[Dmitriy Sobolev]

As far as I know, highly elaborate wooden armor was used by native Americans at least in the north part of Pacific shore and Aleutian Islands. It includes one-piece helmet (usually well sculpted and painted as intimidating totem animal’s head), wooden bevor protecting the face and neck, cuirass of wooden vertical splints laced together, and warmbraces of similar construction, all painted in tribal colours. This quite impressive panoply remained in use well into 19th century (see pictures below).

Also wooden protection (warmbraces and breastplates) was used in medieval times by some inhabitants of Asia, including kyrgyz, mongols and other people. I heard that samurai lamellar armour sometimes were made from laquered bamboo plates, but don’t know if this is true.

Metal armour offers greater degree of protection than wooden. But metal was not always readily available and it was expensive and required much work to produce armor. There are other materials like leather or padded cloth. How good (or bad) was the wood in comparison with them? Was the wood everused for protection in combination with them in Europe?

I can also imagine another specific situation, where wooden armour may be a benefit for wearer: a fight aboard the ship. In case of accidental fall from the deck, where heavy metal armour will drown a man, a wooden cuirass may save his life – and it’s better than nothing for protection, I think, especially if this is hard and properly treated wood. Are there any historical accounts mentioning intentional use of wooden armour instead of steel one by European marines of Middle ages, Renaissance and later (perhaps, in colonies?).

Pictures: Various Aleut wooden helmets; Aleut warrior dressed for battle. Historical museum in Russia. Photo courtesy: tforum.zokov.net

[Craig Peters]

The only instance I know of (though I am by no means an expert on the subject) is that some Swiss commoners strapped wood to their arms prior to the Battle of Sempach. But this was more of a desperation measure than bonafide wooden armour per se, slats of wood being better than nothing at all.

[Ken Speed]

Dimitry,

I've read somewhere about a particular group of Norwegian Vikings who bound birchbark around their lower legs before going into battle but I don't have any more specific information about it than that. This may be nothing more than a story, I don't know. It is distinctly possible that someone else here can tell us more.

Ken Speed

[Randall Moffett]

Much earlier on in the Strategikon from the 6th century there are wooden greaves mentions in it. Byzantine is about the only European's I know of having used wood as body armour.

RPM

[Dmitriy Sobolev]

Thank you for your answers.

Looks like wood was considered unsuitable for body protection from steel weapons. May seem strange, considering that wooden shields were widely used.

[Luka Borscak]

Yes, but they didn't lasted long enough in battle to be good armour.

[Russ Ellis]

It's my understanding that in the Northern parts of Europe especially in some of the German principalities wooden "splints" were used until quite late. I'll see if I can dig up the reference...

[Kelly Powell]

Wooden shoes and birch bark shoes were used....I could see wood used in a composite armor...rawhide and leather covering wood slats...or woven wicker covered in the same.