[Dan Howard]

If linen was available, it is highly unlikely that leather would have ben used in the construction of armour. All of the most reputable tests conlude that layered linen provides far far better protection than leather of a similar weight. There is nothing to suggest that leather has been used for anything other than a cover for armour with layered textiles.

[Steven H]

[Artis Aboltins]

When can we expect this article to be published? And where?

[Hadrian Coffin]

Sorry it sems I missed that,
Late fall/early winter
Best
Hadrian

[Artis Aboltins]

[Elling Polden]

[Gary Teuscher]

[D. S. Smith]

It's fascinating to me how much we borrow ancient technology for modern-day usage. The body armor I wear today, which is intended to stop handgun caliber and velocity projectiles, is layered fabric just like the armor worn 1,000 years ago. Sure, it's made out of kevlar or similar aramid fibers instead of the earlier materials, but it proves the effect of layered woven fabrics in stopping violent impact.

The latest improvement in body armor are the plates of Dyneema, a thermoplastic, layered in a similar manner. A 10" x12" plate weighs 3 pounds, and can take multiple hits from high-velocity rifle rounds including 7.62 NATO and 300 Winchester Magnum. Compare that to steel or cermaic plates and it just goes to show that the idea of woven fabric layers that has been in use for countless centuries is still in current use by warriors.

[David Huggins]

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the various discussions on leather armour, if leather was expensive and any such leather or leather/textile combination armour was considered a luxury it makes some sense within the ethos of conspicuous display of the wealthy elites of martial societies geared to warfare to wear them. Just a thought.

best
Dave

[Gary Teuscher]

[David Huggins]

Worth consideration is that the body armour was not necessarily the primary armour, this role going to the shields of the period, so the effectiveness of any leather or leather/textile body armour would not necessarily have needed the level of effectiveness that we assume to be a requisite.

Cattle raiding also seems to have been a preoccupation of the early Irish (and other cultures) and would indicate the status afforded to this animal.

best
Dave

[Jon Reinhardt Husvegg]

Hi, I think many of you are forgetting the most important point when it comes to the use of leather in the early medieval periods. It is not that waxed leather won't work as armour. Or that it's too expensive.

I have two valid points that I don’t see get used often in these discussions.

First of all; armour and good weapons are something for the elite. Most “normal” people that got drafted to war often had little or bad equipment. That is because most people would use their resources on other things; like tools, clothing etc. And if you think about it, it's reasonable, because you need tools and clothing for your everyday life. But as a levie you would probably not fight more than one battle, or campaign in your lifetime.

And there are several written sources that tells us of lords complaining about lack of equipment on levies. And this might be the reason why we get these written laws about required wartime equipment for both levies and nobles. (kongsspiele, Hirdskråen. These are Norwegian sources)

The second point is something we can see in agricultural economy.
If you look at most farms from the early medieval period, they would produce more household animals than the land can sustain. So what you do (and which is still done today) is to slaughter most of the male population of the herd. And you don’t slaughter many adult animals. Most cows would be slaughtered as calves. Around 7 months or so. This is the time where you get most meat out of them compared to how long you have to feed them.

If you want to make leather armour you need hides from cows. Hives from most other animals would not be thick enough. However, the races of cows common in Europe in the early Mediveal period were a smaller breed with less leather, so to speak, than the animals we have today. And I think theirs was thinner? (Not 100% sure about that). In order to get the best leather, not skin, you need the neck part of an ox. ( This is if you want to make something with a similar thickness as these leather lammelar armours that you can find in the Viking reenactment scene.)

My point here is to show that yes you could get real thick leather but it was rare more than it was expensive, because of the way the animal husbandry would be organised. There would not be many oxes, most of them would be slaughtered as calfs, and the ones you let grow up would be prised as they would be used as breeding or ploughing animals.

And there are a lot of leather products and waste findings on excavations from the early medieval period. And most of it is of shoes. And the thickest leather is most often found in the sole of the shoe.
So it seems that the little amount of thick leather you could get hold of would be used as soles. And after shoeing Europe there would not be much leather left for armour production :P
These day-to-day objects would for most people be much more important than wartime equipment.

And in any case, if you were a noble or a soldier and could afford a leather armour, you could probably just as well afford a mail armour.

I should point out that there are evidence for usage of leather armour in this period, but not in Europe. The nomadic steppe people used it ( the Huns, Avars, Mongols), but this is a different culture that bred larger amounts of animals due to the fact that they were nomads.
We find the use off leather buff coat in 1700- Europe. But then we have different breeds of larger cattle. And larger productions.


JRH

[David Huggins]

Jon

Please can you provide evidence for the use of leather armour amongst the Huns and Avar, the only evidence I have seen for the nomadic steppe tribes has been metal lamellar armour not leather prior to the use of lacquer on much later Mongol leather armour. The lacquer tree is of Chinese origin and not as far as I am aware native to the Euro- Asiatic Steppes.

I am not attempting to present a counter-argument just very interested in your comment on leather armour amongst the Huns and Avar.

Just to refer back to your postulation that nobles would have preferred mail to other forms of organic armour the pressblech plate from the Vendel 14 helm shows two warriors in combat, one warrior in what appears to be a possible mail affair and his opponent in a kaftan type of coat, which may or indeed may not have been leather or leather/textile combination but certainly considered worthy of wearing by a member of the warrior class when engaging in combat.

For the martial elites there is much more to costume and armour then just effectiveness, cost and practicality. The conveyance of wealth, status and power where reflected in what they choose to wear, and as members of the social elites of society they had the means and status to produce costly arms armour , jewellery and clothing, leather would not have been a problem if they choose to wear such a material..on their feet or elsewhere!

best
Dave

[Kurt Scholz]

Remember this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden He had enough money, but an injury by all his fighting, so he switched to lighter leather armour that's still exhibited in Sweden. So maybe there are also reasons for leather. How do weight, durability and effectiveness compare to other armours?

[Gary Teuscher]

Kurt, if true, part of the Wikepedia article may put some light on this subject:

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jon Reinhardt Husvegg]

[David Huggins]

'True, but mail would be a conspicous diplay of wealth as well!'

Simply perhaps choice having that luxury as a warrior of means! Mail would be a display of wealth as well, hence my allusion to the Vendel 14 pressblech warriors, but braggadocio and forms of belief and world view practised by what are quite alien cultures to those of us of th 21st C are not always easy to comprehend.

First Nation American natives wore buck skin shirts in the belief they would not be harmed by bullets, Commando Forces of WWII chose to wear berets instead of metal helms even though society could quite easily provide for more costly and more effective protection.

Jan thank you for your answer, perhaps it is the very rarity of costly leather armour worn by an equally small minority of society that no such finds have come to light in the archaeological record were the far more common shoe exists in such abundance, after all when I look out of my garden window I know for sure I will see more Starlings then Eagles.

best
Dave

[Jon Reinhardt Husvegg]

[David Huggins]

Indeed Jan. Although having explored the likelihood of 'leather armour' I'm happy to play devil's advocate on this one and I am open minded to the possibility of 'leather armour' if not the probability. Perhaps one day we will see a definitive example, archaeological wonders continue to turn up! BTW welcome to the forum.

best
Dave