[Dan Howard]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Dan Howard]

[Josh Warren]

Mr. Chandler, you have made several leaps of logic here. Clearly, you want to believe that the Norse made use of padded garments under their mail. Do you have anything to support this belief other than wishful thinking? Rather than attacking your opponents, can you present any actual evidence that supports your position?

[Gary Teuscher]

Josh Warren wrote:

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Dan Howard]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I have worn a padded gambeson for sparring in 90 degree heat and high humidity here in New Orleans just to keep from getting bruises. They do it routinely in big SCA fights too that are held in the US South. So it's not that much of a hindrance, and I have no doubt it could be worn in battle to save people from getting their lungs punctured. In fact we know it was later in history. Plate harnesss breathes much less and is much hotter to wear than either mail or linen. So no Dan the segue about Towton is not relevant to the Viking age.

But both of these are diversions from the issue, namely heat IS affected by climate and weather (and things like the availability of water) but would at best be a circumstantial impediment to the use of any historical armor at best, it would not rule out the use of it for hundreds of thousands of warriors across four centuries. They certainly wore plate harness in spite of the heat issues, in fact we know the Crusaders wore mail with gambesons* in the Middle East. They wore rhino hide armor in India for gods sake.

Also, I disagree Gary, there is one major difference between the Iron Age battlefields and the later Medieval battlefields. The primary threat for most troops in both cases was not spears at all but missiles. In the Iron Age these would be mostly low-energy missiles, i.e. primarily javelins. Thats not to say they don't hit hard especially thrown at short range, but at longer range could be stopped with shields. By the Medieval period increasingly very high energy missiles; long bows, very powerful winch spanned crossbows, recurve composite bows, and by the time plate armor began arriving, firearms and cannons. These cannot be stopped by the kind of light shields used by the Vikings and increasingly were threats even to mail armor (with or without padding)

Finally while I do agree with Jean that this debate includes the usual misunderstanding of positions what I saw on the start of this thread were a lot of categorical denials of textile armor being used by Vikings, which now seems to have evolved into a slightly more nuanced position that it's unlikely. Bottom line is we don't know. But I'm sick of people trying to shut down these discussions as if by religious fiat, and sorry Dan, if you don't have proof of your position you can't state it as fact whether it's a negative or a positive. If I say there isn't any iron in the core of the Earth I'd still have to prove it.

We have a lot of people here with a lot of knowledge, we are all interested in history, why does everyone have to get so personally invested in so many of these types of discussions? Outside of re-enactor group politics which I could care less about, does it really matter to us whether Longbows could pierce platemail or not? No it doesn't, because whatever the actual fact is, IS what happened. We can't go back and change it, it is part of the history that made us who we are and got us here to argue on the internet. We can't change history no matter how much we'd like to. We can't control history because 'the truth will out". I think we'd all get along better and have more fun discussions if rather than trying to bend history to suit our own wishes, we allowed ourselves to search for what it actually was, the chase is challenging enough for many lifetimes, it's an elusive target we will never quite catch.

J

* arming coats whatever you know what I mean

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Someone also mentioned in the thread already that there are numerous references in insular Irish literature to textile armor in battles which included Vikings.

J

[Dan Howard]

IMO an item cannot be defined as "armour" unless it is specifically designed to resist damage. So thick winter clothing is not armour even though it does provide some level of protection. An aketon is not armour since it is not designed to be worn on its own. It acts as a foundation for mail to improve comfort, reduce chafing and (in some circumstances) reduce blunt trauma. My point about the under-padding is related to whether a garment was designed specifically to be worn under mail (e.g. aketon) or whether the same function was performed with regular clothing - perhaps a few layers. Nobody is saying that Vikings wore mail against naked skin so something was worn underneath. Was it clothing or was it some sort of purpose-built aketon? Given the available evidence, regular clothing is more likely.

[Dan Howard]

[Gary Teuscher]

Jean Henri Chandler wrote:

[Jean Henri Chandler]

The Norse were essentially a culture emerging from the Iron Age, the Iron Age is usually considered to have lasted in Northern Europe until around 800 AD

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

The Norse did have longbows going way, way back, in fact the longbow may have originated in Scandinavia, but we have very little evidence of massed use of longbows in battles during the period 800 AD - 1000 AD, though they probably did encounter them and use them. As you said, they are rare up to that point.

The predominant weapon on the European battlefield from Viking times back to the Bronze Age was the javelin and other thrown missiles (fransisca axes, pilum, darts, plumbata, rocks etc.). Archers were generally specialist troops and were not that widespread, except in the East, and some places like Crete. Same for slingers who were recruited from the Baeleric isles etc.. The Romans of course also used Artillery, which the Byzantines kept using. But in Northern Europe from Halsstadt / Roman Republican times through the battle of Hastings the javelin was king of the battlefield, opposing armies would shower each other with javelins before shock infantry or cavalry was ever deployed. In many cases it was these low-energy missiles that decided the day, the infantry charge was done to rout the crumbling enemy.

Higher-energy missiles began appearing in widespread use shortly after the Viking age, at least by the time of the 1st Crusade. This was as siginifcant of a change on the battlefield as the rise of heavy cavalry and later, pike and halberd armed infantry (high energy missiles)

Longbows started to be used more intensively ating from the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales in the 12th Century. By the time of Edward I (13th Century) they were already a major part of the English armies.

Crossbows, granted not necessarily cranequin powered until later but still very powerful and much higher energy than a javelin, were widespread by the 12th Century, in many regions of Europe not just Italian cities. The famous Eccclesiastical interdict against using them on Christians in the Lateran council was in 1139 AD.

Powerful recurvie composite bows were also forcibly introduced into Europe by the Mongols in the 12th Century.

By the end of the 13th Century very, very powerful Arbalests (crossbows), initially made of composite organic materials and later spring steel, and early firearms were appearing in battlefields across Europe, followed by cannon. By the end of the 14th they were all widespread.

J

[Josh Warren]

I have indeed followed the entire thread.

Look, no offense guys, but your position that the Viking-age Norse wore some sort of dedicated padding under their mail seems based on a combination of wishful thinking and leftover Victorian "mail-is-useless-without-padding" supposition. The notion that mail was always worn with padding may need to be consigned to the same rubbish bin in which we now place other results of outdated scholarship like Ffoulkes' "banded mail" or leather lorica segmentata, etc.

Seriously, I just don't see any firm evidence presented that should cause anyone to believe that Vikings wore anything more than a tunic or two under their byrnies. Anecdotal evidence from modern re-enactment experience just doesn't cut it. The "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" tactic isn't convincing either--that's the last refuge of a losing argument.

Can you present anything in the way of proof to support your position? Anything at all beyond statements like "...we should not assume the Vikings were not intelligent enough to realize this?" Intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it. We just have to accept that, in the total absence of any evidence to support the idea of Viking mail padding, we must conclude that it simply didn't exist. Arriving at any conclusion beyond that is impossible given our current understanding of their material culture. Any other position is untenable.

Nobody's trying to "shut down" discussion of the topic; nobody "doesn't want" Vikings to have not had mail padding. I don't do Viking re-enactment and have no dog in the fight--I only care because I feel that the reasons for holding on to the belief that they used mail padding amount to tenuous evidence at best. Concluding that it "is possible" that they used it is enough of a stretch, but to conclude that it was "likely" that they did? Come on; that's going a bit far given the solid evidence available to us, don't you think?

[Jean Henri Chandler]

There has been plenty of evidence cited in the thread, I really don't care if you choose to ignore it.

You say it's a 'stretch' to assume that it was even possible for them to have textile under-armor OR textile armor (I'm not ruling out either). Based on what precisely? What makes it so nearly impossible? They didn't have textiles? or they didn't know how to sew? Or they had never heard of such a thing? Or (excuse me for laughing) it was too expensive? Or too hot? Give me a break.

We have already pointed out that precious little 'Viking' armor of any type has been found including that made of much more durable materials, nor other textile armors we know were used (linothorax) even though we know it was widely used in other areas (and in a drier environment). Very little clothing survives from the Norse either. This is because they were living 1000 years or more in the past and not that much textile (or even iron) survives that long.

Why don't you please provide some evidence for your argument that it's a 'stretch'.

Yes I'm certainly arguing it's plausible. I'd personally even drift over into likely, but the fact is as I've pointed out more than once in this thread, we simply don't know. Unlike you I'm not trying to pretend we have a concrete vision of every aspect of life 1000 years ago.

The issue of plausibility does boil down to how effective mail is with and without padding underneath. Comparing the conclusion that it is significantly more effective with padding than without with the idea of banded mail or leather lorica is cute, why stop there, why not compare it to ninjas cutting battleships in half with Samurai swords. Viking Kittens rowing to the tune of Led Zeppelin. Does that go far enough? This is in fact an attempt to shut down the debate by belittling anyone who discusses evidence you don't like or supports those who have. I'm not intimidated by it. In fact I'll call your bluff.

We just had an exhaustive test on mail and textile armor posted to this forum, there have been many, many others done by Erik Schmid, Royal Armory at Leeds, numerous HEMA groups and re-enactors. Maybe you could post an alternative demonstrating that mail was comparably effective with and without textiles underneath against the type of weapons faced by 8th-11th century Norse. Spears for example. I'd actually be very interested to see it. Meanwhile you will pardon me if I don't take your sarcastic remarks seriously.

Intelligence may not play a role in the development of weapons and armor, but trial and error does. Your argument hinges on the idea that the people in Scandinavia, who fought and traded over nearly a third of the planet, never figured out that mail armor worked better with padding underneath, unlike basically every other culture which used it.

J

[Gary Teuscher]

At the risk of going off topic,

Jean Henri Chandler wrote: