| Author |
Message |
Paul Mortimer
|
 Posted: Thu 23 Oct, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Well chaps, here we are as polarised as ever, so we will have to agree to disagree. However, I would like to say one or two things before I stop contributing to this thread.
I did, by the way Dan, present credible 5th/6th century evidence of leather being used as armour in Scandinavia (you just chose to ignore it)-- please have a good look at the writing mentioned above by Birgit Ahrrenius - who has good reason to think that leather helmets were worn. Incidentally, you may also care to look at the work of Monica Alkemade who contributed to the book 'Images of the Past' (pages 267 to 299) edited by Nico Roymans and Frans Theuws and published by the University of Amsterdam or perhaps the writings of another academic, Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450 - 900 (Routledge). Both of these academics take a very similar position to mine, Halsall, goes so far as to believe that some of the images of the time actually are of leather armour (p168 to 172).
It seems inconceivable to me that leather was used in earlier times, as armour, and at later times, yet somehow people forgot its properties for a while in between. Our ancestors were every bit as clever, inventive and resourceful as we are, why would they ignore the valuable qualities of such a versatile material as leather, that would have been easily available? You are certainly not telling me that there were times, at least in the last 2000 years, when there was no leather just because we haven't got any finds from certain periods, are you?
As for leather shoes - there are almost none of these in England from the 5th to the 7th century as our soil tends to be very hostile to organic remains unless the conditions are just so. Doesn't mean that the people didn't wear them, though. Then there is the evidence of shields, as Matthew reminds us - the Sutton Hoo Mound 1 shield had leather on both sides - should tell you something.
And James, while I agree with much of your most recent post, your last statement is not true:
"As Dan said until we have clear evidence there is no way you can claim that a leather armour or clothing is a likely solution."
I am afraid I can and I will continue to do so, just like those whose work I have quoted in this post and others of mine.
Paul
|
|
   |
 |
Sean Scott
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Oct, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: |
as to a leather jerkin begin spear proof. i'd like to see someone do a test. honestly. test leather vs mail. i don't think it even be worth wearing. |
I think a good buff coat would give some protection.
Det er ikke å unngå fare det vi har komme!
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Arbogast
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Oct, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Couldn't a less affluent warrior just stitch large iron rings or some such onto a leather coat of some sort? Kind of an in-between form of armor improving the relative weakness of leather without the prohibitive cost of a mail shirt? I imagine that such a coat, properly covered with iron, would at least offer SOME protection from a sword swipe, if not a thrust. If I was a poor fighting man, I would always be looking for something to improve my meager defenses with any scrap metal I could find, in the smithy, on any battlefield I was able to survive, or any other place of opportunity.
A man's nose is his castle-and his finger is a mighty sword that he may wield UNHINDERED!
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Oct, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Barker wrote: | There are hundreds of shoes at Hedeby. There are quite a few good finds with shoes.
Now I use to argue not having any surviving leather armor was telling but I don't any more because leather for armor in the middle ages becomes common, again layered with maille, and all we have is one good surviving piece of it. Wills and inventories tell us it was real common in the 14th century but only the one example? We have hundreds if not thousands of shoes from the have era; fact it warrior to population ratio is low and armor to shoe ratio is even lower in medieval culture so there is a slim chance of finding good extant leather armor of any time period.
As Dan said until we have clear evidence there is no way you can claim that a leather armor or clothing is a likely solution. |
As resourceful and frankly fabric stingy as our ancestors were, I wouldn't be suprised if a few of those shoes started out life as leather armor; only to become shoes when the armor was beyond repair. 
[Edit]
Speaking of being resource stingy, I've also read ( a veeery long time ago, so take it with salt) that iron was precious enough in the migration and viking eras that old nails were stripped from abandoned buildings for re-use. If that's true, then even finding some iron strips to make brigandine might have been fairly expensive.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
 |
|
Chase S-R
Location: New Mexico Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Oct, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Couldn't a less affluent warrior just stitch large iron rings or some such onto a leather coat of some sort? Kind of an in-between form of armor improving the relative weakness of leather without the prohibitive cost of a mail shirt? I imagine that such a coat, properly covered with iron, would at least offer SOME protection from a sword swipe, if not a thrust. If I was a poor fighting man, I would always be looking for something to improve my meager defenses with any scrap metal I could find, in the smithy, on any battlefield I was able to survive, or any other place of opportunity. |
There is a whole and long standing debate as to what the Bayeux Tapestry is showing, some say the soldiers are wearing maille, others rings stitched on to leather. The problem with the later theory is it requires almost as much metal as to make a maille shirt. Perhaps more of a coat-of-plates style could have been made but I can see little evidence to suport this hypothesis. I will have to look into it. Personally about the Bayeux Tapestry, I think it's maille as opposed to rings-on-leather.
| Quote: | Chuck Russell wrote:
as to a leather jerkin begin spear proof. i'd like to see someone do a test. honestly. test leather vs mail. i don't think it even be worth wearing.
I think a good buff coat would give some protection. |
I have done some tests and have found. Maille better than leather, but leather better than just wool or linnen. I also am making and will test a sort of jack like garment made by gluing layers of leather and linnen together and then quilting, and am very exited by what I will see. 
| Quote: | | that iron was precious enough in the migration and viking eras that old nails were stripped from abandoned buildings for re-use. |
I read this once but it was in a rather small childrens book I was looking at for fun. The book had some other in-accuracies so no idea about the truth of the statement. I think it is probable though, almost everything used to be re-used. Once I heard that some people examined the battle field at Battle, England and found almost nothing but bones because almost everything was re-used. Their is also a medieval picture showing smiths turning broken swords into shears.
My conclusion, leather armour was a substitute for maille for thoose that wanted armour but could not afford maille. It seems it was most likely something of a rarity but seems as though it existed.
Charles Stewart Rodriguez
|
|
 |
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: | | Couldn't a less affluent warrior just stitch large iron rings or some such onto a leather coat of some sort? Kind of an in-between form of armor improving the relative weakness of leather without the prohibitive cost of a mail shirt? I imagine that such a coat, properly covered with iron, would at least offer SOME protection from a sword swipe, if not a thrust. If I was a poor fighting man, I would always be looking for something to improve my meager defenses with any scrap metal I could find, in the smithy, on any battlefield I was able to survive, or any other place of opportunity. |
Iron was scarce and expensive in the iron- and Viking age, at least in Scandinavia. Before the 12-13th centuries when more advanced iron mining began to develop, the most common way to obtain iron ore was through bog iron. Considering the time-consuming process to extract iron from bogs, it’s no wonder that the metal was very precious and costly. I don’t think any scrap iron would have been turned into armour by the less wealthy; it would rather more likely have been sold or turned into more necessary tools or weapons.
And AFAIK, “ring armour” is an outdated Victorian speculation that has no factual basis. As Chase says, such armour would have required virtually as much iron as a maille shirt. Then we have to keep in mind that attaching rings to leather by sewing would have been a possibly even more difficult and time-consuming work than assembling and riveting together maille rings. A much more efficient and logical solution would have been to attach strips of iron to leather or fabric straps such as the pre-Viking splinted greaves found at Vendel, but then of course we’re no longer dealing with inexpensive armour…
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
The other problem is that there are images on the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the inside of the armour. If they were depicting this alleged "ring armour", the rings would not be visible on the inside, which they clearly are.
FWIW I attempted to address the "ring armour" issue in this brief essay
http://www.knightsofveritas.org/materials/cha...ngmail.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chase S-R wrote: | | My conclusion, leather armour was a substitute for maille for thoose that wanted armour but could not afford maille. It seems it was most likely something of a rarity but seems as though it existed. |
This isn't supported by the evidence. In most cultures only the elite wear any sort of armour at all, regardless of whether it is leather or metal. The majority of the rest would have had trouble affording a helmet. Definitely no armour. The "affordability" argument simply doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
|
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Mortimer wrote: | Well chaps, here we are as polarised as ever, so we will have to agree to disagree. However, I would like to say one or two things before I stop contributing to this thread.
I did, by the way Dan, present credible 5th/6th century evidence of leather being used as armour in Scandinavia (you just chose to ignore it)-- please have a good look at the writing mentioned above by Birgit Ahrrenius - who has good reason to think that leather helmets were worn. Incidentally, you may also care to look at the work of Monica Alkemade who contributed to the book 'Images of the Past' (pages 267 to 299) edited by Nico Roymans and Frans Theuws and published by the University of Amsterdam or perhaps the writings of another academic, Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450 - 900 (Routledge). Both of these academics take a very similar position to mine, Halsall, goes so far as to believe that some of the images of the time actually are of leather armour (p168 to 172).
It seems inconceivable to me that leather was used in earlier times, as armour, and at later times, yet somehow people forgot its properties for a while in between. Our ancestors were every bit as clever, inventive and resourceful as we are, why would they ignore the valuable qualities of such a versatile material as leather, that would have been easily available? You are certainly not telling me that there were times, at least in the last 2000 years, when there was no leather just because we haven't got any finds from certain periods, are you?
As for leather shoes - there are almost none of these in England from the 5th to the 7th century as our soil tends to be very hostile to organic remains unless the conditions are just so. Doesn't mean that the people didn't wear them, though. Then there is the evidence of shields, as Matthew reminds us - the Sutton Hoo Mound 1 shield had leather on both sides - should tell you something.
And James, while I agree with much of your most recent post, your last statement is not true:
"As Dan said until we have clear evidence there is no way you can claim that a leather armour or clothing is a likely solution."
I am afraid I can and I will continue to do so, just like those whose work I have quoted in this post and others of mine.
Paul |
There are a number of problems regarding Birgit Arrhenius hypothesis (it is a hypothesis and nothing else) of “the pressbleck” in the east mound at Old Upsala. First of all, Arrhenius studies do not concern Viking age but rather the time around 500 to 550. It is true that Arrhenius claims the hypoythesis that the pressbleck was once fitted to a leather helmet. The pressbleck (there was only one) is very small 1x1cm and was found alone (with other small fragments) in a firegrave. The fact that no iron material was found in the firegrave lead Arrhenius to the hypothesis that the pressbleck had once been attached to a organic helmet, maybe leather. Henry Frej did use some kind of laser tool (which he had built himself), but that tool was meant to id the pictures of the fragment not the material.
Archeologist John Ljungkvist specialized in Vendel and Viking period firegraves claims that Arrhenius hypothesis is totally unfounded. His claim is supported by Wladyslaw Duczko, an archeologist that done the most methodical run-through of the material from the eastern mound. The only argument ever presented for the hypothesis that the pressbleck was part of a leather helmet is that there were no large metal objects in the firegrave. There have been a number of excavations of firegraves with helm fragments in middle Sweden none of them contained large metal objects. There was, however deposits of larger objects, like helmets, but most larger metal fragments have for some reason been removed after cremation, perhaps to be buried at a separate location. According to Duczko and Ljungkvist there is no support at all for the hypothesis that there was ever a leather helmet in a grave in middle Sweden (or in any other European country) during the vendelperiod or migration era. The hypothesis is in all unfounded.
Further more Arrhenius herself noticed that the pressbleck was fare to small to be a part of normal sized helmet, a fact that lead her to the theory that the helmet was made for a small child, in which case we can not talk about armor but rather a ceremonial- or toy costume.
I dare anyone to put forward any find, picture or written source that supports the claim that there was leather armor during the Viking age in Scandinavia or Scandinavian controlled areas. If we have no archeological finds, no pictures and no written material, then we really have nothing but unfounded speculation.
Regards,
/Ville
|
|
|
|
|
Chase S-R
Location: New Mexico Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This isn't supported by the evidence. In most cultures only the elite wear any sort of armour at all, regardless of whether it is leather or metal. The majority of the rest would have had trouble affording a helmet. Definitely no armour. The "affordability" argument simply doesn't hold water. |
Well, I think that it is supported by evidence. There is at least probable cause. Besides I see no reason to assume that a less affluent warrior would not use a cheaper armour, leather is effective and they had the resources to make and use it.
| Quote: | | only the elite wear any sort of armour at all |
This just is not true, what about munitions grade armour? Or armour that men-at-arms wore? Maille was still in use in the 15th century by warriors and men-at-arms who could not afford plate armour. What about padded jacks... Warriors who could not afford the best in armour did not fight naked. A helmet is a type of armour and their are references to poorer fighters buying a helmet. Besides poorer fighters could steal maille from the dead. the Bayeux Tapestry shows the dead being stripped of their maille.
Charles Stewart Rodriguez
|
|
|
|
|
Chase S-R
Location: New Mexico Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I dare anyone to put forward any find, picture or written source that supports the claim that there was leather armor during the Viking age |
Please examine my earlier posts regarding the sagas, tapestries, sculptures, etc.
Charles Stewart Rodriguez
|
|
|
|
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chase S-R wrote: | | Quote: | | I dare anyone to put forward any find, picture or written source that supports the claim that there was leather armor during the Viking age |
Please examine my earlier posts regarding the sagas, tapestries, sculptures, etc. |
I Have. You have not presented anything other than speculation. That is not the way you work in the scientific world.
No sagas mention leather armour (exept for the magicla reindeer coat wich hardly can be said to work as proof of armor) and there are no tapestries or sculptures that we can say depicts leather armor.
Regards,
/Vilhelm
|
|
|
|
|
Chase S-R
Location: New Mexico Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
padded reindeer saga-written evidence
bayeux tapestry-pictoral evidence
tests/wearing-experimental archeology
leather finds-showing use of leather
This is not speculation it is putting 2 and 2 together.
Charles Stewart Rodriguez
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ville Vinje wrote: |
I Have. You have not presented anything other than speculation. That is not the way you work in the scientific world.
No sagas mention leather armour (exept for the magicla reindeer coat wich hardly can be said to work as proof of armor) and there are no tapestries or sculptures that we can say depicts leather armor.
Regards,
/Vilhelm |
The only thing wrong with speculation is when it gets confused with proof.
I still like speculation in the right context as alternate theories that would need proof to replace or add to established knowledge: Personally I just don't think that speculation should be " censored " as I like playing with ideas even if they prove to be wrong eventually ! ( Or remain unproveable ).
Oh, but that doesn't mean that " speculations " shouldn't be subject to rebuttal with known facts or contrary arguments: This is just interesting and lively discussion and one should either participate if ones finds it interesting or ignored if one thinks its a waste of time.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chase S-R wrote: | padded reindeer saga-written evidence
|
I think few would accept that as written evidence. As have been said before in this thread, the Saga refers to enchanted reindeer coats. I assume that this is the quote you're referring to (from St. Olaf's Saga, part of the Heimskringla):
| Quote: | Nú skal segja hvað þeir höfðust að í Noregi um þessar hríðir.
Þórir hundur hafði Finnferð haft þessa tvo vetur og hafði hann verið hvorntveggja vetur lengi á fjalli og fengið óf fjár. Hann átti margs konar kaup við Finna. Hann lét þar gera sér tólf hreinbjálfa með svo mikilli fjölkynngi að ekki vopn festi á og síður miklu en á hringabrynju.
[- - -]
Mildr fann gerst, hve galdrar,
gramr sjálfr, meginrammir
fjölkunnigra Finna
fullstórum barg Þóri,
þá er hyrsendir hundi
húna gulli búnu,
slætt réð síst að bíta,
sverði laust um herðar.
Þórir hjó til konungs og skiptust þeir þá nokkurum höggum við og beit ekki sverð konungs þar er hreinbjálfinn var fyrir en þó varð Þórir sár á hendi.
English translation:
Now we must relate what, in the meantime, was going on in Norway. Thorer Hund, in these two winters (A.D. 1029-1030), had made a Lapland journey, and each winter had been a long time on the mountains, and had gathered to himself great wealth by trading in various wares with the Laplanders. He had twelve large coats of reindeer-skin made for him, with so much Lapland witchcraft that no weapon could cut or pierce them any more than if they were armour of ring-mail, nor so much.
[ - - - ]
"The king himself now proved the power
Of Fin-folk's craft in magic hour,
With magic song; for stroke of steel
Thor's reindeer coat would never feel,
Bewitched by them it turned the stroke
Of the king's sword, -- a dust-like smoke
Rose from Thor's shoulders from the blow
Which the king though would end his foe."
Thorer struck at the king, and they exchanged some blows; but the king's sword would not cut where it met the reindeer skin, although Thorer was wounded in the hands. Sigvat sang thus of it: -- |
|
|
|
|
|
Chase S-R
Location: New Mexico Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes that is the saga, but I see nothing wong with the leather being enchanted. There are other sagas where maille is enchanted to protect the wearer, and ones where swords are made more powerfull through enchantment, you would not say the vikings did not have maille or swords merely because they were enchanted would you?
Charles Stewart Rodriguez
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Mortimer
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ville,
Much as I value your contribution, have you read the article by Ahrrenius and Freij paper that I referred to? If you did you would know there was more than one pressbleche remaining; there are actually at least 18 separate pieces, all of them representing quite different designs. The assumption is that they are all that remains from the cremation fire. In fact, if they all came from the same helmet, it had almost as many designs on it as the Valsgarde 7 helmet. Her suggestion that it maybe from a helmet of small size comes from the fact that the plates appear to have been smaller than those on helmets like the V7, V8, etc. I know Ljungkvist disagrees with her. As you say, they may not have been attached to a leather helmet, but the fact that Arrhenius, who commands some respect in the academic community, thinks they may have done is certainly worth consideration - and as I have pointed out, she is not alone.
By the way - I never said that those remains came from the Viking Age.
"I dare anyone to put forward any find, picture or written source that supports the claim that there was leather armor during the Viking age in Scandinavia or Scandinavian controlled areas. If we have no archeological finds, no pictures and no written material, then we really have nothing but unfounded speculation."
Not quite, if leather was used before and after a particular period, it is likely that there was some continuity. as Jean says, "The only thing wrong with speculation is when it gets confused with proof."
As I said before, we must agree to differ.
You haven't answered my pm btw.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Mortimer wrote: | Ville,
Much as I value your contribution, have you read the article by Ahrrenius and Freij paper that I referred to? If you did you would know there was more than one pressbleche remaining; there are actually at least 18 separate pieces, all of them representing quite different designs. The assumption is that they are all that remains from the cremation fire. In fact, if they all came from the same helmet, it had almost as many designs on it as the Valsgarde 7 helmet. Her suggestion that it maybe from a helmet of small size comes from the fact that the plates appear to have been smaller than those on helmets like the V7, V8, etc. I know Ljungkvist disagrees with her. As you say, they may not have been attached to a leather helmet, but the fact that Arrhenius, who commands some respect in the academic community, thinks they may have done is certainly worth consideration - and as I have pointed out, she is not alone.
By the way - I never said that those remains came from the Viking Age.
"I dare anyone to put forward any find, picture or written source that supports the claim that there was leather armor during the Viking age in Scandinavia or Scandinavian controlled areas. If we have no archeological finds, no pictures and no written material, then we really have nothing but unfounded speculation."
Not quite, if leather was used before and after a particular period, it is likely that there was some continuity. as Jean says, "The only thing wrong with speculation is when it gets confused with proof."
As I said before, we must agree to differ.
You haven't answered my pm btw.
Cheers,
Paul |
Paul I do find your posts very interesting and thoughful. It is always nice when people show that they know what they are talking about.
I must confess i have only read part of the article as reference in other articles (it is from the 40's is it not?). I know Arrhenius has a good reputation and she is generally very good at what she is doing, but I feel she has taken her hypothesis a bit to far here.
I myself are trained in the academic world and as such have learned that one should be careful when speaking about "truth" and proof. Maybe the vikings did use leather armor, it would certanly not be strange. But until we find anything that points us in that direction I would be careful to speak of historical autenticity when it comes to reenacment.
There is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as one knows that it is just that and nothing else.
Regarding the PM. That is strange.I have not recieved any message. Can you try again?
Regards,
/Ville
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Mortimer
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ville,
Thank you for the compliments. The Arrhenius and Freij article was in Labarotiva Arkeologi 6 published in 1992. (Arkeologiska Forsningslaboratoriet Stockholm Universitet).
Of course you are right to be careful. I just think that to say the Vikings didn't wear leather as armour or padding just because there are no finds is not doing them or us justice -- are there any finds of fishing nets? We know that some Scandinavians ate fish - how did they catch them? Please don't take that question as needing an answer (for all I know there are finds of nets or fishing poles)-- it's just that we haven't found examples of everything that a people needed to survive - sometimes we have to use our common sense, look at what was available to them, and come with a reasonable suggestion. As long as you tell people that there is no direct evidence but that you believe something was possible, you are being honest and perhaps even stimulating further debate, which is healthy.
I'll try the pm again.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Trueman
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Oct, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | There is nothing to suggest that vikings wore any garment specifically designed to go under mail. For authenticity a few woollen tunics would suffice. Leather doesn't work from a practical standpoint either. Get yourself two garments, one made of leather and one made of linen or wool, and compare the difference when worn under mail. |
Im really late on this one!!!
Dans comment is spot on. There is nothing, no extant finds for gambesons during the Viking age. For accuracy thick woolen tunics as Dan has suggested is as close as you can get.
But...For reenactment combat, I think you will need a gambeson. Goes without saying really.
Ive tried reenactment combat with just maile and thick tunic.....It really hurts!!!! lol. but it was fun.
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic