[Elling Polden]

As a general rule, your gambeson, arming tunic or whatever you chose to call your dedicated under armour garment, should be as tight fitting as posible, with plenty of space under the arms.

The kingsmirror (ca 1250) describes knightly armour as follows:
"The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft [hose] made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good [mail breeches] made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces madeof thick iron and rivets hard as steel. Above and next to the body he should Wear a soft [arming tunic], which need not come lower than to the middle of, the thigh. Over this he must have a strong [chest protector] made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt; outside this, a well-made hauberk and over the hauberk a firm [panzar] made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves"
(direct translations in [..] )

the reference to the cloth armour as "soft" most likely indicated that it sould be made from finely woven fabric, rather than coarse and stiff sackcloth. As for the "blackened" bit, we have no clue.

As you can see, the arming tunic is not suposed to be knee length; the "mail breeches" provide padding on the thighs.
The independent cloth armours seen in Maciowski and other sources are knee length, but these are not made to be worn under armour.
Interestlingly, the sources often speak about "Arming tunic AND panzar" when describing a full cloth armour, indicating that at least some of the maciowsky style cloth armours might consist of a sleeved inner armour, with a longer, sleeveless cloth armour on top.
Such "panzar"s can bee seen over mail on some of the heavy mac footment, particularly in the sieges.

We know that the heavy, independent cloth armours of the 15th century where about 30 layers thick, and where considered proof against most attacks.
From this one could postulate that a 13th century knight could wear a 10-20 layer "arming tunic" under his mail, which would be plenty good enough unless you plan to be lanced in the chest on a regular basis, or charging head first into the heathen horse-archer hordes, in wich case you put on an extra 10-20 layers on topp of your mail.

[David Teague]

[Thom R.]

[Neil Langley]

I am tempted by a gambeson, but this thread has made me wonder about a few points:

Apart from historical accuracy is there any advantage to hand sewing? Can you actually spot a machine sewn version? (I probably never would, but then I have less than zero fashion sense - I buy clothes just twice a year and hate it).

Is a high collar, like that of the Matuls ones, common historically? Most gambesons and jacks I see in paintings seem to have a round neck and a standard (or mail shirt?) under this. Can you simply sew a standard to a high collar?

Neil.

[Sander Marechal]

[Craig Shackleton]

Machine-sewn seams use a lock-stitch, which has the disadvantage that once part of the stitch breaks, the entire seam may get pulled out/unravel. Hand sewing generally does not use this type of stitch, so that even if one stitch breaks, the loose thread won't easilly pull out the next stitches in line.

It's a bit like how knitted material can unravel much more than woven material.

At least, this is my understanding, and I've had machined seams come apart that way on my regular clothing.

[David Teague]

One thing however....

Most manufacturers (including Matuls) does not put in the portapeice. It is a matching wide strip of padded material that is pointed on the inside to cover the gap where the garment closes.

I was painfully reminded of this tonight during longsword freeplay when my long time training partner nailed me with a thrust that passed though the gap. OOOOPHH!

I now remember that I'd planned on making one for my coat.

[Sander Marechal]

Good point David. I'll have to add one myself as well then.

[Randall Moffett]

David,

Ah, tooooo true. The recent aketons/gambesons my wife has made has them. It was after we saw it on a period padded garment that she began doing it. I had never seen it there either so I was surprised as well.

Just my two cents Sander. It is always a good idea to start at the beginning. Get the aketon(underarmour) that works and fits well and then moved to mail and plate. Nothing is worse than having a wonderful bit of armour made that is like a second skin that only fits with your skin on.

RPM

[Jessica Finley]

The other advantage/disadvantage (depending on your perspective) to hand sewing versus machine sewing is patterning.

Many people don't realize it, but if you are to machine sew a garment, you use completely different patterning techniques than you use when you are hand sewing. For instance, in a pourpoint, if you were to use the Charles du Blois pattern, you would change a few things about it, primarily, all the small gussets. You would instead combine them into a few large gussets (and this is done by most manufacturers). This is because sewing gussets with a sewing machine is challenging at best and still ends up taking a bit of handwork. Due to the fact that you're changing the pattern, you cannot get quite as close of a fit and you will end up using a significantly larger amount of fabric than the original.

For most people, though, the trade-off of having time saved at the sewing machine makes the greater expense of fabric and slightly less perfect fit completely worth it.

This is a *very* simple example, and there are many more that I could offer (let me tell you about making plunderhosen from Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion on a machine sometime), but the point is if you're using a machine, only LOOSELY base your pattern on the historical versions. Otherwise you're in for a really tough time.

Also - there are specific types of hand stitches that are used for specific types of seams. Oftentimes when people decide to be more "historical" and hand sew a garment, they neglect the research on what type of seam they should be stitching and end up missing the mark... much like the thread on "riveted mail doesn't equal historical mail."

Hope this helps,
Jessica

PS - see the attached Pourpoint pattern versus a modern "version" which is optimized for the machine.

[Sander Marechal]

[Thom R.]

These are all really good points (pun intended). I was just trying to say that being able to buy something that works great directly "off the shelf" is again a modern sensibility that really in many ways doesn't apply to armour. You have to be willing to modify and tailor your arming garments if you want them to work well for you. This means btw, sometimes its better to get a pattern garment from a supplier with machine stitching so you can easily take it apart to modify it for yourself. Or conversely, as Craig and Jessica have stated be ready to do some hand stitching over the machine stitch to strengthen the main seams. The other option is just to go for it and cut cloth yourself and make one for yourself, starting with cheaper easier to sew cotton at first while you are learning and then more appropriate linen or silk (watch out for silk - although strong its a heat trap) as you gain experience. Personally, I think if you are going to do one yourself a good compromise is quilting with machine stitching and then hand sewing the big pattern pieces together. I strongly agree that you should work on your arming garments first, that is the best advice so far in this thread. There is a tendency to just jump right into mail and plate bits and pieces before getting the foundational arming garments right. If you get your arming garments right first you will definitely be ahead of the game! tr

[Chuck Russell]

because a front opening gambeson is asking for trouble if that is the only defense you are wearing. think how easy it is to cut the straps or get a blade between the folds in a frontal attack. jsut an opinon though.

and be wary about Norman uses of the aketon. again there isn't any references for them either just like the dark age culture before them. I believe was it not the 1st crusade that soldiers made reference to the middle eastern use of the padded garments?

oh! my apologies, i did not see the second page to this post.

ug David that smarts! I have one on my Jack, but I did not have a name for it, thanks.

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

[Elling Polden]

It is quite posible to put on even a very tight fitting cloth armour by yourself, even if it has no front opening. It just takes a bit of time and wrigling.

Front opening garments are generally not in use in 13th century western Europe. Neither was form fitted clothing.
Front closing cloth armour seems to have appeared sometime in the middle 14th c, along with front opening tunics.

Medevial tailoring is generally extremely pragmatic. How the seams run, how many pieces you use, and such trivialites as symetry seems to be of lesser importance than the final shape of the garment, and conservation of fabrics.

[Reinier van Noort]

[Mark T]

[Sander Marechal]

Thanks Mark. I e-mailed Tomasz of Matuls and he told me the same thing. They're the same except for the amount of padding.

I have ordered a slightly modified type 4. I'm having mine made longer so it comes down to halfway between my hips and knees. There will be a small slit in the back to facilitate movement with the added length. I'll post pictures when it arrives in a couple of weeks.

[Bart Zantingh]