Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking padding Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next 
Author Message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 2:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:

Quote:
The Saga mentions armour made from reindeer hide alone, not a multilayer armour made of cloth topped with deer skin. The use of deer hide in the construction of Aketons are no more evidence that the Saga coats in question were armour than the fact that the French ordonnance archers of Louis XI were equipped with Jacks made of 25-30 layes of linen and one layer of deerskin. In both cases it's the multiple layers of cloth which provide the overwhelming part of the protection, not the single layer of deerhide.


I'd agree here for the most part, meaning that I would not think of reindeer hide by itself as armour, but if used at all was a component of a layered textile based armour.

But 1 layer of linen does not provide much protection. Does that mean that garments made of linen do not provide protection? It's all in the layers. Hide of some sort could be effective combined with layers of something else. And IIRC, the sage states coats or jackets (Troyja? Big Grin ) of reindeer hide, but also does not mention that they did not have layers of textile invlolved.

All that being the case, I feel it's a real reach to use the reindeer hides as anything close to evidence on their own. However if used to paint an overall picture whether padded armour was used (with some leather with these), it is useful to a point.

Dan Howard wrote:

Quote:
If reindeer hide made such wonderful armour then it wouldn't have needed to be magically enchanted.


Ahhh, but then the swords in the saga if good swords would not have had to have been enchanted either if following this logic.

I think one thing here, that has been mentioned before is we have to be careful and look into more if possible to anything called a coat or jacket. It could indicate either a strictly civilian use or a military use.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikael Ranelius




Location: Sweden
Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 3:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I’m afraid the use of aketons in the Hebrides during 14th century can’t be taken as evidence of the Vikings supposedly using them 300 years earlier. After all, there was a huge development in arms and armour within that time span, a development that had effect on Scandinavia and the North Atlantic islands as much as it had on the rest of Europe.

Concerning the supposed reindeer armour described in St Olaf’s Saga (which btw is the only place it is ever mentioned), it was more or less debunked in this thread about Viking leather armour. There’s in fact nothing what so ever in the original text to suggest that the reindeer hides were constructed as armour, but common reindeer fur coats (Icelandic: Hreinbjálfa) that had been enchanted by Saami magic to resist any weapon. To interpret these coats as armour is far-fetched and taken out of context as I see it. To me, it is obvious that the Saga-author, by inventing the part with the enchanted reindeer coats, sought to make the pagan “bad guys” appear even worse, by condescending to the use of wicked Saami magic. Up until recent time, the Saami (and also to some extent the Finns) have been notorious and feared among the Nordic peoples due to their alleged skills in magic and witchcraft.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 5:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikael Ranelius wrote:
I’m afraid the use of aketons in the Hebrides during 14th century can’t be taken as evidence of the Vikings supposedly using them 300 years earlier. After all, there was a huge development in arms and armour within that time span, a development that had effect on Scandinavia and the North Atlantic islands as much as it had on the rest of Europe.


I agree it doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that deer hide was used as a component in armor. I mentioned it to address the specific claim that deer hide could not be made into armor.

However that said, the Hebridian warriors did seem to retain a great deal of archaic Viking technology, their ships were essentially longships with a rudder for example. So it is certainly not inconceivable that this tradition was one that survived or evolved from earlier times, like many of their weapons clearly did. And they also not insignificantly held on to mail armor well after the time when it had fallen out of fashion in Continental Europe and in the rest of the British Isles.

Quote:

Concerning the supposed reindeer armour described in St Olaf’s Saga (which btw is the only place it is ever mentioned), it was more or less debunked in this thread about Viking leather armour. There’s in fact nothing what so ever in the original text to suggest that the reindeer hides were constructed as armour, but common reindeer fur coats (Icelandic: Hreinbjálfa) that had been enchanted by Saami magic to resist any weapon. To interpret these coats as armour is far-fetched and taken out of context as I see it. To me, it is obvious that the Saga-author, by inventing the part with the enchanted reindeer coats, sought to make the pagan “bad guys” appear even worse, by condescending to the use of wicked Saami magic. Up until recent time, the Saami (and also to some extent the Finns) have been notorious and feared among the Nordic peoples due to their alleged skills in magic and witchcraft.


I seem to also remember one or two off-hand references to reindeer hide armor being given as tribute (from the Finns) in some saga I read, but I'll have to go back and see if I can find that.

I know the Vikings looked at the Sami and Finns as magicians, but I think sometimes we have been mistaken in the past when we assumed Viking sagas were veering sharply into mythology only later to find out they were referring to something that actually happened.

But maybe as you say these were only coats, whatever we can do to find out more clearly is a good idea.

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 4:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:

Ahhh, but then the swords in the saga if good swords would not have had to have been enchanted either if following this logic.

An equivalent analogy would be an enchantment that turned a bar of steel into a sword.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 02 Feb, 2009 4:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
I agree it doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that deer hide was used as a component in armor. I mentioned it to address the specific claim that deer hide could not be made into armor.
It can't. It needs to be added to an inch of padded cloth. It is still called "textile armour" regardless of the outer layer.

Quote:
I seem to also remember one or two off-hand references to reindeer hide armor being given as tribute (from the Finns) in some saga I read, but I'll have to go back and see if I can find that.

Yes please. That would be far more useful than what has been presented so far.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 8:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I guess what we have ascertained from all this is that from numerous literary references both the Roman and later Byazantines wore a padded garment of various names and forms under, sometimes over in the case of the Byzantines metal armour.

This was before, during and after the Viking period.

Islamic warriors did the same.

Western europe we do not really know, the first literary or pictorial evidence that indicates this is not til the 12th Century.

Hide was used over the Gambesons used by 13th century descendants of Viking culture. It looks that in most all of europe we have pictorial and literary evidence of gambesons being worn, either under armour or on their own by the 12th Century, sometimes with hide being part of the construction.

The period in doubt is the 7th-11th century Viking culture, as well as much of Northwestern Europe for that matter.

While we don't have any true evidence for gambeson type garments being worn by Vikings during this time, it's mostly a matter of opinion.

We do have a handful of Saxons in the Bayeaux tapestry wearing odd types of "armour", clearly different from either mail or the unarmoured types wearing simple cloth tunics. This armour actually looks similar to Odo's armour, though not as colorful. This could be scale or a different type of gambeson, these seem most likely. The other two alternatives, badly represented mail or simple cloth seem less likely as they are not at all similar to the other illustrations of these materials.

However, even if these are gambesons, Saxons wearing gambesons in the 11th century does not equate to Vikings wearing these a century or two earlier. On the other hand, it's tough to say when this form of armour by saxons came into use.

For western Europe, one could believe that they kept with a Roman/Byzantine fashion of wearing padded garments under metallic armour. They had at various times been part of the empire, allies or even foes of the empire. Or one could believe that they did not adopt this custom, and germanic members of the legions either never passed this idea on to their countrymen or they wore there armour without padding, unlike other legionairres.

For the Vikings, the question would be did they adopt the customs of various cultures who they were in contact with that wore padding under mail? Or did they consciously decide not to? And depending on whether or not you feel western europeans wore padding under metal armour per the above, contaqcts with western europe could have spurred this on as well. Did Varangians (there were Scandanavian Mercenaries in service of Byzantium well before it was called the Varangian guard) wear padding under metal armour as other Byzantines? Or did they consciously forgoe doing so? And if they did wear it under metal armour, did they cease doing so when returning to their homeland or did they wear it home, giving this idea to their countrymen?

The idea of integral padding is a red herring here, if it was worn this way it would show padding under mail, though as an integral part of the coat of mail.

Of course none of this is direct physical evidence, and from the amount of textile garments found from earlier times it is doubful we will ever find any evidence, at best cloth fibers that could mena anything, clothing or armour.

So based on the above, anyone is free to draw thier own conclusions.

I think this is a rather unbiased conclusion based on the information presented.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 1:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary,

Nobody has presented one piece of data proving that padding was worn under mail anywhere in the world before the Middle Ages. Padding was likely worn by the Byzantines under at least one type of armour. Nobody has any idea which. Padding was likely worn by the Romans under segmented armour but we have no idea whether a similar garment was worn under other types. The Romans probably did not wear padding under mail since it is more likely than not that it had its own liner. Nobody has bothered to look at any other culture from a relevant time period.

I'd like someone so show me a single illustration of Viking armour where the detail is good enough for us to know that the armour does not have an integrated liner.

Padding was worn as a standalone armour by many cultures. This is a completely different subject to wearing padding UNDER mail. They are different garments that perform different functions. Please stop equating one with the other.

Padding was worn under mail during the Middle Ages. This tells us nothing about earlier time periods.

There is no way that anyone who looks objectively at the evidence can possibly conclude as you have. At best all we can say is "we don't know"
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 1:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, I thought I was presenting both sides and being pretty unbiased, but Big Grin

Quote:
Nobody has presented one piece of data proving that padding was worn under mail anywhere in the world before the Middle Ages. Padding was likely worn by the Byzantines under at least one type of armour. Nobody has any idea which. Padding was likely worn by the Romans under segmented armour but we have no idea whether a similar garmnent was worn under other types.


First, in pretty well all the references, I did say the general form of "metal" armour, not specifically which kind. As the sources say this as well and do not specify, I thought it was being accurate.

The Roman and Byzantine references all indicate it is worn under armour. They do not specify whch type. We could say it was not worn under mail, only under the segmentata. One could just as easily say it was worn under mail, but not lammelar or the segmentata.

As one of the Roman references is a very late one (5th century I believe), it would not likely be referring to the segmentata. So it was worn under one or all of the following - Scale, Mail, Lammelar. To say it was worn under the others but not mail has no references in the sources, you are clearly making your own inference here, which is speculation and should clearly be regarded as such, just as any speculative arguments for the use of padding under mail should be regarded. Evidence is evidence, specualtion is speculation - attributing Roman and Byzantine sources of padding beneath metal armour to specifically not apply to mail is speculation.

Same goes for the Byzantine references. There is nothing that indicates it was worn under other armours and not mail.

Quote:
Padding was worn as a standalone armour by many cultures. This is a completely different subject to wearing padding UNDER mail. Please stop equating one with the other.


I'm not trying to equate them - just discussing the possibilites of a padded type of armour being worn as well in western europe prior to the middle ages.

Quote:
It is more likely than not that Roman mail DID have its own liner


I won't disagree here - proof of an integral liner be it Viking or Roman would make everyone arguing this point happy I believe, as the mail is then being supported by a protective padding device, even if integral.

Quote:
Padding was worn under mail during the Middle Ages. This tells us nothing about earlier time periods.


I agree here as well, other than if it was worn both before Viking times and after Viking times, one would wonder why it was not worn during Viking times, at least in areas where it was worn before and after. If mail was worn before and after Viking times in a geograhic area or by a culture, one would wonder if it was worn between these times, perhaps we just do not have any clear evidence of such.

The other thing I said was that the possibility from illustrations in the Bayeaux Tapestry of Saxons wearing a gambeson on it's own does not indicate vikings were wearing it under mail a century or two earlier. The one thing I would say though is that Hastings was about the end of what is considered the Viking Age. Did these Saxon types of armour, if Gambesons, just appear at Hastings? Or where they worn before this but we do not have any good illustratiions of such?
Even if they had only been worn for 50 years or so, we now have Saxons wearing padded armour on it's own during the VIking Age. Which is also towards the end of the Danelaw, where Saxons and Danes intermingled pretty freely in the same locale.
Quote:
There is noway that anyone who looks objectively at the evidence can possibly conclude as you have. At best all we can say is "we don't know"


I never stated a conclusion that padding was or was not worn under mail. I stated both sides of the argument, and ended it with a "everyone can draw their own conclusions". I clearly pointed out there is no evidence of any padding under mail by Vikings, merely speculation.
View user's profile Send private message
Carl Pryor




Location: London
Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 3:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Although I am hesitant to enter this somewhat heated debate, I feel that I should say something.

Dan, you are rigorous in your search for evidence, but until an unquestionable find of a scandinavian from the appropriate time found with padding under his mail, i'm afraid we will not be able to reach the level of proof you desire. The arguments so far have said it is possible, and feasible for them to have used padding, even the most ardent supporter has admitted that this is not proof, but as evidence it cannot be simply discarded. A simple 'yes possibly, but i would like more definitive proof before i am convinced' would be a suitable response. Accepting lesser quality evidence to allow possible answers until better is found will not weaken any latter argument, as long as we all accept the limits of the evidence, both those of us for and against.

I did notice that you added intention if the user inter the argument before, that it counts as armour only when worn for physical protection. This may be part of the problem with the discussion. If, under the mail, A wore two thick tunics because its cold, B wore them for comfort, and C because they help limit damage from blows, then only C has worn it as armour in this context. They all got the same improved armour. If they all quilted their garments for the same reasons above, that still applies.

Sorry if it seems i am picking on you, its just you are one of the more vocal people (and i'm afraid an apparent tendency to attack evidence opposing you rather than incorporate it in to your arguments), and i felt the 'intent' portion a problem. Others are as 'bad', especially when expecting people in the past to use modern differentiation between items/ideas.


As a summary of the debate so far (if i miss anything, please do not feel offended) -
Vikings came into contact with people who used padded under armour.
Vikings could adapt to use innovations (to them) when appropriate.
This type of armour padding was used for extended lengths of time before and after the 'viking age' by a range of people including their heirs/descendents
They had the capability to make padded garments, with flax and reindeer leather as possible sources.
?possible evolution form thick tunics, may be layered, used for non-protection related reasons?

There is no direct evidence of padded subarmour.
They did not parallel all developments of their neighbors.
Padded sub armour is not directly mention in the sagas, though indirect mentions are there. (possible reasons for absence - lack of importance to story, lack of detail {no 'all had mail and padding except Bob who was new...'}, lack of use in general).

On balance so far - possible, drifting towards quite likely, though definitely not proven by any standards while allowing that just simple clothes under mail was also likely common. As always I expect reality to be between the two possibilities. Some wore padding, others didn't for reasons from the practical (heat? water logging when at sea?) to the silly (Looks? Machismo?) and the ratio probably varied between groups and over time.
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

About the sagas. There are numerous mentions (more than a hundred) of different types of armor (mostly mail and helmets) in the sagas, non mention any padded leather or textile armor.


Regards,

/Vilhelm

PS: There really are more than a hundred mentions, it is not something i'm just saying.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 6:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would also like to add, that it is quite likely that if anyone is using padded garments under armor, especially if consciously aware of it as such, they would almost inevitably wear it alone, which leads to an evolution of a specifically padded armor garment. If all you have is the padded undergarment and not the mail, you use what you have got. This seems to have been the case in several other parts of the world. It was the case with the Hebridian people without a doubt.

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Hunter B.




Location: Away from Home
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 51

PostPosted: Tue 03 Feb, 2009 7:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ville Vinje wrote:
About the sagas. There are numerous mentions (more than a hundred) of different types of armor (mostly mail and helmets) in the sagas, non mention any padded leather or textile armor.


Regards,

/Vilhelm

PS: There really are more than a hundred mentions, it is not something i'm just saying.



How many mention any of the undergarments worn?

Page through a newspaper article today detailing the exploits of soldiers in any conflict. How many assumptions are made on uniforms and equipment? I have no dog in this fight at all, but it seems to me that there are many items taken for granted by specific cultures.

Some items are mundane and taken for granted, unless they are conspicuously absent.\, or in some other way different from the norm ( for instance the "enchanted" reindeer leather).

When my father tells a story about when he was in country, he doesn't say that he was wearing an undershirt and briefs, or socks for that matter. Even the details of his uniform are to be understood in general. As a story teller he assumes that the person listening is going to have a pretty good grasp of the basics. What he does mention is when he's not wearing something, for instance "I fought half naked for most of the beginning of Tet." He doesn't say "I charged out of my tent as VC mortars started coming down around me as I pulled on my socks, then my fatigue pants, then my jungle boots (With steel insert to protect against punji sticks) , my pant's belt, my pistol belt, but I forgot to throw on a t-shirt, and the jacket to my jungle fatigues, and my helmet didn't have a cover." That'd make for a very long, and boring, story.

Just remember that tales are told from the perspective of that person's culture. It is going to be assumed that the listener (or reader) is going to know something in a cultural context without them being mentioned per se. Of all the wide and varying reasons for telling a story, I can't recall a single one that was made so historians 1,000 years later could piece together an accurate picture of day to day life, or even historical events.

“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 1:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
I would also like to add, that it is quite likely that if anyone is using padded garments under armor, especially if consciously aware of it as such, they would almost inevitably wear it alone, which leads to an evolution of a specifically padded armor garment. If all you have is the padded undergarment and not the mail, you use what you have got. This seems to have been the case in several other parts of the world. It was the case with the Hebridian people without a doubt.

Any garment that is padded thickly enough to provide decent protection (stand-alone armour) is way too thick to be comfortably worn under mail or any other kind of armour. On every occasion where a heavy textile defense is worn in conjuction with mail, the padding is worn over the top. You can't wear mail armour over the top of textile armour and expect to fight with any degree of skill. It is simply too cumbersome. Again padded armour is a completely different garment to under padding. They are not related and are not interchangable.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
About the sagas. There are numerous mentions (more than a hundred) of different types of armor (mostly mail and helmets) in the sagas, non mention any padded leather or textile armor.


What I would caution here is the Viking sources are Sagas.

And I guess what I am saying here is we are comparing the Viking sources to Roman and Byzantine sources, of which some are Military manuals (Is Strategikom the correct Byzantine word for this?).

For example, one Roman manual describes the construction of a plumbata, including the lead weight, the shaft, etc.

A Viking Saga does not usually go into the length, construction process of a spear - they merely say spear. There is far less attention to detail here.

And even with the Roman and Byzantine close attention to detail, there are few references to padded undergarments, though there still are clear references, and even some of these are vague.

It's kind of like comparing an action based novel about WWII to something more equivalent to the "Janes Fighting Ships of WWII" type of book.

With the first you may read "and the booming of the destroyers 5 inch guns" - that's pretty good detail for a novel.

With the other book you will get displacement, x amount of 5 inch guns, how many torpedo tubes, the anti-aircraft guns, what type of mounts for these, how many and the calibers, horsepower, cruising speed, how many depth charges carried, etc. etc.

This is a bit of a reiteration of Hunter B.'s point, but I thought it was important enough to mention again.

Carl Pryor wrote:

Quote:
As a summary of the debate so far (if i miss anything, please do not feel offended) -
Vikings came into contact with people who used padded under armour.
Vikings could adapt to use innovations (to them) when appropriate.
This type of armour padding was used for extended lengths of time before and after the 'viking age' by a range of people including their heirs/descendents
They had the capability to make padded garments, with flax and reindeer leather as possible sources.
?possible evolution form thick tunics, may be layered, used for non-protection related reasons?

There is no direct evidence of padded subarmour.
They did not parallel all developments of their neighbors.
Padded sub armour is not directly mention in the sagas, though indirect mentions are there. (possible reasons for absence - lack of importance to story, lack of detail {no 'all had mail and padding except Bob who was new...'}, lack of use in general).


I think this is pretty accurate, Carl.

Quote:
As always I expect reality to be between the two possibilities. Some wore padding, others didn't for reasons from the practical (heat? water logging when at sea?) to the silly (Looks? Machismo?) and the ratio probably varied between groups and over time.


I agree with this - my guess is not everyone wore a padded Gambeson, some made do with a thick wollen tunic or a few of these. I don't think the Machismo or Looks thing would be a big issue though.

Just a thought, though we have not even established if garments like this were worn, but I think it would have made more sense for the Vikings who were at sea often to use a more wool-based filler than cotton. Both are springy, but wool sheds water much better. Even when wearing the later tubular gambesons that we have illustrations of, would not wool, both due to availability and practicality have made a better filler material? And I guess one other thing, using leather in the construction would have been better in this regard I would think.
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Very interesting topic you guys altough it did get a bit heated awhile back, glad its calmed down again Big Grin
I just tought I'd add that even if mail during this period was worn without padding, from what I've heard of early medieval medicine is that they were good with dealing with broken bones and bruises but were not very good with cuts because they often became infected, so may be the force of the blow being tranfered to the body through the mail was not as bad as long as the flesh was not cut. Plus as was probably already said is that your mail shirt was your last resort, your shield was meant to take care of imcoming attacks along with your ability to avoid them of course. So I think mail probably worked fine in conjuntion with avoiding techniques meaning blows would not land sqare on with full force.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 9:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen - a blunt blow of sufficient force can easily cause a compound fracture, which would mean you have the infection issue to deal with. I think many times the effects of blunt trauma is overlooked, particularily that it can cause bleeding wounds as well (though I think the bow enthusiasts can overrate the blunt trauma casued by an arrow).

But the other thing is the 2 handed Danish axe was a prevalent weapon among Vikings during the latter period of Viking warfare. This is something that of course does not allow a shield, so it makes protection for the body even more important.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 10:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
I would also like to add, that it is quite likely that if anyone is using padded garments under armor, especially if consciously aware of it as such, they would almost inevitably wear it alone, which leads to an evolution of a specifically padded armor garment. If all you have is the padded undergarment and not the mail, you use what you have got. This seems to have been the case in several other parts of the world. It was the case with the Hebridian people without a doubt.

Any garment that is padded thickly enough to provide decent protection (stand-alone armour) is way too thick to be comfortably worn under mail or any other kind of armour. On every occasion where a heavy textile defense is worn in conjuction with mail, the padding is worn over the top. You can't wear mail armour over the top of textile armour and expect to fight with any degree of skill. It is simply too cumbersome. Again padded armour is a completely different garment to under padding. They are not related and are not interchangable.


We know that eventually it worked out this way, as under-armor was specialized into becomming armor unto itself. But if you had to go into a combat, on a raid, mustering for a war etc., and instead of a haubergon all you had was the (much cheaper to make) under armor, you would certainly wear that, it may not qualify as a full armor but it's certainly better than nothing. I know I would. I think the evolution from one to the other took place naturally for that reason... once you realize you are never going to get a mail byrnie to wear over your padded garment you may start adding things like more layers, doe skin, cow hide, iron chains, metal plates, horn, whale bones, pieces of other armor you found on the battlefield and/ or whatever else you can get your hands on. Anything to improve your odds. Eventually you see proper stand alone textile armor emerging as a seperate thing, as well as any number of intermediate types of armor from Gambesons to Russian Bakharets to Coat of plates.

I also know that the reality of differentiating kit in this period was not as hard and fast as some pepole today like to make out, as we are all frankly tempted to do in our efforts to understand and categorize the past. But we need to remember they didn't use terminiology with the same kind of precision we like to see today, and didn't buy their kit off the rack at the period equivalent of wall-mart or even Chivalry bookshelf, especially when you are talking about the Viking age. There were a few manufacturing centers for swords and metal armor but most people would be making most of their kit themselves on their own farm.

J

EDIT: Does anyone have a link to that gambeson with the chains down the sleeves?

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print


Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Wed 04 Feb, 2009 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I wonder how that "evolution of padded armour" went. I know there are a few sources that look like a soldier is wearing one form of padded armour over another.

That's one reason I was interested in any Roamn sources of any padded armour being worn it's own.

I have read in some of Ian Heath's books that the lighter armed Byzantines wore padded garments on their own, I think the Toxoloi or something like that. I'm not sure what sources he drew this from, I would think one of the Byzantine military manuals, but I am not sure.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
I wonder how that "evolution of padded armour" went. I know there are a few sources that look like a soldier is wearing one form of padded armour over another.


Yes it was obviously a farily common practice. Again, people will use what they have and find new ways to do so.

Quote:

That's one reason I was interested in any Roamn sources of any padded armour being worn it's own.

I have read in some of Ian Heath's books that the lighter armed Byzantines wore padded garments on their own, I think the Toxoloi or something like that. I'm not sure what sources he drew this from, I would think one of the Byzantine military manuals, but I am not sure.


Toxoloi means archer or something like a peltast. The more common term is Toxotai or Toxotes

I suspect it happened over and over, and that goes back at least to the Linothorax which I bet evolved the same way (from garments worn under hoplite armor)

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Jean-Carle Hudon




Location: Montreal,Canada
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 450

PostPosted: Wed 04 Feb, 2009 12:45 pm    Post subject: jack chains         Reply with quote

Jean Henri,
www.Matuls.pl, under ''armour'' offers some nice jack chains.

I would also subscribe to Carl Prior's summary. I would add that the belief that evidence must always be '' beyond a reasonable doubt '' tends to create unreasonable expectations.

Bon coeur et bon bras
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking padding
Page 9 of 10 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum