| Author |
Message |
David Huggins
|
 Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 7:00 am Post subject: Leather armour |
 |
|
Mathew,
I provided in a previous post references to two auxiliary standard bearers, there are a number of other legionary bear hooded standard bearers too..but I'm just about to leave home for a few days so will have to say goodbye to this entertaining and informative thread...for now.
best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | there are a number of other legionary bear hooded standard bearers too. |
From what I have seen, are not most of these more of a "mantle" type garment if that is the correct term? Consisting largely of a hood and shoulders.
While it might provide a bit of protection in these areas, I don't think it would function well as true "armour", being as that it would seem to provide to protection to most of the torso.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a few mentions of vikings wearing wolf skins in battle from the sagas:
The Story of Grettir The Strong
Chap. ll
"Then the king cried on his bearserks for an onslaught, and they were called the Wolf-coats, for on them would no steel bite, and when they set on nought might withstand them." http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/gre/gre07.htm
Harald Harfager's Saga
19. BATTLE IN HAFERSFJORD.
"The dreadful din you well might hear Savage berserks roaring mad, And champions fierce in wolf-skins clad," http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/04harfgr.htm
Also, in The Saga of the People of Vatnsdal there's a mention of King Harald's berserks defending the bow of a ship wearing wolf-skins, but I can't find the exact mention online at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Len, they may well have worn these wolfskins, though this is certainly not armour.
A wolfskin would be very thin, a lot thinner than cattle hide, and the thickest cattle hide is the only thing that can give any resemblance of "armour".
My guess is you are not arguing that this represents armour, just mentioning that these were worn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yea, I was just responding to Matthew's oatmeal brain.
|
|
|
|
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Leather armour |
|
|
| David Huggins wrote: | Hi Gary
Certainly the points you raise are very valid. The Romans made a whole deal in their amphitheatres of the slaughter of beasts, and this has been said to be reflective of a display of Roman power subduing the wild uncivilised outer world, equally it could be said to a display a fear of the same.
Bears are an interesting point as far as some late Germanic Iron Age Scandinavian burials are concerned. A number of high status graves indicate a fashion for bear pelts accompanying the burial rite. Some one considered hunting them worthwhile despite the inherent dangers, but yes this is not relative to the discussion of leather armour but perhaps like the later bersekers and indeed Rome's own pelt wearing warriors they may have held a form of belief that a level of protection as well as other traits where transmuted to the wearer.
best
Dave |
I believe the conversation has become divergent, I introduced into the topic the element of 'Belief' or for want of a better description 'Faith' although this term is probably inadequate to describe a world view differing vastly from the Judeo-Christian concept of 'Faith' . I described the use of animal pelts as a [u]possible[/u] belief by the wearers as providing a level of protection as well as the transmutation of the totem animal's forocity and other admired traits to the warrior wearing it, this does not necessarily imply though that it was worn as physical armour.
I would assume whether it was a full or partial belt the belief was much the same.
best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I see what you're saying, Dave, and I agree that is certainly applicable for some cultures. Just for the Romans, however, I'd have to conclude that was not a factor--there just isn't any suggestion of it in the literature. However, it is widely agreed that wearing animal pelts was a very archaic and primitive practice, so it may certainly have had roots like that at some point in the distant past (before the Romans were Romans?). But by the time there are writings about it, the purpose is actually to serve as distinction, marking a man out so that he can be recognized as valorous and brave--he's actually going to attract *more* enemy attention! It's very "hoo-ah", as it were.
Whether or not such considerations were a conscious factor for Vikings and Saxons, I'm not sure. But I do know that a well-equipped reenactor in a bear pelt is very subconsciously attractive to others on the field! He kind of becomes an energy focus, all his comrades around him sort of tilting his way, mentally, and drawing enthusiasm from him. Heck, I can even feel the effect in photographs! For us modern folks, it comes across as "Oh, COOL BEAR! I wanna party with THAT guy!" For the ancients it was probably a tad different, but I suspect the feeling was there.
Bottom line, though--it's a psychological boost, but not physical armor!
Matthew
PS: The oatmeal thanks you, Len!
|
|
|
|
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: Leather armour |
|
|
Hi Matt
Certainly the Romans have a founding myth in which the wolf became to a degree a totem animal. As you point out the symbiotic relationship between man and beast is archaic, and probably goes back as far when man's role changed from the predated to the predator.
best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Oct, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was doing a little research on why leather armour would cost so much.
| Quote: | | Over that outside he put his hero’s battle girdle [cathchriss] of hard leather, tough and tanned, made from the best part of seven ox-hides of yearlings, |
7 yearling ox-hides for one garment seems high. The price of a buff coat seems high as well, costing more than aplate cuirass. But when you look into it it makes sense.
Looking at a modern cow, you get 50 square feet of hide on an average. The shoulder area, where the thick hide comes from, is abut 15-20 square feet. I am not sure if all of this shoulder area is sufficient to yield the 3-5mm thickness needed for a buff coat (8-12oz weight leather), but let's assume it is.
Based on measurements, cows in the middle ages were about 75% of the height of modern cows. I can show the info on this if anyone wants to see.
as a cow is 3 dimensional, not one, 75% of the height translates to roughly 50% of the surface area.
So a middle ages cow's shoulder area is about 8-10 square feet.
Realize a portion of this is waste, like in making clothes, and will become scrap, sellable but of very low value.
If 80% is usable, you are getting 6-8 square feet of shoulder per cow.
A tunic takes about 20 square feet, so you are looking at about 3 cows for a thick leather tunic.
Now add this to the fact that an" ox yearling" as listed in the Chulainn info is what was slaughtered most often - slaughter the younger males of the herd in the fall, before having to fodder them, and they won't produce milk or bear young, and there are only so many that are needed for draft, plowing, or stud work.
I am not sure how small a yearling ox is, but I know they do not achieve full growth for 3-4 years.
So 7 "the better part of yearling oxhides" makes sense in making a tunic sized armour of leather.
I have not even factored into the fact that cattle were smaller then, which also likley means thinner hides, with less of it being "amrour grade".
So to make one of these leather garments, you need to take choice parts of the hides of maybe 7 slaughtered cows, this thick leather otherwise could be sold for shoes, belts, shield covers, among other things.
Based on 14th century pricing, cattle cost 10 shillings, or 120d. This was when a thatcher, a reasonably skilled worker, was making 2d per day, so about 2 months of work for a thatcher.
Or 7 cows cost over a year of a thatchers wages. Sure, the meat, thinner hide and other parts could be sold seperately, but it is still indeed a large amount of resources going to make one garment.
And the Buff coat does not even perform as well in Dr. William's testing as a 16 layer of linen gambeson!
This really makes it make sense why layered linen was used, and how expensive a coat of leather, as thick as a buff coat or Chulainn's girdle would be in the relaitive economic terms of the middle ages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Oct, 2011 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
LOL, I might be the only one interested in how many cows it took to make a "buff coat" or similar 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter O Zwart
Location: Ontario Canada Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Oct, 2011 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | LOL, I might be the only one interested in how many cows it took to make a "buff coat" or similar |
Not the only one actually, I really appreciated your post, (this whole thread in fact) especially the economic side of things and you did a great job estimating the number of yearling cow hides.
Now I just wish I was smart enough that I had something valuable to add. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Oct, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One last thing I wanted to point out, the celts made their currachs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currach
out of cowhide, and fishermen and sailors don't raise cattle, so there must have been a trade.
When you have a trade in anything, the warrior aristocracy is capable of helping themselves, they call it tribute. We read in the sagas how the norse made the sami and the fins pay tribute in bear, otter, and marten skins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Storesund
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
As i pointed out in another thread: The cost of leather was also probably kept high due to the ammounts of young cattle needed to make parchment for books, which was in constant demand before the invention of paper. I imagine this would have skyrocketed leather prices in Scandinavia with the introduction of latin written culture in the 11th century and onwards. There must have been an industry to keep cattle for the purpose of parchment alone. I suppose this must have been the case even earlier on Frankish, Irish and Anglo-Saxon ground with developed monastic institutions.
As for Scandinavia, I'm sure there are lots of documents in Old Norse relating to the price of leather. I don't really remember how - but parchment was expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | One last thing I wanted to point out, the celts made their currachs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currach
out of cowhide, and fishermen and sailors don't raise cattle, so there must have been a trade. |
Probably, though being a fisherman does not exclude them from also being a part time farmer.
But I'm sure trade existed.
| Quote: | | When you have a trade in anything, the warrior aristocracy is capable of helping themselves, they call it tribute. We read in the sagas how the norse made the sami and the fins pay tribute in bear, otter, and marten skins. |
This is true, though I am not sure where you are going with this.
I am not sure if you mean that because they could trade, they would have access to a lot of armour grade leather.
And the point (at least my point) is not that they would NOT have access to this type of leather - but it would be costly, maybe not the same cost as mail but perhaps close, and if they could choose between spending a lot for leather or spending a lot for mail, they would get the mail. You see this among the steppe peoples - presumably with a lot of leather available - and indeed we do have some records of leather lammelar - but also mail and metal lammelar.
I looked at a document showing some 12th century pricing - a cow was 10 shillings, a coat of mail 100 shillings, so ten cows for a coat of mail.
Judging by the fact a good leather buff coat would take a good 6+ cows to make a garment of, looks like leather, while not as pricey as mail was still pricey.
Of course, these "prices" are based on a document here and there - and it could have been an expensive cow, and expensive coat of mail, etc. etc., so it's hard to draw a full conclusion from this.
What I also find interesting - while the price of many things rose through the centuries, a cow cost 10 shillings in the 12th century, 6 shillings in the late 13th century, and 9 shillings in the mid 14th century, which would seem to imply the cost of cows dropped, which leads one to believe a bigger supply of cows.
Perhaps the reduction in the cost of cows made the buff coat more relevant as it seemed to replace the Gambeson?
An early 14th century prices of cloth for peasants tunics (one would assume coarse linin, good material for a gambeson) was 3d per square yard - at 2 square yards for a tunic, and 16-24 layers, we are looking at 96-144d for material alone for a layered cloth garment.
This is when a cow cost about 108d, so materials alone for a Gambeson would cost about that of about 1.5 cows.
Heck, 20 layers of linen could clothe a couple of peasant households
|
|
|
|
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 8:50 am Post subject: leather |
|
|
I always understood that parchment was made from not only from calfskin, but goat and lambs skins. I think Erik that the costs below are telling and may not necessarily support your belief in the supply of cow hide for the use of parchments for books keeping leather an expensive commodity.
Here are some comparative costs, it should be said that value of silver during the viking age was considerably more then its comparative worth today!
An Ox in old english shillings and pennies cost 80.5 pennies or 175 grams of silver, equivalent to about £1,610 modern pounds sterling.
A sheep in old english shillings and pennies cost 10 pennies or 15 grams of silver, equivalent to about £300 modern pounds sterling.
A mail shirt in old english shillings and pennies cost 529 pennies or 820 grams of silver, equivalent to about £10,580 modern pounds sterling.
A male slave in old english shillings and pennies cost 197.5 pennies or 306 grams of silver, equivalent to about £3,950 modern pounds sterling.
best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
What time period are these prices from, David?
Looks like the 12th century pricing info I have is a a mail "coat" is worth 10 cows, your pricing has a mail shirt worth about 7 cows. Pretty similar though I'd say.
Only problem with these "prices" is they are just a snapshot usually of a couple of prices. One could a thousand years from now look at the price of a 2011 Porsche Carrera GT at $450,000+, and assume cars were too expansive for most people living in this time
All I am saying is these pricing documents can be helpful, we just have to be a bit careful before making to broad of assumptions.
I think though warhorses were the sports cars of the middle ages though. I have seen 13th century draft horse pricing in the 10-20 shilling range, and a warhorse at up to 1600 shillings! The 1600 shilling horse was clearly the high end though, there are other prices given for warhorses at less than 1/10 of that value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably neither. Need to see the original latin.
|
|
|
|
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Oct, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: Leather |
|
|
Gary
These prices are middle-late Anglo-Saxon period, the source been from ' Viking Weapons and Warfare' by JK.Siddorn and based in part on original research by Ben Levick and originally published in the Regia Anglorum in-house journal.
The sources are referred to by region ie Britain, Northern Europe,Western Europe, Central Europe etc. Where their are regional comparisons there are some large variation in costs which may reflect the materials used in the manufacture but an ox from Britain and one from Central Europe do not vary that greatly in cost.
Unfortunately as a relative comparison the cost of life's staples, bread and ale are not given in the book but if I recall correctly where given in the journal but I no longer have a copy of the issue it was first published in.
Best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Oct, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Unfortunately as a relative comparison the cost of life's staples, bread and ale are not given in the book but if I recall correctly where given in the journal but I no longer have a copy of the issue it was first published in. |
Yeah, for purposes of comparison and "true cost" it's helpful to be able to compare anything being "priced" to the staples, a bushel of wheat I like to use because it is the raw material for bread, and a cow is pretty much a "staple" as well.
Unfortunately, entries regarding arms and armour don't always include the cost of a bushel of wheat or a cow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic