As we're talking about the Bayeux Tapestry, how would you interpret the edging visible on these mail shirts?
http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/IH164035.html
Is it just some sort of edging or trim, or does it represent some sort of textile lining (perhaps, and this is how the question is relevant to this thread, padded)?
Again in this photograph:
[ Linked Image ]
The bodies in the bottom panel are naked under their mail. Is this just artistic fancy or convention, or does it imply that some sort of integral garment is being stripped off with the mail?
Perhaps this is all too conjectural.
Personally I think that a lot more mail had integrated padded liners than we suspect. I wouldn't use the Bayeux Tapestry as supporting evidence for anything like this though. It is just too abstract. It shouldn't be taken any more seriously than we treat modern comics.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| Personally I think that a lot more mail had integrated padded liners than we suspect. I wouldn't use the Bayeux Tapestry as supporting evidence for anything like this though. It is just too abstract. It shouldn't be taken any more seriously than we treat modern comics. |
The Bayeux Tapestry tells us a lot but the " resolution " of drawing of the figures are done much too coarsely to show enough fine details to base our conclusions about materials used ( Maille, banded maille, leather as imagined by 19 th century scholars ).
Stand alone undergarments ( Padding ) or integrated padding are very probable and maybe not much different if the way the padded liners are attached so as to be easy to remove for cleaning of either the padding or the maille ( Laced on the edges and maybe pointed to limit shifting ? ( This last about some pointing is just pure speculation on my part ).
sorry i was away from this post for so long and am only back to it now.
nice to see so much information even if it tends to be going in circles.
what im getting is that we basically dont know and thats it really?
nice to see so much information even if it tends to be going in circles.
what im getting is that we basically dont know and thats it really?
I'm pretty sure this was answered right off the bat with the first reply, Nathan. Then it was convoluted into a lot of sub-disputes.
yes that was why i left the topic for so long i thought it was finished with.
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | ||
I have briefly searched but been unable to find the passage in transcript from original(?) latin. Even if I am by no means an expert on that subject, it is always worth having a source as close to the origin as possible. |
Amen to that. And indeed, a little bit of digging (and a lot of assistance by other scholars, at least one of whom is also active in this forum) has unearthed this gem:
| Gerald of Wales wrote: |
| Accidit et tempore Guillelmi de Breusa, ipso testante, quemdam militem suum, in conflictu contra Gualenses, a quodam ipsorum per mediam coxam, cum panno loriace ac ocreali ferro utrinque vestitam, sagitta percussum esse; eadem quoque sagitta per partem illam sellae, quae Alva vocatur, usque in ipsum equum letaliter transpenetrante. Alia quoque sagitta militis alterius coxam, ferro similiter utrinque munitam cum panno loricae, usque in sellam perforavit. Et cum miles ille loris equum in gyrum flecteret, alia sagitta, eodem contorquente, in opposita coxa similem ictum suscepit, equo ab utraque parte firmiter affixus. |
My Latin sucks, but I don't think I see any word that conclusively implies the presence of a leather under-armour in there. Nothing to refute it, either, but in the absence of evidence Occam's razor would favour the conclusion that any undergarments being discussed here was made of quilted of layered fabric like other examples that we do know of.
Has anyone checked the sagas? I know they were written during Christian times about the Viking ancestors and may not always be accurate, but I think there was somewhere a comparison claiming that elk leather was just as good a protection as mail.
| Tom King wrote: |
| Technically varangian are Rus, who are technically finns, who are technically swedes. |
Tell that to the Norwegian Varangians ;)
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
|
Amen to that. And indeed, a little bit of digging (and a lot of assistance by other scholars, at least one of whom is also active in this forum) has unearthed this gem:
My Latin sucks, but I don't think I see any word that conclusively implies the presence of a leather under-armour in there. Nothing to refute it, either, but in the absence of evidence Occam's razor would favour the conclusion that any undergarments being discussed here was made of quilted of layered fabric like other examples that we do know of. |
The confusion may arise from utrinque, an adverb which means "on both sides, on either side". I would render the first part of the first sentence as "And it happened at that time to William of Breusa, he himself testified, that one of his soldiers, in a fight against the Gualenses, dressed on all sides (utrinque) in a hauberk (panno loricae) and iron leggings (ferro ocreali), was struck by an arrow; also the same arrow pierced that part of the saddle (sella “seat”) which is called “alva”, and even fatally transfixed his own horse." [Translation revised 17 March 2011] If we change one letter, utrique would make it "dressed with an iron outfit of hauberk and leggings and a skin bag" (uter, utris, n. + "que"). I don't have a lot of experience with medieval Latin, but I think the translator either misread the Latin or used a different text. Do you know if there is a crux in the text at that passage?
Last edited by Sean Manning on Thu 17 Mar, 2011 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
| A. Heidalen Skog wrote: | ||
Tell that to the Norwegian Varangians ;) |
And the Anglo Saxon ones after Hastings.
| Kurt Scholz wrote: |
| Has anyone checked the sagas? I know they were written during Christian times about the Viking ancestors and may not always be accurate, but I think there was somewhere a comparison claiming that elk leather was just as good a protection as mail. |
I'd love to see this. I've gone through all the translations I could find in the past and would definitely remember this. In fact I would have copied and stored it for future reference.
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
I'd love to see this. I've gone through all the translations I could find in the past and would definitely remember this. In fact I would have copied and stored it for future reference. |
It's probably a distorted version of magical deer skins again.
| Sean Manning wrote: |
| Do you know if there is a crux in the text at that passage? |
No idea--when i saw it it was already a modern transcription, so I didn't (and still don't) know what the passage looks like in the original manuscript(s).
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
No idea--when i saw it it was already a modern transcription, so I didn't (and still don't) know what the passage looks like in the original manuscript(s). |
Does the edition not have an apparatus criticus (footnotes showing where the manuscripts disagree or where an editor has changed the text in the manuscripts)? Medievalists don't seem to use those as much as classicists do. Some googling suggests that the fishy translation is from a Penguin by James Thorpe.
Elk skin was used to make buff coats in the 17th c, but that process is new to that century as far as I know.
There are sources on hide clothing from the high middle ages, but these garments where expensive, and the otherwise quite extensive leather goods price list does not mention any kind of armour.
There are sources on hide clothing from the high middle ages, but these garments where expensive, and the otherwise quite extensive leather goods price list does not mention any kind of armour.
Page 5 of 5
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