Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking age mail, thick clothing or a lining underneath? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,355

PostPosted: Tue 27 Nov, 2018 1:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If you use the word "gambeson" to describe both armour and arming garments, then nobody knows what you are talking about.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,290

PostPosted: Tue 27 Nov, 2018 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Len Parker wrote:
The translation for the description of the gambeson in Chretien is correct. Mole et tanvre does mean soft and frail/delicate. So it looks like a thinner garment being worn under the mail. The King's Mirror c.1250 gives three different descriptions for gambesons/pannzara: a heavy gambeson for fighting on foot, a soft (blautan) gambeson worn under mail, and a sleeveless (godan) gambeson over top. I'm not sure of the word godan. I think it might mean good.


Yes, it's gošan, meaning good or well made.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Len Parker





Joined: 15 Apr 2011

Posts: 375

PostPosted: Tue 27 Nov, 2018 5:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Mart. Now here's something that shows two layers beneath the mail. Scroll down a little more than halfway. There's a broken sculpture from the Cathedral of Cluny. You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?

Leonard Parker
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,355

PostPosted: Tue 27 Nov, 2018 11:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Len Parker wrote:
You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?

Looks like it to me. Though we'd need an x-ray to be sure.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 12:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On a somewhat related note. Was there ever a practical reason behind wearing mail coifs, or did people just think they looked cool?
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,363

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 6:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Len Parker wrote:
You'll see a wrinkled sleeve and another garment on top beneath the mail. http://reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reena...guide.html

Doesn't that last picture look like butted mail?

Looks like it to me. Though we'd need an x-ray to be sure.


I can see at least a couple riveted rings, near that lower big brass rivet.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,363

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 6:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
On a somewhat related note. Was there ever a practical reason behind wearing mail coifs, or did people just think they looked cool?


Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Len Parker





Joined: 15 Apr 2011

Posts: 375

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 6:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I found some viking age examples of double layering. All from carolingian manuscripts.
The first is two layers without armour: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/14993/
The second is two layers under armour (top center right): http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15004/
The third has more detail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15001/ Notice the strings along the bottom edge of the upper garment. It looks just like the way the thorsberg tunic is attached at the sides. This could mean two layers of material sewn together like a gambeson. I haven't seen this on normal tunic bottoms.

Leonard Parker
View user's profile Send private message
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 6:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.
View user's profile Send private message
Len Parker





Joined: 15 Apr 2011

Posts: 375

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here's the thorsberg shirt: http://www.kelticos.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=4055
Leonard Parker
View user's profile Send private message
Joonas Pessi




Location: Finland
Joined: 05 Oct 2017

Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 7:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Len Parker wrote:
I found some viking age examples of double layering. All from carolingian manuscripts.
The first is two layers without armour: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/14993/
The second is two layers under armour (top center right): http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15004/
The third has more detail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4955/15001/ Notice the strings along the bottom edge of the upper garment. It looks just like the way the thorsberg tunic is attached at the sides. This could mean two layers of material sewn together like a gambeson. I haven't seen this on normal tunic bottoms.


I would be very vary of using these carolingian Psychomachia manuscripts as evidence, since these are thought to be artistically derived from late roman or byzantine manuscripts (pteryges are the most obvious sign of this)
View user's profile Send private message
Joonas Pessi




Location: Finland
Joined: 05 Oct 2017

Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 8:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Then there is the question of the possible existence of integral lining indicated by some of the artwork. The most known depictions come from the Bayeux tapestry but there are others:



Roda Bible 1050-1100 Spain. The armoured soldiers in this illumination have what might be edging at the cuffs and hem of their hauberks.

Here is an example from the Bayeux tapestry that shows men transporting hauberks to ships in preparation for the invasion of england:



The hauberks have different colored edges depicted on them even when not worn by anyone. similar edges are depicted on many of the hauberks in the Tapestry.

Im not sure about this theory though, but I think its plausible. I would like to hear from the people on this forum who have actually worn a hauberk with an integral lining about the effectiveness of the design.

Roda Bible illumination: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4356/13454/
Bayeux tapestry: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia..._tama.html
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,363

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 8:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


AH! Sorry, gotcha! Comfort, maybe? It shapes itself to your head regardless of whatever you wear under it, so it automatically fits better than any solid helmet. It won't be topheavy and wobble. The AIR goes through it! Wonderful stuff, mail.

That said, I'd still tend to go for a helmet.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
M. Nordlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 03 May 2017

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 4:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


AH! Sorry, gotcha! Comfort, maybe? It shapes itself to your head regardless of whatever you wear under it, so it automatically fits better than any solid helmet. It won't be topheavy and wobble. The AIR goes through it! Wonderful stuff, mail.

That said, I'd still tend to go for a helmet.

Matthew


It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

There is an older thread discussing wearing skullcap under coif here:
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.36537.html
View user's profile Send private message
Zach Gordon




Location: Vermont. USA
Joined: 07 Oct 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 235

PostPosted: Wed 28 Nov, 2018 9:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is one other thing to keep in mind I suppose in my A or B summation above... though it has little to do with how people are arguing.

There is a scenario of 'personal difference' there are always trends, but it is rarely a 100% certainty rate. Personal decision, what to wear, colour of tunic, cap over/under, etc.. would have perhaps had trends, but rare universality.

Z
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,026

PostPosted: Thu 29 Nov, 2018 7:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

M. Nordlund wrote:
It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

Well, you have to wear something under a coif. Mail directly on top of hair is not a comfortable setup. Happy

The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs -- I was a man before I was a king.
-- R. E. Howard, The Road of Kings
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,355

PostPosted: Thu 29 Nov, 2018 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
M. Nordlund wrote:
It also covers everything except the face and if you need more protection you can always put something else over like a greathelm or kettle hat or you can wear a metal skullcap or padded Coif under it.

Well, you have to wear something under a coif. Mail directly on top of hair is not a comfortable setup. Happy


This is the exception to the rule about arming garments under mail being fairly light. On the head, underpadding was a lot thicker.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Len Parker





Joined: 15 Apr 2011

Posts: 375

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2018 4:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This looks like two layers under mail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4474/11163/
This also: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4199/18610/

Leonard Parker
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Long





Joined: 10 Apr 2018

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2018 4:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
[
Um, to keep from getting cut? It's *armor*, right? Not sure I understand the question...

Matthew


I guess I mean if there was any reason to wear one instead of an iron skullcap of some sort.


A skullcup covers the top half of the head. A coif protects the lower half of the head, plus the neck, chin and throat. If you see someone wearing a coif in battle, you can usually assume that there is a skullcap underneath.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,363

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2018 5:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Len Parker wrote:
This looks like two layers under mail: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4474/11163/
This also: http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4199/18610/


That second one just looks like regular tunic sleeves sticking out, to me, with decorative bands on the cuffs. The mail has edging at cuffs and hem, though I agree that might indicate a lining.

The first one is weird!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking age mail, thick clothing or a lining underneath?
Page 3 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum