[Gary Teuscher]

I was curious if there was much of a difference between the quilted armour of a byzantine/Mamluk of say the 12th-13th century and a French or english warriors quilted protection. I have heard that Saracens wore "lighter" mail, I don't think this is necessarily credible, but perhaps it refers not to the mail but the textile defense beneath.

From what I have read, it seems that western textile defenses often consisted of 25-30 layers of linen. Earliest reference to this that I am aware of is the 10th century irish description of Cu-Chulain's armour. There are later mentions of less layers of linen with cotton padding.

I guess one question here, was the 25-30 layered garment intended more for stand alone armour, or designed to be worn under mail as well? It seems the thinner depictions of textile armour fall later, when plate was commonly worn.

And The eastern textile Armours? any idea what these were comprised of? The only reference I know of is that of 11th century "Latin" knights in the service of the Byzantines, commenting on the 27 layer garments worn.

Perhaps the Saracen "model" was a thinner (thinner than frankish) gambeson type garment with mail. And perhaps as the padding was lighter, this is why at times a lamellar cuirass was worn over it.

My thoughts on why here - piercing weapons like arrows even if they do not punch a hole int he mail can still penetrate to some depth, the depth dependent upon the structure of the head or point. Thicker textile defenses may well absorb these minor penetrations - but perhaps thinner quilt allows the arrow to "prick" the body.

If you wear lamellar over this it nullifies the chance of minor injury unless the armour is fully compromised.

And perhaps the light textile armour was worn due to the fact it was a hotter climate?

Just some hypothetical ideas, which may not be accurate, but any knowledge of Middle Eastern textile armours would be of interest.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

The Middle-Eastern armors were typically made with the mail and textile integrated into one garment, the jazeraint or khazaghand.

Usamah ibn munqidh described one he made with two mail byrnies in it, one frankish one arabic, with several layers of textile and stuffed "in the usual manner" with rabbit fur.

“Salah Al din (Saladin) stood in his place until a part of the army joined him.
He then said, "Put on your armor". The majority of those did so while I
remained standing by his side. After a while he said again, 'How many times
do I have to say "Put on your Armor?'' I said 'Oh my Lord, surely thou does
not mean me?' 'Surely' said he. I replied 'By Allah, surely I cannot put on
anything more. We are in the early part of the night, and my quilted jerkin
(kuzaghand) is furnished with two coats of mail, one on top of the other. As
soon as I see the enemy I shall put it on.' Salah al Din did not reply, and we
set off. ‘

In the morning we found ourselves near Dumayr. Salah-al Din (Saladin)
said to me 'Shall we not dismount and eat something? I am hungry and have
been up all night.' I replied 'I shall do what thou orderest.' So we
dismounted, and no sooner than we had set foot on the ground, when he said
'Where is thy jerkin?' Upon my order, my attendant produced it. Taking it
out from it's leather bag, I took my knife and ripped it at the breast and
disclosed the side of the two coats of mail. The jerkin enclosed a Frankish
coat of mail extending to the bottom of it, with another coat on top reaching
as far as the middle. Both were equipped with the proper linings, felt
pads, rough silk, and rabbits hair.'

Usama ibn Munqidh

Kitab al-I'tibar circa 1190 AD

J

[Gary Teuscher]

Sounds like perhaps a thinner layer of textile defense was incorporated in the Muslim hauberks?

[Dan Howard]

The actual word Usamah used was kazaghand. I left that word unchanged in the Mail Unchained article. Hitti uses the word "jerkin" but "jazerant" would be a more exact English translation. The passage does imply that Frankish mail was superior to native mail in some manner. Another interesting point is that the native mail covers the entire torso while the Fankish mail only covers the upper part. It would give max protection to the chest while leaving more flexibility in the abdomen. Two layers of mail could hamper flexibility.

The problem is that this passage tells us nothing about standalone textile defenses. All we have here is a glimpse of how the kazaghand (mail sandiwched between padding) was constructed.

[Mart Shearer]

Actually, it's the franj or Frankish mail that extends to the bottom, with the Arabic mail going to the waist. The Russian baidana with it's large flat rings offers similar limited coverage, was worn over finer mail, and supposedly draws its name from Arabic badan which might have been similar. Possibly a mail hauberk layered (doubled) with a larger, flatter ringed badan, all sandwiched between fabrics with all the necessary felt, silk and padding Usamah mentions.

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Eric S]

[Gary Teuscher]

Yes Eric, that was the type of penetrating blows I was thinking about. Not deep enough to cuase evere wounds for the most part, but mre than an irritant.

And I would think the thicker quilt such as a 25+ layer linen garment would do a good job. Or a multi layer jack on the outside and a 5-10 layer of linen but padded garment on the inside.

But from the passage quoted earlier, it looks like the Khazghand was a padded mailed garment, but not perhaps as protective as mail over a many layered cloth garment.

Perhaps the Khazghand was lighter than european mail over padding, and why if one wanted to sacrifice added weight for protection a lammelar cuirass was worn over the mail.

It's always been a question in my mind - if mail over something similar to a jack was so effective at protecting one from arrows, one of the most common battlefield threats in the middle east, why would one wear lammelar over it?

I am of the opinion (only an opinion at this point of course) that the reason for this was that the padding beneath was not as heavy as european padding (Looking at the early to mid crusades time period), not that the mail was easy to compromise.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

From some experiments I've seen, having some textile, not necessarily very thick, over the mail, seems to make a significant difference especally against arrrows. I know there was one guy who posted the results of an experiment on here, complete with a lot of photos. With the usual configuration, arrows were going through the mail either partially or fully, but with the textile on top, there was no penetration.

That may be one important characteristic of the Middle Eastern mail armor with integrated textile both over and under the mail. I would not at all be surprised if the Middle Eastern armor was more specialized for dealing with arrrows, since horse archery was so prevalent, whereas the Frankish panoply which seemed in some circumstances to be more effective, was more specialized for dealing with say, lances and other hand weapons, and in general also designed for sustained fighting as opposed to hit-and run.

I think this is also part of the reality of lamellar, which was not very popular in Europe, I suspect it's better against arrows.


J

[Gary Teuscher]

[Bartek Strojek]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Bartek Strojek]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Ahmad Tabari]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I always thought that the really thick (25 layers) textile armors were moe for stand-alone protection, and the under-armor textile armor was usually thinner.

But you do see period artwork of men fighting with what look like very thick padded coats, like the Michelin tire man, from a certain era (13th - 14th Century) like this



or this http://muckley.us/1386/men-armour-3-hallam.JPG


J

[Eric S]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

A lot of historical mail though has smaller rings than what you usually see today. I know that was an antique piece, of course there is variation. Your avatar says you live in New Orleans, if you do there is a gallery on Royal Street in the French Quarter, near canal, called Whisnant gallery

I don't know if it's still there but last time I was there a year or two ago they had a Turkish or possibly Persian Bakhterets panoply in there which had very small links, I think too small for even a bodkin point arrow to penetrate without breaking a link, maybe you can have a look and see what I mean. A lot of antique European mail is like that too, quite small links. By no means all, of course.

J