Talk:Gambeson

Cotton Aketons

One of the synonyms for gambeson is aketon. This english word is derived from the Arabic and means "of cotton". Since one of the English words for gambeson means cotton I find it reasonable to conclude that cotton was one of the materials used in their construction.

(If you doubt their efficacy, the ones I've made from cotton and it's entirely knife proof.)

Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

However, cotton was a comparatively rare fibre in Europe during the middle ages. Part of the reason is that cotton is a difficult to process as the fibres have to be combed out of the bud - something that was made commercially possible by the invention of the cotton gin in the 18th(?) century.

Cotton was originally imported into the Middle East from India and eventually grown there, especially in Egypt. Printed Indian cottons were reasonably cheap in Egypt, Syria, etc during the c12th -15th centuries. However, Europe made do with flax/linen which was the local product. Cotton was supposedly more expensive in Europe than silk (which seems strange since they are both imported fibres and silk was certainly the more expensive option in the middle east). Market forces at work, perhaps?

While it is conceded that the Arab word for cotton does indeed give rise to the word "Aketon", gambasons (noun: from the A.S. word "wambas" meaning stuffed or filled) are also recorded as being made from layers of linen and wool.

Conclusion: cotton fibres were used as padding in aketons and gambasons however the cost of doing so would indicate that it was not widespread and that other more economical and locally produced alternatives were used.

Regarding linen: the coarse tea-towel material that we see today is nothing like the fine linens and damask that have been produced over the ages. Producing fibres from the flax plant has had centuries of expertise in it's production. One of the main reasons it has fallen from favour seems to be that it does a poor job in holding it's dyes, something that dyed and printed cottons can do easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry.beattie (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We need references for these assertions. I fully acknowledge that the use of the word for cotton could be complete gibberish (like the fact that car radiators do very little radiating). Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Since it is difficult to produce durable threads from natural cotton, it seems plausible that the first cotton wool imported to northern europe was used as a stuffing material rather than for producing fabrics. However, I feel that the etymology of "Aketon" from the arabic "al qutn" = "cotton" is not without alternatives: Under the reign of Henry I, Robert of Oketon was High Sheriff of Yorkshire ( [[1]]), and in 1365, Robert of Aketon was Bishop of Down in Ireland (See: [[2]]). Noteably, at least one Online dictionary gave "Acton" as a synonyme for "Aketon": [<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aketon">Aketon</a>] Acton, however, also being a place in London: [[3]] Check the etymology for the name given in this article! --> "farm close to oak trees" Given the somewhat liberal orthography in former times, it seems to me at least as plausible as the root from arabic "al qutn - cotton" , that the name "Aketon" refers to a specific location, where this form of protective clothing was maybe invented, first put into service, became fashionable or was produced in great numbers. Are there any other sources for this assertion? 134.2.89.19 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: If cotton was so expensive, I wonder why it was used at all as a stuffing for protective clothing, when its technical properties do not make it very likely that the resulting product was of superiour quality? Cotton is less stress resistant than linen, does not repell dirt and microbes like linen, takes up a lot of vapour (sweat!), is not feeling very comfortable when wet, and it takes a very long time for drying 134.2.89.19 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence for cotton gambesons in Europe in the Middle Ages besides the possible linguistic derivation of the word "aketon" from Arabic for cotton. I have personally worn examples made entirely from cotton, as well as a subarmalis of comparable thickness made from linen and wool felt, and the linen and wool garment was far more comfortable than the cotton one, and was not overly uncomfortable even in hot weather. I see no reason for people (especially the poor bloody infantry who aren't exactly wealthy as a general rule) to pay for expensive cotton when they can grow linen, wool or some combination of both in their back yard (literally), or buy it for a fraction of what the cotton would have cost. Talaananthes (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe cotton was not so unavailable as you seem to assume. No, it didn't grow in northern Europe, but they did know how to import useful materials in those days.

Kortoso (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that cotton was readily available in certain regions of Europe, increasingly so from the 12th century on, through major Italian (and soon after, French and German) manufacturers. It was not "too costly", in fact, it was cheaper than linen in a lot of cases and so it was used by the low- and middle-class. To back up my statements, I recommend everyone on this talk page read (at least the relevant parts of) "The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages, 1100–1600" by Maureen Fennell Mazzaoui. The book is available to be borrowed for free through archive.org, for an hour. Here is a very relevant quote regarding the presence of cotton in a type of gambeson, the jupon:

"At least one new style was directly related to the introduction of cotton in Europe. This was the quilted jacket or doublet made of cotton or silk cloth and stuffed with cotton wadding. The padded doublet called the giubba, zupa or zuponus in Italy and jupon in France (from the Arabic jubbah), was, as the name indicates, a direct imitation of an Islamic costume. The style, worn by both men and women, was first introduced in Italy in the course of the twelfth century and spread rapidly throughout continental Europe and England. In military costume the jupe was worn under armor. A "gypon" of fustian appears on the back of the knight in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Peasants wore it uncovered." (pg. 98-99)

This book contains other important information about the commonality, use and even the cost of cotton, so I highly recommend it. --Indiana Johns (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Origins of the term "Vapntreyiu"

Greetings! Now, I am aware that vapn originates from the Old Norse vápn, Icelandic vopn meaning "weapon", however I am having a hard time tracking down the word treyiu. The article suggests the term vapntreyiu is of Medieval Norse origin, yet closest word I can find to treyiu is the Icelandic word treyja which is a double-buttoned jacket, sweater, or jumper. Treyja is derived from the Middle Low German word troye or troie, apparently. So I am curious as to where the word treyiu comes from and if it would be correct to use the term vápntreyja/vopntreyja as an alternative. Any information on the matter would be very much appreciated! -- 68.229.35.164 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Gambeson

"The European gambeson can be traced at least to the late 10th century, but it is likely to have been in use in various forms for longer than that."

Citation needed? Or a sub-section could further elaborate on that? Impfireball (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Subarmalis perhaps?

https://romanrecruit.weebly.com/subarmalis.html

Kortoso (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Article not fit for purpose

The article has conflated a number of different protective garments under the same name - a gambeson was a quilted garment, usually of cotton, linen or silk, worn on its own or under mail or early versions of the coat of plates. It was characterised by being made of woven material. It was intended to absorb the percussive force of blows. With the advent of full plate armour the need for a padded garment declined as the deformation (elastic or plastic deformation) of plate armour absorbed percussive force anyway. As a result the garment worn under armour changed to the largely leather arming doublet. The function of the arming doublet was to prevent chafing from the edges of plate armour, to provide a substantial garment to which the laces used to secure individual items of plate armour could be attached, and as a base for the addition of mail sections to protect areas such as the armpit and groin. The arming-doublet developed into the buff coat, but was not identical. In short the gambeson was not the same thing as an arming doublet, and both were not a buff coat. Urselius (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you try finding a (good replica) suit of plate armor, put it on and then have someone strike you, reasonably hard, with a piece of wood. THEN come back and tell us that a padded garment was no longer needed to absorb the percussive force of blows. Your claim can not only be established as wrong by experiencing it for yourself, it is also obvious from the development of weapons in the late medieval period, especially the flanged mace and the war hammer, which are intended to break bones by transferring percussive force through plate armour without penetrating it. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And the gambeson worn beneath plate armor was very minimal in thickness and padding ability, compared to the stiff and highly protective gambeons designed to be worn as standalone armor. Modern reenactors and combat sports enthusiasts go systematically overboard on the sub-armor padding. Armor was designed to save your life, not prevent pain or bruising. Medieval people had the technology to heal bruises and broken bones, but cuts could always be fatal due to infection.24.39.5.202 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Urselius is correct. A Panzar/Wambais/Gambeson/Paltock is a quilted linen tunic stuffed with cotton and worn under a maile Hauberk or on its own as armour. An Aketon/Jupon/Zuppa/Pourpoint/Jack is a multi-layered, tightly stitched cotton tunic worn over other types of armour. An Arming Doublet is a base layer cloth tunic that a plate harness (suit of armour) is laced on to. 2.24.177.172 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical source differentiating between (h)aketon and gambeson

Just ran into a very interesting source from 1297 that makes clear distinction between the two terms, even though it does not elaborate on what the difference was:

"And such persons are to be properly armed with two pieces; namely, with haketon (fn. 11) and gambeson (fn. 12), or else with haketon and corset (fn. 13), or with haketon and plates."

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/memorials-london-life/pp33-36#h3-0004

It seems the presumed equivalency of terms, as written on the page, is false.

National ties spelling

I feel 'armor' should be changed to 'armour' based on MOS:TIES since the spelling of the British Isles and Europe is 'armour' and the mediaeval period applies to these countries; a USA did not exist in this era. Nested articles linked to share the 'armour' spelling anyway, such as the German gothic armour, which is not German gothic 'armor'. So coherence. Wooblo (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the buffcoat picture?

The use of a (quite nice) picture of a standard 17th century buff coat in the article seems likely to confuse. A buffcoat was made from leather and did not feature quilting, cloth layering or textile padding, which the lead paragraph says are the characteristics of this armour type. Should it therefore be removed? Monstrelet (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)