periods leather was used to make jacks and buff coats., but I am not awaew of it ever being used as stand alone armour in Europe of any period. This is becaue it has to be soaked in the orginal, organic Chinese lacquer made from the lac tree. No lac tree, no lacquer.The Japanese could trade for it, the nomads did too when they felt weak, as the chinese always wanted steppe horses.When the nomads felt strong, of course, they just conquered China and took it.
Ja68ms
|
|
 |
|
|
Sean Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 06 Mar, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yet the original question was leather gambesons. Which in no way has a relationship with Asian laquered lamellar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic