I think it's very plauseable that vikings used heather armour Modern day leather welding gauntlets are resistant to acidental cuts and piercings they have to be, a tiny hole can cause a serious burn when working with red hot metal
By the same token leather armour could have been useful for brushing off grazes and glancing hits if I couldnt aford
mail I'd go for leather it's better than nothing

People can suppose anything they like. That way leads to highlander ninjas. There is no evidence for leather armour dispite there being piles of leather artefacts dating to the Viking period. Reenactors are supposed to represent the TYPICAL not the EXCEPTION. There is absolutely no justification for leather armour in a Viking context until some primary evidence shows up to support it. Currently the evidence suggests that a viking either worn mail or nothing. There was no "better than nothing". A helmet and shield was sufficient for the vast majority of combatants on any battlefield in any time period since the beginning of warfare.

Okay I used the wrong words there I was refereing to the padded leather garb but,by the same token you cant
say that they only used mail or nothing because out side of the sagas very little is recorded about their existence
we don't even know how they really fought and what type of the techniques they used in combat what we have is
speculation derived from trial and error and reverse engineering of the later treatises of combat. The Sax is used
extensively in the sagas yet nobody has figured it out how to wield it as a main weapon as allot of the heros in the
sagas do

Leather is one of the oldest protective materials known to man there is evidence to suggest that the vikings knew
of it's protective capabilities in combat as stated in In chapter 11 of Grettis saga

Quote:

Þorgeir walked to the boat shed at Reykjarfjörðu before dawn to prepare for a day of fishing. Þorfinnr came up behind him and drove his axe into Þorgeir's back so that it sank in between his shoulder blades. Þorfinnr released the axe and ran away. What Þorfinnr didn't see was that Þorgeir had a leather flask full of drink on his back, which took the full force of the axe blow. The flask was ruined, but Þorgeir was unharmed

there is strong archaeological evidence to suggest that leather rims were used to reinforce the Gokstad shields

Quote:

The shield was probably rimmed with leather or rawhide to keep the shield from splitting when hit on the edge. The Gokstad shields have a series of small holes all around the periphery of the shields. They're about 20mm (3/4in) in from the edge, spaced at 35mm intervals (1-3/8in). It is thought that the leather edging was held in place on these shields either with iron nails, or with stitching that passed through these holes.

Tests carried out on replicas show that the this makes the shields significantly more resistant to blows and further
testing leads archaeologists to think that knowing this they may have even had hide facings which add even more strength

Given this along with the art work displayed by other debaters think it is quite plausible that vikings did wear leather
clothes into battle

A logical fallacy in the English language is a bit over the top, I think the thory that the earth is flat has been pretty well disproven.

History has a lot of maybes and surprises, which is what makes it interesting. Dan has a philosphy emphasizes extant evidence over literary reference and historical feasibility, and I tend to agree with him in this case. Leather jackets as armor are not backed up by any extant examples that I am aware of.

It's doesn't bother me that a lot of reenactors use them, though, if they feel it is a safety issue and if they do it in keeping with the viking zeitgeist. If no one had the instinct of self preservation or the spirit of improvisation, we'd not have armor (or technology for that matter) at all. It seems an uneccesarily dogmatic pronuncamento that no one could have possibly thought to guard thier skin with hide.

Hi guys,

With all respect Dan, re-enactors do not neccesarily portray the typical warrior of there chosen period, many units portray elite warriors and combatants. Okay you can provenance the kit you are wearing but is it tyical of the warrior of your period? Perhaps as you say the typical for your period was just regular clothing shield and spear, I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement on that question. ;)

Is it not curious that linen armour was worn by some when they had sound technology to produce matallic armour? Better then nothing?

There where codes of law as to what hide could be placed to face shields of that period in England, so one would assume a knowledge of the properties specific animals produced. Sheep leather was frowned upon as a shield facing.

As was mentioned earlier it is up to the individual, or his groups authenticty guidlines as to what kit should be allowed.

Change comes slowly in the re-enactment world and no amount of shouting ones own opinion will change it.

again with respect
Dave

I don't know why anyone thinks leather makes a good stand alone armor; it is just skin and a sword can cut right through it. There are plenty of references to leather armor in the middle ages before plate takes over but it is always worn over maille; I believe that much like quilted armor worn over maille leather took the brunt of the blow and prevented penetration of maille.

Well if someone could aford mail they'd use it but not all vikings were rich enough to aford it also they were mainly raiders not organized armies that would require good armour for a prolonged battle or campaign. I know from doing metal work in high school that thick leather can prevent you from getting cut and pricked by glancing slices from jagged metal so if you had a shield as you main defence a thick leather garb could protect you from getting nusance cuts if you got caught up in a tangle with your oponant were he wasnt able to weild his sword at full strength

I certainly am not claiming to be an expert on this subject, but would like to give some input, (and possibly be corrected if blatently wrong).

It seems to me that there must have been some kind of armour at any level. Even if it wasn't so much that it actually provided any protection. Thinking about how many people existed and the size and number of battles that raged on this planet, it would seem to me that we should be wading in armour from centuries past. But we aren't. We are lucky to even find references in sagas at times, or paintings, or records. It is very rare that we find actual relics that coincide with all of the records about them.

In the revolutionary war, I've heard acounts where soldiers would tear their clothing and tie it to their feet to try and protect themselves from stepping on rocks or getting hurt.

It makes sense to me that there is a good deal that we simply do not know about history. Many people hunted, and it seems that someone might say, "Hey, that skin is nice and thick... I wonder if I could make something out of it."

Not to say that it would be effective as armour, but it might give someone peace of mind and boost their morale. Fighting naked would make me feel very vulnerable, but if someone provided me with some stiff leather garments to wear, I would feel somewhat better, thinking that the leather will help against glancing blows, if not a direct strike.

Wool would be better in my mind than nothing, and leather, being stiffer and harder still would be a step above wool for me, and iron or steel would be a step beyond that.

Again, I am not an expert by any means, so please don't take what I say as fact.

Just trying to give some speculative input, and hopefully learn from everyone here!

I am not willing to step into any of these arguments, but I do think that we have two separate discussions going on in one thread.
1: the use of leather armor in a Viking-era (and specifically Scandinavian) context
2. the suitability of leather for armor, in general

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic of leather armor in Viking-era Scandinavia, but I do know that leather was a popular and widely used material in other historical and geographical contexts, eg steppe nomads.

Here is something that I have read. I borrowed this excerpt from an article that discusses the etymology of the term *berserk*. In this article there are several mentions of warriors wearing animal skins (*ulfhedinn* or "wolf-coats"), etc. It's not by any means a definition of the "typical warrior", but it clearly defines the use of worn animal skins.

Quote:

Others have contended that the term should be read "*bear*-sark," and describes the animal-skin garb of their berserker. Grettirs Saga calls King Harald's berserkers "Wolf-Skins," and in King Harald's Saga they are called *ulfhedinn* or "wolf-coats," a term which appears in Vatnsdoela Saga and Hrafnsmal (Hilda R. Ellis-Davidson,"Shape-Changing in the Old Norse Sagas, " in Animals in Folklore. eds. J.R. Porter and W.M.S. Russell. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. 1978. pp. 132-133), as well as in Grettirs Saga (Denton Fox and Hermann Palsson, trans. Grettir's Saga." Toronto: U of Toronto P. 1961. p. 3).

I'm uncertain how wide spread the practice was, but it seems that there are precedents, at least within the sagas, for warriors wearing animal hides. Now be this for effect...or be it for the protection they afford...or perhaps a little of both...is of course debatable. However, it doesnt seem with these cases to be an all or nothing scenario...Mail or nothing at all

Speaking strictly from a living history point of view, when presenting our interpretations of whatever culture/time period we do to the public, it becomes our responsibility to act as sort of a, well, living museum, of sorts. After all, it's called living history for a reason - to present what is in effect a live-action museum display. And as such, we should present only of ourselves what a proper museum does - actual artefacts or replicas/recreations of historical finds pertaining to a particular culture/time frame. I realize many aspects of reeancting must be left to the slippery slope of conjecture, but perhaps when the facts are known and verified through historical evidence, we should try to display these most often, so that a factual representation can be always presented. Just my 2 cents worth.

Yours,

Christopher