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 (??)

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

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

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

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

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.

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 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

having issues with the attachments

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

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

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 :)

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.