[James R.Fox]

Sirs-I'll say a couple of things to end my snd of the thread. First, I agree with Vaclav, the only leather lamellar armour I repeat I know of is what Vaclav mentioned, that worn by central asian and russian steppe nomads,the slavs and rus alway wore frankish mail and used frankish swords as far superior.A best source for the steppe of this and any other time is Manachen -Helen "Empires of the Steppes" the one and only General history. (There are many specialists)Second, according to the scotts effigies and drawings the coats Were tubular.They had so little metal armour they relied in many cases solely on padded coats. There are knightly effigies and manuscript drawings of wealthy scots using spear, helm, sword ,shield, and tubulat padded coat.During the wars of Robert Bruce, scotland could only produce between three and five hundred heavy armed knights(he had 500 at bannockburn), and this was from a period more economically advanced than the viking age-. The infrastructure for metal armour rather than padded and leather armour simply did not exist.Third, I don't think I said the Carolingans used cotton, I said (I thought,) that they used linen and wool like the scottish coats I mentioned, and cotton is used today as by MRL, as more comfortable. If I said otherwise, I do apologize.I am aware that at that time cotton was a rare luxury obtained by trade from the arabs of Spain.To sum up, I was trying to say, and did a very bad job, that there are relevant societies technologically retarded to the point the were funcioning at the same level as they were in vikings times.The major one is Scotland In the time of Robert Bruce. To get the money to buy modern swords, spears and helms. even wealthy knights had to forgo using any but padded or leather armour. The relevant histories are the narrative of Jean LeBel ,ambassador to Edward II during the scotts wars,, the Brut, and The lament and Complaint of the Papygno, plus the royal records, pipe rolls etc of Edward II, which are full of the records, letters, treatys etc, by which Edward tried to cut off the French and german arms trade with Scotland.

[James R.Fox]

Dear Sirs-This is to let you know the public flogging will be held today as 1200 I said Menachen -Helen wrote "Empires of the Steppes", when of course, Rene Grousset wrote "Empires of the Steppes"

[David Huggins]

Can I recommend 'Viking Russ:Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe' by Wladyslaw Duczko 2004
as an overall view of the Russ and their impact.

Well we seem to be well of thread by now, James but can I relate that the absence of armour in at least the late Viking Age, in this case maile, is at times underestimated . In references to the reign of Knut in England, by Lawson there is I know mention of many, in excess of eight hundred hauberks of maile in London alone. I don't have the reference at hand at the moment, but can check it up when I return home. The implication is that outside of London there may well be at least be double that figure taking into account the huskarles of the leading magnates of Anglo-Scandinavian England.
The image of a dull sheened Anglo-Scandinavian multi mailed snake of an army on the march doesn't add up to your impression of a technologically retarded Viking Age society as you imply. But if you take into consideration the economics of the country, Scotland, and the ties of loyalty of Anglo-Scot landowners then perhaps it's not suprising the Scots fielded such low figures of armoured knights in comparison to the Englsh.

A-S England was an economic wealthy jewel of Europe in the late 10th C and early 11th C and even after years of deprivation by war was still considered a worthy target by the Danes.

The south of Britain has always had an economic edge over the colder climes of the North, it drew the Romans here with it's cereal exports to the european mainland, the same yield as was been produced post WW11. The Romans so the North of the Island was of little value and did not bother to add it to it's Empire! LoL.

Best
Dave

[James R.Fox]

Dave-Maybe I didn't make clear, I Was referring to the sconomic backwardness of the north of England.,and Scotland. The Anglo-Scandinavian south doesn't enter in. Scotland was so backward that Native manufacture had not progressed beyond textile and leather armour.If you want a good read on the economics of war in the days of Robert Bruce, read Wars of the Bruces by Colm McNamee.It covers in detail the struggles of Edward II to stop Robert's arms trade with the Rhineland and France. The first thing Robert did when he captured Dundee,was to write every arms and armour manufacturwe and exporter and tell them he was open to buy arms and armour with stolen English wool, cow hides, and ransoms. The closest source of iron and iron workings to Scotland was Furness on the solway forth. This is why Robert was so desperate to take Carlyle, the city was the militay center for the West March and was run as his personal feif (with royal permission) by Sir Andrew Harclay, Edward II best general.(Andy was later executed for getting above himself) The book also contains several good illustrations of period armour of both sides, includig the tubular stuffed shirt most knights wore instead of mail.If you can get a book on scots churches, look up the churches of Iona, they have beautifull monumental effigies of the knights of Roberts' time in full kit, helm,shield,sword,ballock dagger, thrusting spear and tubulatr textile srmour.

[Ville Vinje]

[David Huggins]

Hi James, when I say the South of the Island I mean the whole of England not just the south of England but including the north, as opposed to the North of Island, Scotland. Northumbria was in it's own right as economicaly viable as the south of England and very much a part of Anglo-Scandinavian England, and I believe it's great Earl, Siward, appointed by Knut.
Jorvik the largest town outside of London at the time was also a great centre of international trade.. The Wolds where also highly populated and centres of arable and cereal farming little changed from the days of it's occupation by the British Parisi. (Northumbria would also become in Edward 1st's time a great centre for the production and export of wool). No doubt after William's Northern campaign there was an economical collapse.

I bow to your greater knowledge of the Anglo-Scots wars, but wonder why tubular/padded armour is not featured on art forms or stone effigies even in England until the period after the first /second crusade in the late?1200's, now it's not my area, so please feel free to correct me.

Best
Dave

[Eric Brackett]

I suggest to end the debate here, that if you are in any doubt as to whether it is possible that the Norse wore lamellar, do what we archeologist have done, look for the evidence. And the internet is not the source for that. You really only need to go to the Codex' of Charles the Great (Charlemagne). In a codex written during the middle of his reign, he states that the trade of weapons and armor, among which the term, Lorica Squamata and Lorica Hamata are mentioned not once not twice but three times, shall be no longer be traded with the heathen peoples of the North (Denmark) upon pain of death. Now why is this important, because it suggest that this had been frequent enough to be brought to the attention of the king, not merely a local law enforcer. Also there are several Frankish casks that show Norse raids including the most famous sacking of Paris in which the Norse appear to be wear either no armor, quilted armor, lammelar, and chain. This cask dates from an estimated date of 850 ce. We also have Anglo Saxon manuscript and tapestry evidence to show that an over lapping style armor was worn between the late Roman and pre Viking age. Now please keep in mind I am not speaking about the same type of armor that is represented in the Birka find, that is of eastern design, however that is not to say that it or its style was not worn by a Norseman. There are also the same style armor types found in piece in Gotland from varying ages up until the 14th century. Now please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that late period Norse types wear lamellar, however it would be acceptable for someone portraying a Dane from the 6th to early 9th century to wear leather scaled armor. as to how it was attached or in what set up the pattern was, well that is still up for debate.

[Dan Howard]

None of which are defined as lamellar. "Scale" is currently defined as small plates laced in rows and fastened onto some sort of foundation. If the plates are assembled such that there is no need for a backing then it is lamellar. If these definitions are used then squamata is "scale" and not "lamellar". Only the Birka find is lamellar. Personally I would like to get rid of the term "scale" altogether and classify all as different types of lamellar. Squamata might be called "backed lamellar" for example.

[Gavin Kisebach]

It looked to me like the debate had ended 03 Mar, 2008 11:35 pm

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

[JE Sarge]

Interesting post.

I am not sure about what the armor is supposed to be, but it does look like this particular Frank is wielding a gladius!

[Dan Howard]

Yeah. And they were really short and stubby - like fantasy dwarves

[Gary Teuscher]

In Ian Heath's books, the Rus in later years are shown to be wearing Lammelar. Of course this is a a later period, around the mongol invasians.

I'm not sure what this is based upon, eveidence, illustrations or what.

Apparently if this is true the later assimilated some eastern influence in their arms and armour though.

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

I am afraid I must make a correction- this chess set actually is supposed to be dated later than the reign of Charlemagne, around the 11th century I believe. So it MAY represent a more Norman type of soldier. But there may still be some Frankish influence visible, since cultures overlap and absorb influences from each other over many years, and it is reasonable to assume the clothing and armor shown was a common sight, since it is carved on a pawn that would not look out of place on a nobleman's table perhaps spanning many years. The Franks and the Normans were next-door neighbors, so to speak, so this seems not out of place at all to me at least.
I believe that Chess was not played during Charlemagne's reign, or at least not a version that we would recognize. But there were other board games that WERE played back then, Hrafnafl or "King's Table" comes to mind, a favorite Viking game. I have a set of that as well, and I used to play it often with my daughter who usually roundly defeated me when she was defending the King against my attacking surrounding forces. I don't think I'm playing it right though, because once the King gets out in the open, he's darn hard to corner and capture. Anyone who is familiar with this game, any pointers would be helpful. It comes with some instruction, but as it is such an ancient game, the directions are somewhat incomplete. I can post a picture of the game if anyone is interested.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

While no authority on Levies or such, it seems it would be practical to have some sturdy farmers held somewhere in the rear who could be called on to pick up the weapons of the fallen as they came available. If they could be kept out of the way until needed, such a reserve could come in handy if they could be kept under control and fed in as needed and not allowed to run amuck. They could also be useful dragging the wounded and dead out of the way so they don't trip up the real warriors or piling them up as barriers in the front, and dispatching the enemy wounded while they're at it. There are uses for non-combatants like that, if they do as they are told. I am speculating I admit, but I am sure that there would be plenty of able-bodied but poorly equipped men in the countryside who would love to get a crack at an invading enemy if they were given the means, even if they had to wait a bit for it.
As for the type of armor the figure is wearing, I freely admit that I have no certain idea what it is supposed to represent. I just found it interesting to find it on such an old chess piece, and since it is a less valuable game piece (a pawn), I suggested leather as one of the cheapest forms of armor for a foot soldier. But this is pure speculation as well, and I freely admit that. He's clearly wearing SOME kind of protection, that much is certain, unless it is a frilly blouse.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

Yeah, I would agree that raw levies were probably next to useless in a proper stand-up battle. But for labor, binding up wounds, bringing water, etc, heck yeah I would use them for such things if they were willing and at all competent. Even a poor farmer would know how to carry water and stop some bleeding, since you don't have to be a warrior to get badly hurt at home just the same, and they would probably be as good at binding up a wound as anyone. And as you suggest, for siege works, planting stakes, digging ditches, and other grunt work you might not want to tire or insult your fighters with, they could be very useful.

[Matthew Amt]

There were generally servants and camp followers who would be much better at those tasks. They were used to living and travelling with nobles and soldiers. There are accounts such as the Battle of Bannockburn where these men (called "small folk" in this case) did take up weapons and charge into the battle, rather disconcerting the English who took them for much more substantial reinforcements. Even Roman camp slaves got into the action now and then, serving their masters with enthusiasm.

Common practice really seems to have been to focus on getting the *best* troops available. In some cultures the average farmer would have been expected to turn out for militia duty with at least minimal equipment. But anyone with no weapons and no training would not have been called up for military duty, they just wouldn't have been worth the trouble and expense (as Gary points out). In some areas folks like that *would* be called up for public works projects such as road repairs, etc., which fulfilled their obligation of service to their local ruler.

Valete,

Matthew