One important thing to note and not discount is the documentary and visual evidence for wearing stout padding _over_ the mail. Sources like the mid 13th century _King's Mirror_ explicitly call for the thick padding to worn as the outer most layer, with a soft layer on the inside. So it presents the layers as a thin arming garment followed by what is likely an early coat of plates and then mail, and _then_ a thick sleeveless gambeson to protect the torso (sleeveless so it doesn't restrict arm mobility). Gamboised cuisses could also be worn _over_ mail hosen, which protects the thigh, but alleviates any need for thick padding worn underneath while still keeping mobility in the knee. It's just important to recognize it's not a battle of two extremes, i.e., thick padding vs no padding at all, but it's a nuanced discussion about layers, where those layers go, and how thick each layer really needs to be. Sometimes the thicker padding can simply be *over* the mail.
as historically inaccurate Kingdom Of Heaven was they did a great job with costumes *really blew me away* if you could get the full kit that is on par with what they where wearing in that movie i would really be impressed
Not necessarily; certain arguments like tautologies can be proven without any premises, like the claim "I'm either a cat or not a cat," given the appropriate logical rules.
Benjamin Gilbert So if I said "Gravity exists", and you said, "That's a total lie", you would be justified despite neither of us bring evidence? You can say there's a 50/50 chance, but you *cannot* make a truth claim without evidence, just as I can't. If either one of us makes a truth claim, we have to provide evidence. If the default is "Gravity doesn't exist", let's kick it up a notch. Lets say I'm a person who believes nothing exists and there is no truth. You want to prove the world exists, but the only way to prove something exists is predicating it on something held to be true. Therefore, it really is literally impossible, from what I can tell, to prove to me anything exists. If I deny _X,_ you can't say _X_ is true based on _Y,_ because I don't believe in _Y_ either! You unknowingly are arguing for a world where nothing exists, unless you make a convenient exception, or multiple. You say, "I exist". I say, "Prove it.". You prove you exist by basing your existence on the existence of the universe. I say, "The universe doesn't exist either.". You now have to go outside the realms of the universe to prove to me something exists. You have to learn an entire new way of thinking and new logic, existing outside of the universe. Unless you hold the universe's existence to be universally inherent truth, in which case I will ask and state: 1. Who are you to determine inherent truth? 2. Clearly it's not, because it's not inherent to me. If an unsubstantiated claim can be dismissed without evidence, then I am perfectly justified in saying nothing exists. This means killing is OK, so is every other terrible deed. Is this what you believe? RunItsTheCat You're correct, except he doesn't believe cats exist. I don't believe in logic, he has to prove it to me or it's not real -- or, illogical. I'm saying logic doesn't exist, so he therefore must use logic to prove it does exist, which means my request is "illogical", but apparently logic isn't real.
Occam's Razor - in absence of evidence, the simplest hypothesis should be the correct one. Now we just need to decide whether wearing a gambeson beneath maille or not wearing it is the simpler explanation :D
Aye. I love how some ask why we haven't found one form the age, as if wool would endure 1000 years of use in battle... And bout vikingr, not only as padding for blows, but in harsh and cold/damp climates, who'd want to have iron almost against your skin?
the viking group i reenact with we wear gambeson and i have used two tunics and kaftan under my mail and lamellar which provided to me the same level of protection when fighting with blunts but i still use thin gambeson.
There's a quote, I think it's from Carl Sagan, that applies to this matter: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Personally, i think it makes more sense for the 13th century knights to have worn gambesons.
+Benjamin Gilbert True, but "Given our current knowledge, I think it makes more sense […]." is not a claim. A claim would be "They wore gambesons.", or "They didn't wear gambesons.".
+Benjamin Gilbert That's why Hitchens was a good fighter. He knew how to punch hard. That's what also made him a poor one as well, he would punch at anything hard but never see the whole match. It's like winning battles but not the war kind of thing. Personally, it would make sense for them to wear gambeson. It was practical, it was common, and it's common sense to a point where people no longer have to tell you hence they never talk much about it.
there is evidence of no gambeson to be worn... the absence is depicted in multiple places... that is evidence of absence, specifically. So the absence of evidence is not accurate. we DO see some VERY thin padding/quilting on the sleeves by the very end (last ten years) of the 13th century, but it is not much thickness at all. so there is evidence... that is clearly omitted before.
Having done a lot of 13th Century reenactment events and shows, a thin gambeson is by far and away the most practical. I can't believe anybody who had to spend any serious amount of time in maile wouldn't wear it. At the very least it protects you from the armour itself. It really doesn't need to be all that thick to provide, yet I'm willing to wager that those that could would have a winter and a summer under padding setup.
then lets clone him, armor up the clones, have them fight each other until one remains, and then we have Metatron Ultima. And a heck load of armors that can be give-aways from the new and improved channel.
We have lots of sources mentioning various forms of padding though, so I do not get why anyone would argue that just a regular tunic would be the case beneath mail; "...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier *wore a vest of thick felt* and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them." - Bahā'al-Dīn
Yes? You believe some incredible cultural change happened over a single century that resulted in everyone in Europe no longer wearing gambesons or padding under mail? As I said, there are loads of sources, including those in the 13th century, Baha al Din was merely the first one that came to mind.
no idea, but for the record I agree on the very possible use of gambesons under mail. I was just pointing to the facts, that's all. Because if Metatron states there are no known sources for the 13th-century and you say there are tons, and for prove it you post a 12th-century source, well... that's not a very good counterargument, isn't it? Never the less, medieval period is not my speciality.
it really make sense to have padding under mail since mail only protect against cut and piercing kind of attack, a sword is still a metal stick and can still cause trauma damage and you need padding to stop those kind of damage, especially against mace and the like
Nancy Volker Padding could be thicker in chest, stomach and shoulders, elsewhere thin and cooler. It wouldn't restrict movements. I don't have evidence this was done, but it's kind of no-brainer idea.
Maybe for 13th century european people the combination of Gambeson (or padded armor) and ribeted mail was such a logical combination(for the time) that people just assumed that if a knight or man-at-arms was shown in texts using mail armor then they assumed that he was using a gambeson or padded armor under mail just because it was so effective at the time that they concluded that the combination of mail and gambeson was essential.
Also I think it's pretty damn safe to say that padding was worn in both the 12th century and the 13th. We know stuff like jousting existed in these eras and were done with fairly minimal risk to the contestants. Poems such as "In the Service of Ladies" mentions even freaking neck-shots with blunt lances failing to do anything but unhorse a foe or rattle him a bit. Not say, collapse the larynx.
"By the Blachernae, beneath your banner, I stood armed, like a Brabantine, With helm and hauberk and stout GAMBESON" -Raimbaut de Vaqueiras (1180-1207) present at the siege of Constantinople during the fourth Crusade Is that evidence enough for you? Oh and he was southern French so that is western Enough for me!
By the way man, how did you even know that. Is Raimbaut a popular source? I mean I've never even heard of him. Just curious on how did you start reading that literature.
Here's a theory why the knights in the 13th century paintings and manuscripts show no sign of padding: The ideal of male beauty in the gothic era was slim and pale (angel-like). Pointed shoes, tailored clothes and pronounced waists support that impression. Some of this can be explained by practicality on the battlefield (e.g. tailored sleeves) but military dress is always influenced by fashion, too (to some degree). So the point I want to make is: If Knights in the 13th century wore padding and would therefore have looked like a modern muscular athlete plus thin padding plus mail, they would have looked beefier than the Knights in the contemporary sources. However contemporary fashion might have led the painter to present them in a more slim and elegant way. About the scandinavians: Even in summer, when most battles were fought it's significantly colder in scandinavia than say France or Germany. So climate alone would have led the scandinavian knight to choose padding.
And depending on the level of skill possessed by a particular artist, it is a lot easier once one has mastered the basic technique of drawing a figure to draw snug clothing on it rather than working out how thicker material hangs and bunches as the wearer moves.
I think you think right. I'd go even further than say "in that age, gambesson was the must have of every man-at-arms, then maille and others where bonus if the warrior could afford them"
One good reason to wear some sort of padded gambeson, even if just a relatively thin layer, is to protect you from the armour itself - if someone hits you with their weapon, even if it doesn't go through the mail the force of the blow will press those mail links into your body which is going to be uncomfortable to say the least. Another thing to consider is that a mail shirt is going to be covered in oil or grease to keep rust at bay, so you'd want something to keep that oil from soaking into your nice tunic and the skin below
Based on what I have researched the gambeson used under the mail was most often very thin or just a heavy fabric. Just like you've said, mail is supposed to fit as tightly as possible around the body (just like any other armor). From my experience, that saves weight and allows for more balanced movements. Toby Capwell did a speech were he mentions that, although he was referring to plate armor, the general concept applies here. There were always exeptions though. Also from my experience, I feel that the pain of an impact when wearing a thin padding (1 layer...) under 16 gauge mail is about the same as on a thicker (2 or 3 layer) gambeson by itself. My point being that the mail will absorb some of that impact just like extra layers of padding. Another advantage of thiner padding is that it is not so absurdly hot in the summer. I think Ian is dead on when he mentions the layered approach with the outer padding since there are plenty of evidence of that. So bottom line is I don't think we should be concerned too much with the lack of concussive protection provided by mail with little to no padding. There were other protective "layers" such as outer padding, shields, helms, and most importantly one's skill. The way you and your army fight will change based on your armor and an experience fighter will learn how to make the best of it.
Please, please, PLEASE make a collaboration video with Ian LaSpina, aka Knyght Errant, when you do the armor evolution video(s)! It could not be anything but a totally awesome video. Also, this one was a great video, too. I really enjoy (most) of your content, and I hope you keep it up! Have you thought of making a couple of T-shirts a'la Shadiversity? Edit: I would never wear mail without any kind of gambeson. Like you said, mail is great against cutting and to penetration (to an extend), but even a sword blow (with the edge) might deliver enough kinetic energy to break your arm, for example. Might not be 32 layers, but without contrary evidence I'll keep trusting that there's always some sort of padding under mail, if the mail is the main source of protection.
This is Thrand , great video very well done and I totally agree. I get this argument quite often about the Viking age and I believe some wore gambeson some did not but it was not unheard of even in stand alone armor.
Depends on what you mean when you say gambeson. As a rule of thumb, it's always a good idea to tell people what definition you use. For instance, when I talk of a gambeson I mean a stand alone garment of 17 to 30 layers of linen and 1 layer of deer skin. When I talk of an aketon I specifically mean under mail padding with less than 17 layers of linen. When I talk of an arming doublet I specifically mean under plate padding with a few layers of linen and small cushions of horse hair, tow, wool or the like. When I talk of a Jack I usually mean additional layers of outer defenses, such as an extra aketon over the mail. A Jack of plates will be the same as a Jack only with additional small plates. A coat of plates is a garment with segmented plates sown on the inside of a piece of garment going over the mail as additional protection. A coat of plates will typically have larger plates. A Brigandine is stand alone armor, often made of smaller plates riveted to the fabric in between the layers. Much like a jack of plates only more tightly fit with more sophisticated neck, arm and hip protection etc., because it's stand alone armor.
KnightSquire you two should really do a collaboration video. it might just give knightsquire the to push he needs to get the tip jar back. he makes such good videos. hema douche killed me
If no padding, and you cop a good thrust to your body, even if the blade can't penetrate the mail,, the mail can still penetrate your skin and flesh! Mail must have at least some level of padding beneath.
As a 12th-13th centurty reenactor, I question my manliness whenever this topic is brought up. I honestly believe discarding the gambeson could be done with haubergeons with regards to their relately light weight. With my full, knee-length, mitten-fitted, full coif-fitted hauberk? No chance I wear that shit over regular clothes or you would have to pry it out from my flesh after an hour. Using the gambeson is an important part of the (relative) comfort of wearing mail, to my mind. I 100% agree with you about the thin gambeson. It is the most logical solution to the problem. However, it's a real pain in the butt to find an historicaly accurate reproduction of a 13th-century thin gambeson. When talking about mittens or mail chausses, though, I believe there is much less rationale to wear padded stuff underneath them (and there is no historical evidence for it). I wear my mail chausses directly over my linen chausses with no padding.
I really don't get the idea, that for any given time there has to be just one way people did things, or that nobody ever did something just because it is not on a painting somewhere. Society dosen´t work that way. If something like a gambeson is available and it offers an advantage there will be people wearing it, people who,for one reason of the other, won't and some will use it just for special tasks. In the end it's all about what protection is needed, what is affordable and who is supposed to be impressed. And that can vary a lot.
I would say that evidence of Scandinavians wearing gambeson at the time is evidence that it was worn. At the time, European armor was pretty ubiquitous, and the Scandinavians were probably actually a little behind the rest of the continent.
Would like to know where you get this idea from or your reasoning behind it, to give Norway as an example, it was at the height of it's power mid to late 13 th century, which just so happens to be where the King's Mirror is from, 1250 Norway. Certainly not behind during the Viking era(besides stacking stone, but not the only ones) Why would they suddenly be behind in 200 years? While the civil war period beforehand was rough, so much conflict should increase martial knowledge.
Because technological progress is dependent on wealth and once the rest of Europe adapted to the Vikings their major source of wealth through loot dried up, so how were they going to fund vast populations of skilled craftspeople?
Scandinavians did it. Romans did it. Therefore phylogenetic bracketing says that the default assumption is those in between did. Same reason we assume that coelurisaurian Therapods had sophisticated feathers even when we DON'T have direct fossil evidence.
except the middle ages were far more recent and there is more evidence left from that time period than fossil evidence so lack of historical evidence has more credence.
I'd vote "yes", for two reasons: - Data interpolation. Prior (Romans) and local (Scandinavians) evidence don't automatically translate to general evidence, but they still are relevant data points that strongly hint in that direction. I'd rather demand a good explanation to why the rest of Europe would have chosen to do something different. - Common sense. I have a bit of light sparring experience with blunt lonswords and sideswords, both with a proper fencing jacket and with just a sweater. Without the fencing jacket, the slightest tap in any bony part like my elbow was really painful, a proper blow would break the bones really easily. I have no experience with mail, but I don't think it would help enough in that regard.
Gambeson: A Gambeson was a heavy, quilted coat that was worn under a knight's armour. The Gambeson offered protection against pinching metal plates, as well as absorbed some shock from impacts. Source: Deadliest Warrior, Legends.
I think it is very important to wear a Gambeson or at least some padding under plate armour. First of all, it absorbes kinetic energy, like the Metatron said. Another point could be the isolation against, cold or hot weather conditions. I would not like to wear plates without isolation in summer nor in winter. If you ever touched a car at noon in summer, you know what I mean.
Correct, armour is not clothing. Gambeson is to some degree a clothing. Russians in Siberia sometimes do wear "gambesons" even now, because cold! You still have to wear something that's more appropriate for the weather conditions you are in. All armies of all times (well, all humans actually) did that - and if not, they suffered dearly. And in cold climates the gambeson probably was thicker in general, while in hot climate it was thinner, sometimes even replaced by tunic/robe/shirt. It also depends on what you expect to meet. If you are on a garrison duty, during a long march, preparing for a combat maybe? These are all considerations of how much clothing and armour you are going to wear. Let's say a 14th century knight riding his horse to rival duchy may just wear a cap on his head, then, when he sees a castle, he puts on his helmet, then, we he sees the enemy troops and prepares to charge, he finally closes his visor for maximum protection (sacrificing vision and breathing comfort for the time of engagement).
I know it was more than 2 years ago, but I wanted to mention that gambeson is made of wool layers, while in Siberia people mainly use other types of padding, so the only similarity between gambeson and "телогрейка" is the base of thick tissue. Knights, professional warriors, mostly was summoned to serve their lords in may-june and had to fight until the summer ends. It was pretty hard for a lord to feed his people and pay for their staying any longer, and of course no one wanted to freeze theirs butts off. So generally warriors had no actual need in warm clothes, some rain protection as cloaks at most. But if it's something unusual, like other country striking in winter, wearing a gambeson for a war may be a very good idea, and maybe there are not so much of sources mentioning it because it was kind of a rare occasion. You could put your gambeson ON your mail, though, thus making it harder to tell, what armor do you use.
The late Romans/ Byzantines developed armour for battles, which consisted of mail/ scale/ gambeson. The Franks named this total armor HAUBARK. HAUBARK was valuable and was taken from every dead soldier and enemy. Within the 12th century there was a revolution: the knights started to wear mail armor, which also protected the hands/ arms/legs completely. Under it was normally worn a thin gambeson. The fact that mail was vulnerable for strong arrows was known and for battles was worn a special gambeson with iron plates. Recently was an example found used by Teutonic Knights. This specific combination of protective gear had the result that some knights looked in battle like porcupines, but were not hindered by arrows. In the late 13th century were also developed plates which were worn on the outside. From this was formed the total plate armor around 1350aN.
What do you think of the Polish hussars Metatron? Espacially the armour in XVI, XVII and their corrazina, it has some kind of a roman feel to it in my opinion. Their sabre is also interesting, it looks very unique in my opinion. Ooh yeah, and they had wings on their backs while charging in to battle, what else do you need?
I think the Maciejowski bible images would really help with your search. Its from the time period and a lot of the images show. You video made me do a quick search around but I can't find a clear image where you see both a Gambeson and Mail worn together. Although their hand would suggest mittons and the mail worn on their bodies is less tailored then your example.
The answer to this is obvious. Yes they probably wore padding of some kind under mail. Your example all but basically proved it regarding a charging knight with a lance on horseback. Without heavy padding, the lance might not penetrate the mail, but it would push the mail inside you. basically you would have massive hole in you with a charge like that, even if you are wearing mail. Heavy padding would at least give you half a change to dissipate the mail actually being pushed inside you creating a wound......Also If you have ever fallen on your keys it hurts right, as its metal against flesh. Wearing mail with no heavy padding underneath would be an amplified version of that. every rivet would gouge your ribs etc. etc., it would be soo painful. Thinking about it in these terms, wearing mail without padding and receiving any kind of heavy strike would be excruciatingly painful....Yes I am aware they would wear some clothing underneath, but that would'nt help.
I could see them wearing a gambeson in winter as a very common time to wear one. After all they do seem fairly warm, especially a thick one. And why wouldn't they? If it limits their movement, than at least their warm and not being limited via cold. If they wore them in other seasons, then I wouldn't know.
Greetings Metatron, this is just another RUclipsr commenting here telling you that you're one of my inspirations and I'd really appreciate if you could watch one of my videos or two and maybe talk about the Celts in an upcoming video of yours! Cheers!
It makes sense that if you were wearing mail armor you would have some padding under it to help absorb the impact of blows from melee and ranged weapons. After all you are going to battle you want as much protection as you can get.
Talk of Roman armor always reminds me of Final Fantasy 11 for a rather strange reason. They had an entry-level form of leg armor called bronze subligar. It's exactly what it sounds like. I guess someone on the development team really liked Latin as well as catgirl butts.
About XIII C, there's a document from Spain that said "Vistióse el obispo un gambax de xamete, e sobre él la loriga, que era muy fuertemente obrada. Et vestir gambax gordo y pesado". That can be translated as "The bishop wore a gambax (a shorter gambesson that didn't went much lower than the waist) made of xamete (a cloth made with silk), and his maille on top, which was finely crafted. His gambax was thick and heavy". It's to note that bishops led their armies against the Al-mohad muslims. Other Spanish contemporary sources state that the typical knight armour consisted of "yelmo, brafonera, malla de escamas de hierro, perpunte, adarga o escudo, gambax de cendal, trebugueras y almófar" That'd be "helmet, maille chausses, iron scale armour, gambesson, shield (adarga was a muslim type of shield anyway, that some people in southern Spain adopted), gambax made of cendal (a fabric made with linen), trebugueras (I'm not sure on an English word for it, it's the thick cords used to tie the maille chausses onto the knight's hips) and maille coif" This would lead some historians to believe that they wore the thin gambesson beneath their maille or scale armour, and a thicker gambax on top of that. Some argue that it was because it could be discarded easier if it became to cumbersome, and because it was cheaper to repair or make anew compared to a maille shirt or a scale armour. Then, these are from Spain and I cannot in any way say that it was universal to the rest of Europe.
The question can be answered relatively quickly if you are willing to take a blow or 2 from a wooden practice sword(or tree branch) while wearing mail. Not a thrust mind you but a cut. If the blow is incredibly painful with just mail and a tunic and produced a sizeable bruise the length of the contact then yes they would've worn a gambeson, it would've been essential with thrusts involved because the force is pinpointed and even if the links survived it would be a debilitating blow from the pain alone allowing for a killing blow next. A gambeson absorbs blunt force impact and yes even swords will produce blunt force trauma through armor if the armor is direct to skin or a simple tunic between. Hell wear a mail shirt even the cheapest aluminum cosplay shirt and have a friend whack you in the torso with a 3 foot long, 1 inch diameter green tree branch and decide if you want a gambeson even one that couldn't stop a cut by itself because it is 4 sweat shirts and a medium thickness coat because you couldn't get a real gambeson. It's all about absorbing blunt force impact to minimize blunt force trauma.. mail and a tunic I think wouldn't do that in the least bit against a simple stick much less a sword because you could still receive a broken rib from the blow which on a battlefield would be a death sentence... and don't even bring in a hammer or mace to the mix. gambeson or not you wouldn't want to feel that blow. The question gets answered because they had gambesons in the 13th century, they were the cheapest armor available that even the archers and peasant cannon fodder troops had them, why would a knight not have one so they have the added cut/thrust protection from mail and the blunt force absorption from the gambeson? They would have one and wear it under the mail because not doing so is suicide or incredibly debilitatingly painful. Do they need to discuss it or show it off? Do you discuss your underwear or show it off? No you don't and for a 13th century or later knight a gambeson would be akin to underwear. *Edit, I paused the video just before 5:00 and wrote my comment. Then started the video again and was pleasantly happy to see Metatron agrees with me and my comment is just backing his train of thought.
A bit off topic but still relevant to 13th-ish century armour: have you seen the Netflix show on Marco Polo that came out about 5-10ish years ago? Specifically the fight scene between the monk and a fully armoured Crusader in which all of the monk's sword cuts are completely ineffective and just skid off the mail? Obviously no Crusader army ever invaded Mongolia/China and the show did make a LOT of other significant departures from history for the sake of artistic license. However, I did still enjoy the show and I especially liked that particular fight scene because the armour ACTUALLY WORKED! I just wish they did MORE scenes like that both in that show and in movies/ TV in general
I think a suitable way to delineate would be to ask how physical your reenactment group gets. If you're full contact with steel weapons then definitely require a gambeson for safety reasons, but if you've got safety restrictions/wooden weapons then no gambeson should be fine.
To add more to this, the Byzantines of the 13th and 12th century did in fact use such armor called a bambikion which is a type of padded armor either over or under mail, scales or lamellar
I think they probably did wear gambesons. I look at it this way: If I were doing historical reenactments that involved any mock fighting, I'd sure as hell would want to wear one...and my life isn't in substantive danger. So, am I to think that a real medieval soldier WOULDN'T wear one, when their lives were very much in danger? Why wouldn't you wear one?
Eustace The Monk you miss one important point, fighting with blunt weapons is very different to fighting with sharp weapons. cuts are really really dangerous, blunt trauma is kind of harmless in comparison. so mail is great to make really dangerous hits to relative harmless ones. like modern armor, a bullet proof West won't protect you from injury, it just helps by making the injury not deadly. plus armor, especially mail, is only the backup when your first line of defense is broken (the shield)
Mail armour is not a particilarly good armor, in the sense that could be pierced by arrows/spears and other kind of narrow pointy weapons and It offers almost 0 protection against blunt trauma. Williams in his book did some test with armor penetration; an antique of the 15th century mail with gambeson was pierced by an arrows with 120J; the mail took 80J while gambeson 20J and the remaining was absorbed by the gel. Without a gambeson, 100J would have been able to kill the wearer which is way less effective.
I agree with Metatron opinion. There are too many hazards on the battlefield where not wearing Gambenson simply dont make sense in terms of peotection. Lances&Bows are most popular. Shields were used sure but shield does not prevent to add extra layer under chain. I like to think about such topic as what would I do if I know life is in stake(tech of the period and economic expendetures). Wound/Broken bone can turn into infection and lead to death or severe wound both to body and mind.
Regarding the close fit of the clothes on characters' drawings and enluminures from X to XV centuries, there's a thing I'm always wondering: is it possible that it was not that much fit, or not fit at all, but the artists were not that skilled on representing human figures and fabrics, so they would simply "apply" the painting reproducing the textiles over the body parts to dress them?
there was most likely a mix as you've said. With the style, practical function and comfort depending on status, rank or wealth. They weren't nude under the armor it's like your go-fund me. You said if I had an unlimited amount I'd purchase the best armor. I'm sure some noble Families would spend a bundle for the best or to show off with tons of junk
I think that one should wear the thickest gambeson possible under the thickest mail possible under the heaviest plate armor possible consistent with the most rapid retreat possible. Or take up farming.
I completely agree with you on this one, it just seems the most sensible way to wear armour would be with some type of gambeson underneath. However since you were mentioning scandinavia vs. southern europe couldn't a potential reason for lack of gambesons be heat? lf a soldier can gain adequate protection without the gambeson underneath his armour and also spares himself baking in the summer sun then he will go without it...
Also the textile armour is what stops most of the penetration. In our group Companie of St Sebastian we tried textile armour with riveted maille ontop and the arrows pretty much ignored the maille. It just broke a link and got stuck in the textilearmour!
even if padding wasn't common in southern Europe in the middle ages, that doesnt mean no one had it. Armor really wasn't standardized whatever the knight or lord wanted to wear and afford he wore. Scandinavians became mercenaries and had trade routes throughout Europe and the mediterranean. I'm sure their style and armor spread too. Reenacting-wise the gambeson was clearly available, whether it was used was up to the knight, therefore it should be up to the reenactor.
While it makes sense to wear a gambeson underneath, I think the temperature would have a lot of influence on its thickness. Ian mentioned in a comment of one of his videos that steel armor is a great heat sink in the winter and hot weather can really test your resistance to heatstroke. Gambesons also helped prevent more serious damage from arrows when they were able to force the links open.
But like... why would they not though. Why would they randomly forget about gambeson. They wore it in the previous few centuries Also how thin would it be if worn under maille?
It depends i say the common might just worn either mail or gambison and the one serving a lord or king could very well have worn gambison mail and surcoat over it for heraldic display and protective layer of sun heating up mail
I agree with you Met, just one point: I think the lance to be bad example cause ( BEEP BEEP: speculation warning BEEP BEEP) if you don't have a glancing surface -> plate armour, the lance can bite into the armour and, having the full force of a galloping horse behind it, will penetrate even the best mail and at least big part of the gambeson. As already said: I don't have the physical data and am therefore speculating here, but in short: "Doesn't matter if ya wear a gambeson or not laddie, bloody lance ' gonna kill ya anyway!"
As you said a thick gambeson( with different types of thicknesses) was a stand alone armour. An even thinner gambeson used as a padding underneath mail might not have been classified as gambeson at all. They might have just considered them some form of tunic/shirt. Thick enough for absorbing blunt force, thin enough for ventilation.
I absolutely agree, Metatron. Although I'm not as well educated on armor, even when I was just a child, I had always assumed that there was some kind of padded form under the chainmail of knights who weren't wearing plate. I couldn't have known it was a Gambeson, of course, at 10 years old (lol) but I figured there was more than just a guy wearing chain on his skin.
Look at it this way: why NOT wear some padding under metal armor?? I'd say even the poorest combatant could find rags and cloths to place under the friction points on their armor. We do it today when we put moleskin or band-aids on our feet to ease the fit of boots and shoes. A blister or sore caused by rubbing armor is going to decrease the effectiveness of anyone in a fight.
I agree with you, both ways are possible. But still I would argue that there should be at least some hint for wearing gambeson if everyone in southern europe did it - it is just unbelievable that no pictures or records exist that show it... And the image you showed of the knight in mail, he's definitely wearing a padded coif, but the mail seems to be pretty form-fitting, maybe he isn't wearing much padding underneath? Of course, one can always just wear a thick tunic and prefer the mobility over the heat exhaustion one might encounter when wearing gambeson in southern climate...
Really, a helm as well? I always thought it was probably only a very thick padded coif - like lindybeige's first attempt at making one... Either way, my point is that they are wearing something like padding around their heads, while the body is relatively slim. So if I had to guess, I'd say he's not wearing a lot of padding around his body (at least far less than on the head). Of course I could be wrong...
From desciption: "Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures facebook.com/amedeo.capor... and his instagram facebook.com/amedeo.capor..." Both link to facebook. Please fix the description.
Hm I'm also thinking padding could be important if you're thrown off your horse, dropping from a horse with armor could be really uncomfortable considering the weight and padding could help your body withstain the impact there as well :D
The written sources exist, but they are in German, plenty of descriptions of arming a knight in Minnesinger epics like Parzifal etc. The information was collected and systematized already more than 100 years ago: archive.org/details/dashfischelebe01schuuoft
The question of how far back gambesons and gambeson like garments go is an interesting question... also what did they look like? Or did folks just wear several layers of clothing underneath their maille for a similar padding effect. And when and where did folks figure to make it a single garment? Speaking of which DO we have accounts of folks just using thick or layered clothes under maille that is NOT in the form of a gambeson relative? Like what did they Celts who first developed it do? Was the suburalmalis developed by the Romans first or did they take the tech from Celts or someone else? Really... there's just a ton questions on this issue...
I found a picture of a man in a full mail armor with little to no padding with beautifully tailored sleeves and coif. While he looked great, I can't help but shudder at the thought of being hit whilst in that armor. Say goodbye to your bones!
That's why you don't get hit. This is why you have a shield, and training, and the guy next to you. The gambeson is great, for about 5 minutes. In the extreme heat it is a killer, and in the wet and cold it is heavy and worthless. Its only good in one condition: Cool, dry weather.
Unless i'm mistaken a gambeson is made using quilting, yes? So its quite possible they might have worn padded armor that was simply not a gambeson by definition. Just a thought.
will you be purchasing the whole deal? a gambeson, a well fitting iron-steel knightly helm, spurs, surcoat, mail for the legs? or are you planning on purchasing the mail shirt by itself for now? tbh i would be happy with what ever you decide to do, but that would be amazing if you could try to have the most historically accurate kit of the 13 century knight, since the only people on youtube with 13th century'ish armor either have low quality videos, do not have the full kit, or have a low quality set. basically you would be the first on youtube with a full 13th century kit and making in depth videos!
maile without a gambeson what are they batshit crazy? thin padding is better then none. and i sure as hell wouldnt want to take a sword blow wearing maile without a gambeson underneath. might stop the cut but shit that strike is still gonna hurt, look at kenjutsu they use spine strikes with the katana for the exact reason it hurts, when youd rather just maim someone and not kill them, though im pretty sure that a mune strike to the head can still kill.
You know, i recently got very confused...i realised how little i know about 15th-17th century armor. I shit you not, it took me a whole week to find out that there wasnt a Single armor stlye per century.
I presume the reason behind this is that, for once at the time, it was too obvious, which is tied to the second reason. The absence of evidence in the case of effigies and other sorts of three dimensional records, is justified because in early medieval times, knights were the majority of the few peoples that could afford mail. As such, statues and so on represented knights through the mail, very much like Trahan's column depicted the difference between legionaries and auxilia. moreover, I imagine the price of a gambeson compared to that of tailored mail would have been little, hence it wouldn't have been a problem of resources.
A thought about the wearing of Gambeson. First, I'm from Minnesota (Denmark type climate, but colder) but isn't wearing a gambeson warmer then not wearing one, especially in Sicily and Southern Europe? The Arab Armies during the Crusades wore lighter armor then did the Europeans simply because they came from a much warmer climate, and African Armies wore almost no armor at all. It is possible that some soldiers, especially in Southern Europe, didn't wear a Gambeson because of the heat. After one or two generations the wearing of the gambeson might be forgotten among the people of the warmer climates, but because the additional warmth could be welcome in more northerly climes, continued to be worn by British, (northern) French, and German soldiers. It would be only when the two groups clashed that the southern soldiers relearned about gambesons, and started wearing them again because of the advantages they gave the individual soldier.
I think that they wore a sort of gambeson. Most likely mostly padded on the vital chest/stomac area. Maybe even on your sword arm. Possiblely thin padding on the back and thick padding on your chest/torso and possible shulders and prehabs sword arm. Atleast thats my thought on it. Despite lack of evidence, a sort of gambeson wa worn, am sure.
Also, It is proved with iconography and old text the use of padded armour under the harness (full plate armour) in XIV century and after (even the pikemen in XVII century wore some kind of padded doublet under the cuirass), so for me its obvious, as martial artis and reenactor that were used in XIII century, before and after. And it didin't protect only in battle. It was necesary to stand the weigth and the material of the armour (the steel of the mail nailing down on the shoulders by time passing is very umpleasant). Went someone hits strongly with a sword it hurts over the chainmail with gambeson, so imagine without it. Only the momentary pain will allow your enemy to make a decisive attack and kill you. So, in the other hand, a strong attack with a mace or warhammer... Well, the gambeson won't do so much really. That the reason why the plate armour was invented, to counter the blunt weapons.
dear metatron: i want to ask you for a favor. pls dont do too much over medieval armour. that topic is covered widely. but what i really really want to hear about more is later armour. 16th, 17th, maybe even 18th century. there is sooooo little information out there. a bit on the greenwich workshop until 1590 about and that was it. that really is a niche, that waits for you to cover. and escpecially the late 16th cent. styles are fantastic. grazie
I think it would be inevitable that some form of impact resistant clothing was worn underneath. How thick it was or even if it could be described as a gambeson is anyone's guess.
Well the 13th century was in the middle of the feudal system in Europe. So, it would be possible that some lords would equip better armor on their knights. I don't know how expensive gambeson would have been, but maybe some lords didn't have the money, or didn't think it was necessary.
perhaps (at least some)13th century scholars did not think it necessary to mention gambesons because they assumed that we'd know about them, as in, if they'd become a fixture in armies in Europe, the mention of them is insignificant compared to the new developments like longswords and box helms. this can be a common thing In people, forgetting that everyone can't see all your thoughts. It's definitely a theory
except the neighbors of the Europeans and the romans took the time to mention as well as used it commonly so why no mention in the area it is thought to have been used?
What materials are suited for a gambesson? On the first thought a gambesson should be made out of fibers that have the best tensile strength and don't break easily on bending. Thus silk would be far superiour to linen or cotton. On the second thought, there's the matter of stiffness, isolation and water absorption. Imagine a terribly stiff and rough gambesson that soaked up 3L of your sweat...
One important thing to note and not discount is the documentary and visual evidence for wearing stout padding _over_ the mail. Sources like the mid 13th century _King's Mirror_ explicitly call for the thick padding to worn as the outer most layer, with a soft layer on the inside. So it presents the layers as a thin arming garment followed by what is likely an early coat of plates and then mail, and _then_ a thick sleeveless gambeson to protect the torso (sleeveless so it doesn't restrict arm mobility). Gamboised cuisses could also be worn _over_ mail hosen, which protects the thigh, but alleviates any need for thick padding worn underneath while still keeping mobility in the knee. It's just important to recognize it's not a battle of two extremes, i.e., thick padding vs no padding at all, but it's a nuanced discussion about layers, where those layers go, and how thick each layer really needs to be. Sometimes the thicker padding can simply be *over* the mail.
I suppose padding over the mail would reduce the amount of mail needed, because it covers a smaller area.
and outside padding cheaper and lighter than mail/plate outside
as historically inaccurate Kingdom Of Heaven was they did a great job with costumes *really blew me away* if you could get the full kit that is on par with what they where wearing in that movie i would really be impressed
That movie was awesome!
Well, from a strictly filmographic view that is. I have no idea about history.
I like your logic behind this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
except a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Not necessarily; certain arguments like tautologies can be proven without any premises, like the claim "I'm either a cat or not a cat," given the appropriate logical rules.
Benjamin Gilbert So if I said "Gravity exists", and you said, "That's a total lie", you would be justified despite neither of us bring evidence? You can say there's a 50/50 chance, but you *cannot* make a truth claim without evidence, just as I can't. If either one of us makes a truth claim, we have to provide evidence. If the default is "Gravity doesn't exist", let's kick it up a notch.
Lets say I'm a person who believes nothing exists and there is no truth. You want to prove the world exists, but the only way to prove something exists is predicating it on something held to be true. Therefore, it really is literally impossible, from what I can tell, to prove to me anything exists. If I deny _X,_ you can't say _X_ is true based on _Y,_ because I don't believe in _Y_ either! You unknowingly are arguing for a world where nothing exists, unless you make a convenient exception, or multiple. You say, "I exist". I say, "Prove it.". You prove you exist by basing your existence on the existence of the universe. I say, "The universe doesn't exist either.". You now have to go outside the realms of the universe to prove to me something exists. You have to learn an entire new way of thinking and new logic, existing outside of the universe. Unless you hold the universe's existence to be universally inherent truth, in which case I will ask and state:
1. Who are you to determine inherent truth?
2. Clearly it's not, because it's not inherent to me.
If an unsubstantiated claim can be dismissed without evidence, then I am perfectly justified in saying nothing exists. This means killing is OK, so is every other terrible deed. Is this what you believe?
