Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Subarmalis or gambeson?
#1
I'va a doubt... In 4th and 5th century people wear subarmalis under armour, but... It's correct to wear a gambeson with long (or sghort) sleeves for this age? I've read the gambeson as we know it appear in 10 th century...
Sergio

Historian.

Regnum Barbaricum

Barcino, Tarraconensis, Hispania.
Reply
#2
You need to define what you mean by "gambeson". Medieval sources are unclear. There are two types of padded garment: one is like the subarmalis that is lightly padded and worn under armour. The other is a standalone padded defense and is a lot thicker and heavier. They are completely different items and not interchangable. I tend to use "aketon" for the former and "gambeson" for the latter. The Byzantines had both types of padding. The former was called a "kabadion" or "skaramangion". The latter was called an "epil├┤rikion" but it was usually worn over metal armour rather than by itself.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#3
The Thorocomachus was a heavily padded (up to 1 inch thick) linen garment with a goatskin coating which was worn under maile and scale in Late Roman times.
Reply
#4
Which text tells us how thick it was? We aren't even sure whether they actually wore such a garment. The author of De Rebus Bellicis is describing possible improvements for the military, not existing items.

This is a good discussion of the problems with the source
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...0&start=40
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#5
I reffer gambeson like this, for example:
[Image: Gambison_lourd_a_lacets.jpg]

The text is "only" the spanish article of wikipedia, for that reason I want to know your opinion. Also, I have read the article that you told me, Dan, and my doubt about it grows up....
Sergio

Historian.

Regnum Barbaricum

Barcino, Tarraconensis, Hispania.
Reply
#6
It's the same principle as the Thorocomachus, but the construction isn't historically accurate for the Roman period. A Thorocomachus, at least based on the survivind DRB images, was put on and worn like a Roman Tunic.

@Dan Howard

True, I believe the discussion was that the improvement is the addition of a goatskin layer. Furthermore, I think it says in the text 1-2 fingers thick (so about a centimeter to an inch depending on the finger).
Reply
#7
Quote:Furthermore, I think it says in the text 1-2 fingers thick (so about a centimeter to an inch depending on the finger).
Does it? Where?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#8
So... Is not correct a gambeson like this, with long sleeves, in this age, isn't it?
Please, is important because somebody wants I buy this kind of gambeson, biut I think it is not enought accurate...
Sergio

Historian.

Regnum Barbaricum

Barcino, Tarraconensis, Hispania.
Reply
#9
Quote:It's the same principle as the Thorocomachus, but the construction isn't historically accurate for the Roman period. A Thorocomachus, at least based on the survivind DRB images, was put on and worn like a Roman Tunic.

@Dan Howard

True, I believe the discussion was that the improvement is the addition of a goatskin layer. Furthermore, I think it says in the text 1-2 fingers thick (so about a centimeter to an inch depending on the finger).

So... Is not correct a gambeson like this, with long sleeves, in this age, isn't it?
Please, is important for me because somebody wants I buy this kind of gambeson, but I think it is not enought accurate... I want to know what is the most accurate gambeson or subarmalis for V and VI century.
Thanks.
Sergio

Historian.

Regnum Barbaricum

Barcino, Tarraconensis, Hispania.
Reply
#10
The photo doesn't tell us whether it is meant to wear under armour or whether it is meant to be worn by itself.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#11
Various Copies of the De Rebus Bellicis

[Image: torach.png]

[Image: 1thora1ae6.jpg]
Reply
#12
As I recall, gambesons are more associated with knightly armors, like hauberks and Renaissance plate armors. I own a gambeson to go along with my hauberk(gambeson made by Get Dressed for Battle) and it's high quality, but it probably isn't accurate to what was worn by late Roman soldiers; after all, my kit is a Norman panoply.
Reply
#13
Quote:The photo doesn't tell us whether it is meant to wear under armour or whether it is meant to be worn by itself.

This gambeson of picture is to wear under the armour, in my case would be under chainmail.
Looking the DRB pictures I think a thoracomacus with long sleeves wolud be appropiate. I know the pictures are later of the original but I think the description was the same, a thoracomacus like a tunic.
Sergio

Historian.

Regnum Barbaricum

Barcino, Tarraconensis, Hispania.
Reply
#14
Ok, first post since I finally managed to find my profile made ages ago.

From what I see most subarmalis reconstructions have been made as close fitting garments, laced tight. Also, from what I have been able to find in sources and studies, the subarmalis and thoracomachus seems to be seen as the same item, just from different time period.

I made a padded garment once with the intention of making something that would work equally well as a thoracomachus or as a "gambeson". Personally I try to use the old Scandinavian terms for it, v├ąpentroje (litterary weaponshirt) or Pantzar, Also, from Norwegian medieval sources it is clear that by then padded armour was divided into two categories, weaponshirt and strong weaponshirt. A weaponshirt was meant to be worn as padding under Another piece of armour while a strong weaponshirt could be used as stand alone armour. These two could be combined, naturally.

Are there more sources to a stand alone roman textile armour?
Reply
#15
The De Rebus Bellicis doesn't even say the Thorocomachus is a standalone textile armor.
Reply


Forum Jump: