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
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 10:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My guess is that the leather idea comes for the exensive use of leather in the 17th and 18th centuries, leading to the notion that "back in the day people used leather for everyithing" in the victorian era.

Keep in mind that the vikings where not a professional, organized force. They where freelancers or farmers that suplemented their income by raiding. As such, they migh not be enough armoured men around to develop ideas on how to maximise armour.
We tend to asume that everyone knew everyting that had previously been known somewhere, but this was by no means automatic, any more than somali pirates knowing about and using Class 3+ Body armour and advanced tactical theories.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Keep in mind that the vikings where not a professional, organized force. They where freelancers or farmers that suplemented their income by raiding.


If speaking in regards to the Viking levy, OK. Even possibly in the very early period. But the personal force of a King or Jarl was as "regular" of a force you'll find in the middle ages. These were full time retainers of their lord.

The personal Hird or Huscarl, depending on what you want to call them (Huscarl is the Anglo-Saxon term - Nordics used the term Hird, a Huscarl being one of the lower ranking members (just above the light bearers or carriers as translated Big Grin ) could aslo be fairly numerous. Hardrada campaigned with 900 of his personal Hird during the war with Denmark around 1060, and of course this does not mean he took the entire hird with him. Many of these were likley prior members of the Varangian Guard.

As to the leather thing, I'm not sold on the fact they used leather under mail or even by itself with textile based as well, but It's still a possibility.

I lean more to the linen/silk/wool combo. Wool would be better than cotton I would think if worn for naval warfare, it holds moisture less than a cotton based type would.

I guess one question is what defines armour?

If a few layers of linen and thick wool are worn on a hot day, either under armour or by themselves, is this clothing or armour?

If the customary practice is to wear a particular woolon tunic and linen under armour, and that garment is not worn on an everyday basis (I could see a rust stained tunic being used just for under arour wear), is this armour or clothing?

A quilted cap worn by peasants as commonly worn in the middle ages as normal headwear, but also worn on the battlefield for protective values, is this armour or clothing?

These are not IRS tax codes used to define this, IMO if x layers of linen and thick wool as worn as protection, it falls under the realm of armour, though it could have been worn on its own as clothing.

Heck, Gambeson were worn as armour, but I'm sure they could also be used as warm items to wear if it was cold!
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
We tend to asume that everyone knew everyting that had previously been known somewhere, but this was by no means automatic, any more than somali pirates knowing about and using Class 3+ Body armour and advanced tactical theories.


Amen Elling. The idea that the tech of padding under maille was "lost" because we don't know if Scandinavian cultures used it or not is a funny one. Who says they ever had it before that era? Romans did not control everything and not everyone benefited from their know how (or stealing of good ideas).

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The idea that the tech of padding under maille was "lost" because we don't know if Scandinavian cultures used it or not is a funny one. Who says they ever had it before that era? Romans did not control everything and not everyone benefited from their know how (or stealing of good ideas).


A few things here - by the end of the roman era, roman and "barbarian" armies were very similar, it was hard to tell them apart according to historians.

I guess we should assume that rome's allies (an/or friends during this period) did not pick up the idea that "ouch, my bones break under mail, let me think of something to where under it, why not try padding like the romans do"?

If you want to assume Rome's barbarian members/allies did not pick up on this idea, fine, don't think it makes sense to discuss further.

But if it did, we are not talking much of a geopraphic distance between the roman empire and pre-viking scandanavian cultures. They were in contact with many of the germanics who were allies/enemies of rome.

Considering that wearing padding under mail is not a technological revelation or hindered by lack of technology, it should spread quickly, if it ever had to spread at all.

Look at how quickly even things that are changes in technology spread before this time - how quickly iron plows were in use by batlic peoples after the beginning of the "iron age".

I don't feel the idea of padding under mail was ever "lost" to begin with, it was used from pretty early on IMO. May be thick wool and other things opposed to being exactly like the padded gambeson, but some form of padding should have been there.

And go a bit later in the viking period - if they were raiding France and other countires including muslim ones (they had contact with moslem cultures prior to the crusades, earlier than most of westrn europe), you don't think they would have picked up on this idea?

And I guess also we should talk about the Franks as well in this. Did Carolingian Franks have an idea it was good to wear something padded under mail - after all, they had been allies of Rome and enemies for centuries before the "viking" era. And they tried to pattern much of their culture with Roman culture, including but not limited to titles. As england had a post-romano celtic culture, the Franks were in essence a post-romano germanic culture.

Either they never used padding under mail as their allies did, or they "forgot" after the fall of Rome, or lastly they did throughout the period. I vote for the latter.

If they had the "Knowledge" to wear some form of padding under mail, the vikings should have also had knowledge of it at least by the time they were rading france, if not well before when they were trading with France.

Or maybe as tough barbarians, they scorned the idea of wearing any type of padding under their mail, not wanting to imitate the weaker southerners. I highly doubt this was the case though.
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 13 Jan, 2009 2:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:

I guess we should assume that rome's allies (an/or friends during this period) did not pick up the idea that "ouch, my bones break under mail, let me think of something to where under it, why not try padding like the romans do"?

If you want to assume Rome's barbarian members/allies did not pick up on this idea, fine, don't think it makes sense to discuss further.

But if it did, we are not talking much of a geopraphic distance between the roman empire and pre-viking scandanavian cultures. They were in contact with many of the germanics who were allies/enemies of rome.

Considering that wearing padding under mail is not a technological revelation or hindered by lack of technology, it should spread quickly, if it ever had to spread at all..

First you have to demonstrate that Romans wore a padded garment under their mail. Nobody has presented a conclusive argument yet. If you don't then you are piling speculation on top of speculation.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 5:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The byzantines used padded armour in period vikings where active. However, they also used mail to a lesser extent, and where a lot more wealthy than the northern realms. (which is why a Varangian guard could earn what was a huge fortune in the north in a matter of years.)
Mail is also a lot more durable than padding, so a particular shirt of mail might be handed down from generation to generation.

In the summertime, wearing just a linen tunic underneat your mail is quite apealing. It is a lot cooler and lighter than wearing it with an arming jacket. In winter, you would probaby use an old woolen tunic that you are not particularly fond of, since it will soak with rust and oil.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 8:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
First you have to demonstrate that Romans wore a padded garment under their mail. Nobody has presented a conclusive argument yet. If you don't then you are piling speculation on top of speculation.


Beyond that was it used for maille of plate? The speculation I have read on the subject is for plate armor not the maille armor.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 10:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I thought it was pretty certain the Romans wore padded garments under their armour - the Subarmalis and or the thoracomachus. Here's a discussion of this on another thread from here:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=149840#149840

It appears there are a few references to this, though some are more vague.

Construction seems to have varies - from thick cloth with leather over it (possibly two garments), also a mention of thick felt (perhaps this is the thick cloth referred to).

No findings of such, but definitely literary references.

There is also the Frankish casket c. 7th, with what very well could be illustrations of padded garments being wron as armour.

Though a bit later, the Bayeaux tapestry shows warriors with diamond shaped patterns on their armour or clothing. Could be different illustrations of mail, though probably not. Possibly scale, though a diamond shaped pattern is not very "scale like". Possibly a quilted garment with diamond shaped quiltings, or lastly a design worn on the tunic.

The padded garments may not have been the same construction type as the gambeson - and this may also why it is tough to see them in illustrations. Diamond shaped quilts would not be viewed as a gambeson, as it does not have the "ribbing" of a traditional gambeson.

My thoughts are some form of padding was worn under mail even by vikings - though this could be thick wool, layers of linen, perhaps even as one garment combining these. The possibility of leather in use is also here, my reasoning here it it was apparently used in the Roman form, the saga may or may not refer to this type of a garment.

But the easily recognizable quilted gambeson with it's ribbing probably was an evolution of these padded garments, very possibly with islamic influence.

Also, as one of the roman sources referring to these types of armour are 4th century, when metal armour was much less commonly worn, this could refer to an actual type of armour worn in lieu of metal armour, much as the earlier greek linothorax.

Textile based garments have been worn under armour and in place of metal armour throughout history. It's certainly no technological stretch for a culture to do so. It very well looks as though romans, particularily later romans used these, and this would have been common knowledge amongst their allies and enemies, many nations were both through the last few hundred years of the empire.
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 13 Jan, 2009 1:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
I thought it was pretty certain the Romans wore padded garments under their armour - the Subarmalis and or the thoracomachus. Here's a discussion of this on another thread from here:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=149840#149840

It appears there are a few references to this, though some are more vague.

It is fairly certain that they wore padding under the segmentata. There is nothing to suggest that the same garment was worn under mail.

Quote:
Construction seems to have varies - from thick cloth with leather over it (possibly two garments), also a mention of thick felt (perhaps this is the thick cloth referred to).

Nobody has any idea of the construction. All is speculation since there is no evidence to provide insight.

Quote:
No findings of such, but definitely literary references.

Where?

Quote:

There is also the Frankish casket c. 7th, with what very well could be illustrations of padded garments being wron as armour.
It could just as easily be a dozen other things as well.

Quote:
Though a bit later, the Bayeaux tapestry shows warriors with diamond shaped patterns on their armour or clothing. Could be different illustrations of mail, though probably not. Possibly scale, though a diamond shaped pattern is not very "scale like". Possibly a quilted garment with diamond shaped quiltings, or lastly a design worn on the tunic.

The padded garments may not have been the same construction type as the gambeson - and this may also why it is tough to see them in illustrations. Diamond shaped quilts would not be viewed as a gambeson, as it does not have the "ribbing" of a traditional gambeson.
These are more likely to be civilian garments and not armour at all.

Quote:
Textile based garments have been worn under armour and in place of metal armour throughout history. It's certainly no technological stretch for a culture to do so. It very well looks as though romans, particularily later romans used these, and this would have been common knowledge amongst their allies and enemies, many nations were both through the last few hundred years of the empire.

There is a difference between a piece of clothing that is improvised as padding and a garment specifically designed for the purpose.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Tue 13 Jan, 2009 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 1:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The problem with debating what is possible is that is not proof. As a reenactor I cannot reconstruct something we have no evidence for. Say I strongly believed in "Viking padding under maille" how would you go about making something you have not written, visual, or extant evidence of? Anything we could make would be purely fictional as there is nothing to base anything on.


BTW as a war if the Roses reenactor I wear maille with padding over but not under maille. A number of maille/jack combos in art have no padding between the clothing layer and the maille.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 2:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:

Quote:
Nobody has any idea of the construction. All is speculation since there is no evidence to provide insight.


I don't have the exact passage in front of me, there are a few references to what was said regarding some of the padded garments. One passage list it is thick cloth, with leather over it (does not specify if it is part of the same or a seperate garment).

The other lists felt as the construction type. Here is the closest info I could find quickly:

http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/late-roman-armor/

Quote:
Underneath all late Roman armors a garment known as a thoracomachus, in Greek, or subarmalis, in Latin, was worn. An anonymous late-fourth- or early-fifth-century military manual, the De Rebus Bellicis, identifies the thoracomachus as a thick cloth garment that added protection to the armor, but at the same time also helped spread the weight, cut down friction and rubbing, and reduce the heat of wearing it. There are no artistic depictions of this garment, and, not surprisingly, none have survived, but it is thought that they were made of wool, felt, or linen and were padded or quilted. In wet weather a leather garment—made of Libyan hide, says the author of the De Rebus Bellicis—or, later, a hooded felt cloak was worn over the armor.


Quote:
These are more likely to be civilian garments and not armour at all.


I'd tend not to agree with this. The work went through to illustrate the diamond shaped patterns I would think meant an illustration of something else. I guess one could say the "mail" illustrations on the tapestry are civilian garments as well then.

Quote:
There is a difference between a piece of clothing that is improvised as padding and a garment specifically designed for the purpose.


Improvised is one thing, sure. But if a warrior customarily wore felt under armour, or a particualr extra thick woolen tunic in summer, it is part of their armour, not improvised clothing. Just because one does not wear the traditional gambeson with it's tubular pattern does not mean it is improvised.

James Barker wrote:

Quote:
As a reenactor I cannot reconstruct something we have no evidence for. Say I strongly believed in "Viking padding under maille" how would you go about making something you have not written, visual, or extant evidence of?


IIRC, some of the reenactor groups allow the use of padding under mail, as it is a debated issue. I was just yesterday on the site of one that did, of course they mentioned it is a debated issue.

As a reeactor for instance as a greek hoplite, do you not wear a Linothorax? It's construction is debated with little hard evidence (scales or not, etc. etc.)
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 13 Jan, 2009 3:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Gary Teuscher"]
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/late-roman-armor/

Quote:
Underneath all late Roman armors a garment known as a thoracomachus, in Greek, or subarmalis, in Latin, was worn. An anonymous late-fourth- or early-fifth-century military manual, the De Rebus Bellicis, identifies the thoracomachus as a thick cloth garment that added protection to the armor, but at the same time also helped spread the weight, cut down friction and rubbing, and reduce the heat of wearing it. There are no artistic depictions of this garment, and, not surprisingly, none have survived, but it is thought that they were made of wool, felt, or linen and were padded or quilted. In wet weather a leather garment—made of Libyan hide, says the author of the De Rebus Bellicis—or, later, a hooded felt cloak was worn over the armor.


The context of the book suggests that the passage in De Rubus Bellicis was speculation. It is suggesting a way to improve the performance of the troops. It doesn't not necessarily imply that such a garment was actually worn. In any case it does not mention whether it was to be worn under mail or some other type of armour.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 4:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
In any case it does not mention whether it was to be worn under mail or some other type of armour.


Well, it clearly does state it was to be worn under armour.

Now IIRC, the Lorica Segmentata was in less use by these times as well. So I guess one could try to assume that it was only for the Segmentata, not for mail. But that really does not make a whole lot of sense for it to be worn only under one form of metal armour and not the other.

Quote:
The context of the book suggests that the passage in De Rubus Bellicis was speculation.


What suggests this or why would it be interpreted as speculation?

As this is also one of the primary documnets used as a source for the plumbata, should we also assume that the plumbata was speculation?
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 13 Jan, 2009 4:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
As this is also one of the primary documnets used as a source for the plumbata, should we also assume that the plumbata was speculation?

It might if we didn't have dozens of surviving examples. There are other things in the book that never saw use on the battlefield.

Quote:
So I guess one could try to assume that it was only for the Segmentata, not for mail.

Scale and lamellar seem to have been at least as common as mail in this place and time. Segmentata was pretty much gone by the 4th century.
View user's profile Send private message
JE Sarge
Industry Professional



PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 4:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've been following this thread for awhile now, debating on whether or not to comment.

This is how I see it. There is no significant historical precedent for padding worn under your Viking re-enactment armor. If you need padding for comfort, simply stitch quilting tactfully under one of your tunics. Then, to the eyes of those watching (or nit-picking about your kit), you are in historical context because they cannot see your padding. If they cannot see it, it is technically not there - just as many have pointed out here in historical examples.

J.E. Sarge
Crusader Monk Sword Scabbards and Customizations
www.crusadermonk.com

"But lack of documentation, especially for such early times, is not to be considered as evidence of non-existance." - Ewart Oakeshott
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 4:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Scale and lamellar seem to have been at least as common as mail in this place and time. Segmentata was pretty much gone by the 4th century.


I agree. But the armour for it to make most sense to be worn under was mail - scale has it's own backing, it's own "undergarment" in essense. Lammelar provides better blunt trauma protection, being more rigid. So the most likley armour for it to be worn under would be mail, though it could have been worn under the others as well, probably lammelar more likley than scale.

Sounds like it's similar to the later Byazantine (or Roman actually) bambakion. As the Byzantines wore these, a similar type of armour mentioned in the above source would make sense to have been worn as well.

I don't think we can discount the thoracomachus merely because there were other items for warfare that may have never been used. The plumbata is of course an example of one that did see use. I'd put the thoracomachus more similar to the plumbata in terms of what may have seen actual use - the ox powered paddle ship maybe not.

And the other issue is there are more references to the subarmalis, and earlier references. I don't believe there is much conjecture of doubt as to whether the Subarmalis actually was used? IIRC, there was even a finidng of a Subarmalis. It seems to be regarded as pretty similar - leather + textiles, felt being mentioned as part of the construction as well.

Most or all historic reeactment groups (that focus on historical accuracy in the words of an earlier post) consider the subarmalis to be part of a legionairres armour, so there is certainly much support for this.


Last edited by Gary Teuscher on Tue 13 Jan, 2009 8:57 pm; edited 2 times in total
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 13 Jan, 2009 5:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:

Quote:
These are more likely to be civilian garments and not armour at all.


I'd tend not to agree with this. The work went through to illustrate the diamond shaped patterns I would think meant an illustration of something else. I guess one could say the "mail" illustrations on the tapestry are civilian garments as well then.

Why? One is depicted being worn in battle scenes the other is not.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 13 Jan, 2009 5:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Why? One is depicted being worn in battle scenes the other is not.


These diamond shaped patterns are in battle seens, if you look on the part of the tapestry where Harolds brothers were killed. They are wearing helmets, and their outer wear is clearly of a different design style than the style used for illustrating mail throughout the entire tapestry.
View user's profile Send private message
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed 14 Jan, 2009 8:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
Most or all historic reeactment groups (that focus on historical accuracy in the words of an earlier post) consider the subarmalis to be part of a legionairres armour, so there is certainly much support for this.


I would not say that. I only know a few guys who wear one with Roman armor. I wear my maille shirt over my tunic when I portray an auxiliary soldier of the first century.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 14 Jan, 2009 9:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I would not say that. I only know a few guys who wear one with Roman armor. I wear my maille shirt over my tunic when I portray an auxiliary soldier of the first century.


James, I could give you a web links to a handful of reenactment societies that mention that the Subarmalis should be worn under armour if you desire. Most that I have seen do mention this as something to be worn under armour.

OK, here are two that do: Wink

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/subarm.html

http://comitatus.net/HelmetsandArmour/subarmalis.html
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking padding
Page 3 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