| Author |
Message |
Paul Hansen
|
 Posted: Sun 04 Sep, 2011 12:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Here's a picture of his signet ring, which is probably the only image we have of him.
http://history.furman.edu/webimages/images/Ch...on_jpg.jpg
It does seem to show some kind of breast armor.
My own idea is that he was dressed in the clothes that he normally wore. A sword would definitely be part of this.
Migration age burial customs are an interesting subject. Given the rarity of both helmets and mail, as well as other kinds of armor, it seems unlikely that everybody was buried in full "military" kit. It seems more likely that people were buried with stuff they used/wore on a daily basis.
|
|
  |
 |
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Sep, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew W wrote: | | This is all somewhat tangential to the question of Childeric's armor, my apologies! The upshot of all this is, we shouldn't take the absence of body armor in Childeric's grave as evidence that he didn't wear it when he was alive, because the one thing that most archaelogists today can agree upon is that the items put in a grave were put their deliberately by the people preparing the body, and they may have decided not to bury Childeric in armor for any number of reasons more complex than whether or not he owned any. |
Many good points there Andrew. And I think they are all in one way or another relevant to the question. Its a shame that our sources on Germanic beliefs are so limited. I have always assumed that burial with arms and armour was intended to equip the deceased for whatever battles he is expected to face in the afterlife. But it seems that was not the only case since like you mention there are many burials of Romans (no doubt Christians) with weapons.
I personally think it is very unlikely that Childeric didnt possess armour. I think there are three possible reasons why he was buried with weapons but no armour. The first reason may be that burial with armour was not considered a status symbol by the Franks, while burial with weapons was. The second possible and more likely reason may be that mail was far too valuable and rare to the Franks that being buried with it was too extravagant for even a king. A third possibility is that since warriors cant really die in Valhala, armour is not needed.
These are all speculations but I personally think that the second theory is the most likely.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Sep, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Hansen wrote: | Here's a picture of his signet ring, which is probably the only image we have of him.
http://history.furman.edu/webimages/images/Ch...on_jpg.jpg
It does seem to show some kind of breast armor.
My own idea is that he was dressed in the clothes that he normally wore. A sword would definitely be part of this.
Migration age burial customs are an interesting subject. Given the rarity of both helmets and mail, as well as other kinds of armor, it seems unlikely that everybody was buried in full "military" kit. It seems more likely that people were buried with stuff they used/wore on a daily basis. |
This definitly looks like some kind of armour. Its definitly not mail. The studs make it look like some kind of brigandine.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Sep, 2011 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Assuming the illustration is depicting armour then the central circle on each scale is more likely to be a raised boss rather than a rivet.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Assuming the illustration is depicting armour then the central circle on each scale is more likely to be a raised boss rather than a rivet. |
But how would that provide any protection? Wouldnt thay make it a studded armour of some sort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Storesund
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I think the "use your weapons in the afterlife" idea is only attested in Norse sources. Lots of graves didn't have a full weapon set. I think in most of mainland Europe weapon burials were a new feature of the migration era, and its dangerous to assume that religion in 5th century Gaul was the exact same as religion in 10th century Iceland! |
But didnt they worship the same gods (i.e. Woden, Thor, Loki, etc.)? And didnt they also share the belief that the afterlife would be spent in Valhala where endless battles await? The latter could be a distinctly Scandinavian belief. Like I said my knowledge of pagan Germanic religion is very limited. But I do agree that we should not assume the religion of 5th century Franks was identical to that of 10th century Scandinavians. |
Some excellent scholarly work has been done regarding this, suggesting that the concept of Valhalla is probably far more ancient than the sources themselves, even though the name "Valhalla" is not. The concept of "Odin's hall" as a place in the afterlife was probably firmly rooted in the life and work of the germanic iron age aristocracy. In short, the chieftain and his retinue merged toghether with transcendent religious beliefs through vague mythological metaphors. In effect the afterlife would represent a form of continuity based on the general idea that the gods and the otherworld must somehow reflect "our" reality, as is found on a general level in norse sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Assuming the illustration is depicting armour then the central circle on each scale is more likely to be a raised boss rather than a rivet. |
But how would that provide any protection? Wouldnt thay make it a studded armour of some sort? |
Some types of scale armour have a raised boss or dome in each plate. It increases the strength of the scale just like a medial ridge does.
 Attachment: 87.52 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew W
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| E. Storesund wrote: |
Some excellent scholarly work has been done regarding this |
I'm interested in reading this, as this is something I like to study. Do you have any citations that I could look up? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| E. Storesund wrote: | | Some excellent scholarly work has been done regarding this, suggesting that the concept of Valhalla is probably far more ancient than the sources themselves, even though the name "Valhalla" is not. The concept of "Odin's hall" as a place in the afterlife was probably firmly rooted in the life and work of the germanic iron age aristocracy. In short, the chieftain and his retinue merged toghether with transcendent religious beliefs through vague mythological metaphors. In effect the afterlife would represent a form of continuity based on the general idea that the gods and the otherworld must somehow reflect "our" reality, as is found on a general level in norse sources. |
A very interesting theory. Can you post some links to those works as I would like to learn more about it.
Last edited by Ahmad Tabari on Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Some types of scale armour have a raised boss or dome in each plate. It increases the strength of the scale just like a medial ridge does. |
So if we are to take what Childeric is wearing in the coin as an armour then it is most likely scale. The fact that its mail and not scale would correspond to Agathias' account who said that the Franks did not use mail (unless lorica was also falsely translated into mail). I still think that by Clovis' time and especially after Soissons, some mail coats would have been worn by important Franks.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Hansen
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | I personally think it is very unlikely that Childeric didnt possess armour. I think there are three possible reasons why he was buried with weapons but no armour. The first reason may be that burial with armour was not considered a status symbol by the Franks, while burial with weapons was. The second possible and more likely reason may be that mail was far too valuable and rare to the Franks that being buried with it was too extravagant for even a king. A third possibility is that since warriors cant really die in Valhala, armour is not needed.
These are all speculations but I personally think that the second theory is the most likely. |
I think that it is almost a certainty than Childeric possessed armor.
But of the three options you give, I think that the first one is much more credible than the second. Childeric was buried with an immense amount of golden items that must have exceeded the value of any kind of armor. Especially because mail and/or helmets were in fact found in graves that were less wealthy and/or lower status. Krefeld-Gellep (the one with the garnet-hilted sword) is a good example of this, although it is of slightly later date.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Hansen wrote: | I think that it is almost a certainty than Childeric possessed armor.
But of the three options you give, I think that the first one is much more credible than the second. Childeric was buried with an immense amount of golden items that must have exceeded the value of any kind of armor. Especially because mail and/or helmets were in fact found in graves that were less wealthy and/or lower status. Krefeld-Gellep (the one with the garnet-hilted sword) is a good example of this, although it is of slightly later date. |
I am personally leaning towards the second reason simply because mail was far too rare among the Franks, while gold and weaponry were not. After all axe heads and even iron swords do not require an infrastructure to facilitate their production while mail does. It is possible the Franks were purchasing mail coats from the Romans, but again I think thats unlikely simply because the Romans by the 5th century were barely able to supply their own troops with mail. I would imagine that only a handful of elite would have worn mail prior to Soissons.
As far as you know are there any 5th century Frankish gravesites where mail was found?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We don't know that mail was rare among the Franks. The Romans had plenty of it. You are assuming that it was rare because we haven't found any yet. So you are making one assumption based on another assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | We don't know that mail was rare among the Franks. The Romans had plenty of it. You are assuming that it was rare because we haven't found any yet. So you are making one assumption based on another assumption. |
I am actually basing my statements on Agathias' account which stated that the Franks "do not know the use of the coat of mail or greaves and the majority leave the head uncovered".
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Better check the original language for this too. If he uses lorica then he is effectively saying that the Franks wore no armour at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmad Tabari
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Sep, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Better check the original language for this too. If he uses lorica then he is effectively saying that the Franks wore no armour at all. |
I havent had luck finding the full latin text. But I am guessing Agathias used the general term "lorica".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew W
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Posts: 79
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Storesund
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Sep, 2011 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ahmad Tabari wrote: | | E. Storesund wrote: | | Some excellent scholarly work has been done regarding this, suggesting that the concept of Valhalla is probably far more ancient than the sources themselves, even though the name "Valhalla" is not. The concept of "Odin's hall" as a place in the afterlife was probably firmly rooted in the life and work of the germanic iron age aristocracy. In short, the chieftain and his retinue merged toghether with transcendent religious beliefs through vague mythological metaphors. In effect the afterlife would represent a form of continuity based on the general idea that the gods and the otherworld must somehow reflect "our" reality, as is found on a general level in norse sources. |
A very interesting theory. Can you post some links to those works as I would like to learn more about it. |
| Andrew W wrote: | | E. Storesund wrote: |
Some excellent scholarly work has been done regarding this |
I'm interested in reading this, as this is something I like to study. Do you have any citations that I could look up? Thanks! |
I was primarily thinking about Andreas Nordberg's PHD work "Krigarna i Odins Sal", which is as far as I can see one of the truly few books focusing on religious experience in pre-christian religion, without it seeming silly at all. Sadly it is in swedish, but there is an English summary at the end of the book.
Regarding the motif of the gods living lives simillar to "ours" is very evident around the sources though: They seem to have ritual feasts, and seem to have a cult of their own - the myths seem to reflect an idea that norse (and possibly earlier) society was based on ideas presented by the gods, therefore there seems to have been several myths telling how this and that entered society, as well as myths telling about to correctly open, fight and end a war according to certain rituals and traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew W
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Sep, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks! (Yet another reminder that I need to learn to read Swedish  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic