[Luka Borscak]

Description of Wallace's armour writen by Blind Harry:
"Ever since he left prison Wallace wore secure armour; from that time he always used good light harness in case of sudden strife; from it he would never sever. An habergeon he wore under his gown, a small steel helmet he had in his bonnet, and no more; his gloves, of plate cloth armour, well covered; and in his doublet, a close collar of steel. His face, which was always bare, he kept with his two hands, which worthy were and wicht."

Author of the book (James Mackay) states that Wallace's habergeon was neck covering extending across the breast. I don't know why that, why not full mail shirt, I thought hauberks are always full mail shirts, maybe somebody has something to say about it?

[Randall Moffett]

If you excert is exact then it is a habergeon which seems at times to indicate short sleeves.
RPM

[Peter Bosman]

This seems clear about William Wallace at that time of his life. What does it tell us about the general custom? That it was not customary to wear armour? let alone full armour?

peter

[Luka Borscak]

Not much about general custom, I agree. Wallace wasn't typical knight, his tactics weren't typical knightly tactics and it was not yet the time when plate that is not very comfortable for everyday situations would be even in existence...

[Jared Smith]

[Randall Moffett]

Jared,

That is the one. As far as I know she only wrote one work devoted to warfare sadly.

She is very detailed on how to protect supply lines, march through enemy territory and such things, even giving the numbers of men needed in many cases. SHe mentions the importance of using armoured scouts in enemy terrain on a few occasions so if they engage with other scouts they have that going for them or if they come upon other enemy forces they have some protection. I'd recommend reading it through. A very good book.

Peter,

I do not think wearing such concealed armour was as rare as you do. We have a fair number still existant as well as a great numbers of accounts reinforcing this use of armour. The records from the 14th and 15th has recordeed men in concealed armour quite a few times, usually men either looking for a fight or looking to not die in one. One that comes to mind is a group of seven men wandering the streets at night. They are arrested by the city alderman and his men and found to be wearing concealed brigs and haveing concealed weapons.

RPM

[Luka Borscak]

Ulrich of Celje had concealed mail armour when he went on meeting with Ladislav Hunyadi because he suspected that it was a trap. It was a trap and Hunyadi and his soldiers attacked him and were surprised when they found out he's armoured under the clothes. But they wounded his legs and then cut off his head.

[Peter Bosman]

[Daniel S.]

[Peter Bosman]

The thing is that knights are not ' work' but a social class. There is therefore no such thing as off-work.
For a knight to wear armour in a full fledged battle or a joust is not surprising, neither is wearing protection when on a doubtfull rendezvous.
The question is wether they wore any form of armour when not at arms.
I am pretty convinced even a crusader in Jerusalem would not wear armour or even mail when not under direct threat, not even when out of the citadel in the city.

Again, I think they did not. Not any more than a soldier would now at home.
The reason for a knight to wear armour would be:
1. to actually fight
2. when social status asked this

William Wallace was an exceptional knight. Exception to the rule.

Wearing protective armour wether 'light' mail or whatever is tiring and unpractical to the extreme. Nobody would wear it if not VERY important to do so. So: no, unless...

Anyway, there are enough practicioners on this forum. They can tell us first hand how comfie armour is to live in and thus whereabout the b.e.p. between safety and quality of life would be. Personally I do not even like to wear a wristwatch or a wedding ring so am not the right person to offer my b.e.p.

peter

[Brian Robson]

There was stuff in the rule of the Hospitallers - and I would expect the Templars that dictaded what they should wear on the road or in hostile territory.

I don't have the book with me (loaned to a friend), but I seem to remember that in hostile territory, mail chausses and helmet were worn, but not a hauberk.

I also remember something about the tactics involving every third man facing the threat with the rest falling behind to 'armour up'

Possibly an avenue for investigation if anyone has sources at hand.

[Randall Moffett]

Peter,

Not to be rude but there is a great deal of literature, especially boring legal documents from the period that indicate this was not unusual but a common occurrance in their lives. There are many occasions that has been posted here that indicates it was a fairly common practice, not just when you expected something as you always might suspect something. There is plenty of indication that men would dress in armour for travel and around town. In the 16th century this becomes even more common. You have not actually brought out anything from period sources that shows that it was uncommon but your own opinion which while useful and insightful does not validate or invalidate the fact there is a great deal of documents that state the wearing of armour, concealed or otherwise common. They might not wear this concealed armour all the time but it appears enough in legal docs to indicate it fairly common.

Armour is not as comfortable as wearing a nice cotton shirt but is not uncomfortable enough to keep one from wearing it for great spans of time without difficulty. I am sure many on this forum, including myself have gone the span of a day or more in a suit of armour without any permanent or semipermanent damages to us. I am sure if us weekend knights and squires can do it I am sure men who lived it as a reality could do it with greater ease. Not saying I want to wear my suit everyday all day but that it clearly is not as detrimental as you make it sound.

RPM

[Peter Bosman]

[Randall Moffett]

Peter,

I said you brought up 0 historic sources as that is what we are looking at, how they did it not how you would do it with your understanding of the period. I never said they had to wear armour around their house or lands, not sure where you read that. Trusting of art sources seems even further from reality than written works to me. I did on the other hand say you brought up some insightful points not that you did not have a point or points only that without support from period documents they are still only opinion.

William Wallace wearing armour has no bearing on whether any other kngiht in Christendom did or did not wear armour in this account but one knight, William Wallace. Though if claiming William Wallace wore a concealed armour does not logically exclude others from wearing them though either. How do you know thet Blind Harry was not stating a common practice of the day?

I do not think your motto is very accurate in many cases. In fact if so you might as well disregard almost everything we think about the medieval period and our past in general. The accounts I gave in both cases are just regular townsmen wearing such armour. You may think it to be uncommon but then again how do you know that it was not common and the others did just not get arrested while wearing their armour? What sources do you have indicating it was not common. The idea that only the extraordinary made it into accounts ignores the fact that A) they were people as well no matter their position B) the knightly class makes up only a few percentage points of the population which by simple statistics means they are are all special, uncommon, rare social group no matter how you see things C) much is written about non nobles etc.. As most men even the very important ones do not have accounts written about them how do come to the realization they did not wear such armour at these times? Just because it does not say they do you assume they did not? I bet it does not say they ate or slept daily either but I bet they did.

RPM

[Jared Smith]

I have so far confined my thoughts to 12th-13th time frame which I have studied. I have read a lot of translations of period sources, and they generally do not say convincingly what the norm for general non combat travel was. There are paintings of knights hunting, and some do show them wearing mail while going against a boar, bear, or large dangerous beast.

Others here, such as Patrick Kelley, have commented about how stressful on the back and shoulders wearing mail armour of that era can be, even for just a few hours. There is at least one battle in the Norman conquest of England in which an army was caught by surprise, unarmoured. This happened to the Norse as well in the Battle of Stamford Bridge (can read it in the Features section.)

It was written (by Sarrazin I think) in the 13th century that the stress of one day of melee battle (tournament style of the era) was so stressful that many knights departed after a tournament "unable to bear the weight of their armour." The traditional fortnight betweenn tournaments was also explained directly in that day as necessary for knights to recuperate sufficiently from a previous melee contest to be physically ready to enage in another. Thinking of this in medical terms, I suspect the author was not exaggerating. Especially following conclusion of battle, men would be eager to get out of their mail or armour and maximize comfort, rest, etc. and depart unarmoured if pronounced safe to do so.

The whole subject of the horse (did they all really have three mounts, were these different types, etc.) is controversial. I would not want to put undue stress on myself or my horse in a situation where I did not consider risks or threats to justify it. A baggage horse makes sense even if armour was not one of those things on it! What purpose served the palfrey, Jenna, or light riding horse (if it was as real, sought after, and as expensive as historical emphasis seems to suggest) if our later era knights were always heavily plated up when mounted? How many of our joust reenactors who have spent a large part of a day on modern large cross breeds would really recommend riding something the size of a modest thoroughbred for 20 miles a day, day after day, in heavy plate harness?

[Elling Polden]

One factor to be taken into account is that wearing armour is generally the most convenient way of transporting it around.
If you are on foot, putting the armour in your pack is just stupid. It has a lot better weight distribution when worn.

I've found that I can fight several days in a row with my full mail armour on, without great difficulty. However, this, now as then, will be a question of personal fitness and choice, as well as how well your armour is made.
Carrying the armour in a sack, however, is a pain even for a few hundred meters.

[Jared Smith]

[Randall Moffett]

Jared,

I agree that wearing of armour can be an addition to tiring of a knight or soldier but I assume that the fighting does a great deal of the tiring on its own.

I used to run distance and after our small usually just under 20 minutes you run for meets you feel ok. This is only because on the rest of the week you ran 2-4 times as far conditioning yourself so that you can do the 3 miles. One day I ran 30-40 miles plus in a day and I was beat, totally and utterly, but I was able to do it. The next day I certainly would have been unable to do it again. My point being we can condition ourselves to do set things with ease but really our conditioning also allows us the ability to push ourselves much, much further than normal but these unforseen events may still sap us of all energy we have. I could not in anyway run that far today sadly.

Of course battle also has a way of 'compelling' one to keep going, the options are fairly stark.

Ah Stamford, one of my all time favorite battled. I lived for some time not far from Fulford and Stamford. At Stamford it seems the army had their mail shirts off but it appears they were not with them meaning perhaps they were likely in some wagon transport. The reason seemingly is so the lead groups have speed and can get there quickly. You will also note that Harald's group arrives armoured. So why one group is and the other is not? It would likely be tactical. I think it had to do with the first groups reaching York before their enemy. In this they failed but if that had reached the town the fortifications there would have negated their lack of mail. It is also interesting that in the end that Harald removes his armour in the heat of battle....

I do not know which story about the normans you are relating but the context is likely the key.


Getting pranced on by a 1500-2000 pound horse cannot help a fall I agree 100% with that. The question would be is the damage worse falling in armour? I know of people who have had serious injure falling unarmoured from horse or worse in our time. The Second is, is it much harder to control a horse with armour. I did not find it so when I did some jousting, though I never had any really bad falls to further that one.

RPM

[Elling Polden]

For once, we know how the scandinavians transported their mail: in chests on the ships.
There are several descriptions of this, including examples where one captures the enemy ships in port, and thus capture their equipment.

At home, they would have horses for riding and transportation. After a naval landing, however, these would be lacking, and you would have to carry the armour yourself.
Thus, it could make sense that they decided not to bother with it, since they where in a hurry.

One should of course be aware that Snorre Sturlson tends to be overly dramatic, and the removing of the armour could be a way of showing how the kings rashness and hubris brings him down.

In a later saga (not by Snorre) there is a instance where Erling Skakke, the father of the ruling king, is killed in battle because he does not button up his Lammellar before going into battle, and recieves a spear thrust in the belly.

[Ed Toton]

I read an account on a forum somewhere (I'm sorry, I can't find it now) a while back where someone had posted what was supposedly a translation of a period letter written from a country knight (probably a small land owner as well) to a city-dwelling counterpart. He nearly calls his urban friend an idiot for believing that country knights have an easy life. He goes on to explain the dangers and complexities of living outside of the cities, and mentions that he dare not go outside for any length of time without armoring up first, for fear of kidnapping attempts.

I found it interesting, but take it with a grain of salt as I can't find the source.