Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Debunking Meyrick's Nomenclature . . . Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue 16 Oct, 2012 6:17 pm    Post subject: Debunking Meyrick's Nomenclature . . .         Reply with quote

as i've been viewing online google books on the subject of armour written during the 19th century, while unable to find actual material evidence (museum "photos"), i now begin to believe Meyrick's nomenclature (standard of armour identification) of "Trellised, Rustred & Macled Armour" is invalid. "they didn't exist !!"

if someone of any experience on the manufacture of armour or history thereof could be of assistance, please do . . . even a book title & author would be of help.

my own explaination of these following types of armour;

Trellised; a leather version of Rustred
- lozenge shaped leather plates individually sewn, then riveted through a center piercing (protection against upward blade attacks), to a cloth backing in an imbricated pattern.

Rustred; a metal version of Trellised
- lozenge shaped metal plates individually sewn, then riveted through a center piercing (protection against upward blade attacks), to a cloth backing in an imbricated pattern.

Macled; either metal or leather
- lozenge shaped plates (metal or leather), each "void" of any center piercing or rivet ("unprotected" against upward blade attacks), individually sewn to a cloth backing in an imbricated pattern.

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

Ringed; Eyelet Doublet
Scaled; Jazeran or Korazin
Tegulated; Russian Kuyak (??) or just a poor attempt at Imbricated Scaled Armour (??)

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,370

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2012 12:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Meyrick did a lot of pioneering work in this field but his mail classifications have been discredited for more than a hundred years by authors such as ffoulkes, Laking, and Hewitt. Claude Blair's book hammered in the final nails in 1959.
http://www.amazon.com/European-armour-circa-1...B0007E56C6

If Arador comes back online, there is a relevant article here
www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html


Last edited by Dan Howard on Wed 17 Oct, 2012 12:59 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2012 12:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm not directly familiar with the work you mentioned, but it is generally safe to assume a large part of the "history" in works from the 19th century has been debunked. Depending on period, the author could be misconstruing a few different things. If he is referring to the Bayeux tapestry, then it is the disproven idea that there were multiple forms of armor besides maille due to differences in the styles of armored individuals. This has been disproven by the lack of archaeological evidence paired with the more realistic assumption that the multiple people producing the tapestry had different ways of representing maille.

If it is referring to something from a later period, like the renaissance, then it is most likely a misinterpretation of a brigandine or cloth covered breastplate from period artwork.

What he seems to be talking about is firmly within the range of fantasy armor if it isn't a misinterpretation of period artwork. As to more correct sources, definitely check out the features section
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_16c_armour.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_hussars.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_armies_eng.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_armies_french.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_armies_italy.html
Here are a few from the renaissance period off of the forum, detailing armor styles and regional army composition
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

after reading more 19th & 20th cy. books, i gained a more comprehensive understanding of the heraldic terms used by Meyrick to describe armour.

Meyricks Heraldic Terminology ("distinguishes 8 sorts of body-armour, popularly called "coats of mail," in use during the "11th," 12th & 13th cy..) post-dates any 11th cy. reference or description he claims (deriving from those of the pieces of armour themselves in use at the "dawn of the science in the 12th cy.."), in other words, he's putting the cart before the horse possibly?

also the Bayeux Tapestry has yes, been "disproven by the lack of archaeological evidence paired with the more realistic assumption that the multiple people producing the tapestry had - different ways of representing - maille."

i am referring to the renaissance by the way, so yes, "most likely a misinterpretation of a brigandine or cloth covered breastplate from period artwork."

Tom's above two statements, plus my own, are the conclusions i also came too;

a misinterpretation of;

a Riveted Brigandine Quilted Gambeson as Trellised & Riveted Leather.
a Riveted Brigandine Quilted Gambeson as Rustred Armour (Imbricated & Riveted Small Metal Lozenge Plates).
a Cloth Quilted Gambeson as Macled Armour (Imbricated Small Metal Lozenge Plates w/out Rivets).

Banded; the photo of the Hussar breast-plate i added, but i believe this style has existed way before the 16th cy.. ?? or possibly the Wisby Plate Armour of the 14th cy..

Ringed; "a different ways of representing - maille," and later in the 16th & 17th cy. Eyelet Doublet.

Scaled; actually existed during the 11th, 12th & 13th cy. as Jazeran or Korazin

Maille; a given

but what about Tegulated Armour ??



 Attachment: 33.11 KB
Fig. 11—Hussar breastplate in Hungarian style, late 16th century (Museum of Kómik).jpg


I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 7:46 am    Post subject: correction . . .         Reply with quote

i've incorrectly put Anime Breastplate (16th cy.) as a possible explaination for Banded Armour, so my statement "i believe this style has existed way before the 16th cy.. ??," made about the above Hussar Breastplate photo most likely false.

Banded Armour; possibly the Wisby Plate Armour of the 14th cy.. (??).
Tegulated Armour; Russian Kuyak, etc., (??) or just a poor attempt at Imbricated Scaled Armour (??).

Ringed; Eyelet Doublet
Scaled; Jazeran or Korazin
Maille; Chain-maille

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 8:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hussar and other segmented breastplates from the 16th and early 17th century are currently known as anime breastplates. The reason for the style is up in the air, but one possible explanation was that they could heat treat the smaller plates more successfully, making the assembled breastplate more resistant to firearms.

As far as Meyrick's descriptions, unless he is stating that his various classifications of armor are describing later centuries than the 12th, consider the whole mess to be be in the strain of the Bayeux tapestry misinterpretations.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,370

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: correction . . .         Reply with quote

Weston R Ash wrote:

Ringed; Eyelet Doublet
Scaled; Jazeran or Korazin
Maille; Chain-maille


For the sake of others who might be reading these posts

Ringed armour never existed in Europe in the middle ages. It is possible that the later eyelet doublet was an example of ringed armour but apparently most examples of this type of armour don't have metal rings at all. If anyone knows of an example of an eyelet doublet that actually uses metal rings I'd love to see it.

Jazerant is not scale armour. It is mail that has been incorporated into a padded garment. Later, a similar type of armour was called a gestron. In the middle east it was called a kazaghand.

A korazin is more usually referred to today as a corrazina (or similar variant) and is a type of brigandine or coat of plates. It is not scale armour either.

Maille is a nonsense word. In today's English it is called "mail". In French the plural is usually used - "mailles"
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 495

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Re: correction . . .         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Maille is a nonsense word. In today's English it is called "mail". In French the plural is usually used - "mailles"

I think its better to say that its a variant spelling which does the valuable work of disambiguating "mail, armour made from a mesh of metal rings" and "mail, a public system for passing around messages" which is one of the thousand most common words online so impossible to search for. As late as 1611 the OED has "mayle" and "maille" among other spellings; Milton used "maile" in Paradise Lost so it may have been old-fashioned by his day.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 3:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i'm doing a rpg period piece set between c.1300-1700, i.e.; Renaissance . . .

i believe that the Wisby find explains Banded Armour (if so called that at the time?) to mine, as well as others, satisfaction.

i've seen writings that state Jazerant is Maille ("Chain-mail") and that Korazin is a type of Brigandine with single lobed plates placed outside a foundation in an imbricated pattern, rather than within a garment such as a Jack-of-plates, hence . . . Scale in appearance or Coat-of-scales.

Gestron?

i "do" have photos of an "Eyelet Doublet with Iron Rings" sewn into & within a star stitched cloth garment . . . but they are only photos . . .

Meyricks Bayeux Tapestry ("Timeline") misinterpretations are duely noted.

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,370

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
i believe that the Wisby find explains Banded Armour (if so called that at the time?) to mine, as well as others, satisfaction.

"Banded armour" or "banded mail"? They are completely different things. Meyrick uses "Banded Mail".

Wisby is in Gotland. If you want to know what the Wisby armour was called at the time then you'd probably have to learn Swedish. In modern English most of the Wisby armours are classified as "coats of plates".

Quote:
i "do" have photos of an "Eyelet Doublet with Iron Rings" sewn into & within a star stitched cloth garment . . . but they are only photos . . .

Post the photos here if you can. It will help demonstrate that my mail article is not wrong.

Toss Meyrick's book and get a hold of Blair's European Armour. It is required reading before proceeding any further into this subject. You are just making unnecessary work for yourself by ignoring the last century of research into this subject.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: banded armour         Reply with quote

i understand meyrick's mistake with the label "Banded," and i also understand his mistake in using "maille" in the same label. i'm leaving the meyrick mis-identification terminology behind this discussion for now. i don't believe Meyrick's "Banded Maille" even existed, if there's anything close to an "Armour" that could be construed as "Banded," it would most likely be the armour found at the Wisby site, aside from anything involving Meyrick lingo. lets move on please, since we are both in agreement on this matter and the misuse of the word Maille. . .

i'll do my best at finding a copy of Blair's European Armour, it's next on my list anyways . . .

the Eyelet Doublet . . . below

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Eyelet Doublet         Reply with quote

having issues with the attachments
I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 6:47 pm    Post subject: Banded vs. Coat-of-plates . .         Reply with quote

yes i know, Banded Armour, in my opinion is . . . Coat-of-plates. i have Banded Armour as being the same as Coat-of-plates in my write-up.

thanks for mentioning this, i forgot to make this clear . . .

please email me, i'm having trouble downloading the Eyelet Doublet photos.

thx

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 495

PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Weston R Ash wrote:
i'm doing a rpg period piece set between c.1300-1700, i.e.; Renaissance . . .