RunItsTheCat
You're correct, except he doesn't believe cats exist. I don't believe in logic, he has to prove it to me or it's not real -- or, illogical. I'm saying logic doesn't exist, so he therefore must use logic to prove it does exist, which means my request is "illogical", but apparently logic isn't real.
that response is utter nonsense and you hopefully see why.
Occam's Razor - in absence of evidence, the simplest hypothesis should be the correct one. Now we just need to decide whether wearing a gambeson beneath maille or not wearing it is the simpler explanation :D
This video's concept is eerily similar to the one I'll be publishing tomorrow, did the vikings wear padded armor? Well there you go ^_^
Shadiversity I've been binging your videos all day... Dang it you! I have a Chemistry, Math, and German test to get done!!
it really make sense to wear a padding under the mail armor, what do you think about?
(I always thought that was obvious)
Sup
Aye. I love how some ask why we haven't found one form the age, as if wool would endure 1000 years of use in battle...
And bout vikingr, not only as padding for blows, but in harsh and cold/damp climates, who'd want to have iron almost against your skin?
the viking group i reenact with we wear gambeson and i have used two tunics and kaftan under my mail and lamellar which provided to me the same level of protection when fighting with blunts but i still use thin gambeson.
There's a quote, I think it's from Carl Sagan, that applies to this matter: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Personally, i think it makes more sense for the 13th century knights to have worn gambesons.
and here is a Christopher Hitchens quote. " a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
+Benjamin Gilbert
True, but "Given our current knowledge, I think it makes more sense […]." is not a claim.
A claim would be "They wore gambesons.", or "They didn't wear gambesons.".
+Benjamin Gilbert That's why Hitchens was a good fighter. He knew how to punch hard. That's what also made him a poor one as well, he would punch at anything hard but never see the whole match. It's like winning battles but not the war kind of thing.
Personally, it would make sense for them to wear gambeson. It was practical, it was common, and it's common sense to a point where people no longer have to tell you hence they never talk much about it.
there is evidence of no gambeson to be worn... the absence is depicted in multiple places... that is evidence of absence, specifically.
So the absence of evidence is not accurate.
we DO see some VERY thin padding/quilting on the sleeves by the very end (last ten years) of the 13th century, but it is not much thickness at all.
so there is evidence... that is clearly omitted before.
Having done a lot of 13th Century reenactment events and shows, a thin gambeson is by far and away the most practical. I can't believe anybody who had to spend any serious amount of time in maile wouldn't wear it. At the very least it protects you from the armour itself. It really doesn't need to be all that thick to provide, yet I'm willing to wager that those that could would have a winter and a summer under padding setup.
Let's get metatron to 1 million subs so that he can afford that armour
then lets clone him, armor up the clones, have them fight each other until one remains, and then we have Metatron Ultima. And a heck load of armors that can be give-aways from the new and improved channel.
@kamirecca will the Metatron Ultima be called Ultimatron? Ultron?
Cloverskull, i do like Ultimatron, or maybe Meta-tima.
yeah and Metatron can you talk about ww1 and ww2
We have lots of sources mentioning various forms of padding though, so I do not get why anyone would argue that just a regular tunic would be the case beneath mail;
"...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier *wore a vest of thick felt* and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them." - Bahā'al-Dīn
Bahā'al-Dīn was from the 12th-century
Yes?
You believe some incredible cultural change happened over a single century that resulted in everyone in Europe no longer wearing gambesons or padding under mail?
As I said, there are loads of sources, including those in the 13th century, Baha al Din was merely the first one that came to mind.
no idea, but for the record I agree on the very possible use of gambesons under mail. I was just pointing to the facts, that's all. Because if Metatron states there are no known sources for the 13th-century and you say there are tons, and for prove it you post a 12th-century source, well... that's not a very good counterargument, isn't it?
Never the less, medieval period is not my speciality.
it just makes sense that there would be padding under your chain male. it's my vote for ...yes.
Nancy Volker Well even if it is not as common as in other scenarios, you can always want an extra bit of protection
it really make sense to have padding under mail since mail only protect against cut and piercing kind of attack, a sword is still a metal stick and can still cause trauma damage and you need padding to stop those kind of damage, especially against mace and the like
Absolutely!😘
Plus without the padding, the mail itself can be harmful to you. If no padding, the mail can end up going inside you! OUCH!!!
Nancy Volker Padding could be thicker in chest, stomach and shoulders, elsewhere thin and cooler. It wouldn't restrict movements. I don't have evidence this was done, but it's kind of no-brainer idea.
Maybe for 13th century european people the combination of Gambeson (or padded armor) and ribeted mail was such a logical combination(for the time) that people just assumed that if a knight or man-at-arms was shown in texts using mail armor then they assumed that he was using a gambeson or padded armor under mail just because it was so effective at the time that they concluded that the combination of mail and gambeson was essential.
Also I think it's pretty damn safe to say that padding was worn in both the 12th century and the 13th. We know stuff like jousting existed in these eras and were done with fairly minimal risk to the contestants. Poems such as "In the Service of Ladies" mentions even freaking neck-shots with blunt lances failing to do anything but unhorse a foe or rattle him a bit. Not say, collapse the larynx.
"By the Blachernae, beneath your banner,
I stood armed, like a Brabantine,
With helm and hauberk and stout GAMBESON"
-Raimbaut de Vaqueiras (1180-1207) present at the siege of Constantinople during the fourth Crusade
Is that evidence enough for you? Oh and he was southern French so that is western Enough for me!
DushinSC awesomeness! that's that! great job!
UP!
If only that would happen.
By the way man, how did you even know that. Is Raimbaut a popular source? I mean I've never even heard of him. Just curious on how did you start reading that literature.
Found it cited in secondary source, I have had some trouble actually finding the original.
Here's a theory why the knights in the 13th century paintings and manuscripts show no sign of padding:
The ideal of male beauty in the gothic era was slim and pale (angel-like). Pointed shoes, tailored clothes and pronounced waists support that impression. Some of this can be explained by practicality on the battlefield (e.g. tailored sleeves) but military dress is always influenced by fashion, too (to some degree). So the point I want to make is: If Knights in the 13th century wore padding and would therefore have looked like a modern muscular athlete plus thin padding plus mail, they would have looked beefier than the Knights in the contemporary sources. However contemporary fashion might have led the painter to present them in a more slim and elegant way.
About the scandinavians: Even in summer, when most battles were fought it's significantly colder in scandinavia than say France or Germany. So climate alone would have led the scandinavian knight to choose padding.
And depending on the level of skill possessed by a particular artist, it is a lot easier once one has mastered the basic technique of drawing a figure to draw snug clothing on it rather than working out how thicker material hangs and bunches as the wearer moves.
@@j.f.fisher5318 Erm, no. Just no. Plenty of 13th Century art did exactly that while still depicting tunics under mail.
I think gambeson was worn more often than not. great video.
I think you think right. I'd go even further than say "in that age, gambesson was the must have of every man-at-arms, then maille and others where bonus if the warrior could afford them"
Dracoconis same, without a gambeson getting hit in mail would hurt a lot. The armour would loose a lot of effectiveness.
One good reason to wear some sort of padded gambeson, even if just a relatively thin layer, is to protect you from the armour itself - if someone hits you with their weapon, even if it doesn't go through the mail the force of the blow will press those mail links into your body which is going to be uncomfortable to say the least.
Another thing to consider is that a mail shirt is going to be covered in oil or grease to keep rust at bay, so you'd want something to keep that oil from soaking into your nice tunic and the skin below
Based on what I have researched the gambeson used under the mail was most often very thin or just a heavy fabric. Just like you've said, mail is supposed to fit as tightly as possible around the body (just like any other armor). From my experience, that saves weight and allows for more balanced movements. Toby Capwell did a speech were he mentions that, although he was referring to plate armor, the general concept applies here. There were always exeptions though.
Also from my experience, I feel that the pain of an impact when wearing a thin padding (1 layer...) under 16 gauge mail is about the same as on a thicker (2 or 3 layer) gambeson by itself. My point being that the mail will absorb some of that impact just like extra layers of padding. Another advantage of thiner padding is that it is not so absurdly hot in the summer.
I think Ian is dead on when he mentions the layered approach with the outer padding since there are plenty of evidence of that.
So bottom line is I don't think we should be concerned too much with the lack of concussive protection provided by mail with little to no padding. There were other protective "layers" such as outer padding, shields, helms, and most importantly one's skill. The way you and your army fight will change based on your armor and an experience fighter will learn how to make the best of it.
Please, please, PLEASE make a collaboration video with Ian LaSpina, aka Knyght Errant, when you do the armor evolution video(s)!
It could not be anything but a totally awesome video.
Also, this one was a great video, too. I really enjoy (most) of your content, and I hope you keep it up!
Have you thought of making a couple of T-shirts a'la Shadiversity?
Edit:
I would never wear mail without any kind of gambeson.
Like you said, mail is great against cutting and to penetration (to an extend), but even a sword blow (with the edge) might deliver enough kinetic energy to break your arm, for example. Might not be 32 layers, but without contrary evidence I'll keep trusting that there's always some sort of padding under mail, if the mail is the main source of protection.
This is Thrand , great video very well done and I totally agree. I get this argument quite often about the Viking age and I believe some wore gambeson some did not but it was not unheard of even in stand alone armor.
Depends on what you mean when you say gambeson. As a rule of thumb, it's always a good idea to tell people what definition you use.
For instance, when I talk of a gambeson I mean a stand alone garment of 17 to 30 layers of linen and 1 layer of deer skin.
When I talk of an aketon I specifically mean under mail padding with less than 17 layers of linen.
When I talk of an arming doublet I specifically mean under plate padding with a few layers of linen and small cushions of horse hair, tow, wool or the like.
When I talk of a Jack I usually mean additional layers of outer defenses, such as an extra aketon over the mail.
A Jack of plates will be the same as a Jack only with additional small plates.
A coat of plates is a garment with segmented plates sown on the inside of a piece of garment going over the mail as additional protection. A coat of plates will typically have larger plates.
A Brigandine is stand alone armor, often made of smaller plates riveted to the fabric in between the layers. Much like a jack of plates only more tightly fit with more sophisticated neck, arm and hip protection etc., because it's stand alone armor.
13th century armour = AWESOME!! XD
Awesome indeed!
KnightSquire you two should really do a collaboration video. it might just give knightsquire the to push he needs to get the tip jar back. he makes such good videos. hema douche killed me
HEMA douche is one of my favourite videos ever xD We surely will, I just need to get some time to do it but ye
metetron, yet another great video. i have known you since 30k. congrats on everything
If no padding, and you cop a good thrust to your body, even if the blade can't penetrate the mail,, the mail can still penetrate your skin and flesh! Mail must have at least some level of padding beneath.
As a 12th-13th centurty reenactor, I question my manliness whenever this topic is brought up. I honestly believe discarding the gambeson could be done with haubergeons with regards to their relately light weight. With my full, knee-length, mitten-fitted, full coif-fitted hauberk? No chance I wear that shit over regular clothes or you would have to pry it out from my flesh after an hour. Using the gambeson is an important part of the (relative) comfort of wearing mail, to my mind.
I 100% agree with you about the thin gambeson. It is the most logical solution to the problem. However, it's a real pain in the butt to find an historicaly accurate reproduction of a 13th-century thin gambeson.
When talking about mittens or mail chausses, though, I believe there is much less rationale to wear padded stuff underneath them (and there is no historical evidence for it). I wear my mail chausses directly over my linen chausses with no padding.
I really don't get the idea, that for any given time there has to be just one way people did things, or that nobody ever did something just because it is not on a painting somewhere. Society dosen´t work that way. If something like a gambeson is available and it offers an advantage there will be people wearing it, people who,for one reason of the other, won't and some will use it just for special tasks. In the end it's all about what protection is needed, what is affordable and who is supposed to be impressed. And that can vary a lot.
I would say that evidence of Scandinavians wearing gambeson at the time is evidence that it was worn. At the time, European armor was pretty ubiquitous, and the Scandinavians were probably actually a little behind the rest of the continent.
Destructive Criticism i wouldn't say behind, it is just that they haven't copied those western continental styles yet.
I mean, if you want to be technical, yes. Because the word "behind" implies linear progression.
Would like to know where you get this idea from or your reasoning behind it, to give Norway as an example, it was at the height of it's power mid to late 13 th century, which just so happens to be where the King's Mirror is from, 1250 Norway.
Certainly not behind during the Viking era(besides stacking stone, but not the only ones) Why would they suddenly be behind in 200 years? While the civil war period beforehand was rough, so much conflict should increase martial knowledge.
Because technological progress is dependent on wealth and once the rest of Europe adapted to the Vikings their major source of wealth through loot dried up, so how were they going to fund vast populations of skilled craftspeople?
Scandinavians did it. Romans did it. Therefore phylogenetic bracketing says that the default assumption is those in between did. Same reason we assume that coelurisaurian Therapods had sophisticated feathers even when we DON'T have direct fossil evidence.
except the middle ages were far more recent and there is more evidence left from that time period than fossil evidence so lack of historical evidence has more credence.
but a gambeson is still organic material, so it will rot rather quickly especially in european climate
LOL, comparing an extinct animal to medieval armour...
Having watched Jurassic Park is all evidence I need to believe that they did not have feathers. This is scientific af!!!!
Actually we do have fossil evidence if feathers on theropods. I forget which one though.
Thanks for the Video if been searching this topic for months finally some one Talks about it
thumbs up to the Metatron
I'd vote "yes", for two reasons:
- Data interpolation. Prior (Romans) and local (Scandinavians) evidence don't automatically translate to general evidence, but they still are relevant data points that strongly hint in that direction. I'd rather demand a good explanation to why the rest of Europe would have chosen to do something different.
- Common sense. I have a bit of light sparring experience with blunt lonswords and sideswords, both with a proper fencing jacket and with just a sweater. Without the fencing jacket, the slightest tap in any bony part like my elbow was really painful, a proper blow would break the bones really easily. I have no experience with mail, but I don't think it would help enough in that regard.
Gambeson:
A Gambeson was a heavy, quilted coat that
was worn under a knight's armour.
The Gambeson offered protection against
pinching metal plates, as well as absorbed
some shock from impacts.
Source: Deadliest Warrior, Legends.
I think it is very important to wear a Gambeson or at least some padding under plate armour. First of all, it absorbes kinetic energy, like the Metatron said. Another point could be the isolation against, cold or hot weather conditions. I would not like to wear plates without isolation in summer nor in winter. If you ever touched a car at noon in summer, you know what I mean.
Correct, armour is not clothing. Gambeson is to some degree a clothing. Russians in Siberia sometimes do wear "gambesons" even now, because cold! You still have to wear something that's more appropriate for the weather conditions you are in. All armies of all times (well, all humans actually) did that - and if not, they suffered dearly. And in cold climates the gambeson probably was thicker in general, while in hot climate it was thinner, sometimes even replaced by tunic/robe/shirt.
It also depends on what you expect to meet. If you are on a garrison duty, during a long march, preparing for a combat maybe? These are all considerations of how much clothing and armour you are going to wear. Let's say a 14th century knight riding his horse to rival duchy may just wear a cap on his head, then, when he sees a castle, he puts on his helmet, then, we he sees the enemy troops and prepares to charge, he finally closes his visor for maximum protection (sacrificing vision and breathing comfort for the time of engagement).
I know it was more than 2 years ago, but I wanted to mention that gambeson is made of wool layers, while in Siberia people mainly use other types of padding, so the only similarity between gambeson and "телогрейка" is the base of thick tissue. Knights, professional warriors, mostly was summoned to serve their lords in may-june and had to fight until the summer ends. It was pretty hard for a lord to feed his people and pay for their staying any longer, and of course no one wanted to freeze theirs butts off. So generally warriors had no actual need in warm clothes, some rain protection as cloaks at most. But if it's something unusual, like other country striking in winter, wearing a gambeson for a war may be a very good idea, and maybe there are not so much of sources mentioning it because it was kind of a rare occasion. You could put your gambeson ON your mail, though, thus making it harder to tell, what armor do you use.
The late Romans/ Byzantines developed armour for battles, which consisted of mail/ scale/ gambeson. The Franks named this total armor HAUBARK. HAUBARK was valuable and was taken from every dead soldier and enemy. Within the 12th century there was a revolution: the knights started to wear mail armor, which also protected the hands/ arms/legs completely. Under it was normally worn a thin gambeson. The fact that mail was vulnerable for strong arrows was known and for battles was worn a special gambeson with iron plates. Recently was an example found used by Teutonic Knights. This specific combination of protective gear had the result that some knights looked in battle like porcupines, but were not hindered by arrows. In the late 13th century were also developed plates which were worn on the outside. From this was formed the total plate armor around 1350aN.
What do you think of the Polish hussars Metatron? Espacially the armour in XVI, XVII and their corrazina, it has some kind of a roman feel to it in my opinion. Their sabre is also interesting, it looks very unique in my opinion. Ooh yeah, and they had wings on their backs while charging in to battle, what else do you need?
Im not sure but ive read thay used hollow lances that were actually longer then the pikes used by footmen
I hope you talk more about the 13 the century! I'm putting together a set myself, I just need to purchase it first lol.
Knyght Errant is the best channel of its kind on RUclips.
I think the Maciejowski bible images would really help with your search. Its from the time period and a lot of the images show. You video made me do a quick search around but I can't find a clear image where you see both a Gambeson and Mail worn together. Although their hand would suggest mittons and the mail worn on their bodies is less tailored then your example.
I love the wat that youtube's autocreate captions for your videos are correct based on your voice xD
The answer to this is obvious. Yes they probably wore padding of some kind under mail. Your example all but basically proved it regarding a charging knight with a lance on horseback. Without heavy padding, the lance might not penetrate the mail, but it would push the mail inside you. basically you would have massive hole in you with a charge like that, even if you are wearing mail. Heavy padding would at least give you half a change to dissipate the mail actually being pushed inside you creating a wound......Also If you have ever fallen on your keys it hurts right, as its metal against flesh. Wearing mail with no heavy padding underneath would be an amplified version of that. every rivet would gouge your ribs etc. etc., it would be soo painful. Thinking about it in these terms, wearing mail without padding and receiving any kind of heavy strike would be excruciatingly painful....Yes I am aware they would wear some clothing underneath, but that would'nt help.
I could see them wearing a gambeson in winter as a very common time to wear one. After all they do seem fairly warm, especially a thick one. And why wouldn't they? If it limits their movement, than at least their warm and not being limited via cold. If they wore them in other seasons, then I wouldn't know.
Greetings Metatron, this is just another RUclipsr commenting here telling you that you're one of my inspirations and I'd really appreciate if you could watch one of my videos or two and maybe talk about the Celts in an upcoming video of yours! Cheers!
It makes sense that if you were wearing mail armor you would have some padding under it to help absorb the impact of blows from melee and ranged weapons. After all you are going to battle you want as much protection as you can get.
Talk of Roman armor always reminds me of Final Fantasy 11 for a rather strange reason. They had an entry-level form of leg armor called bronze subligar. It's exactly what it sounds like. I guess someone on the development team really liked Latin as well as catgirl butts.
Yep I think you are right, its not like technology that assists on warfare would be easily forgotten and discarded.
I was going to say the intro is very nerdy, but then I realized that this man could cut my head of.
Didn't knights come to north America some where in the 15th century?
ya know...I'm surprised that there is this much traffic on the subject. I think that is just fantastic
About XIII C, there's a document from Spain that said
"Vistióse el obispo un gambax de xamete, e sobre él la loriga, que era muy fuertemente obrada. Et vestir gambax gordo y pesado".
That can be translated as "The bishop wore a gambax (a shorter gambesson that didn't went much lower than the waist) made of xamete (a cloth made with silk), and his maille on top, which was finely crafted. His gambax was thick and heavy".
It's to note that bishops led their armies against the Al-mohad muslims.
Other Spanish contemporary sources state that the typical knight armour consisted of "yelmo, brafonera, malla de escamas de hierro, perpunte, adarga o escudo, gambax de cendal, trebugueras y almófar"
That'd be "helmet, maille chausses, iron scale armour, gambesson, shield (adarga was a muslim type of shield anyway, that some people in southern Spain adopted), gambax made of cendal (a fabric made with linen), trebugueras (I'm not sure on an English word for it, it's the thick cords used to tie the maille chausses onto the knight's hips) and maille coif"
This would lead some historians to believe that they wore the thin gambesson beneath their maille or scale armour, and a thicker gambax on top of that. Some argue that it was because it could be discarded easier if it became to cumbersome, and because it was cheaper to repair or make anew compared to a maille shirt or a scale armour.
Then, these are from Spain and I cannot in any way say that it was universal to the rest of Europe.
You should make a video about polish/winged hussars. They are quite interesting, since they were a major factor of polish power for around 150 years.
The question can be answered relatively quickly if you are willing to take a blow or 2 from a wooden practice sword(or tree branch) while wearing mail. Not a thrust mind you but a cut. If the blow is incredibly painful with just mail and a tunic and produced a sizeable bruise the length of the contact then yes they would've worn a gambeson, it would've been essential with thrusts involved because the force is pinpointed and even if the links survived it would be a debilitating blow from the pain alone allowing for a killing blow next. A gambeson absorbs blunt force impact and yes even swords will produce blunt force trauma through armor if the armor is direct to skin or a simple tunic between. Hell wear a mail shirt even the cheapest aluminum cosplay shirt and have a friend whack you in the torso with a 3 foot long, 1 inch diameter green tree branch and decide if you want a gambeson even one that couldn't stop a cut by itself because it is 4 sweat shirts and a medium thickness coat because you couldn't get a real gambeson. It's all about absorbing blunt force impact to minimize blunt force trauma.. mail and a tunic I think wouldn't do that in the least bit against a simple stick much less a sword because you could still receive a broken rib from the blow which on a battlefield would be a death sentence... and don't even bring in a hammer or mace to the mix. gambeson or not you wouldn't want to feel that blow.
The question gets answered because they had gambesons in the 13th century, they were the cheapest armor available that even the archers and peasant cannon fodder troops had them, why would a knight not have one so they have the added cut/thrust protection from mail and the blunt force absorption from the gambeson? They would have one and wear it under the mail because not doing so is suicide or incredibly debilitatingly painful. Do they need to discuss it or show it off? Do you discuss your underwear or show it off? No you don't and for a 13th century or later knight a gambeson would be akin to underwear.
*Edit, I paused the video just before 5:00 and wrote my comment. Then started the video again and was pleasantly happy to see Metatron agrees with me and my comment is just backing his train of thought.
the gambeson also likely provided padding for the possibility that a knight might fall or be thrown/pulled from his horse
A bit off topic but still relevant to 13th-ish century armour: have you seen the Netflix show on Marco Polo that came out about 5-10ish years ago?
Specifically the fight scene between the monk and a fully armoured Crusader in which all of the monk's sword cuts are completely ineffective and just skid off the mail?
Obviously no Crusader army ever invaded Mongolia/China and the show did make a LOT of other significant departures from history for the sake of artistic license. However, I did still enjoy the show and I especially liked that particular fight scene because the armour ACTUALLY WORKED! I just wish they did MORE scenes like that both in that show and in movies/ TV in general
I think a suitable way to delineate would be to ask how physical your reenactment group gets. If you're full contact with steel weapons then definitely require a gambeson for safety reasons, but if you've got safety restrictions/wooden weapons then no gambeson should be fine.
i think they should have where gambisone are maybe a special paded shirt specific too mails
i think you make a good argument for its necessity. maybe if you are at a feast, you could still wear your dress armor and leave off the padding?
To add more to this, the Byzantines of the 13th and 12th century did in fact use such armor called a bambikion which is a type of padded armor either over or under mail, scales or lamellar
Could you were lots of clothing instead of a gambeson under mail?
I think they probably did wear gambesons. I look at it this way: If I were doing historical reenactments that involved any mock fighting, I'd sure as hell would want to wear one...and my life isn't in substantive danger. So, am I to think that a real medieval soldier WOULDN'T wear one, when their lives were very much in danger? Why wouldn't you wear one?
Eustace The Monk you miss one important point, fighting with blunt weapons is very different to fighting with sharp weapons. cuts are really really dangerous, blunt trauma is kind of harmless in comparison. so mail is great to make really dangerous hits to relative harmless ones. like modern armor, a bullet proof West won't protect you from injury, it just helps by making the injury not deadly.
plus armor, especially mail, is only the backup when your first line of defense is broken (the shield)
Mail armour is not a particilarly good armor, in the sense that could be pierced by arrows/spears and other kind of narrow pointy weapons and It offers almost 0 protection against blunt trauma.
Williams in his book did some test with armor penetration; an antique of the 15th century mail with gambeson was pierced by an arrows with 120J; the mail took 80J while gambeson 20J and the remaining was absorbed by the gel.
Without a gambeson, 100J would have been able to kill the wearer which is way less effective.
I agree with Metatron opinion. There are too many hazards on the battlefield where not wearing Gambenson simply dont make sense in terms of peotection. Lances&Bows are most popular. Shields were used sure but shield does not prevent to add extra layer under chain. I like to think about such topic as what would I do if I know life is in stake(tech of the period and economic expendetures). Wound/Broken bone can turn into infection and lead to death or severe wound both to body and mind.
Regarding the close fit of the clothes on characters' drawings and enluminures from X to XV centuries, there's a thing I'm always wondering: is it possible that it was not that much fit, or not fit at all, but the artists were not that skilled on representing human figures and fabrics, so they would simply "apply" the painting reproducing the textiles over the body parts to dress them?
It would rather depend on the climactic conditions, I suspect.
there was most likely a mix as you've said. With the style, practical function and comfort depending on status, rank or wealth. They weren't nude under the armor it's like your go-fund me. You said if I had an unlimited amount I'd purchase the best armor. I'm sure some noble Families would spend a bundle for the best or to show off with tons of junk
I think that one should wear the thickest gambeson possible under the thickest mail possible under the heaviest plate armor possible consistent with the most rapid retreat possible. Or take up farming.
I completely agree with you on this one, it just seems the most sensible way to wear armour would be with some type of gambeson underneath. However since you were mentioning scandinavia vs. southern europe couldn't a potential reason for lack of gambesons be heat? lf a soldier can gain adequate protection without the gambeson underneath his armour and also spares himself baking in the summer sun then he will go without it...
Also the textile armour is what stops most of the penetration. In our group Companie of St Sebastian we tried textile armour with riveted maille ontop and the arrows pretty much ignored the maille. It just broke a link and got stuck in the textilearmour!
even if padding wasn't common in southern Europe in the middle ages, that doesnt mean no one had it. Armor really wasn't standardized whatever the knight or lord wanted to wear and afford he wore. Scandinavians became mercenaries and had trade routes throughout Europe and the mediterranean. I'm sure their style and armor spread too. Reenacting-wise the gambeson was clearly available, whether it was used was up to the knight, therefore it should be up to the reenactor.
While it makes sense to wear a gambeson underneath, I think the temperature would have a lot of influence on its thickness. Ian mentioned in a comment of one of his videos that steel armor is a great heat sink in the winter and hot weather can really test your resistance to heatstroke. Gambesons also helped prevent more serious damage from arrows when they were able to force the links open.
Music collab with sal?
I always stay for that outro music, its pretty great.
But like... why would they not though. Why would they randomly forget about gambeson. They wore it in the previous few centuries
Also how thin would it be if worn under maille?
What about illuminations in Maciejowski bible, lot of figures wears gambeson, or something very similar.
It depends i say the common might just worn either mail or gambison and the one serving a lord or king could very well have worn gambison mail and surcoat over it for heraldic display and protective layer of sun heating up mail
I agree with you Met, just one point: I think the lance to be bad example cause ( BEEP BEEP: speculation warning BEEP BEEP) if you don't have a glancing surface -> plate armour, the lance can bite into the armour and, having the full force of a galloping horse behind it, will penetrate even the best mail and at least big part of the gambeson. As already said: I don't have the physical data and am therefore speculating here, but in short: "Doesn't matter if ya wear a gambeson or not laddie, bloody lance ' gonna kill ya anyway!"
As you said a thick gambeson( with different types of thicknesses) was a stand alone armour. An even thinner gambeson used as a padding underneath mail might not have been classified as gambeson at all. They might have just considered them some form of tunic/shirt. Thick enough for absorbing blunt force, thin enough for ventilation.
You need a MedievalEurope opening for your vids. Hopefully that Italian armour comes soon!:)
Yes I'll make it after receiving the armour :)
I absolutely agree, Metatron. Although I'm not as well educated on armor, even when I was just a child, I had always assumed that there was some kind of padded form under the chainmail of knights who weren't wearing plate. I couldn't have known it was a Gambeson, of course, at 10 years old (lol) but I figured there was more than just a guy wearing chain on his skin.
Look at it this way: why NOT wear some padding under metal armor?? I'd say even the poorest combatant could find rags and cloths to place under the friction points on their armor. We do it today when we put moleskin or band-aids on our feet to ease the fit of boots and shoes. A blister or sore caused by rubbing armor is going to decrease the effectiveness of anyone in a fight.
I agree with you, both ways are possible. But still I would argue that there should be at least some hint for wearing gambeson if everyone in southern europe did it - it is just unbelievable that no pictures or records exist that show it...
And the image you showed of the knight in mail, he's definitely wearing a padded coif, but the mail seems to be pretty form-fitting, maybe he isn't wearing much padding underneath?
Of course, one can always just wear a thick tunic and prefer the mobility over the heat exhaustion one might encounter when wearing gambeson in southern climate...
Please consider that super round head is the result of both a padded coif and a secret helm worn underneath mail.
Really, a helm as well? I always thought it was probably only a very thick padded coif - like lindybeige's first attempt at making one...
Either way, my point is that they are wearing something like padding around their heads, while the body is relatively slim. So if I had to guess, I'd say he's not wearing a lot of padding around his body (at least far less than on the head). Of course I could be wrong...
I would wear gambeson anyway, just because it would give me more protection.
From desciption:
"Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
facebook.com/amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
facebook.com/amedeo.capor..."
Both link to facebook. Please fix the description.
Hm I'm also thinking padding could be important if you're thrown off your horse, dropping from a horse with armor could be really uncomfortable considering the weight and padding could help your body withstain the impact there as well :D
The written sources exist, but they are in German, plenty of descriptions of arming a knight in Minnesinger epics like Parzifal etc. The information was collected and systematized already more than 100 years ago:
archive.org/details/dashfischelebe01schuuoft
The question of how far back gambesons and gambeson like garments go is an interesting question... also what did they look like? Or did folks just wear several layers of clothing underneath their maille for a similar padding effect. And when and where did folks figure to make it a single garment? Speaking of which DO we have accounts of folks just using thick or layered clothes under maille that is NOT in the form of a gambeson relative? Like what did they Celts who first developed it do? Was the suburalmalis developed by the Romans first or did they take the tech from Celts or someone else? Really... there's just a ton questions on this issue...
I found a picture of a man in a full mail armor with little to no padding with beautifully tailored sleeves and coif. While he looked great, I can't help but shudder at the thought of being hit whilst in that armor. Say goodbye to your bones!
That's why you don't get hit.
This is why you have a shield, and training, and the guy next to you.
The gambeson is great, for about 5 minutes. In the extreme heat it is a killer, and in the wet and cold it is heavy and worthless. Its only good in one condition: Cool, dry weather.
Unless i'm mistaken a gambeson is made using quilting, yes? So its quite possible they might have worn padded armor that was simply not a gambeson by definition. Just a thought.
will you be purchasing the whole deal? a gambeson, a well fitting iron-steel knightly helm, spurs, surcoat, mail for the legs? or are you planning on purchasing the mail shirt by itself for now? tbh i would be happy with what ever you decide to do, but that would be amazing if you could try to have the most historically accurate kit of the 13 century knight, since the only people on youtube with 13th century'ish armor either have low quality videos, do not have the full kit, or have a low quality set. basically you would be the first on youtube with a full 13th century kit and making in depth videos!
If the donations continue the way they are going now I'll go for the full high quality set
maile without a gambeson what are they batshit crazy? thin padding is better then none. and i sure as hell wouldnt want to take a sword blow wearing maile without a gambeson underneath. might stop the cut but shit that strike is still gonna hurt, look at kenjutsu they use spine strikes with the katana for the exact reason it hurts, when youd rather just maim someone and not kill them, though im pretty sure that a mune strike to the head can still kill.
yes please make a video about mail and the differences :)
You know, i recently got very confused...i realised how little i know about 15th-17th century armor. I shit you not, it took me a whole week to find out that there wasnt a Single armor stlye per century.
I presume the reason behind this is that, for once at the time, it was too obvious, which is tied to the second reason. The absence of evidence in the case of effigies and other sorts of three dimensional records, is justified because in early medieval times, knights were the majority of the few peoples that could afford mail. As such, statues and so on represented knights through the mail, very much like Trahan's column depicted the difference between legionaries and auxilia.
moreover, I imagine the price of a gambeson compared to that of tailored mail would have been little, hence it wouldn't have been a problem of resources.
A thought about the wearing of Gambeson. First, I'm from Minnesota (Denmark type climate, but colder) but isn't wearing a gambeson warmer then not wearing one, especially in Sicily and Southern Europe? The Arab Armies during the Crusades wore lighter armor then did the Europeans simply because they came from a much warmer climate, and African Armies wore almost no armor at all. It is possible that some soldiers, especially in Southern Europe, didn't wear a Gambeson because of the heat. After one or two generations the wearing of the gambeson might be forgotten among the people of the warmer climates, but because the additional warmth could be welcome in more northerly climes, continued to be worn by British, (northern) French, and German soldiers. It would be only when the two groups clashed that the southern soldiers relearned about gambesons, and started wearing them again because of the advantages they gave the individual soldier.
I think that they wore a sort of gambeson. Most likely mostly padded on the vital chest/stomac area. Maybe even on your sword arm. Possiblely thin padding on the back and thick padding on your chest/torso and possible shulders and prehabs sword arm. Atleast thats my thought on it. Despite lack of evidence, a sort of gambeson wa worn, am sure.
Also, It is proved with iconography and old text the use of padded armour under the harness (full plate armour) in XIV century and after (even the pikemen in XVII century wore some kind of padded doublet under the cuirass), so for me its obvious, as martial artis and reenactor that were used in XIII century, before and after. And it didin't protect only in battle. It was necesary to stand the weigth and the material of the armour (the steel of the mail nailing down on the shoulders by time passing is very umpleasant). Went someone hits strongly with a sword it hurts over the chainmail with gambeson, so imagine without it. Only the momentary pain will allow your enemy to make a decisive attack and kill you. So, in the other hand, a strong attack with a mace or warhammer... Well, the gambeson won't do so much really. That the reason why the plate armour was invented, to counter the blunt weapons.
Nice guitar in the background.
Nissan better give him a couple thousand dollars for the advertisement!!!!
dear metatron: i want to ask you for a favor.
pls dont do too much over medieval armour. that topic is covered widely.
but what i really really want to hear about more is later armour. 16th, 17th, maybe even 18th century.
there is sooooo little information out there. a bit on the greenwich workshop until 1590 about and that was it.
that really is a niche, that waits for you to cover.
and escpecially the late 16th cent. styles are fantastic.
grazie
I think it would be inevitable that some form of impact resistant clothing was worn underneath. How thick it was or even if it could be described as a gambeson is anyone's guess.
Can you tell me if it's true that Men-At-Arms and Knights wore their Gambesons cinched tight, possibly to help prevent internal injuries?
Well the 13th century was in the middle of the feudal system in Europe. So, it would be possible that some lords would equip better armor on their knights. I don't know how expensive gambeson would have been, but maybe some lords didn't have the money, or didn't think it was necessary.
perhaps (at least some)13th century scholars did not think it necessary to mention gambesons because they assumed that we'd know about them, as in, if they'd become a fixture in armies in Europe, the mention of them is insignificant compared to the new developments like longswords and box helms. this can be a common thing In people, forgetting that everyone can't see all your thoughts. It's definitely a theory
except the neighbors of the Europeans and the romans took the time to mention as well as used it commonly so why no mention in the area it is thought to have been used?
What materials are suited for a gambesson?
On the first thought a gambesson should be made out of fibers that have the best tensile strength and don't break easily on bending. Thus silk would be far superiour to linen or cotton.
On the second thought, there's the matter of stiffness, isolation and water absorption.
Imagine a terribly stiff and rough gambesson that soaked up 3L of your sweat...