[Iagoba Ferreira]

Dan, I know that Lull's text was widely copied and published, but in this this transcription when he is speaking of the "perpunt" (wich had armorial devices on it) says it will suffer rain, sun and wind, as it's the outermost garment.

[Timo Nieminen]

[Michael Brudon]

maybe I am missing something here but how does any sort of regular fabric protect something from rain? I am following the conversation with interest but can't understand this at all. Last time I checked we use umbrellas in the rain for the very reason clothing does not protect anything from rain.

[Dan Howard]

People have been wearing weather-proof garments for thousands of years before we invented the umbrella.

[Michael Brudon]

really I thought people just got around wet before mary poppins floated down 100 year ago.

On a serious note I though it was difficult to be able to dye and waterproof fabric at the same time.

Also "For just as the coat is worn above the other garments of iron, and faces the rain, and receives blows before they reach the hauberk or other armor, so a Knight is chosen to sustain larger burdens than another man"

They are describing the abuse and wear on the coats, that they "face rain and receive blows etc" Not necessarily describing its action as waterproofing in any way.

[Dan Howard]

[Timo Nieminen]

Lines 610-612:
Gay gowuns of grene
To hold thayre armur clene,
And were hitte fro the wete.

The surviving manuscript is 15th century, and the composition might be 15th century as well (according to http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/hahn-si...troduction it could be as early as the later 14th century). Which would put it in the decline of the surcoat, or past the time of the surcoat.

Line 598:
And clene clad in stele;
is interesting because the description is "clad in steel" (as opposed to "iron").

[Andrew Gill]

I had to walk or cycle a few kilometers to school, rain or shine, sometimes without a waterproof raincoat or umbrella for many years, (it doesn't snow where I live, but it was uphill both ways!), and unless it is really pouring down, ordinary non-waterproof cloth offers quite a bit of protection against light to moderate rain. A knitted woolen jersey, or a surprisingly thin cotton jacket, provided it has a lining (two layers of cloth, in other words), will keep you very dry for short periods of time. The outside might get wet, but it takes quite a while for it to soak through (obviously, thicker is better). In a sufficiently violent, sustained downpour, of course, you _will_ get wet, and unless you can get a really good-quality raincoat (and perhaps even then, if you're riding a bicycle, so presumably also a horse?).

But I think even a small amount of drizzle will be a problem for armour rusting up long before it causes serious discomfort to a person, and even if the rain has stopped, you will get splashed going through puddles - perhaps those are the sort of things the surcoat was supposed to protect from.

[Eric Allen]

Anecdotal evidence, but I've actually worn two of my kits in wet weather.

My early 14th C. soft "civilian" kit is made from wool and linen. The wool is not period, but it is as close as I could find within a reasonable budget, to the point of getting the weave and weft within appropriate parameters. Just the woolen cloak was enough to keep me perfectly dry underneath.

The other kit is what I call my "Hollywood Hospitaller" kit. It consisted of a mail hauberk and a (cotton) surcoat. That day was even rainier. At one point I slipped and fell face-first. Got mud and grass and water splattered all up and down my front from ankle to face. Folks were actually complementing me and asking how I got such "realistic looking makeup" (and got a good laugh when I told then it was 100% authentic). At the end of the day, my surcoat was filthy and soaked, my mail was not. A quick pat dry with a towel was all it needed.

In my opinion, the surcoat providing protection from the elements--especially considering that the absorptive fibers and natural oils in wool grant it a measure of natural watershielding--is completely reasonable.

Fashion, of course, plays a role. And, I do suspect that another important use of the surcoat (though whether a primary or secondary use I've no idea) was that it could be used for identification in supplement to the heraldry on the shield and/or banner.

[Mart Shearer]

I suppose I should chime in with some more anecdotal notes. I'm in the southeastern US with summer highs frequently reaching 95F / 35C with relative humidity often over 50%. Although mail, like all exposed metal, heats quickly under the sun (and dissipates heat quickly when shaded), an aketon beneath provides a level of insulation for the wearer. In fact, once the aketon becomes damp from perspiration or weather the problem on windy days can soon become retaining body heat. Evaporative cooling works much faster in low humidity areas. The surcoat allows you to stay warm buy preventing the wind from blowing across the (well ventilated) mail. Heat stroke and hypothermia can both be deadly.


Iagoba Ferreira's provided transcription of Ramon Lull showing a perpunt is of interest and much appreciated, as it shows a quilted garment worn over mail-- something well documented in the art during Lull's life. This would provide even more insulation in both directions, from gaining and losing heat. We know that some quilted armors were covered with silk, and others with a single layer of leather, so perhaps more water resistant than an aketon beneath?

[Michael Brudon]

[Mart Shearer]

FWIW, the depictions on the stained glass in Chartres show Europeans with surcoats, and Saracens (presumably based on Egyptians from the 5th Crusade) wearing uncovered lamellar and mail. The oft-suggested concept that the Crusaders adopted surcoats from the Muslims is suspect.

http://www.medievalart.org.uk/Chartres/07_pag...anel05.htm
http://www.medievalart.org.uk/Chartres/07_pag...anel12.htm
http://www.medievalart.org.uk/Chartres/07_pag...anel14.htm