Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  FireStryker Living History Forum   » History   » Arms & Armour   » Soft English Jacks

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Soft English Jacks
Paul Kenworthy
Member
Member # 3808

posted 01-15-2009 07:42 AM     Profile for Paul Kenworthy     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am currently reading John Gillingham's "The Wars of the Roses" (1981) and enjoying it immensely. In it he cites a foreign observer commenting on the fact that English soldiers prefer "soft" jacks because they think they give better protection. Unfortunately Gillingham doesn't footnote his citations.

Has anyone else run into references to a preference for a certain degree of softness in cloth armour?

Thanks in advance,

Paul


Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Woodcrafter
Member
Member # 197

posted 01-15-2009 09:49 AM     Profile for Woodcrafter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It depends on what your definition of 'soft' really is. Geneva convention stipulates that 'soft' targets are not to be fired upon by 50 calibre weapons. Yet jeeps and panel vans are 'soft' by definition. So 'soft' jacks may mean the numbers of layers in their construction. There is a 15th century reference to jacks with less than 25 layers as not acceptable as armour. So perhaps as there was no standard of manufacture, then some people may have been showing up with 'thin' jacks as apposed to 'soft' jacks.

--------------------

Woodcrafter
14th c. Woodworking


Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paul Kenworthy
Member
Member # 3808

posted 01-15-2009 01:55 PM     Profile for Paul Kenworthy     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm afraid I don't know what the definition of soft is. That is what is frustrating about no citation reference.

If I remember correctly, this was in a letter from a member of a papal delegation that got in the middle of a Scottish border raid, so it's probably in medieval Italian that I couldn't read anyway.

I could speculate endlessly about whether a stiff jack or a fluffy jack was more resistant to penetration, but it would just be speculation. What I'm really interested in knowing is if there is an identifiable difference in construction between English jacks and continental ones.

Best Regards,

Paul


Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fire Stryker
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 2

posted 01-16-2009 11:37 AM     Profile for Fire Stryker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bob has a reference somewhere about jacks, being less that 25 with 3 layers being waxed. I'll ask him to post it when he has a chance.
Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Brent E Hanner
Member
Member # 44

posted 01-16-2009 06:06 PM     Profile for Brent E Hanner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The reference is from Dominic Mancini.
Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gwen
Member
Member # 126

posted 01-17-2009 07:30 AM     Profile for Gwen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Ordinances of Louis XI
"And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters."

(1463-4) Acc.Howard in RC 57   239:  I toke to the dobelete maker..to make me a dobelete of fense, fore hevery for qwarter xviij folde theke of wyte fostyen, and iiij fold of lenen klothe, and a folde of blake fostyen to pote wethe howete."

[I took to the doublet maker...to make me a doublet of fence (defense)...for every quarter 18 folds thick of white fustian, and 4 fold of linen cloth, and a fold of black fustian to put with it.]


Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Woodcrafter
Member
Member # 197

posted 01-18-2009 07:31 AM     Profile for Woodcrafter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I understand 'fense' as 'fence' and not defence. They seem to have referred to sword fighting as fencing. So a jacket for sword fighting is a defence of armour.

--------------------

Woodcrafter
14th c. Woodworking


Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mike
Member
Member # 596

posted 01-22-2009 02:31 AM     Profile for Mike     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think the foreign observer he's talking about is Mancini describing Richard IIIs troops in 1483, where he states they have jacks filled with tow (unretted or unprocessed linen fibre).
Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Kenworthy
Member
Member # 3808

posted 01-23-2009 07:35 AM     Profile for Paul Kenworthy     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Brent and Mike are correct. The citation is from a letter by Dominic Mancini to the archbishop of Vienne describing the troops assembled for the coronation of Richard III on July 6, 1483:

“Their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations just as their arms are stronger than other peoples’, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. As a result their bows have as long a range as our crossbows. Almost every man has a helmet and each carries an iron shield and a sword which is as long as our sword, but heavy and thick as well. Only the wealthy wear metal armour; ordinary soldiers prefer comfortable tunics (stuffed with tow) which reach down to their thigh. They say that the softer they are the better they withstand blows; besides which in summer they are lighter and in winter more useful than iron.” (John Gillingham, “The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century England.” Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. pp. 35-36.)

Best Regards,

Paul


Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Paul Kenworthy
Member
Member # 3808

posted 01-23-2009 08:08 AM     Profile for Paul Kenworthy     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Regarding the definition of tow, I’m no spinning expert, but here’s how I understand the processing of flax in preparation for spinning:

First the seeds are removed by rippling. Then the outer woody material is removed by retting, or soaking the stalks in water. Then the stalks are broken and the fibers removed by scutching. Then the fibers are combed with a hackle. The long fibers produced by hackling are called stricks. The short fibers left from hackling are called tow.

Best Regards,

Paul


Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Wolfe Argent Living History

Copyright © 2000-2009 Wolfe Argent Living History. All Rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission of the content providers. Individual rights remain with the owners of the posted material.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.01