[Dan Howard]

I kept this from an earlier thread but can't remember the author. His notes at the bottom are particularly useful.

--------------------
From the Kingsmirror, norwegian ca 1250;
"The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good trousers made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces madeof thick iron and rivets hard as steel. Above and next to the body he should Wear a soft gambison, which need not come lower than to the middle of, the thigh. Over this he must have a strong chest protector (brystberjar) made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt; outside this, a well-made hauberk and over the hauberk a firm gambeson made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves. He must have a dirk § and two swords, one girded on and another hanging from the pommel of the saddle. On his head he must have a dependable helmet made of good steel and provided with a visor. He must also have a strong, thick shield fastened to a durable shoulder belt and, in addition, a good sharp spear with a firm shaft and pointed with fine steel. Now it seems needless to speak further about the equipment of men who fight on horseback; there are, however, other weapons which a mounted warrior may use, if he wishes; among these are the "horn bow" and the weaker crossbow, which a man can easily draw even when on horseback, and certain other weapons, too, if he should want them."

The inner padding is called a "Våpentrøye" , while the independent or outer armour is "panzar". In some of the law text one speaks of "våpentrøye AND panzar or mail", indicating that one could possibly use the sleeveless panzer over the long sleeved våpentrøye, as previously mentioned

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

[Brian Robson]

Thanks for the replies.

I've seen the Kings Mirror texts before but I've also heard that it can't be taken directly at face value, being a translation of a translation .... Also its 60 years later than the period I'm looking at.

There is a lot of definate evidence of it in the late 13/early 14C (Numerous effigies), so I'm pretty sure that the practice became common - even universal in the 13C. I'm just not sure about the late 12C.

I figured that if 13C evidence is indicating that they were (commonly) not worn together, then they weren't in the 12C (Hence my focus on the Mac Bible).
But if there is positive evidence of it happening in the 13C, it doesn't mean that it happened in the 12C (If you follow).. So, while bearing in mind positive 13C evidence (Like kingsMirror and DeJoinville) - I don't think it can be used to indicate the practice in the 12C.

It sounds like William le Breton is the place to look... Although, even there I'm a little sceptical about taking descriptions of what the king wore as standard practice..
I don't remember the source (or the exact wording) but read an account of Richard being injured through his hauberk, gambeson and iron curie.. I'm pretty sure that this doesn't mean that wearing breastplates was common in the late 12C..!

[Randall Moffett]

Brian,

Maybe not but the writer is drawing attention to the iron plate not the mail or gambeson as being unsual. This I think is why you need to see the chronicle. The context indicates that is was being used in this way as a normal part of the armament of the time while the plate less so. The 1214 battle of bovines does the same thing but refering to the german men at arms.

Why would the king's mirror not be taken at face value? It is meant to be a manual to teach one how to be a ruler. They often are much more direct and clear than most sources so to me they seem like they'd be one of the better bits of literature to use.

What 13th century evidence do you really have they were not worn together? Sometimes it is easier to start from a new angle. Since we have some info of this taking place in the 13th and little stating it was not then it seems logical that it was. The 12th I stated was harder. Le Breton being the only I knew of as it took place in 1188, but perhaps written in the 13th. This though could mean that it is not until the late 12th if at all. There is very little evidence it was done in the 12th so this argument is a bit more complicated.

RPM