Posts: 2,307 Location: Croatia
Wed 03 Mar, 2010 6:17 pm
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| Luka Borscak wrote: |
I mostly agree with you, but it's not like vikings were stopped just like that. No army in Anglo Saxon england managed to stop Lodbrok's sons for a few years. From 865 to 870 Great Army was undefeated. In 871 they fought about 9 battles with Wessex and lost only 2 as far as I remember, |
That doesn't have anything to do with fighting style or equipment. It has to do with logistics and being to muster a large force quickly enough in the right area to counter the viking attacks. |
Maybe you misunderstood me, I say Danes won all those battles. And they didn't face just local militia, they fought kings and their armies. I just wrote this because people seem to dismiss vikings as raiders only and unable to win a real battle.
Posts: 649 Location: Italy
Wed 03 Mar, 2010 6:29 pm
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
I'm not quite following your logic, here. Vikings tended to fight in lines, like everyone else in Europe. You can do that naked, and we know that at times some people did. We know that many did that in just regular clothing. We know that in later times some people did that while completely encased in steel. What made the Vikings feared was largely their ability to strike anywhere, anytime, in their ships, and be gone with loot and captives before the local organized resistance could respond. Governments that were able to meet the Vikings with a comparable military force were able to stop them. Even the threat of a stand-up battle was often enough for the Vikings to allow themselves to be bought off, rather than fight. I believe there is even an English account (or Frankish?) that says that the Vikings struck less frequently in combat, but hit harder. So again, you may need to reexamine your assumptions about medieval people and combat.
I hope that helps, some!
Matthew |
It refers to the Lombards:
"The blond peoples, are brave in battle, those who despise vile show to battle. They fight in a violent manner either on foot or on horseback. In the fighting will defend the tribe and the bonds of friendship. Their deployment in battle is ordered, but the battle their behavior is rampant, as if they were insulated. Do not worry about any security measure, despise any kind of training, especially of cavalry. They do not like to delay the battle. We camped in a disorderly way. They do not like, the heat and lack of food, especially wine. He was easily corrupted by money, because they are greedy. It can disperse easily simulated by a escape, breaking the ranks quickly, then we come back against them. Defer the battle ... " (Strategicon XI, 4)
Posts: 40 Location: SF Bay
Wed 03 Mar, 2010 10:21 pm
Still having tough time with the idea of
maille without padding underneath. Would ruin clothing, yes? Very uncomfortable to be struck as well. Good point made about helm and
shield being most important, however. Made me smile :) Can also add, this is the most amazing website, have just recently joined, have been following for three years. bless you all...
Posts: 118 Location: Walton-on-the-Naze
Wed 03 Mar, 2010 11:52 pm
Can I atleast ask if mail had a fabric or thin leather underlay? A Norman coif in the castle here has scraps of black material under the mail, it's been 'fixed' to this so the mail (I assume) didn't rub against the skin.
Posts: 530
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 3:01 am
Sadly, we have zero evidence for mail coifs beeing used by Vikings. But, yes under a coif more permanently attached (sewn to) cloth backing would make sense. Under mail itself.. I am not so sure.
Posts: 118 Location: Walton-on-the-Naze
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 4:03 am
I agree, sorry didn't mean to imply vikings used such coifs. Would they not have had a similar underlay to mail hauberks/shirts then? Or would it just be a Norman thing?
Posts: 2,307 Location: Croatia
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 6:14 am
| Juan Cocinas wrote: |
| Still having tough time with the idea of maille without padding underneath. Would ruin clothing, yes? Very uncomfortable to be struck as well. Good point made about helm and shield being most important, however. Made me smile :) Can also add, this is the most amazing website, have just recently joined, have been following for three years. bless you all... |
Thick normal clothing usual in the north, a few layers of woolen vests normally worn by vikings, are more than enough to comfortably wear a mail and also serves as, intentional or unintentional, padding. I have a historically incorrect butted mail and it doesn't ruin my clothes. Well riveted would be even less dangerous to clothing. Clothing would get greasy because mail would be oiled, but other than that, no damage to clothing.
Posts: 1,456 Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 6:42 am
Right, since clothing is made out of the same stuff that the padding would have been made out of, I don't see any great danger of it getting shredded by the mail. Granted, I wouldn't wear my fanciest new tunic directly under a hauberk! But maybe I'd have an older one to wear for that purpose, or one woven "in the grease" with the natural lanolin still in it--that would keep the mail from rusting! But here we lapse into speculation, again, and of course all of our *evidence* implies that going into battle was all about LOOKING GOOD.
If you are worried about getting bruised or hurt *with* your mail on, try the same weapon strike *without* the mail, eh? I suspect that most blows in battle were not full-force perfectly square hits, and they would not need to be. On an unarmored man, a sharp weapon would lay his flesh open even with only enough force to swat a fly. Mail alone would stop much of that. Remember, any open wound could become infected and kill you!
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that any medieval army could beat a Viking force! I should have qualified that.
Valete,
Matthew
Posts: 40 Location: SF Bay
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 9:16 am
Wearing fur(s) over
maille would protect against rust, yes? Perhaps reduce kinetic energy of projectiles/spears? Would maille worn over fur damage the fur from rubbing? Sorry, am still finding it strange that warriors would wear maille over just a shirt...
Posts: 669 Location: Dinuba, CA
Thu 04 Mar, 2010 9:48 am
| Juan Cocinas wrote: |
| Wearing fur(s) over maille would protect against rust, yes? Perhaps reduce kinetic energy of projectiles/spears? Would maille worn over fur damage the fur from rubbing? Sorry, am still finding it strange that warriors would wear maille over just a shirt... |
Have you ever worn mail over just a shirt and walked around all day? Have you ever fought in mail over just a shirt? It's not that bad, really. I've never fought like that with steel weapons, but I've let myself get pretty beat up with some solid wood wasters, which is arguably even more blunt force than steel weapons would have! Our modern sense of comfort and protection is different than the ancient sense of such luxuries (which they were, by and large.) People were used to being filthy. People were used to working long hours with little or no food. People were used to famine and disease and hardship beyond our belief, at times. I find it unreasonable to believe that an ancient man would be put off by not having a few extra layers of linen or wool between him and his mail haubergeon. Mail over any garment would be a blessing for most warriors during the dark centuries after Rome's fall and prior to the widespread use of padding during the Crusader era.
-Gregory
Posts: 252 Location: Sweden
Sat 06 Mar, 2010 2:39 am
| Tom King wrote: |
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Only after they had been magically enchanted. |
You have obviously never worked with reindeer. It took a yeoman friend of mine months just to stitch a quiver. The stuff is tough. And "enchanted" means killing a animal and bathing the garment in blood. I think that the characteristics of the material rather than the blessing from the allfather made them notable. |
I've worked with Reindeer leather on a number of occasions and I can say for sure that it is among the worst materials there is for making anything even close to lamellar. It's definitely not tough, but quite soft and thin compared to e.g. bovine leather. It sure makes wonderful pouches, bags and comfy tunics (still worn as a part of traditional Saami wear), but in regards to armour it’s a very poor choice.
Keep in mind that the reference to enchanted reindeer fur tunics must be viewed in its original context, that is to portray the enemies of St Olaf as wicked pagans resorting to witch-craft in combating the forces of good. I'll quote myself from an earlier thread:
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: |
| Concerning the supposed reindeer armour described in St Olaf’s Saga (which btw is the only place it is ever mentioned), it was more or less debunked in this thread about Viking leather armour. There’s in fact nothing what so ever in the original text to suggest that the reindeer hides were constructed as armour, but common reindeer fur coats (Icelandic: Hreinbjálfa) that had been enchanted by Saami magic to resist any weapon. To interpret these coats as armour is far-fetched and taken out of context as I see it. To me, it is obvious that the Saga-author, by inventing the part with the enchanted reindeer coats, sought to make the pagan “bad guys” appear even worse, by condescending to the use of wicked Saami magic. Up until recent time, the Saami (and also to some extent the Finns) have been notorious and feared among the Nordic peoples due to their alleged skills in magic and witchcraft. |
Posts: 3 Location: France
Wed 18 Aug, 2010 7:49 am
| Gregory J. Liebau wrote: |
My good friend Descartes once told me that there are such things that we can claim to know with certainty. These are our basic foundations of knowledge, and must be reflected on carefully to determine whether they be true or not so. Once we have established these basic understandings, we can use our higher power of learning to discern for ourselves what may be true that lies outside of our realm of foundational knowledge and strive to learn new things based on evidences that cannot be refuted. Think geometry.
Using this very good idea, as I think it is, we can say that armor is an item of protective quality that is worn both to battle and also under less extreme conditions when it is permitted or most useful to do so. The purpose of it is specifically to remove harm from the wearer through the protection it offers with greater effect than the normal clothing worn by the person.
From there, using my dear friend René's delightfully simple method of clarifying truth, we can look at the physical evidence or literary prose regarding actual armor consisting of organic materials dating to the era in question. Upon finding that this evidence is extremely vague on archeological grounds and can be interpreted in several ways and that the sagas give implausible, magical qualities to such armor to make it viable, the consensus should be thus -
That organic armor during the Dark Ages should be considered beyond the scope of history, is to be regarded as conjecture, and until further evidence is procured it is moot to argue in favor of its existence using rational modes of consideration. Those who do have not an understanding of the processes by which theories are postulated in the sciences. There are threads that have already covered this topic with careful analysis here, on the Armour Archive and elsewhere. If you are one of those who believes your notion of truth and knowledge is beyond the scope of normal rationale, then I cannot help you by pointing out such limitations in our psyche. Proper historians, however, have scruples and methods regarding the way they discern facts from fiction. This topic, as far as the precedence of evidence suggests, still falls heavily under the fictitious category. I beg those who think otherwise to go find those well-researched and lengthy topics on this forum and others regarding the matter, where many knowledgeable fellows chimed in time and again to refute such nonsense based on sound judgment and understanding of proper historic theory-craft.
EDIT: I will add that such debates can me worthy of merit! The burden of proof lies upon those posters who support the ideas being presented in the topic. When you post here and say that you believe such organic armor could have existed, if you do not provide a citation to a contemporary bit of evidence or to a modern expert's work that is readily accessible to those interested in the claims being made, then your post is not worth the time of day. SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I came to this thread hoping, in my vanity, that perhaps someone had made such a post... Instead, I am faced with Matt and Dan and Jeroen huddled in a corner, showing pictures of pop art and making analogies to cooking of the good colonel, may he R.I.P.
-Gregory |
I just had to inject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bronspl%C3%...deltid.jpg
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
I know there are people who will dispute the quality of Wikipedia, but it has been proven to contain roughly the same number of errors as Britannica's.
Also, they provide references and citations below. While it certainly doesn't prove wide scale use of organic armor, it proves that is was in fact viable and known.
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Wed 18 Aug, 2010 3:06 pm
I can think of maybe a dozen different ways to interpret what is being worn in that illustration. How is it evidence for leather armour?
| Quote: |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker |
Maybe I missed it but I can't find anything about leather armour.
Posts: 3 Location: France
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 6:28 am
| Dan Howard wrote: |
I can think of maybe a dozen different ways to interpret what is being worn in that illustration. How is it evidence for leather armour?
| Quote: | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker |
Maybe I missed it but I can't find anything about leather armour. |
You are right that some people believe that Berserkers wore nothing, but many argue they wore bearskin shirts.Personally I think they could have even worn mail underneath to gain their reputation of being immune to fire and piercing weapons, but that is just speculation.
There is Middle age sources that directly mention leather armor. I see many here would not except a leather padding below plate but it is proven.
| Quote: |
| [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow Paragraph 3, Section range and penetration.
Original source: Itinerarium Cambriae, Gerald of Wales
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 3:12 pm
And the victim wasn't wearing plate, but mail. And the author was not an eyewitness. And his work is full of exaggeration and hyberbole. And, I might be wrong, but IIRC the original latin doesn't mention what the undergarment was made from.
Posts: 394 Location: Fresno, CA
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 3:46 pm
[quote="Christopher Felix"]
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| Quote: | | [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow Paragraph 3, Section range and penetration.
Original source: Itinerarium Cambriae, Gerald of Wales |
Dan is correct. The translation used by wikipedia in this case is exceedingly imprecise. Gerald of Wales is also a dubious source, being not a close witness and prone to hyperbole. In the time of the war Gerald was discussing, mail was the only iron armour being used. No "cuirass" was available, let alone a "cuirass" covering the inner and outer thigh. (maybe the translator thought of cuisses?)
Posts: 3 Location: France
Mon 06 Sep, 2010 5:22 am
Every source I can read lists Gerald of Wales as one of the most respected sources of his time. He lived after the Norman invasion but served the Norman king faithfully. His work on the Norman invasion, the invasion of Wales and Ireland are well respected. A mistranslation is possible, however, it is apparent that wearing leather under armor was known to him. I'm sorry but I'm more likely to buy his word than un-founded dis-creditors.
Whether or not the piercing of the arrow is an exaggeration makes no difference to the point we are discussing. The knight clearly wore leather. Also, coat of plates would have been around in his time, and yes it was made of iron. Although a cuirasses would not have covered the leg, so I think that is a miss-translation by Wikipedia.
Posts: 355 Location: Höör, Skane
Mon 06 Sep, 2010 5:41 am
| Christopher Felix wrote: |
Every source I can read lists Gerald of Wales as one of the most respected sources of his time. He lived after the Norman invasion but served the Norman king faithfully. His work on the Norman invasion, the invasion of Wales and Ireland are well respected. A mistranslation is possible, however, it is apparent that wearing leather under armor was known to him. I'm sorry but I'm more likely to buy his word than un-founded dis-creditors.
Whether or not the piercing of the arrow is an exaggeration makes no difference to the point we are discussing. The knight clearly wore leather. Also, coat of plates would have been around in his time, and yes it was made of iron. Although a cuirasses would not have covered the leg, so I think that is a miss-translation by Wikipedia. |
I have briefly searched but been unable to find the passage in transcript from original(?) latin. Even if I am by no means an expert on that subject, it is always worth having a source as close to the origin as possible. Questions we always must ask ourselves when studying these text are:
What is the history of the text? Often we have not the originals, but copies of copies of an oringial text.
If we have a translation, who did it, and when? Often translators are expert on language and (hopefully) also the historic period that the text stems from. They might lack specific knowledge on the topics, environments and actions described in the texts.
Without the source, and some info on who translated it and when, our speculations will remain vague. With the source we will still speculate, but can have more fun doing it :)
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Mon 06 Sep, 2010 3:49 pm
| Christopher Felix wrote: |
| Every source I can read lists Gerald of Wales as one of the most respected sources of his time. He lived after the Norman invasion but served the Norman king faithfully. His work on the Norman invasion, the invasion of Wales and Ireland are well respected. A mistranslation is possible, however, it is apparent that wearing leather under armor was known to him. I'm sorry but I'm more likely to buy his word than un-founded dis-creditors. . |
Find the original passage. IIRC there is no mention of leather underarmour. In any case this passage is irrelevant. A layer of leather clothing under a suit of mail is not the same as leather armour.
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