http://warfare2.netai.net/6C-11C/Carolingian-..._12048.htm
Looks like a conical helmet with a maille curtain. The helmet looks like it comes down below eye level on the sides. There might be a nose guard, but it's hard to tell. I would say this is showing maille, not scale.
As you can see, the artist in the early middle ages weren't quite sure how to portray maille. This is probably why you see so much scale.
| Len Parker wrote: |
| http://warfare2.netai.net/6C-11C/Carolingian-Gellone_Sacramentary-BnF_Lat_12048.htm
Looks like a conical helmet with a maille curtain. The helmet looks like it comes down below eye level on the sides. There might be a nose guard, but it's hard to tell. I would say this is showing maille, not scale. |
Pretty much agreed. Not bad detail, considering that it must be a pretty small drawing!
| Quote: |
| As you can see, the artist in the early middle ages weren't quite sure how to portray maille. This is probably why you see so much scale. |
I think we see scale because they're depicting scale! Much of it is carefully drawn, complete with midribs. If they wanted to show mail, there were certainly lots of different ways to do that, most of them easier than drawing out individual rings (or scales, for that matter!).
It's too bad there isn't more good archeology from that era to back up the artwork!
Matthew
I'm not arguing against scale in this period. I'm just giving a simple explanation for why you see so much scale instead of maille. All I'm saying is there would have been maille in the 8th and 9th centuries, but we just don't see it in the art.
Check out this 6th c. ivory. You can see the round helmet with the upturned brim, as well as scale armour: http://warfare.ga/6-10/Sitten_Pyxis.htm This type of armour in art had been around for centuries. That's why a lot of people believe the Carolingians were copying from earlier art.
I also wanted to show these early stirrups: http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/Relief_of_huntsmen-C...na.htm?i=1
Check out this 6th c. ivory. You can see the round helmet with the upturned brim, as well as scale armour: http://warfare.ga/6-10/Sitten_Pyxis.htm This type of armour in art had been around for centuries. That's why a lot of people believe the Carolingians were copying from earlier art.
I also wanted to show these early stirrups: http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/Relief_of_huntsmen-C...na.htm?i=1
Oh, I'm sure I've seen Carolingian art that shows mail, or probably does, though I don't have any images offhand.
I always have a niggling suspicion in my mind when folks talk about the Classical influence in Carolingian art. Yes, it's clearly there, no doubt about that, but I can't help thinking that just maybe the reality was following Classical influence, too? I mean, if Romanesque forms in armor were the ideal, why shouldn't the aristocracy be aping them, too?
Of course, if there is too much evidence to the contrary, that doesn't necessarily hold up. And there is certainly artwork (from most any era) that has unrealistic features.
I just hate the assumption of, "Oh, they didn't REALLY look like that, they just HAD to be PICTURED that way!" So they insisted on looking that way but didn't want to look that way? Hmmm....
Matthew
I always have a niggling suspicion in my mind when folks talk about the Classical influence in Carolingian art. Yes, it's clearly there, no doubt about that, but I can't help thinking that just maybe the reality was following Classical influence, too? I mean, if Romanesque forms in armor were the ideal, why shouldn't the aristocracy be aping them, too?
Of course, if there is too much evidence to the contrary, that doesn't necessarily hold up. And there is certainly artwork (from most any era) that has unrealistic features.
I just hate the assumption of, "Oh, they didn't REALLY look like that, they just HAD to be PICTURED that way!" So they insisted on looking that way but didn't want to look that way? Hmmm....
Matthew
Here's an obvious explanation. The manuscripts showing scale and musculata are all Bible stories. The artists were trying to create an ancient look. Why use carolingian weapons? Because they didn't know what ancient jewish weapons looked like.
Here's a later example of a Bible scene mixing ancient armour with contemporary weapons:
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
Egfroth posted a lot of good pics of carolingians here: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...mp;t=46376 The Bonaface and Maccabees images look realistic. Also, that spangenhelm with the noseguard in the Golden Psalter looks good.
Here's a later example of a Bible scene mixing ancient armour with contemporary weapons:
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
Egfroth posted a lot of good pics of carolingians here: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewto...mp;t=46376 The Bonaface and Maccabees images look realistic. Also, that spangenhelm with the noseguard in the Golden Psalter looks good.
Sure, that's possible. I've just never tried to go through all the depictions to figure out their contexts--maybe someone else has?
The focus on scale armor is still a little puzzling. Though most of the Roman artwork I'm familiar with is much earlier, and has plate muscled armor and mail as well as scale. So maybe later Roman artwork, with which Carolingian artists would be more familiar, shows more scale? Dunno!
Matthew
The focus on scale armor is still a little puzzling. Though most of the Roman artwork I'm familiar with is much earlier, and has plate muscled armor and mail as well as scale. So maybe later Roman artwork, with which Carolingian artists would be more familiar, shows more scale? Dunno!
Matthew
I think Len is right. The Carolingians likely used mail a lot more than scale despite what the contemporary illustrations imply.
AFAIK there is not one single manuscript showing a carolingian in scale. The Stuttgart Psalter, Golden Psalter and KBR manuscript are all portraying ancient jews.
I think the best evidence that the carolingians were copying from ancient art, and not just looking around at their own armour, would be the images of ancient pelta shields. Were these contemporary shields?
My feeling is that something like the 5thc. Psychomachia might have been illustrated and handed down.
Think about it. Do you think these carolingian artists pulled these shields from an ancient source, ignored whatever armour was being shown, then drew armour from their own time instead? I could be wrong, but at least check out the first link:
http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/Prudentius-Bern-264-Chastity-Lust.htm
http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/img/BnF-8318-53v-lower.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
I think the best evidence that the carolingians were copying from ancient art, and not just looking around at their own armour, would be the images of ancient pelta shields. Were these contemporary shields?
My feeling is that something like the 5thc. Psychomachia might have been illustrated and handed down.
Think about it. Do you think these carolingian artists pulled these shields from an ancient source, ignored whatever armour was being shown, then drew armour from their own time instead? I could be wrong, but at least check out the first link:
http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/Prudentius-Bern-264-Chastity-Lust.htm
http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/img/BnF-8318-53v-lower.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m...allery.jpg
Aha! Sure, if that's the case, it does make sense. I've seen a lot of Carolingian illustrations over the years, but probably just the more well-known ones, and rarely with any analysis or context. Just "these are Carolingians", that sort of thing. I certainly won't insist that Carolingian warriors wanted to dress like Bible characters! These particular illustrations are new to me--the peltiform shield IS fascinating! Muscle cuirasses with the pteruges turned into scales, as well. Neat stuff, thanks!
Matthew
Matthew
They changed the links. Here's the new one: http://warfare.cf/6C-11C/Carolingian-Gellone_..._12048.htm Compare it to these three helmets: http://livinghistory.cz/node/421 They're dating these 9th-10th century. Looks very similar to me.
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
| Aha! Sure, if that's the case, it does make sense. I've seen a lot of Carolingian illustrations over the years, but probably just the more well-known ones, and rarely with any analysis or context. Just "these are Carolingians", that sort of thing. I certainly won't insist that Carolingian warriors wanted to dress like Bible characters! These particular illustrations are new to me--the peltiform shield IS fascinating! Muscle cuirasses with the pteruges turned into scales, as well. Neat stuff, thanks!
Matthew |
Perhaps they might have imported byzantine armor, which was using scale armor by that time. The absense of scale in the non-biblical horsemen, howver, is indeed what should be thought as normative.
A question I have is whether a horseman could actually afford or was expected to have mail armor, considering that in Early Middle Ages and in Viking Age Scandinavia you would have to be particularly rich to have one.
The De Re Military article about Carolingian Arms and Armor just talk about swords; that only horsemen were required to have swords. That said, armor would be way more rare and expensive. But I don't know any evidence or history work on that.
They keep changing the link. http://warfare.gq/6C-11C/Carolingian-Gellone_..._12048.htm
The Capitulaie Aquisgranense of 805 tells us who was wearing mail: https://books.google.com/books?id=32MhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
The Capitulaie Aquisgranense of 805 tells us who was wearing mail: https://books.google.com/books?id=32MhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| A question I have is whether a horseman could actually afford or was expected to have mail armor, considering that in Early Middle Ages and in Viking Age Scandinavia you would have to be particularly rich to have one.
The De Re Military article about Carolingian Arms and Armor just talk about swords; that only horsemen were required to have swords. That said, armor would be way more rare and expensive. But I don't know any evidence or history work on that. |
Anyone who could afford to maintain a warhorse could afford mail armour. It took the combined wealth of multiple villages to be able to field one armed horseman. The Capitulare missorum of 792-793 said that office holders had to turn up to battle with horse, mail, shield, lance, sword (spata) and shortsword (semispatum).
| Quote: |
| Perhaps they might have imported byzantine armor, which was using scale armor by that time. The absense of scale in the non-biblical horsemen, howver, is indeed what should be thought as normative. |
Weren't the Arabs in control of Byzantium during that time? Any Byzantine armour would have been the same as that used by the Arabs. The Arabs, the Byzantines, and the Scandinavians all used Frankish mail when they could get it. They considered it superior to their native armour. Charlemagne eventually banned its export to stop his enemies from getting it. Why would the Franks want to import scale or lamellar when it was inferior to what the Franks were producing domestically?
[quote="Dan Howard"]Weren't the Arabs in control of Byzantium during that time? /quote]
Some provinces of the Byzantine / Eastern Roman Empire (Egypt, Syria) fell to to the Arabs in the 7th century, much of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks in 11th century (about 20 years before the 1st crusade), and the city Byzantium (aka Constantinople, Instanbul) to the Ottomans in 1453.
Some provinces of the Byzantine / Eastern Roman Empire (Egypt, Syria) fell to to the Arabs in the 7th century, much of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks in 11th century (about 20 years before the 1st crusade), and the city Byzantium (aka Constantinople, Instanbul) to the Ottomans in 1453.
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
Anyone who could afford to maintain a warhorse could afford mail armour. It took the combined wealth of multiple villages to be able to field one armed horseman. The Capitulare missorum of 792-793 said that office holders had to turn up to battle with horse, mail, shield, lance, sword (spata) and shortsword (semispatum). |
Twelve manses was the minimum standard of holdings for mandatory service with a mail shirt, but five or six manses was generally considered the minimum level for individual service with a horse. We know from the Bayeux Inquest that 50-60 acres was sufficient to maintain a vavassor with "plain arms" (horse, shield, spear, helmet and sword), and most of the knights of William the Conqueror made do with less than 2 hides of land (which could be as little as 80 acres, depending on the value of the land), so I see no reason why multiple villages were required to equip a single armoured horseman either.
| Quote: | ||
Weren't the Arabs in control of Byzantium during that time? Any Byzantine armour would have been the same as that used by the Arabs. The Arabs, the Byzantines, and the Scandinavians all used Frankish mail when they could get it. They considered it superior to their native armour. Charlemagne eventually banned its export to stop his enemies from getting it. Why would the Franks want to import scale or lamellar when it was inferior to what the Franks were producing domestically? |
No, not at all. They were at their nadir, but far from defeated or under Arabic control at the time.
And the answer as to why the Carolingians would want to wear the shiny armour worn by the elite descendants of the Roman Empire, the same empire they claim to hold power from, is pretty much just to wear the shiny armour worn by the elites of the "other" Roman Empire. Whether they actually did or not is another question entirely, and I personally doubt that they wore scale armour although lamellar is a possibility for the odd duck, but if they did it was for the same reasons muscled cuirasses stayed in fashion so long.
| Jonathan Dean wrote: |
| And the answer as to why the Carolingians would want to wear the shiny armour worn by the elite descendants of the Roman Empire. |
The preferred armour in the Western and Eastern Roman Empire was mail. Their idealized stereotyped classical armour was musculata.
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
Anyone who could afford to maintain a warhorse could afford mail armour. It took the combined wealth of multiple villages to be able to field one armed horseman. The Capitulare missorum of 792-793 said that office holders had to turn up to battle with horse, mail, shield, lance, sword (spata) and shortsword (semispatum). |
Interesting, I thought it was the contrary, given the amount of technical skill to make a suit of mail back then. Which reminds me: did horses kept being that expensive later? Because I found a trick observation in Portuguese and English sources: while mounted spearmen and archers were usually equipped with minimum armor equipment in England, in Portugal it seens that a horse was more expensive than a suit of full plate armor: by 15th century, a reform in Coudéis changed the obligation of those aquantiados with "horse and arms" to afford two sets of full plate armor, with the King providing the war horses to his host.
| Quote: |
| Weren't the Arabs in control of Byzantium during that time? Any Byzantine armour would have been the same as that used by the Arabs. The Arabs, the Byzantines, and the Scandinavians all used Frankish mail when they could get it. They considered it superior to their native armour. Charlemagne eventually banned its export to stop his enemies from getting it. Why would the Franks want to import scale or lamellar when it was inferior to what the Franks were producing domestically? |
Parts of, back then in the time of Iconomachia, Anatolia and parts of Eastern Europe were still byzantine. I think the arabs kept military clothing and preference for armor somehow distinct.
Arabs were importing frankish mail, but just after the establishment of the Crusader States in the late 11th century. All the references I know come for this period. The ban I know (though it might be others) were the ones for swords, to avoid Norse raiders to put their hands on them.
I guess artistic evidence from 9th to 12th century Italy sometimes shows scale armor in use, but I lack the specific references.
| Jonathan Dean wrote: |
| Twelve manses was the minimum standard of holdings for mandatory service with a mail shirt, but five or six manses was generally considered the minimum level for individual service with a horse. |
But it was acceptable in Carolingian Military statutes for unarmoured horsemen like the later normans?
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
The preferred armour in the Western and Eastern Roman Empire was mail. Their idealized stereotyped classical armour was musculata. |
Can you recommend a book, article or link about this preference? Just for learning purposes[/quote]
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
| The De Re Military article about Carolingian Arms and Armor just talk about swords; that only horsemen were required to have swords. That said, armor would be way more rare and expensive. But I don't know any evidence or history work on that.
Arabs were importing frankish mail, but just after the establishment of the Crusader States in the late 11th century. All the references I know come for this period. The ban I know (though it might be others) were the ones for swords, to avoid Norse raiders to put their hands on them. |
That De Re Military article cites multiple references to Carolingian attempts to ban armour exports. See Note 103:
Capitulare missorum in Theodonis villa datum secundum, generale c. 7: ibid. 123; Capitulare Bononiense c. 10: ibid. 167; Edictum Pistense c. 25: MGH Cap. 2.321.
Nice article on frankish helmets: http://truehistoryshop.com/frankish-helmets-vs-artistic-license/ The verden helmet at bottom looks interesting.
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum