Detailed armor stats and materials

[Eamon Voss]

I think if you're wearing hard it doesn't really matter where it is.  Presumably one would not wear plate under padding.  What's the point.

However from a modern armour perpective a soft armour outer layer may be highly effective from an ablative stand-point. If the outer layer was a surcoat padded with densely packed fibre's say cotton fibres. The idea here being to take energy away from a thrust or a missile prior to striking the metal armour. Designed perhaps to protect against half-swording and Estoc attacks.

I don't think 'ablative armor' would be effective enough to justify the weigh and burden against half-swording or any sort of thrusts, much less slashes or curts.  Furthermore, putting the padding outside the hard armor means tht the padding can be chopped away, grabbed or whatever.  Sure, men in armor wore surcoats.  They did it for identification, keeping the sun off shiny armor, protect the armor from the elements and needless wear.  The surcoat was an accessory to the armor itself.

Besides, if you needed an extra layer of protection (especially against missiles), that was a primary reason for carrying shields!

[Durgil]

I fail to see why it would be so, but there is historical evidence of a padded under garment, typically referred to as a haqueton, being worn under the knight's armour to protect against the rubbing of the rings and another padded garment being worn over both the mail and the breast plate called a gambeson and then covered by a short surcoat called a cyclas.  Later, the gambeson is replaced by a jupon, which is a tighter fitting padded garment.  By all accounts, this was a fairly common mode of dress for a battle field knight up to the start of the 15th Century.

[Valamir]

Far as I know Tony the Haqueton and Gambeson are different names for the same thing...also Aketon and Wambais.

I've not seen any evidence of them being worn *outside* of armor, but there is ample evidence for them being worn *instead* of armor.

In fact the ubiquitous "Padded Armor" of D&D fame is nothing more than a Gambeson worn without a hauberk.

There is evidence for Gambesons being specifically made to be worn alone to be made thicker and heavier than those made for being worn under armor, but to my knowledge they never recieved a special name.

[Durgil]

The names for the garments aren't that important, but there are tapistries showing knights in the Mid-13th Century to the beginning of the 15th century wearing a padded garment over their armour.  Like I said, I'm not really sure why they would do that, maybe the garment offered some protection to their metal armour that was much harder to repair and more expensive than the padded armour, but that's what they show.

[Valamir]

Interesting.  I haven't seen these.  Any chance you have a link to images on line so I can check them out?

[Durgil]

The tapistries are in my books about medieval armour, which there are a few and are at home.  Right now things are incredibly busy at work/school/home, but when I get a chance I'll try to look that stuff up.  If you don't see me post anything about that, feel free to drop me a gental reminder. ;-)

If I can remember, I give you the titles and authors of the books I have after I get home tonight from work.

[Durgil]

I've got Daily Life in Medieval Times by Gies & Gies, Techniques of Medieval Armour Reproduction by Brian Price, The Knight in History by Frances Gies, Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Paddock, The Royal Armoury at Greenwich 1515 - 1649: a History of Its Technology by Alan Williams and Anthony de Reuck, and Medieval Military Costume by Gerry Embleton.  I think the book by Edge and Paddock had a tapistry or two in it.  The rest are all incredible sources of information on armour.