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
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jan, 2009 3:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My argument is that javelins lose energy rather quickly beyond very close range, wich makes them low-energy compared to a crossbow bolt or an arrow. It's fairly easy to catch a javelin out of the air at maximum range for example. Much harder with an arrow. A 10mm linden shield may protect you against a javelin or a hatchet at long range, but not against a crossbow bolt from a 120 lb draw war bow or a 200 lb draw crossbow, let alone the 1000 lb + draw arbalests produced in the later Medieval period.

You are right though there are increasing numbers of bows called for in Norse Leidang rolls, but these date from the 11th -12th century which is late for the Viking era,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidang

...and we don't know that the bows people brought were long bows, of the miliatry type with heavy draw weight, special construction etc.. Bows were always useful in naval warfare of this period, but simpler types of bows and ordinary hunting weapons don't have anything like the range and power of a proper longbow.

But it's certainly true more and more bows were being used at this time, which not coincidentally was also the period of decline of the Vikings and of the old shield javelin and spear type of infantry which had dominated Europe going back to at least La Tene times, to be replaced by heavy cavalry, archers, and later halberds and pikes....

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
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Tue 27 Jan, 2009 8:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean,
There is nothing special about the construction of the Tudor longbows from the Mary Rose when compared to the preserved Scandinavian longbows. (All finds of which are longbows) The Hedeby and Balinderry bows are quite powerfull weaposn of the same design with the Hedeby bow rated at at a draweight of over 100 lbs. (No measurement has been made of the draw weight of the Balinderry bow but the size and design speaks for itself. Do note that even the 3rd & 4th century Nydam and Vismose bows are powerfull longbows which shows that the use of these bows have a long history of use in Scandinavia.
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 4:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

"Where is this literary evidence? I have gone over this thread several times. There is nothing apart from the Norse term treyja that is ambiguous but definitely deserves further study. "

The term "treyja" is very much well and alive in modern Sweden today, in fact I'm wearing one right now, and it would not be very useful if someone want to hurt me. The term treyja simply refers to a piece of cloathing covering your upper body. The correct translation to english would be sweater.

In other words there is still not a shread of evidence to support the claim that vikings wore padded armour or leather armour. Speculation is one thing evidence is something different. If we keep evidence and speculation apart this debate will be much more interesting. Some of us in this thread (myself included) is very much at home in the academic world and will therefore have a hard time to accepting the way claims are being made in this thread.

Regards,

/Vilhelm


Last edited by Ville Vinje on Wed 28 Jan, 2009 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean-Carle Hudon




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

Posts: 450

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 6:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seems that no one has found either archeological or literary references to the wearing of some form of padded garment beneath mail in the Viking period. Interesting. Now, has someone found any such reference to the wearing of any clothes at all beneath mail in the same period? Are we speculating yet again?
The difference between speculation and inferrence in this debate I think resides in the strength of known quantities. It is reasonable to infer that people wore garments in general as they came from cultures, and geographic zones, which encouraged the wearing of clothes, as opposed to quasi-naked cultures in warm climates. That there are archeological remains of some textiles was not really needed for most of us to accept that scandinavian peoples did not live the same way as Tahitians.
Now most of us accept that some form of padded garment was worn between the skin and the metal in europe in what is broadly called the middle ages ( the great gambeson-aketon debate), some continue to think that the padded garment was worn over the metal. Maybe they are the same ones who believe that scandinavian-viking cultures never formed the idea that padding between the skin and the metal could be usefull, and take comfort in the idea that archeological sources do not contradict their position.
As the Normans ( north men who settled on the coast of France north of Brittany) are , I think, known to have worn some form of padded garment, as they came from scandinavian-viking stock, as they continued to be in contact with that civilization, as they were no less manly than their cousins and certainly not any brighter, why would it not be reasonable to infer that their access to defensive accoutrements was similarly advanced ?
We can always try to diminish the impact of an argument by calling it speculation as opposed to direct evidence, but inference and balance of probabilities allow for conclusions which are not purely speculative. There is a difference between the two thought processes.
Direct evidence is always preferred, today DNA evidence exists, but people have functionned without DNA evidence for centuries. Errors were committed? Sure. Absolute certainty did not exist? Sure.... but the balance of probabilities allowed reasonable conclusions throughout the Ages and should not be totally rejected today.

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




Location: Sweden
Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 8:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ville Vinje wrote:
"Where is this literary evidence? I have gone over this thread several times. There is nothing apart from the Norse term treyja that is ambiguous but definitely deserves further study. "

The term "treyja" is very much well and alive in mordern sweden today, in fact I'm wearing one right now, and it would not be very useful if someone want to hurt me. The term treyja simply refers to a piece of cloathing covering your upper body. The correct translation to english would be sweater.

In other words there is still not a shread of evidence to support the claim that vikings wore padded armour or leather armour. Speculation is one thing evidence is something different. If we keep evidence and speculation apart this debate will be much more interesting. Some of us in this thread (myself included) is very much at home in the academic world and will therefore have a hard time to accepting the way claims are being made in this thread.

Regards,

/Vilhelm


The meaning of the term Treyja/tröja/tröia/etc has changed over time, what we today speak of as tröja (“sweater”) in modern Swedish is not necessarily the same as what the Vikings meant with treyja/tröia. In the 14th and 15th centuries, the term seems to have indicated a jakk or aketon (vapntræiu in the Norwegian Hirdlov). When the term appears in a civilian context (14th century onwards) it’s alluding to the new kind of fashionable buttoned doublet that appears to have been modeled upon military garments. From then on, the meaning of the term seems to shift until it finally applied to civilian clothing only, namely front-opened jackets or doublets.

Then, for instance, in the Siljan-region traja/tråja/träja were (are) traditionally terms that specifically referred to female jackets.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikael Ranelius




Location: Sweden
Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 8:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean-Carle Hudon wrote:
Now, has someone found any such reference to the wearing of any clothes at all beneath mail in the same period?


Yes, in fact we do have such references. In the thread about whether the Vikings used leather armor or not, I pointed out an episode in the Heimskringla where king Magnus is described throwing off his mail and exposing a red silk shirt worn beneath. There’s also an account in the Färö Saga of mail shirts being worn on top of woolen tunics or cotes. Any mentioning of presumed padding is conspicuously absent though…
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 28 Jan, 2009 10:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are also the references in Irish insular literature, I'll go through my library and see if i can find them, it's been a while since I read some of these books.

Given the sheer number of Sagas I was thinking I'd actually be surprised if there is no mention at all to textile armor or under-armor from this period, but I'll go back and look. On a hunch I just was looking through Saxo Grammaticus "history of the danes" and read the famous story about Ragnar Lodbrock fighting the serpents. I think this part is pretty interesting:

http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book9.html
Quote:
Ragnar, learning from men who travelled to and fro how the matter stood, asked his nurse for a woolen mantle, and for some thigh-pieces that were very hairy, with which he could repel the snake-bites. He thought that he ought to use a dress stuffed with hair to protect himself, and also took one that was not unwieldy, that he might move nimbly.


That is a semi-mythological saga of course, so by no means constitutes proof of anything. But it's interesting. (The whole episode is interesting since it's right on the cusp of being a story about clearing some snakes out of a forest, wearing the 'hairy breeks' being an excellent precaution, and a more fantastical dragon slaying tale...) At the very least it implies the idea of putting fill-padding inside a garment was not inconceievable to these folks.

but I wonder what the actual word for this 'dress' stuffed with hair was in the original language (Latin? Danish?).

I'm going to look through some of the other books I have at home and see if I can find any other similar references to whatever was worn under armor and / or any kind of references to textile cloth armor besides the famous reindeer hides. I'm not so certain there aren't any.

J

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 28 Jan, 2009 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total
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 28 Jan, 2009 10:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel Staberg wrote:
Jean,
There is nothing special about the construction of the Tudor longbows from the Mary Rose when compared to the preserved Scandinavian longbows. (All finds of which are longbows) The Hedeby and Balinderry bows are quite powerfull weaposn of the same design with the Hedeby bow rated at at a draweight of over 100 lbs. (No measurement has been made of the draw weight of the Balinderry bow but the size and design speaks for itself. Do note that even the 3rd & 4th century Nydam and Vismose bows are powerfull longbows which shows that the use of these bows have a long history of use in Scandinavia.


Agreed I realize longbows have been found in Scandinavia going back considerably before the Viking Age even, but not all bows qualify as longbows, which I understand had a special construction, different type of wood inserted in the compression area IIRC? I'm not sure the bows regular farmers would bring to the Liedang would have this feature or not, I'm not sure how widespread the technique / technology was or how hard to implement.

I tend to lean toward they did not use a lot of longbows in warfare mainly because I never read many descriptions of them used en-masse (I remember used once to kill an angry bull that was blocking an army...), but I am not ruling it out, it would be an interesting nuance on my understnading of VIking warfare if that were the case. Does anyone know about how many arrowheads were typically found in Viking battlefields that have been excavated?.

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
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 10:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Interesting, Mikael. I tried to find info on the Treyja but the only things I found were in Swedish or other language I could not read!

Any idea when the Treyja was first mentioned?

Quote:
In other words there is still not a shread of evidence to support the claim that vikings wore padded armour or leather armour. Speculation is one thing evidence is something different. If we keep evidence and speculation apart this debate will be much more interesting. Some of us in this thread (myself included) is very much at home in the academic world and will therefore have a hard time to accepting the way claims are being made in this thread.


Ville, my guess is we will never find any true evidence of an undergarment for Viking mail. We have the Roman undergarments, referenced IIRC 4 sperate times. One reference may be a bit ambigous, but 4 references from different time periods to me clearly shows evidence of the garment in use, though it's exact composition is sketchy. Bearing that in mind, Rome was around for longer than the Viking period, was far more populated than the Viking lands, and yet we have zero finds of this. One could say all the documents describing this are speaking hypothetically, though I think that is just denying literary evidence. And the argument that it was worn purely under lammelar or the Segmentata but not under mail has absolutely no literary evidence at all, and is far more speculative than the arguments for padding under mail.

If you disagree with any of this, please say so. Not saying that Romans wearing padding under mail is evidence the Vikings did - but that there will likley be no finds of this. Whatever finds there are will likley be cloth fibers, indistinguishable from clothing.

I don't think I or most arguing the case for Vikings wearing padding under mail have claimed there is irrefutable evidence to this, but that we feel it is probable they did. Here IMO is the argument for boiled down to a few points:

1) Padding under mail was worn by the Romans, unless you fail to believe 4 literary references to a padded undergarment, and or believe that it was not worn under mail, only other forms of metal aqrmour, when nothing at all states this. If worn by the Romans, it was also probably worn by Germanic Allies, who would have been in rather close contact with the Pre-Viking Scandanavians.

If you do not believe Romans wore padded garments under mail, or that this practice would not have been also carried out by their allies, who were very "Romanized" by the end of the empire, please say so. Many cultures of this time are referred to as Post Romano ____ (Britons, gauls, etc.), as they had been somewhat assimilated into Roman culture. Heck, there have been studies of the average height of Roman soldiers based on remains, and the average height of the Legionairres dramatically increased towards the end of the empire, which is attributed to the large amount of Germanic Tribesmen taking service in Roman armies.

Did the practice of wearing underarmour under mail stop with the end of the Roman empire - Doubtful, as wearing a layer of felt and an item of leather under mail is hardly somethng Hi-tech that would have been lost like the making of concrete.

2) The Vikings had contact with many cultures who wore padding under mail - The Byzantines (unless one assumes the Bambakion was worn only under lammelar, which again makes little sense and has no references to this point), The Islamic nations, and depending on if you agree with #1 above, the Franks and Saxons (thought I would throw in the Saxons - they at first took service and later warred with a culure very strongly influenced by Roman ways - the Post-Romano Britons. if you believe Romans wore underarmour under mail per item #1, the Britons should have kept up this tradition).

The Byzantines and Islamics are not really debatable if they wore padding under armour, the Franks and Saxons are debatable if you believe they stoppoed wearing padding under metal armour after the fall of Rome.

For the Vikings not to pick up the idea of wearing padding from these other cultures would have been a conscious desire not to. I think it would have been very dificult hrough trade and less peaceful contact to not noice the other cultures wore some type of additional protection under mail.

Why would they have decided not to? Mail protects far better with a padded garment under it if you believe Williams' testing. It's inexpensive in comparison to mail. It is far lighter than mail. A desire not to do this by a very practical Viking culture would have been a suprise. Not that stranger things have not happened, but it would be a suprise. The fact that it's hotter to wear this has been brought up, but the Islamics in a far hotter clime wore this. Plus it acts as insulation for mail that gets hotter in the sun.

Now, this is certainly not "evidence". My guess is regardless if worn, evidence will never be found. It does make sense, and would be of no suprise to me if it was found that Vikings wore soemthing like this.

My own personal thought about the quilted body armour from the later middle ages we see illustrated - something probably similar to a subarmalis was worn by much of NW europe under armour. Possibly something similar to this in place of metal armour. A few historians think the "diamond shaped" patterns on the downed Saxon warriors on the tapestry are a leather type of armour, diamond shaped pieces of leather sewn on to a backing or sewn to themselves. My though, which follows the later period of armour better is these very well could have been quilted patterns. They are different by far from the unarmoured archers or mailed warriors. But why make these leather when quilted was going to be a poular form of armour within a hundred years.

For me I take it more as a changing of styles from something like this to the later tubular quilts. It was probably found that the Saracens style of garment under armour offered better protection than the ones used in Europe based more on the Subarmalis.

Feel free to attack this hypothesis, though I must say I realize it is very much a hypothesis, even more so than the thought of Vikings using padding under armour!

By the way Jean, I'll happily debate the evolution of archery from the Dark ages through the Middle Ages, or Viking military structure, or the evolution of threats on the battlefield during this time. Maybe on another thread, but I'd like to keep on topic on this one Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Jean-Carle Hudon




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

Posts: 450

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you Mikael,but whether silk shirts or woolen cotes, the evidence is not conspicuous one way or another. The thickness of the tunics, and whether the silk was covering something else, or whether tunics were sewn together , was obviously of no interest to the writer or teller of the sagas. They were not leaving records for future generations of seamstresses or tailors.
You can go through all of Froissard's accounts, hundreds of pages full of details of the battles between English, French, Bretons and Bouguignons, and not learn anything about the undergarments or protections worn by the protagonists. Not because such things did not exist, but there was no interest in mentionning them.
We know they raised cattle, and certainly stole cattle when they raided. We know they traded for furs. We know they were seafarers and had an interest in not freezing on the North Atlantic and the North sea, we know their ships were fairly open to the elements, the wind, sea-spray,rain snow and sleet, I infer that they had well develloped knowledge of how to protect themselves, and I know that a silk shirt just doesn't make it.
When they settled Russia, another well known cold spot,they had to dress up. An arab commentator who claims to have witnessed a burial, reported that the deceased wore a tunic and a caftan over his stockings and trousers. He was going to get incinerated, not face the Russian winter, still he wore something over his tunic.
Now, when they got around to raiding Spain, the south of France, northern Africa, I'm quite sure that layers of clothing came off, although we have no contemporary reports on the subject.
Anyway my friends, the whole point is that evidence, and the burden, will vary depending on the test one wishes to apply.
''Beyond a reasonable doubt'' can set an ex-football player free in the mind of some juries, ''on a balance of probabilities'' will see the same football player found liable in a civil case before a different jury. The tobacco lobby denied that there was any relationship beween the use of tobacco and cancer, some still do.. then there is creationisn... the flat earth society.. and so on. We have no witnesses, and as yet no DNA type objective archeological finds, nor even a how-to book by a tailor, so we can either reason and infer from what we do have, or settle for one or two references, as mentionned by Mikael,to conclude that norsemen didn't run around in berserker or Tahitian mode in Normandy, Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, and all those other places not renowned for their tropical climate. Brrrrr!
A quilted material offers better protection from the cold, and offers padding at the same time. Why would one insist on wearing metal, a well known conductor of cold without any such protection? I would cast my lot, on a probability vote, for the wearing of a quilted undergarment. By the same token, if I was held to the much higher standard of ''beyond a reasonable doubt'' , it could be that scandinavians wore layered clothing and never took to what was being done elsewhere, it is possible and we don't have the smoking gun....sometimes you just have to acquit, though your gut tells you otherwise.

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




Location: UK
Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:47 am    Post subject: Viking padding         Reply with quote

Hi guys I thought these comments by Kim Siddorn discussing a similair topic 'Leather Armour' on a Regia Anglorum email group might be of interest. Cheers Kim for permission.

During the tests we did at the Royal Military Academy lab a few years ago,
the nature of composite armour was really borne in upon me. In fact, a
surface supporting the mail - or Kevlar - made the armour less efficient if
it was too stiff.

For instance, a sheepskin leather jack would not be strong enough on its own
to offer much resistance, but if the wool was still on it and it had been
felted (either deliberately or with with much wearing) & was sewn down with
(say) a piece of linen, then it would provide a decent amount of protection.

A thin tunic made of cow or horse hide is tough in its own right, would move
in front of the point & fold around the mail causing it to bunch & resist
penetration.

A thick leather jack has to be capable of doing the job on its own & a Civil
War buff coat would do just that and even (I understand) deflect a glancing
blow from a musket ball. IIRC, there is a genuine original at the Armouries
& another at The Wallace Collection. They are not often replicated properly
as - again - we hope that no-one is really going to try to kill the wearer.

The point about motorcycle clothing is well made, but here of course we are
more into abrasion resistance and modern Kevlar & foam armour is
incorporated in this - ta-da! - composite armour to resist the striking of
the ground and passing traffic.


Best
Dave[/quote]

and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
In fact, a
surface supporting the mail - or Kevlar - made the armour less efficient if
it was too stiff.


Makes sense to me, David. It's like testing mail backed by a 2x4 vs backed by quilt3. You get pnetrate easier with a rigid backing.
View user's profile Send private message
David Huggins




Location: UK
Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 12:04 pm    Post subject: Viking padding         Reply with quote

And more, see an interesting ref to 'Leather Tunic' dated within the Viking Age from Hedaby

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/leather.html

Cheers to Steve Etheridge of Regia Anglorum for bringing this to my attention.

and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
Ville, my guess is we will never find any true evidence of an undergarment for Viking mail. We have the Roman undergarments, referenced IIRC 4 sperate times. One reference may be a bit ambigous, but 4 references from different time periods to me clearly shows evidence of the garment in use, though it's exact composition is sketchy.

OK I'd like citations. The only reference I know of is in De rebus bellicis 15:

Expositio thoracomachi

Inter omnia quae ad usum bellicum provida posteritatis cogitavit antiquitas, thoracomachum quoque mira utilitate ad levamen corporis armorum ponderi et asperitati subiecit. Hoc enim vestimenti genus, quod de coactili ad mensuram et tutelam pectoris humani conficitur, de mollibus lanis timoris sollicitudo sollertia magistra composuit ut hoc inducto primum lorica vel clivanus aut his similia fragilitatem corporis ponderis asperitate non laederent. Membra quoque vestientis inter armorum hiemisque discrimen tali solatio adiuta labori sufficiant. Sane ne idem thoracomachus pluviis verberatus ingravescente pondere adficiat vestientem, de Libycis bene confectis pellibus ad instar eiusdem thoracomachi faciem conveniet superinducere. Hoc igitur, ut diximus, thoracomacho inducto, qui Graeca appellationne ex tuitione corporis nomen assumpsit, soccis etiam, hoc est calciamentis, et ferratis ocreis inductis, superposita galea et scuto vel gladio lateri aptato, arreptis lanceis in plenum pedestrem subiturus pugnam miles armabitur


'Exposition on the thoracomachus

Among all those things which antiquity has thought of with an eye to postery for wartime use, it also conceived the thoracomachus of remarkable usefulness as relief for the body of the weight and discomfort of arms. For this kind of clothing, which is made of felt to the size and care of the human chest, the concern for fear has made of soft wool strands with utmost care in order that after this was put on first a body armour or cuirass or things similar to these would not damage the frailty of the body through the discomfort of the weight. The limbs as well will up to the work in the moment of arms or bad weather helped through the relief provided by such a garment. In order to prevent this thoracomachus from hampering the wearer when drenched in rains through increasing weight, it is useful to put on on top a garment made from well prepared Libyan hides to the precise specification of the thoracomachus. Therefore, having put on this thoracomachus, as we say, which has taken up its name from the Greek expression because of the protection of the body, and his boots, that is shoes, and having put on iron greaves, with the helmet put on top and with shield or sword at the side, with spears grasped the soldier will be armed in full to enter the infantry battle.'

---------------

As can be seen the thorachomachus is mentioned 4 times in the SAME passage. That is not four separate references. Where are the other 3?

Now some questions regarding this particular passage: What is meant by "antiquity"? Does this passage even talk about a garment that is in actual use or is it simply advocating its alleged usefulness? What type of armour is this meant to be worn under? Nowhere in this passsage does it say that the garment improves protection. It is only used for "relief for the body of the weight and discomfort of arms".

One further point: An additional leather garment is recommended for keeping out rain. The thoracomachus itself does not have any leather in its construction. Classical Greeks used a similar leather garment called a spolas. It was probably just a leather poncho that was worn over the top of everything.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I just looked at bishop Odo on the Tapestry and I think it is clear that he has mail under the mysterious garment. You can see the mail on the head and on the lower part of hands. Could that be some sort of garment to show his status as a bishop or should it be interpreted as a kind of protection, no matter what kind (cloth, leather, stuffed, not stuffed... Happy )?

Last edited by Luka Borscak on Wed 28 Jan, 2009 3:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 3:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary.

Some of your thoughts are very interesting. There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you do not confuse it with fact and evidence. Clearly this is something you understand. Therefore I can see no harm in further speculation on what could or could not have happened during the viking age.

Maybe vikings wore padded undergarments under their chainmail, it is certainly a possibility. I, for myself, do not belive that they did, but this is just an opinion, nothing else.

To all of you guys out there, remember:

* Speculation is not evidence.
* practical is not evidence.
* It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative.
* Remember which time period we are talking about.
* Remember which geographical area we are looking at.
* Stay on topic.

Regards,

/Ville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 4:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Very interesting piece of info Dan. Where did you find it?

I do not have the exact sources, though IIRC Polybius made mention of the Subarmalis. My stating that there were several sources for this type of garment came from here:

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

Quote:
We use the term subarmalis to refer to the garment worn under the armor to protect clothing and body from chafing and soiling. There are several literary references to it, though at least one is ambiguous and may refer to a weapon. A 4th century description, which uses the term thoracomachus, says it is made of thick cloth, covered with leather (or with a separate leather garment over it) for waterproofing. However, there are no confirmed archeological remains or certain depictions.


From what someone said earlier on this thread, the person in charge of LegioXX is a poster on the board. Maybe he can enlighten us as to the exact sources of the references of the Subarmalis.

Quote:
What is meant by "antiquity"? Does this passage even talk about a garment that is in actual use or is it simply advocating its alleged usefulness?


Reading it, it appears antiquity conceived of the Thoracomachus, which I would take to mean it had been conceived in antiquity, i.e. is not a new item.

Quote:
What type of armour is this meant to be worn under?


"after this was put on first a body armour or cuirass or things similar to these" Apparently body armour, or a cuirass, or things similar to these. I'd throw mail into that category.

Quote:
Nowhere in this passsage does it say that the garment improves protection.


No it does not. Although as mentioned above and confirmed by testing, a softer padded type garment under mail does significantly improve it's ability to resist piercing, I'm sure you would agree with this Dan. Was it as effective as the later padded garments worn in the Middle ages - probably not. But more effective than mail on it's own. Test mail against arrows with a tunic behind it and then with a thick layer of felt, and see which performs better. I'm betting on the felt.

Quote:
An additional leather garment is recommended for keeping out rain. The thoracomachus itself does not have any leather in its construction.


I'd agree with this reading of the translation. Although I don't think it is a far cry from what I mentioned earlier in this thread, other reading it it would indicate two garments instead of my statement "possibly":

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).


I was thinking of something on the Viking padding again as well. The Rus, largely scandanavians involved in trade and also plunder, were at war with Byzantine by 830, during this time having numerous conflicts with the Byzantines, as well as serving in the varangian guard. There was also likely much trade also, as noted by the large amounts of Islamic coins found in scandinavia. There are also Norwegian Varangians who returned home after a period of service. All this points to a lot of contact with Byzantium and VIkings through trade, employment, and warfare.

The Rus had been in contact with the Byzantines at least since 830. fairly early in the VIking period. The Byzantines have many references to quilted types of armour, some worn under, some worn over the armour. I'm not sure of the exact source on this but the lighter troops more a padded garment on it's own.

Do we think Varangian guardsmen wore quilted armour under or over their mail? Or did they refuse to? Did some of these scandanavian members of the Varangian guard return home, or are we to assume Hardrada's band was an isolated incident? Upon returning home, assuming they did wear the various byzantine quilted armours, did they not see the benefit of this? Through years of trade and conflict with Byzantium, did they not take to wearing some padded garments?

It's hard for me to picture a war with Byzantine against the Rus, with varangians fighting in the employ of the Byzantines, that we had the Byzantines in their quilted materials under or over their armour, and the Rus not learning or trying this as well.

I can see two Rus outside the walls of Byzantium -

"Brother, what is that the Byzantines wear under their mail?"

"Oh, it's padding. Stops arrows better, easy to make, not expensive"

"and we don't wear it?"

"No. It's not our tradition"

I find this rather implausible.


Quote:
* Speculation is not evidence.
* practical is not evidence.


Never claimed it was, Ville. Clearly we have no evidence of Vikings wearing padding under mail, and I really doubt we ever will. When close to half of our literary evidence written the Vikings themselves is limited to Snorri writing a few hundred years after the fact (OK, maybe not half our knowledge, but I think you get the point), there is little in the way of literary sources, and a find of such a garment other than fibers that are impossible to distiguish is unlikely, we will never have any "evidence".

I think one issue is one group is trying to prove that there is no evidence, the other is arguing an opinion. I am not claiming the opinion to be evidence, though for me it points in the direction something of some sort was worn under mail by Vikings.
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 28 Jan, 2009 5:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ville Vinje wrote:
To all of you guys out there, remember:

* Speculation is not evidence.
* practical is not evidence.
* It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative.
* Remember which time period we are talking about.
* Remember which geographical area we are looking at.
* Stay on topic.

Regards,

/Ville


Is any of this supposed to be directed at me? Because I have a very solid grasp of both the time period and the geographical area we are talking about. And by the way, the term most people use now is 'mail' not "chainmail".

The logical impossibility of proving a negative may sound very definitive, but categorically saying that something didn't exist in a particular period when we don't have any evidence either way isn't any less illogical than categorically saying it did.

Establishing logically whether it is possible is only one step in this discussion, and pretending that the entire argument hinges on asking one side to 'prove a negative' is disingenuous. I'm not saying you are doing that here, because you were ambiguous as to whom you were speaking, but it was done in this thread.

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: Thu 29 Jan, 2009 4:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
I do not have the exact sources, though IIRC Polybius made mention of the Subarmalis. My stating that there were several sources for this type of garment came from here:

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

Quote:
We use the term subarmalis to refer to the garment worn under the armor to protect clothing and body from chafing and soiling. There are several literary references to it, though at least one is ambiguous and may refer to a weapon. A 4th century description, which uses the term thoracomachus, says it is made of thick cloth, covered with leather (or with a separate leather garment over it) for waterproofing. However, there are no confirmed archeological remains or certain depictions.


Find a website that cites its sources. You keep saying that the thoracomachus is mentioned four times so I finally call you on it and now you back off. One mention in one book is not evidence - especially when it implies that it wasn't even worn at the time. If you think Polybius talks about something called a subarmalis then provide a cite. I find it very hard to believe since the term is a Latin one and Polybius wrote in Greek.

FWIW it is highly likely that the Romans wore a padded garment under the segmentata since the armour cannot be worn properly without padding in the shoulders. Mail can be worn perfectly without such a garment. IMO Roman mail had its own liner. There is no other logical reason to put a leather edging on mail unless it is to help attach such a liner. It is very unlikely that the Romans wore a separate padded garment under their mail and I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that any other culture made use of a separate padded garment under mail armour before the Middle Ages.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 29 Jan, 2009 4:49 am    Post subject: Re: Viking padding         Reply with quote

David Huggins wrote:
And more, see an interesting ref to 'Leather Tunic' dated within the Viking Age from Hedaby

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/leather.html

Cheers to Steve Etheridge of Regia Anglorum for bringing this to my attention.


How is this relevant? We already know that they wore clothing made of leather.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Viking padding
Page 6 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