Too often have I heard of people complaining about woollen material being too hot. Medievalists make linnen and cotton clothes for themselves and wonder how did the ancestors make do with the terribly warm woollen clothes. This is because medieval markets are usually arranged during summer. Most of the year here in northern Europe, however is rather cold. Some people have medievalist parties during winter, but mostly these are arranged in warm modern buildings with central heating. Woollen clothes are wery good when the thermometer sinks below zero on the celcius degrees and I would add necessary when it gets minus twenty or so. The furs on rich peoples clothes are not purely decorational in our climate.
The re-enactment and even living history groups seem to forget far too easily, that medieval people did not live in tents at markets, but most people lived in houses. Here in the north houses were mostly built of solid logs with tached or turf roofs. They had an open fireplace or an oven. Snow was piled up along the walls to make them keep the warmth inside. Only wery rich people lived in stonebuildings or castles. It is said those were damp and cold most of the year, alltough all the great castles I know up here north had a hypocaust, a sort of central heater. It may not have made the castles actually warm, but it most propably kept the worst dampnes away. anyway there was ample reason to wear woollen clothes even inside. And that is true also for the summer in shady cool stone castles.
People also used a lot less time indoors, than nowadays. The windows were small and lighting was allways poor and most of the farm work was outdoors anyway. In winter with less light even outside all the daylight had to be used to full extend.
Many re-enactors depict soldiery. I can not critisize this as such, for that is what I also do, but what needs to be remembered is that the medieval soldiers basicly equipped themselves. So the rich knights might have had servants, tents and even furniture, but common soldiers would more often not have nothing of the sort. Most larger armies might have had baggage trains, but they were for the provisions and property of the mighty lords. Smaller units would carry all they needed. Most often most soldiers would have to carry all they posessed.
So campaining in wintertime would require equipment that one is able to sleep ouside in the snow if need be. This may reflect how much weapons and armour you are carrying in comparrison to warm clothes.
February 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
I totally agree with the necessity of woolen clothes and should point out, that even though cool linen clothing would be a intriguing idea for medieval people too, there were restrictions like money and social codes for dressing.
Even if you could afford some extra clothes, why buy some fancy linen clothes when you had more important things to buy. And that you could always choose not wearing the heaviest clothes or even to undress the topmost layer.
About campaigning in winter time, isn’t the winter conditions the reasons why armies mostly kept to their camps? Well, we Finns see skiing on snow as a good way to move around, but correct me if most armies didn’t cease fighting in winter times.
– J
February 23, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Well, actually linen was seen by the medieval people as the material for undergarments. They simply did not make any overclothes from linnen. There may be exeptions to this, such as the peasants working clothes used at least during warm summer days to work in the fields and for slash and burn cultivation. Hemp clothes were also used, but that hemp did not have anything to do with any hallucinogen substances.
For certain rich people did not wear linnen exeopt for undergarments. The confusion about this among re-enactors may derive simply from the fact that linnen is period material so any clothes may be made from it, or maybe has something to do with the late roman, early dark ages references to fine linnen garments. The reasons for this misinformation are unimportant.
One reason why linnen was not expensive, could be, that it does not hold colour. It is not easy to dye and the colour fades rather quickly.
Yes. As far as I know even swedish armies waging war in Central-Europe in the 30-years war and later used to set up camp for the winter.
However… In northern countries winter was a preferred time for war traditionally. Reasons for this are simple.
First. In winter it is easy to gather an army of peasants. Now you have to remember that the word peasant (“bondi” or “talonpoika” if you please)has a completely different connontation here in the north. They were not serfs, but freemen expected to arm themselves for the king to call them to war.
Second. During winter the enemy has all his harvest and fortune held in one place for the attacker to take. Later in the winter when the food suplies are running low (but all the furs have been gathered) it is easier to force a castle to surrender by a short siege.
Third. The rivers and lakes are frosen to make an easy passage for long marches. Winter increases the mobility of a northern army in a land based operation. Water barriers are rendered useles by frost.
Of course, traditionally also summer was a good time to make war by sea and rivers, but autumn and spring are no times for war, because of the “rosputo” wich is a word derived from russian and means simply the lack of roads. Something suprised Hitlers germans even in the last century.
(And once again we have come to the meaning of words;)
February 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm
[…] 24, 2010 Rautakyyn viimeisimmän kirjoituksen inspiroimana päätin laittaa erään varusteen kokeelle. Nimittäin gambesonin. […]
February 25, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Excellent points on concerning warfare in wintertimes, thanks Kyy! That’s exactly what I wanted…
About my first sentences, my actual point was the same as yours; linen was used just for undergarments. I just tried to think as sweating and hot medieval person in his woolen clothes…
Well, probably not. Actually as late as 1900th century (and maybe even later) woolen clothes were used even in warm climates just because it was “decent thing to do”, instead of using linen, cotton and silk.
– J
April 2, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I firmly believe that woolen clothes did not mean sweating for a medieval person. It is surprising how quick one gets used to wearing thicker clothing, but if you normally wear a light t-shirt and shorts at summertime and then for a day or two switch to several layers of clothing with long sleeves and long skirts, it will definitely feel exhaustingly hot. But if you would wear that outfit all the time, most likely it would not be such a pain… For a practical example, just think what the women in near east wear (dark woolen coat as an outmost layer is very common in several countries as far as I can remember), and it’s definitely hotter in there than in here…
April 3, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Yes, I could not agree with you more Priki.
On the other hand the medieval woollen overclothes were actually rather easy to remove or make them fit warm temperatures. Take for example the mens woollen hose, wich you can roll down to knee, calf or even ankle high. It still protects the lower part of ones leg from shrubs,nettles and such. Especially at the cornfield after during and after harvest. The women at work could rise the hem of their skirt by collecting it over a belt. This did not just make one feel cooler, but also protected the hem form soil.
Later when the hose was joined to make a proper pair of trousers, it was secured to the jacket. This was ofcourse to support the pants, but also to support the jacket, if for reasons of hot temperature it was removed. So one did not have to carry the jacket around. It simply hang from points at the hip. Clever…