“Striding heroically to the ring, I donned my gambeson,
carefully tucked my man-bun under my mask, picked up my federschwert, and
participated joyously in longsword sparring, secure in the knowledge that I was
a mighty swordsman in spite of having never read a Fechtbuch.”
While that’s said tongue in cheek, it must be admitted to be
fairly typical, too. The sad part is
that almost everything of a factual nature in that statement is dead wrong, in
spite of the fact that almost the entire body of HEMA practitioners would find
nothing wrong with it. Sparring refers,
specifically, to fistic arts, and should not be used for bouting with
weapons. “Federschwert” comes from a
misunderstanding a German poem, and should not be used to refer to practice
swords. And it is not possible to be any
kind of a mighty swordsman today, but especially not if one just plays sword
tag without serious study.
I have addressed most of those errors in other essays (and
probably shall have to again), but of specific interest to us in this essay is
the fact that our intrepid, but poorly educated, hero above is not wearing a
gambeson, probably doesn’t know what a gambeson is, and has probably never seen
one. All of his buddies call the padded
coats they wear “gambesons,” and for a certain class of person, force of
personality matters more than mere scholarship.
If the cool kids say it, then it’s so, and anyone who disagrees is a Bad
Person (tm), and probably (gasp!) a pedant, to boot. Disagreeing with the Unity is double-plus
ungood.
Worse, when you confront them with their error, they will
look up the word in a modern dictionary, then insist they have “documented”
their use of the term. Sadly, modern
dictionaries are rarely of any value when looking for historical technical
terms. In fact, most museum staff—in
spite of being real scholars—are rarely any better, since they are usually only
interested in the artistic value/merits of an artifact, not its mundane use. Likewise, the minutiae of historical combat
are of little interest to real (read: “academic”) historians; they think the
practice of getting too involved in the nuts and bolts of history causes one to
miss the more important Big Picture, and derisively dismiss it as “tank
spotting,” in reference to WWII history buffs who care too much about the
specific tanks engaged in a given battle.
We cannot rely on any of those sources.
One might ask why this is important. After all, if “everyone” uses a term in a
given way, haven’t they redefined it?
And besides, they’re afraid they’ll hurt their friends’ feelings if they
use a term correctly when those friends do not.
And besides again, language is changing all the time, so we should just
accept that! So there, you mean-spirited
pedant!
Of course, it’s true that language does change
constantly. Not all change is good,
however. Change which improves the
precision of language should be embraced, but change which does not should be
eschewed. The fact that language was
woefully imprecise in a given period of study is immaterial to that; we, today,
need precision in order to talk about things meaningfully.
What then, is a gambeson, and why is it important to use the
term precisely? More importantly, how do
we find out? Simple. Go to the real experts and the primary source
material.
“…aketon was a plain quilted coat usually worn under the
armour. Gambesons, on the other hand, are often described in early inventories
as being made of silk or some other rich material, decorated with embroidery
and coats-of-arms, a fact suggesting that, sometimes at least, they were
designed to be worn as independent defences or as surcoats. This view is
supported by a number of texts that refer to the gambeson being worn over the aketon,
the hauberk or, from the end of the 13th century, over plate armour… In a few
instances two aketons are worn, the upper, which should probably here be called
a gambeson, without sleeves.” Blair, C. European
Armour. Macmillan, 1959. p. 33.
“The gambesons were quilted coats similarly decorated with heraldry
and intended for external wear; one was covered in white silk with a black bend
decorated with three dolphins in gold. The aketons were quilted garments intended
for wear under mail armour…” Richardson,
R. The Medieval Inventories of the Tower Armouries 1320–1410. Diss.
University of York, 2012. Web, 14 May 2018, pp. 178-179.
Thus, we see a clear distinction between aketons, quilted
garments worn under armor, and gambesons, rich garments, often highly
decorated, worn over armor. Just calling
them both gambesons ignores this important distinction, and reduces the
precision with which we can discuss them.
What does a gambeson look like? Here we can see them in the
famous Mac Bible. Note the way the
shoulder holes sick up stiffly, showing their heavily quilted construction: <http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7957/>. M.638 Maciejowski Bible (fol. 11r).
We can see the distinction between aketons and gambesons
discussed here, where in both kinds of combat the aketon is the padded
foundation garment worn under armor, and the expensive gambeson is worn over
the mail and aketon in jousts: “For War:
an aketon, plates from Germany or elsewhere, and in addition to the aketon as
above, a good gorget, sword, axe with a spike, and a long knife… For Jousts:
aketon, hauberk, and gambeson, which is made of silken cloth and the like, and
can be so costly that the steel plates, basinet and helmet are as nothing in
comparison.” Meyer, P., G. Paris, A. Thomas, and M. Roques. “Modus armandi
milites ad torneamentum.” 1884. Romania. Paris: Société des amis de la
Romania [etc.]. p. 530. Translation
copyright Will McLean 2013.
Sometimes, the foundation garment could be called a doublet
(although the term aketon can also be seen quite late in the period), but still
not a gambeson: “He schal have noo
schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean lynyd with satene cutte full of
hoolis.” (He shall have no shirt upon
him, but a doublet of fustian lined with satin cut full of holes.) Anon. How a man schall be armyd at his ese
when he schal fighte on foote Hastings MS. fol. 122v.
In short, gambesons were worn over armor, aketons under it; aketons
could sometimes be worn alone in armored combat. Ignoring that doesn’t make one cool.
Quite apart from simply learning what gambesons really were,
there are important lessons here about research. First, popular opinion is utterly meaningless,
and usually wrong. Second, starting with
a belief and then working to prove that belief correct is not real scholarship,
and can lead to serious mistakes. And third,
don’t be afraid to stand up for accuracy; precision is important, and you
shouldn’t fear the ignorant disapprobation of your fellows. We know what Master Hans Talhoffer said about
being fearful: "Fencing requires
heart; if you frighten easily, then you are not to learn to fence."
(Ambraser Codex, fol. 1v.) So buck up,
scholar, call a gambeson a gambeson, and do not fear the masses in their
ignorance.