One thing to consider is that armour scholars usually classify armour based on things which don't matter in a RPG, and that a lot of differences which do matter aren't documented and are hard to represent. For example, whether armour looks "Italian" or "German" is very important to armour historians and just a matter of description in a game. Its easy to model weight and protective value; its hard to model why a wandering adventurer would probably prefer maille to articulated plate.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,291

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 7:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Toss Meyrick's book and get a hold of Blair's European Armour. It is required reading before proceeding any further into this subject. You are just making unnecessary work for yourself by ignoring the last century of research into this subject.


I fully concur with Dan: Toss Meyrick's work on the back shelf. Start over with Blair.

http://livinghistory.ie/~valen/history/blair.pdf

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Curl




Location: Northern California, US
Joined: 06 Jan 2008

Posts: 486

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Personally, I prefer the combat system in the codex martialis. It allows a lot of variability in armor design and choice.



Link below
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/75133/C...+martialis

E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Nils-Erik Fahlvik




Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 9:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Wisby is in Gotland. If you want to know what the Wisby armour was called at the time then you'd probably have to learn Swedish. In modern English most of the Wisby armours are classified as "coats of plates".


One medieval Swedish term was plata.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Robin Smith




Location: Louisiana
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 17 books

Posts: 746

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart Shearer wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
Toss Meyrick's book and get a hold of Blair's European Armour. It is required reading before proceeding any further into this subject. You are just making unnecessary work for yourself by ignoring the last century of research into this subject.


I fully concur with Dan: Toss Meyrick's work on the back shelf. Start over with Blair.

http://livinghistory.ie/~valen/history/blair.pdf

Seconded...

Meyrick's work is full of so many misinterpretation and outdated info you'd be better served ignoring it...

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Weston R Ash




Location: Madison, WI.
Joined: 06 Feb 2012

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: This discussion should be called "Debunking Meyrick &am         Reply with quote

this discussion should be called "Debunking Meyrick & Gygax"

i feel that Gygax took all his idea's about armour from Meyrick, and as a result of the success of DnD, became a PITA for all Scholar's & Historian's of the Science of Arms & Armour. my goal is to realign the given rpg and substantiate it with fact and historical evidence, but also move the timeline into the Renaissance period (Don't read too much in to this please!).

now at present, i'm paging through Blair's 1986 - Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons.

- Ringed (Post Mayrick & Middle Ages); Eyelet Doublet (photo's are too large to upload, sent them to Dan, maybe he'll try?)
- Scaled; Korazin or Karacena (or similar variant), p. 291 & 300 of the above book.
- Maille; Chain-maille (Mesh of Interlocked Metal Rings) ("Don't" Nitpick on the Etymology of this Word!)
- Banded; Plata,? Wisby,?
- Tegulated; Russian Kuyak,? or an Artist's poor attempt at representing an Imbricated Scaled Coat,? or just another one of Meyrick's Bayeux Tapestry Misinterpretations.?

thx's Mart for the linked pdf Happy

Below this Line, "NOT" for DISCUSSION, Below this Line, "NO" Nitpicking of Etymology, etc. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meyrick's Bayeux Tapestry Misinterpretations Based Upon Multiple Artist's Who Used Different Ways of Representing Maille;

DIDN'T EXIST!!
- Trellised (and Riveted); most likely just a Riveted Brigandine Gambeson's "Quilting" thought to be made entirely from Leather.
- Rustred (Imbricated & Riveted Small Metal Lozenge Plates); again, another mistake in thinking that a Riveted Brigandine Gambeson's "Quilting" is made entirely from Metal.
- Macled (Imbricated Small Metal Lozenge Plates w/out Rivets); another Cloth Gambeson's "Quilting" incorrectly identified as being completely made from Metal.

I'm looking to familiarize my knowledge of Renaissance weapons and armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,370

PostPosted: Sat 27 Oct, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: This discussion should be called "Debunking Meyrick         Reply with quote

Weston R Ash wrote:
this discussion should be called "Debunking Meyrick & Gygax"

i feel that Gygax took all his idea's about armour from Meyrick, and as a result of the success of DnD, became a PITA for all Scholar's & Historian's of the Science of Arms & Armour. my goal is to realign the given rpg and substantiate it with fact and historical evidence, but also move the timeline into the Renaissance period (Don't read too much in to this please!).

Gygax took all of his ideas about armour from Ashdown. Ashdown derived his work from Meyrick. What you want to do has already been done by more than one RPG. Codex Martialis has already been mentioned. GURPS is my preferred system.

Low-Tech has an entire chapter on historical armour http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/low-tech/
Martial Arts has detailed mechanics for European fighting styles. http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/martialarts/

Low-Tech in particular went through over a year of reviews, fact-checking, and playtesting by a large team of experts in various subjects from microbiologists to flint knappers. It is more accurate than most historical textbooks. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Just pick a system that has been acknowledged to incorporate historical armours and use that.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Sat 27 Oct, 2012 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Debunking Meyrick's Nomenclature . . .
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum