Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Matthew Amt wrote:
Battle axes, large or small, were NOT improvised, but were highly refined weapons and often quite different from an axe made to cut wood (though certainly both could be used for either purpose, if necessary!). Usually cheaper than a sword, true, but still generally a secondary weapon to a spear

Well Matthew I'm not saying this out of dissrespect I actually find the points you put forward interesting and a good
addition to the debate. But I never said they were improvised I said they were derived meaning they find their origins
from the common axe the point still remains that most weapons find their origin in tools that any man could lay his
hands on and use offensively against an enemy axes were among the cheaper of the weapons available to Vikings
and there is archalogical evidence that shows ordinary wood wood cutting axes were used in battle most likely by
someone like a poor farmer who was required to to fight but couldnt afford a decent weapon Another example of I
can think of which occuered later was the Guisarme it was a hook on a pole used for pruning. Peasants put it to good
use dragging riders off their horses this weapon eventually evolved into the Bill.

I'm not saying that leather found widespread use as a choice for improvised armour among the vikings but given that
there is evidenceof wood cutting axes being used as weapons of war I think it is wrong to say that there is no way certain
indeviduals would ever concider wearing leather to provide some sort of protection
Mackenzie Cosens,

You wrote a great post and I agree with most of what you wrote, but I have to comment on this:

"- The historicity of leather padded armour, in North West Europe from 7th to 11th Century, is contentious. "

This is simply not true. Maybe it is true here (in this forum), but in the scientific community no one talks about viking leather armour (wich is the question at hand).

Why?

Because there are no finds, no pictures, no written material and...well, nothing. There is simply no reason do discuss the matter in a scientific manner. We have nothing. And if you think on it, it is really not that strange.

This is the way science works. If you have no question then there is no point to look for an answer.

Regards,

/Vilhelm
Darren Tully wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
Battle axes, large or small, were NOT improvised, but were highly refined weapons and often quite different from an axe made to cut wood (though certainly both could be used for either purpose, if necessary!). Usually cheaper than a sword, true, but still generally a secondary weapon to a spear

Well Matthew I'm not saying this out of dissrespect I actually find the points you put forward interesting and a good
addition to the debate. But I never said they were improvised I said they were derived meaning they find their origins
from the common axe


Sorry, didn't mean to twist your words, but this is what you said:

Darren Tully wrote:
The iconic viking axes are dervied from wood cutters axes and are far cheaper than a sword and were a very comon tool looking at the fact that they improvised like this it wouldnt surprise me that some would use leather garments for light protection


(Emphasis mine.) If the leather is in the form of GARMENTS then it would take several layers to achieve significant protection. You might do just as well with wool, with less bulk, less heat trouble, etc. Plus, you are stressing the idea that these are poorer men doing this--just how much leather clothing do they own? And if it's nice sealskin rain gear, do they want to risk getting holes in it? Remember, all this is very secondary protection--your prime defense is your SHIELD.

Quote:
the point still remains that most weapons find their origin in tools that any man could lay his
hands on and use offensively against an enemy axes were among the cheaper of the weapons available to Vikings
and there is archalogical evidence that shows ordinary wood wood cutting axes were used in battle most likely by
someone like a poor farmer who was required to to fight but couldnt afford a decent weapon Another example of I
can think of which occuered later was the Guisarme it was a hook on a pole used for pruning. Peasants put it to good
use dragging riders off their horses this weapon eventually evolved into the Bill.


A poor farmer who could not afford a shield and spear was not required to fight, in any culture that I know of! Anyone that poor may well have not been a free man, or at the very least he was not a landowner and so did not own his house, livestock, etc. Either way, if under sudden attack, he might certainly have grabbed the wood axe, but he would also grab his family and run like crazy for the landlord's house! Fighting forces were composed only of men who were able to equip themselves to a minimum level, so the whole idea of "peasants" with pots on their heads and pitchforks in their hands is pretty much a myth. Men with no war gear left the war to the men with the gear! That was how the whole feudal system began, by the way.

I'll have to take your word for it that there is archeological evidence for wood axes being used in battle. Sure, later polearms developed from agricultural tools, by and large, but spears did not, nor did bows. Those were always weapons, for killing animals and humans.

Quote:
I'm not saying that leather found widespread use as a choice for improvised armour among the vikings but given that
there is evidenceof wood cutting axes being used as weapons of war I think it is wrong to say that there is no way certain
indeviduals would ever concider wearing leather to provide some sort of protection


And I'm saying that's way too much of a leap in logic, not that I've often found logic applicable to the ways the ancients did anything. You're applying your own modern ideas of practicality and logic on people who simply had very different priorities and thought processes. And you're trampling the facts to do so. Shaky ground! (Not trying to sound like I'm beating on you, here! I appreciate your compliments!)

Matthew
I retract the improvised statment I thought I had corrcted that mistake when I was typing up my post instead I rewrote the rgument around it my apologies Matthew sorry if it caused you any offence But I still believe that it is possible that indeviduals not the vikings as a whole could have made th desion to wear a leather garb like the one the guy wearing the sutton hoo helmet had I just think it's a possibility that cant be ruled out.

I guess the best option we have here is to agree to disagree although I really enjoyed this debate it's not too often that you find a forum were yu can have a mature reasoned argument that deosnt desend into childish remarks and flaming
Quote:
Sean Smith wrote:
Chase S-R wrote:
I agree with David, I do not believe their is conclusive proof one way or the other. I just do not believe someone can completely dissprove its existence. As for leather not being an armour merely because it was enchanted is I believe not true, I can think of a few sagas where maille is enchanted.


I would like you to disprove anything, at all. There is no such thing as disproving anything, as it is a logical fallacy in the English language. What there is is proof and lack of proof, leading to varying levels of conjecture. Where people draw the line is up to them, but please don't discuss disproving anything. It is logically impossible.


I agree with you, that is precisely what I was stating. I don't believe someone can dissprove leather armours existence, because you frankly can NOT dissprove anything.



Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying that leather found widespread use as a choice for improvised armour among the vikings but given that
there is evidenceof wood cutting axes being used as weapons of war I think it is wrong to say that there is no way certain
indeviduals would ever concider wearing leather to provide some sort of protection


And I'm saying that's way too much of a leap in logic, not that I've often found logic applicable to the ways the ancients did anything. You're applying your own modern ideas of practicality and logic on people who simply had very different priorities and thought processes. And you're trampling the facts to do so. Shaky ground! (Not trying to sound like I'm beating on you, here! I appreciate your compliments!)


The Romans used leather as psychological protection, the leather hanging ornamental belts called "cinculum militaire" have been speculated to have been not only ornamental but to also provide psychological protection for your, um, manhood...

[qoute]Because there are no finds, no pictures, no written material and...well, nothing. There is simply no reason do discuss the matter in a scientific manner. We have nothing. And if you think on it, it is really not that strange[/quote]

Well that is the entire point of this disscussion. I believe as do others that well their are no archeological finds their are sufficiant written works describing this type of armour, and if the written works are true than some of the art works and statues may also be reffering to this type of armour (lewis chessman, bayeux tapestry, etc., etc.).

Quote:
Dan, could you cite these specific accounts so we can get a look at the context?


Could you? The only accounts of this I can think of are a few sporadic duels where one combatant choose to fight without armour,or sheild, or some other random item. And Snorre talking about the battle of Stamford Bridge the vikings under Harold Hadrada were hot and thinking there was not going to be a fight choose to leave their maille behind, which they soon regreted and Snorre says was perhaps part of the reason they lost the battle.

Quote:
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.


Well do some tests, it makes it harder to cut through than just a linnen tunic. Which is harder to sew leather or wool? Also what if the leather where layered (and glued) with linnen, or padded and lined in wool?

Best to all,
Chase
Viking Age Leather padded garment
Hi Zach,

As a 'greenhand' you will not go wrong following Mathew's words of advice. Try to achieve getting the basics as correct as present knowledge allows, then expand your research

Many re-enactment socities over here in the U.K. will attempt to get a number of provenances for any given item, ie contemporary written sources, and illustrations, and from the archaeology records before allowing them to be used, or worn by members. Each re-enactment society may differs greatly however, allowing varying degrees of latitude.

Try to avoid if possible re-enactorisms. For my 'tuppence worth' these may include, 'Russ style' furry hats, leather armguards worn over sleeves, drinking horns attached to belts, copper alloy rings attached to belts for the purpose of carrrying axes, dripping multi-beaded and pendanted necklaces (it's for the ladies!) 'steppe' style riding boots.

Good luck with your project.

Dave
Douglas S wrote:
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
The garments that we're talking about are like this, correct?:

http://www.walhalla.com.pl/sklep/product_info.php?products_id=92



This is all that we're going on from the period:

[ Linked Image ]

I would not presume to draw any conclusions from this except that here is some sort of garment. I would not assume that it's armor.

There was a Norse saga that described armor made from reindeer hide.


The image shows the wearers of the X garment also donning sort of winged helmet.

They can be compared to some celtic bronze helmets whose function is thought to be ceremonial.

So the X garment could be a priestly or ceremonial garment as well, being made perhaps of rare fabric with a precious edge finishing.

The presence of several spears and the position of the two individuals would also suggest the representation of a warrior divinity couple, rather than an a fight between actual human warriors.

The two warriors are specular figures crossing their arms in a symbolic manner, so that a symbolic, legendary meaning can be assumed with some reason.
Darren Tully wrote:
I retract the improvised statment I thought I had corrcted that mistake when I was typing up my post instead I rewrote the rgument around it my apologies Matthew sorry if it caused you any offence


Oh, okay, I gotcha! No, no offense taken at all.

Quote:
But I still believe that it is possible that indeviduals not the vikings as a whole could have made th desion to wear a leather garb like the one the guy wearing the sutton hoo helmet had I just think it's a possibility that cant be ruled out.


Certainly we can't rule anything out. Strictly speaking, as others have pointed out, we can't rule out tutus and swim fins. But also be careful about taking others' theories as fact--no leather was found in the Sutton Hoo grave. The idea of those large clasps coming from some sort of leather jerkin or cuirass is THEORY, not evidence. (You hear that from archeologists all the time, actually, that such and such an item must have been attached to a leather backing, when there is no trace of leather involved at all. It's the remnants of Victorian thinking, that EVERYTHING was made of leather back then!)

Chase S-R wrote:
The Romans used leather as psychological protection, the leather hanging ornamental belts called "cinculum militaire" have been speculated to have been not only ornamental but to also provide psychological protection for your, um, manhood...


That's another completely baseless modern speculation. Originally the *balteus* was a wide belt with a narrow buckle, so the end was split into 3 parts, one of which went through the buckle while the others hung free. This is clearly shown on several reliefs. The dangling ends came to be decorated with metal terminals. At some point they decided that this just wasn't spiffy enough, and the separate "apron" of hanging straps was added, with even more bling. There was never any defensive intent, nor does the apron give any impression of being protective when worn--trust me on this one! The only "psychological protection" that I know of from the Roman era is the Celtic torc or neck-ring, often worn by the guys who otherwise fought naked.

Oh, that was the other thing I forgot, someone had mentioned the use of bear or wolf pelts, etc., especially by berserkers. The use of animal pelts as clothing does indeed have a LONG history. Oetzi the Iceman, numerous bog finds from the Bronze and Iron Ages, references in Homer, Roman standard bearers and musicians, expensive fur trim and linings in the middle ages, and more. All the examples I can think of are just clothing or ornament (with the possible exception of the Sardinian mouflon cuirasses!). They protect from the cold, or are there to mark your status or just make you look good. If a nice thick fur cloak happens to help protect you a little in battle, fine, but so would any thick clothing. One might point out that that nice bear pelt didn't keep the bear alive... (Whereas the sheep that gave its fleece for your tunic is still alive, bwahaha!)

Matthew
Viking Laether padded garment
Bruno Giordan wrote:
Douglas S wrote:
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
The garments that we're talking about are like this, correct?:

http://www.walhalla.com.pl/sklep/product_info.php?products_id=92



This is all that we're going on from the period:

[ Linked Image ]

I would not presume to draw any conclusions from this except that here is some sort of garment. I would not assume that it's armor.

There was a Norse saga that described armor made from reindeer hide.


The image shows the wearers of the X garment also donning sort of winged helmet.

They can be compared to some celtic bronze helmets whose function is thought to be ceremonial.

So the X garment could be a priestly or ceremonial garment as well, being made perhaps of rare fabric with a precious edge finishing.

The presence of several spears and the position of the two individuals would also suggest the representation of a warrior divinity couple, rather than an a fight between actual human warriors.

The two warriors are specular figures crossing their arms in a symbolic manner, so that a symbolic, legendary meaning can be assumed with some reason.


Hi Bruno,

All resonable assumtions. The 'Dancing Man' is a recurring motiff in Germanic Art, invaribaly with the 'horned' head dress and commonly unclothed. The 'horned' head dress also appears in other germanic art, ie the Osberg tapestry.

One theory behind the 'horned 'head dress imagery is that it is not a literal head dress, but a symbolic illustration of the figure in communion or union with the god head, the 'horns' emanating from the figures head termanating in zoomorphic terminals, usually a bird, perhaps an eagle or raven, totemic messenger birds associated with the god head.

Perhaps such a figure in an estatic dance or a warrior in an estatic frenzy , enters such a state of mind.

Germanic warrior dances are known, Tacitus describes the 'wild leaping' of naked germanic youth in what appears to be a weapon dance, and much later records report germanic warriors in the pay of Byzantium performing a 'Gothic Dance'

Berserkers and Ulfhednar warriors are also thought to have reached an estatic state of frenzy.

The (military ) elite also often performed relgious functions on behalf of the community . Most of these 'Dancing Man' image bearing artifacts are indeed associated with a 'military' elite grave inhumations, as is the textile evidence for the postulated garb in discussion.

However this may not be the whole story of X garment, again I draw your attention to the two foot figures on the V14 pressblech , one in maile and one in X garment, who appear to be very much in combat and not a dance, the figure in garment x peirced through the garment bottom hem and the other mailed figure's shield peirced through also by a spear.
Chase S-R wrote:
[
Well that is the entire point of this disscussion. I believe as do others that well their are no archeological finds their are sufficiant written works describing this type of armour, and if the written works are true than some of the art works and statues may also be reffering to this type of armour (lewis chessman, bayeux tapestry, etc., etc.).


I dare you to produce written work or art from the period and geographical area that depicts something more likely to be a leather armour then something else.

There simply are no material to support the theory. Maybe the vikings did wear leather armour, if so we will know when we find some.

If you want to wear leather armour, go ahead, but do not claim to have a historical costume.

And you guys really must stop using "practical" as an argument for theories. If people were practical we would not have high heel shoes.

Regards,

/Ville
Chase S-R wrote:
Which is harder to sew leather or wool?


What does sewing have to do with anything? I cut leather and wool the same way with a knife or scissors. Leather alone is not doing much if anything to protect you from an axe or a sword. As I said the men in the middle ages where we have proof of leather armor layered it with maille.
Oh dear, another argument about leather armour. I don't know why people get so vexed.
'Practical' Ville - not sure why women's high heeled shoes designed to give them sexual allure --therefore quite practical as far as their purpose goes -- has to enter into this but everyone to his tastes!
Leather is very practical, both as a working garment and even for battle - soldiers - at least British soldiers were still wearing it in the Second World War. True, it wasn't armour.

Several people have mentioned that a couple of layers of wool could provide good protection under mail -- absolutely true - yet those same people want to point out that there is no evidence for leather being worn. Ok, so where is the evidence for layers of wool?

No evidence for leather armour -- not quite so, actually, and I will expand on that in a moment.

My leather coat which has been helpfully illustrated (thanks Anders) was made as an experiment based on the pictures on helmet pressbleche and on goldgubbe and other artefacts. These coats were worn, and were worn in Anglo-Saxon Englad, too (see Penelope Walton Rogers -Cloth and Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England AD 450 -700 ISBN 978 1 902771 54 0 ). True, all the surviving remnants are of wool, (in England) so far. I made mine out of leather, because on the Vendel XIV helmet, one of the plates shows two warriors in wrap around coats duelling - they aren't wearing horned helmets, by the way, one of the figures has a spear (angon) piercing his coat. The coat is strong enough to carry the angon, even though it is bent. That is why I used leather and padded it. However, I don't know if some of the original coats were made of leather - and I point this out to anyone who asks me. It is reasonable construction, and it works very well. Despite what has been said here, by some, it also offers considerable protection, especially at the front. Another of my friends has made one out of felt, it will be interesting to see how this holds up. This is experimental archaeology, by the way.

Mail is a pain to wear, being heavy and tiresome to, my coat is lighter and much more comfortable and easier to bear over long periods, even in hot weather.

Now to return to the evidence, not quite as sparse as some have suggested. There were leather remains in the Mound 1 Sutton Hoo burial, and this was considerable. See Martin Carver - A Seventh Century Princely Burial Ground and its Context, pages 153 to 200. Heap 'C' particularly contained a lot of leather. Exactly what this represented is not possible to say. Even slight leather remains do not usually remain in the acidic soils of England but at Sutton Hoo some special considerations were present.

Birgit Arrhenius wrote a whole paper about the pressbleche remains found in one of the large mounds at Uppsala (Arrhenius, Birgit and Freij, Henry (eds); 1992. “Pressbleck” Fragments from the East Mound in Old UppsalaAnalysed with a Laser Scanner. Laborativ Arkeologi 6 Arkeologiska Forskningslaboratoriet, StockholmUniversity) her conclusion was that the plates were fixed to a leather helmet --armour by any other name!

There is also reasonable supposition that leather helmets were being worn in Germany at around the same time--- grave numbers 368, 396, 428, 437 and 781 at Straubing-Bajwarenstraße, contained men who had pairs of boars' tusks affixed to their skulls, the suggetsion is that the tusks were put onto leather helms that have since rotted in acidic soils, all other organic remains having disppeared from these graves. Similar finds were made at Peigen (Niederbayern) and Kirchheim near Munich.

Of course, at our present stage of knowledge we cannot be certain that leather was worn, as armour or just as protection from the elements, however, it would not be sensible to suggest that our ancestors would ignore this valuable and comparatively freely available material. As for whether they wore it under mail - there is just as much evidence that they wore that as there is that they wore wool!

Paul
Paul Mortimer wrote:
Oh dear, another argument about leather armour. I don't know why people get so vexed.
'Practical' Ville - not sure why women's high heeled shoes designed to give them sexual allure --therefore quite practical as far as their purpose goes -- has to enter into this but everyone to his tastes!
Leather is very practical, both as a working garment and even for battle - soldiers - at least British soldiers were still wearing it in the Second World War. True, it wasn't armour.

Several people have mentioned that a couple of layers of wool could provide good protection under mail -- absolutely true - yet those same people want to point out that there is no evidence for leather being worn. Ok, so where is the evidence for layers of wool?

There is an argument that "vikings" had a garment specifically designed to be worn under mail. There is no primary evidence to support this. Those who support the theory reckon that "something" must have been worn since (they falsely claim) mail cannot be worn without this garment. The simple act of wearing a couple of woollen tunics easily disproves this claim.

Quote:
No evidence for leather armour -- not quite so, actually, and I will expand on that in a moment/

My leather coat which has been helpfully illustrated (thanks Anders) was made as an experiment based on the pictures on helmet pressbleche and on goldgubbe and other artefacts. These coats were worn, and were worn in Anglo-Saxon Englad, too (see Penelope Walton Rogers -Cloth and Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England AD 450 -700 ISBN 978 1 902771 54 0 ). True, all the surviving remnants are of wool, (in England) so far. I made mine out of leather, because on the Vendel XIV helmet, one of the plates shows two warriors in wrap around coats duelling - they aren't wearing horned helmets, by the way, one of the figures has a spear (angon) piercing his coat. The coat is strong enough to carry the angon, even though it is bent. That is why I used leather and padded it. However, I don't know if some of the original coats were made of leather - and I point this out to anyone who asks me. It is reasonable construction, and it works very well. Despite what has been said here, by some, it also offers considerable protection, especially at the front. Another of my friends has made one out of felt, it will be interesting to see how this holds up. This is experimental archaeology, by the way.

So where is the proof that this was leather? Experiments have shown that layered textiles provide far better protection than a similar weight of leather. Why can't those depicted be wearing textile armour?

Quote:
Mail is a pain to wear, being heavy and tiresome to, my coat is lighter and much more comfortable and easier to bear over long periods, even in hot weather.

Butted mail might be, but butted mail was not worn on the medieval battlefield. Riveted mail that has been correctly assembled and tailored is far less cumbersome. It is far less awkward than any type of organic armour that could provide similar protection. That is the whole point of metal armour. Any other material that can be made to provide similar protection will weigh far more than metal, and is more cumbersome since it needs to be considerably thicker.

Quote:
Now to return to the evidence, not quite as sparse as some have suggested. There were leather remains in the Mound 1 Sutton Hoo burial, and this was considerable. See Martin Carver - A Seventh Century Princely Burial Ground and its Context, pages 153 to 200. Heap 'C' particularly contained a lot of leather. Exactly what this represented is not possible to say. Even slight leather remains do not usually remain in the acidic soils of England but at Sutton Hoo some special considerations were present.

Absolutely no evidence for leather ARMOUR. Nobody is claiming that Scandinavians did not use leather for other purposes. There have been many many leather finds and not a single item can be demonstrated to have been a piece of armour.

Quote:
Birgit Arrhenius wrote a whole paper about the pressbleche remains found in one of the large mounds at Uppsala (Arrhenius, Birgit and Freij, Henry (eds); 1992. “Pressbleck” Fragments from the East Mound in Old UppsalaAnalysed with a Laser Scanner. Laborativ Arkeologi 6 Arkeologiska Forskningslaboratoriet, StockholmUniversity) her conclusion was that the plates were fixed to a leather helmet --armour by any other name!

Leather, or felt, or textile or anything else that was not metallic. Even if it was leather it would not be evidence for leather armour. It is evidence for leather being used as a foundation for metal construction. Those who would claim that this is leather armour must also claim that metal scale armour or a CoP is leather armour since the plates ca be fixed to leather.

Quote:
There is also reasonable supposition that leather helmets were being worn in Germany at around the same time--- grave numbers 368, 396, 428, 437 and 781 at Straubing-Bajwarenstraße, contained men who had pairs of boars' tusks affixed to their skulls, the suggetsion is that the tusks were put onto leather helms that have since rotted in acidic soils, all other organic remains having disppeared from these graves. Similar finds were made at Peigen (Niederbayern) and Kirchheim near Munich.

Leather or felt or textile or anything else that was not metallic. Again this is not leather armour. It is boars tusk armour on some kind of foundation. It would probably be classified as scale armour.
Vilking leather padded garment
Hi,

We all seem to have missed one point, armour equals protection. At some point somewhere in time some one decided that naked feet was not good enough, so they made a form of protection, some made braided orgainic grass/hemp shoes, these only afforded short term protection so some one then made hide shoes. No doubt at some point some one also experimented with textile foot wear but these where also impractical so leather became a norm, because it had certain properties superior to the others, it afforded greater protection and durabilty, it was more practical. Pretty ingenious these early peoples eh ;)

Oh and riveted maile without an appropiate backing sure as hell makes a fine mess of woolen tunis worn directly underneath over a pretty short time, direct experiance of experimental archaeolgy and repairs to woolen tunics over many years.

best
Dave
Hello Dan,

You write: ' Those who support the theory reckon that "something" must have been worn since (they falsely claim) mail cannot be worn without this garment. The simple act of wearing a couple of woollen tunics easily disproves this claim. '

I am puzzled what you mean -- I repeat there is no more proof of woollen tunics being worn than leather, or anything else for that matter. You can wear mail over your bare skin if you wish, by itself it won't hurt you. Could be a bit cold when you first put it on though.

You say: "So where is the proof that this was leather? Experiments have shown that layered textiles provide far better protection than a similar weight of leather."
If you actually read what I said -- you will find I never said that this type of garment was leather --mine is an experimental garment -- I am trying out an idea -- those depicted could well be wearing layered textiles -- I haven't got around to trying that out yet. And you are correct, layered linen, for example provides very good protection. (See Knight and the Blast Furnace -- can't remember the author at the moment -- but I have it somewhere - he tries out penetrative tests with different numbers of layers of linen -- very impressive results, by the way).

And -- please don't jump to assumptions about my mail, my mail is not butted - it is riveted -- and it is correctly assembled - I spent a lot of money having it made. The links are very similar in dimensions to the Vimose find. I have worn this several times for over six hours -- it does make you tired, my remarks about my leather coat are just used as a comparison to this experience.

You said, in reference to the Sutton Hoo find: "Absolutely no evidence for leather ARMOUR. Nobody is claiming that Scandinavians did not use leather for other purposes. There have been many many leather finds and not a single item can be demonstrated to have been a piece of armour. "
Well, it might be, and using capitals won't change that. I just wonder why you have such a thing about leather.

Please don't just disregard the sources that I use -- have a good look at them, I will help you find them, if you wish so that you, too, can study them. Birgit Ahrennius is pretty certain that the Uppsala helmet was of leather -- and the boars' tusk hats were not scale armour; each helmet had two tusks mounted on the front of it. It is also possible that these helmets could have been made of an alternative organic material. However, experiments have shown that leather is certainly a viable material.

I am just pointing out that your rather strongly made assertions may not be correct - that there may be evidence which is in opposition to it.

You say (8th October): "Leather doesn't work from a practical standpoint either. Get yourself two garments, one made of leather and one made of linen or wool, and compare the difference when worn under mail." I am again puzzled how you can say this -- I have tried both by the way -- and both are effective. I went so far as to make an experimental under garment of padded split lamb skin (I know, there is no evidence for it) it is certainly practical, and it helps to spread the weight of the mail.

Cheers,

Paul
Paul,

Not that it relly matters, but none of the finds you speak of are viking age. As much as I love vendelperiod these were different times and different culture. As many things are alike in these two cultures, we should be careful to mix up vendel and viking period.

By the way (sorry for being a bit OT), I know of Birgits work, She lives right here in Uppsala :) The new vendel period exibition is up and running and looks very good. Me and the wife had Greg (Thorkil) and his wife and crew over from Poland to have a closer look at the exibition and speak to some of the archeologist. You should come Paul, you would love it :)
I've been following this thread since it started, and would like to ask if cour bouili (spelling errors abound!) still counts as leather armor?

M.
Matthew Amt wrote:
And as I understand it, Scandinavians were just as well organized as many other cultures of their time, with reqiurements for militia duty, etc.


Your job of convincing people about this would have been a lot easier if you had included a link to the Wikipedia article on it....
M. Eversberg II wrote:
I've been following this thread since it started, and would like to ask if cour bouili (spelling errors abound!) still counts as leather armor?

M.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't cour bouili a technique for hardening leather rather then a sort of armour. I don't see why heated (boild) armour should be more or less armour.
It's armor all right, but we don't seem to have any attested examples in archaeology, art, or literature for the Viking period...
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Page 4 of 9

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum