[Jean Henri Chandler]

I apologize that my tone has gotten kind of nasty. I feel like I was responding in kind to the bizarre aggressive way the thread was being attacked, but I probably crossed over the line. I only know Dan from forums I'll decline from making estimates of his personality on that basis, since I know internet forums distort the way people come across.

I would like to be able to discuss this and similar issues without all the vitriol frankly. I'm sorry to the extent that I contributed to that.

J

[Gary Teuscher]

Ste Kenwright wrote (actually quoted):

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think the alleged lack of military sophistication by the Vikings is exxagerated.



...though I would guess that the Byzantines had more advanced tactics in 800 AD, I wouldn't necessarily be certain of it circa 1,000 AD.

It's important to remember that the Vikings not only lived well beyond the borders of Scandinavia, the VIking age lasted for a wide span of time during which many factors changed dramatically, the ubiquity of mail armor is one signficant example, as are the overall wealth of Norse people, their level of political centralization, and their degree of assimilation into the cultures of areas where they settled in Ireland, Normany, Scotland, the Baltic coast and in Russia and the Ukraine.

I belive the Osprey book I have on the Rus portrays them using what looked like composite bows carried in Gorytos like any other steppe warrior. I'll double check their sources for that tonight though, Osprey isn't always rigorously accurate.

J

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Gary Teuscher]

One thing I look at Jean is results of battles.

The Byzantines often won, but they also often lost. They seemed to struggle against the Normans in Italy in the early 11th century, and If they were so superior from a training and tactical standpoint this should not have been the case. They did win some engagements though. Funny, the troops that seemed to perform the best in this campaign were the Varangians!

The Normans were a pretty sound tactical bunch from what I have read, but no more a regular army any more than contemporary Viking forces would have been.

What this would indicate to me is that 1) Tactics and formation were not important in the winning of battles, or 2) European "feudal" and "Viking" armies were a lot more tactically sound then often given credit for.

[Mikael Ranelius]

On the subject of Vikings and the adoption of foreign military technology, in fact there are finds of at least one complete set of horse-archery equipment, including composite bows, excavated at the Birka garrison (source, p 56). We also got eastern-style lamellae, which evidently was in use on Gotland as late as at the battle of Visby in 1361.

Now, I’m not arguing that Scandinavian Viking armies frequently fielded units of horse archers, but at least we have hard evidence through archaeology that “foreign” military technology was known and existent in Scandinavia, and probably partially incorporated into local military systems such as the garrison at Birka.

[Gary Teuscher]

Interesting stuff, Mikael! I was aware of the lammelar, but not the Horse archery equipment.

For those curious about the prevalence of the use of the bow in Viking armies, look at the amount of arrowhead finds vs. other weapon finds on page 74.

[Chad Arnow]

Jean and Dan,
I'm sure you're both well aware of the fact that your sniping in the course of this thread has passed the bounds of what we consider acceptable here. You've both been around this forum long enough to know better and have both been warned in the past about such behavior.

Feel free to continue your spirited debate without the vitriol. If you can't, you'll find your posting privileges revoked.

The same goes for anyone else in this thread (or any thread on this site) who can't behave themselves.

There has been a lack of civility in some of the recent posts. Perhaps we're on our way toward fixing that. Let's make sure that happens.

[Ste Kenwright]

I can only echo Gary's disclaimer that we lack compelling archaeological or historical evidence for the use of padding in the Viking period: if not, then I imagine this thread would have been about two posts long, with a dictionary definition for an answer and where would the fun be in that?

It may be worth pointing out, as noted by the anonymous author of the military treatise I quoted before, some fighters of the day would make their own choice no matter what that military thinker believed was best, just as some re-enactors will continue to - so diversity is authentic and surely it wouldn't be very diverting if we all chose the same solution to these conundrums :-)

In that spirit:

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Thats brilliant stuff man, very interesting indeed, thanks for posting.

J

[Ste Kenwright]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I don't know if anyone else looked at this document Mikael Ranelius linked to here on the Material Culture of warriors from the Birka site...

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?u...lltext.pdf

..but I would say there is some data there that people interested in this sort of thing would find eye-opening. It has already changed my perception of the use of bows in Norse armies. There also appears to be significant evidence for both Lamellar armor and composite bows at Birka. Not just the one one grave which people have described as being an eastern grave as if from a foreign visitor, but multiple finds of several different types of lamelae, and components of Gorytos (combined quiver / bow-sheathes used for carrying bows on horseback), and numerous arrowheads which according to the paper are associated with Composite bows.

Which isn't at all surprising since as pointed out earlier in this thread the Rus were fighting with this kind of kit, and we know they traveled back and forth from Sweden.

I think we can now clearly say that we have solid archeological evidence for Vikings wearing Lamellar and using Composite bows in Scandinavia, and we do have some literary evidence of textile armor by the use of the word "Subarmalis" by Saxo. I suspect if we look further into the Sagas and the archeological record we will find more evidence .


I was also reading an essay today in this book about Galloglass warriors from the Hebrides and Western Scotland,

http://www.amazon.com/World-Gallowglass-Warlo...amp;sr=8-4

...which contained sourced material from the 14th Century Western Scotland, among the direct descendant of Norse (Norwegiean?) Vikings, describing armor they called "aketons" made of layers of quilted textile covered in pitch or wax, and topped with deerskin. I would say this resuscitate the often dismissed Saga reference to Reindeer hide armor. It clearly was not impossible to make armor which incorporated this material.

I also think it's very interesting that in this culturally Scandinavian area where they used a variety of Scandinavian inspired kit, from the mail armor, to the Brillin (Hebridian ships) to the Sparth Axe, they were almost uniquely for the British isles heavily reliant upon textile armor they called "aketons", both as an adjunct to and a replacement for mail Haubergons, these were mentioned in several records from the 14th Century on out.

I can post the specific references on request.

Jean

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Dan Howard]

[Daniel Staberg]

The Birka finds are very interesting but we must not misstake indivdual or even comparatively large scale local use of items for mass general use of either lammellar armour or composite bows. What is iclear is that some professional warriors in eastern Sweden used them which is not strange given the trade and military connections of eastern Sweden with Russia and the Black sea area. There was bound to be some transfer of equipment between these areas.
But the finds tells us nothing about western Sweden, Norway or the Danelaw in England which is why I react to any claims that "the vikings" used unusal or rare items based on single finds. Saying that the warriors of Birka used lammellar armour and composite bows is one thing. Saying that the vikings used lammellar armour and composite bows is quite another as it implies general use by a very large and diverse group. I fully agree that this applies to "the vikings did not use..." statements as well so parts of my earlier post contain that error.

Saxo was a late 12 century writer who actually died in the early 13th century at time at which Scandinvai was well into the middle ages and particularly the Danes with their easy connections to Germany and the Low Countries hade become a part of the European mainstream as far as the weapons & armour was concerned. As a trained historian i would be quite hesitant to use him as a source for the earlier period for several reasons. The main reason is that there is a high probability that he was describing the equipment of his own time rather than that of a period 100-300 years in the past. A problem which is rather common with medieval sources describing "Ancient times". Take for example the fine Burgundian tapestries describing the lives of Ceasar and Trajan. They are an excellent source for 15th century arms and armour but no one would claim that they portray Roman equippment.

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.

[Dan Howard]