Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next 
Author Message
Peter Messent




Location: Texas
Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 1:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary T wrote:
OK, maybe the negative connotation applies to the Noun usage of and not the verb usage of Big Grin

But I'd agree that there are some uses of the verbage used in similar ways today, such as "protect and serve" by police departments.

But the overall connotations of the word "serve"is still more a negative than positive in today's world I think.

It is interesting that the most common noun used today for a "warrior" if you would is soldier, and that term has it's origins about receiving pay ( Medieval Latin soldarius, meaning literally, "one having pay"), as opposed to a form of the word "service".


Agree on all points - it does seem like the term 'service member' is a rather overt attempt to come up with a noun to describe military personnel (keeping in mind that soldier technically only applies to the army) without using 'servant'.

That is interesting regarding the etymology of soldier, it isn't something I was aware of - knowing DOD finance like I do, it seems like a wry joke Big Grin

Regarding modern formations, when I was in the army, 'file' referred to single file, 'staggered column' referred to a zig-zag type arrangement with soldiers in two separate lines, 'wedge' was a v type formation and so on. Lines are generally smaller than they used to be, but they still form an important part of tactics and provide an easy to envision boundary that you can manipulate with different maneuvers. And, of course, if you get your joes on line, they can have relatively well-defined sectors of fire to prevent friendly fire and maximize the effectiveness of your soldiers. But naturally, modern line tactics rely heavily and are based on the fact that we use ranged weapons, so close spacing is unusual (often unnecessary and increased risk of a double casualty in the case of a hand grenade, etc) unlike ancient combat. You don't want your guys fighting in a wedge formation or a few ranks deep, or the wrong people will get shot.

Regarding greek fighting type and use of greaves, how heavy was the shield? I recall reading that the Spartan shields were very large and heavy, which would presumably limit quite a bit how effectively it could be maneuvered to protect the lower extremities. Was this true of all greek shields, unique to spartans or did I read some bad info?
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Messent wrote:
Regarding greek fighting type and use of greaves, how heavy was the shield? I recall reading that the Spartan shields were very large and heavy, which would presumably limit quite a bit how effectively it could be maneuvered to protect the lower extremities. Was this true of all greek shields, unique to spartans or did I read some bad info?


It's very difficult to get an exact weight, because there are only a couple finds of enough organic remains to determine thicknesses, etc. But the general agreement is that the typical Greek aspis was in the range of 12 to 15 pounds. So it was no heavier than the scutum, for instance, but a Viking shield of similar diameter was lighter. Most of the fuss about how heavy the hoplite's equipment was comes from Anthony Snodgrass, who came up with the ridiculous figure of 70 pounds, and used it to "prove" that ancient historians were lying about things like hoplites running at the battle of Marathon. "Experts" have been quoting him ever since. My current kit is only 30 pounds, and I know for a fact that my helmet at least is twice the weight of the real ones. There's no suggestion that I've ever heard that Spartan shields were heavier than anyone else's.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 3:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since the topic appeared, another word with the meaning of "the one who serves", is minister. Minister is very honorable position today and I'm not sure how many people know it's meaning...
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Messent




Location: Texas
Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 4:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Peter Messent wrote:
Regarding greek fighting type and use of greaves, how heavy was the shield? I recall reading that the Spartan shields were very large and heavy, which would presumably limit quite a bit how effectively it could be maneuvered to protect the lower extremities. Was this true of all greek shields, unique to spartans or did I read some bad info?


It's very difficult to get an exact weight, because there are only a couple finds of enough organic remains to determine thicknesses, etc. But the general agreement is that the typical Greek aspis was in the range of 12 to 15 pounds. So it was no heavier than the scutum, for instance, but a Viking shield of similar diameter was lighter. Most of the fuss about how heavy the hoplite's equipment was comes from Anthony Snodgrass, who came up with the ridiculous figure of 70 pounds, and used it to "prove" that ancient historians were lying about things like hoplites running at the battle of Marathon. "Experts" have been quoting him ever since. My current kit is only 30 pounds, and I know for a fact that my helmet at least is twice the weight of the real ones. There's no suggestion that I've ever heard that Spartan shields were heavier than anyone else's.

Matthew

Thanks for the clarification! Must be quite a man who thought that soldiers carried 70lb shields Laughing Out Loud Perhaps went to school with the fellow who 'proved' the uselessness of bronze armor by swinging at a thin copper sheet.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 5:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Messent wrote:
Thanks for the clarification! Must be quite a man who thought that soldiers carried 70lb shields Laughing Out Loud Perhaps went to school with the fellow who 'proved' the uselessness of bronze armor by swinging at a thin copper sheet.


Bless you, my son! Yeah, definite school chums, those. A 50-year-old research pit that we are still trying to dig our way out of...

Matthew

PS: In other news, the 40-year-old error of Greek glued linen armor has recently gotten a new boost! Gads...
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Messent




Location: Texas
Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 10:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Bless you, my son! Yeah, definite school chums, those. A 50-year-old research pit that we are still trying to dig our way out of...

Matthew

PS: In other news, the 40-year-old error of Greek glued linen armor has recently gotten a new boost! Gads...


Unfortunately, I don't think that history/archaeology (or any other scholarly topic, for that matter) will ever be short of such pits - every careless, pointless and unfounded assertion seems to take an inordinate amount of effort to correct.

On the plus side, I haven't seen a horned helmet since pathfinder (the 2007 abomination, that is)!
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 1:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Peter Messent wrote:
Regarding greek fighting type and use of greaves, how heavy was the shield? I recall reading that the Spartan shields were very large and heavy, which would presumably limit quite a bit how effectively it could be maneuvered to protect the lower extremities. Was this true of all greek shields, unique to spartans or did I read some bad info?


It's very difficult to get an exact weight, because there are only a couple finds of enough organic remains to determine thicknesses, etc. But the general agreement is that the typical Greek aspis was in the range of 12 to 15 pounds. So it was no heavier than the scutum, for instance, but a Viking shield of similar diameter was lighter. Most of the fuss about how heavy the hoplite's equipment was comes from Anthony Snodgrass, who came up with the ridiculous figure of 70 pounds, and used it to "prove" that ancient historians were lying about things like hoplites running at the battle of Marathon. "Experts" have been quoting him ever since. My current kit is only 30 pounds, and I know for a fact that my helmet at least is twice the weight of the real ones. There's no suggestion that I've ever heard that Spartan shields were heavier than anyone else's.

Matthew


the book 'the wars of the ancient greeks' lists hoplite cuirass as being 6mm thick however he's pretty optimistic about access,to the panoply, implying that it isnt that inaccessable nor does he see them as turtles, but that he described 'the persian arhcers could only get off a few sots at a high poundage before the lumnbering columns were upon them implying that the hoplies wernt exactly slow, he also notes probably correctly that you're actually fiarly likely to survive provided you A dont fall over and get trampled, B win, and C survive the initial impact of the opposing hoplite lines meeting. he book seems pretty reasonable in its expectations of what hoplites could do, he did call them cumbersome but also the most well protected. but not overtly slow either.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 9:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
the book 'the wars of the ancient greeks' lists hoplite cuirass as being 6mm thick however he's pretty optimistic about access,to the panoply, implying that it isnt that inaccessable nor does he see them as turtles, but that he described 'the persian arhcers could only get off a few sots at a high poundage before the lumnbering columns were upon them implying that the hoplies wernt exactly slow, he also notes probably correctly that you're actually fiarly likely to survive provided you A dont fall over and get trampled, B win, and C survive the initial impact of the opposing hoplite lines meeting. he book seems pretty reasonable in its expectations of what hoplites could do, he did call them cumbersome but also the most well protected. but not overtly slow either.


SIX millimeters?? Sure, if it's LEATHER! But there isn't a piece of *bronze* armor on the planet that is even half that thick. Heck, you don't find any armor that thick until they're trying to make it bulletproof. Geez, where do people GET this stuff? "Lumbering columns" is ridiculous on both counts...

Part of the problem is that we have entire societies now that grew up without physical labor. So we have generations of "experts" (and their readers) who are appalled at how "heavy" a 3-pound helmet is, or a 1-1/2 pound sword. I guess these guys only buy milk in quarts because a gallon is "too heavy to lift"... They've also never seen a moving company crew of 5-foot Hispanics, any of whom can throw a strap under THREE boxes of books and *run* down a flight of stairs with it on their backs. THAT's the kind of physique we're talking about, though probably with a little more time spent in the gym each day.

I wish I could point you to a *good* book on hoplites, but most of them I haven't read because I'm afraid to spend money on something that could be trash. Have to write my own, I guess...

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 11:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey, I resent that! I buy milk in one liter cartons because that's how it's packaged over here! Razz

(Besides, even if I could find a gallon jug of the stuff, I couldn't finish it before it would spoil...)

More seriously, rather than the kids these days being lazy and weak, I'd actually blame this on the insidious and frustratingly insistent tendency of even people who really should know better to romanticize the past into an outlandish fantasy realm filled with heroes and deeds that cannot be replicated in this degenerate age we now live in. Add to that the equally insidious tendency to think of less technologically advanced cultures as a bit stupid - but in a noble, heroic way, of course, because they lived in the fabled past and were nothing like the spineless kids these days! - and you get more than halfway to understanding where all the Victorian style wild assumptions and baseless speculation presented as fact come from.

Of course inexperience with the use of arms and armour has a great deal to do with it, too, but I think more in terms of a lack of skill and concrete knowledge than a lack of physical fitness, as such. I'm a desk jockey and a bit of a shut-in, but even with my out-of-shape muscles properly made arms feel plenty light enough now that I know how to use them. If I had no idea what to expect from or do with one, I'm pretty darn sure I'd estimate any piece of armament to be heavier and clumsier than it actually is - AND would more easily believe fanciful theories of twenty-pound swords and seventy-pound hoplite gear, because they sound really impressive and I wouldn't have the hands-on knowledge to understand just how ludicrous it actually is.

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Coomer




Location: Colorado
Joined: 06 Sep 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 1:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

@ Mikko.

Reading historical sources, generations are always complaining that the upcoming one is weak and soft.

So either tracing our lineage back, we were Titans capable of hurling mountains at each other or this is just a human trait towards rose coloring the past.

I suspect the later.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 1:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, I'm certainly aware of the eternal philosophy of how the current generation is degenerate and weak! I didn't mean it quite like that. My lovely wife grew up on a dairy farm with her 8 siblings, and I first met them when they were all in their late 20s and 30s (even 40s). All had left the farm at least a decade before for very geeky, sedentary lifestyles, so they were nowhere near as fit as they had been while juggling hay bales as kids. But any one of them could have broken me in half. And like I pointed out with the Hispanic movers, people that grow up doing physical labor are used to doing things that make our jaws drop. With today's urban/suburban society, it's easy to convince people that armor is "too heavy to wear", because they simply can't conceive of carrying that kind of weight around. Especially if the weight is wildly exaggerated.

So I'm not saying "kids are degenerate", I'm just saying that society has changed over time, and the typical modern upbringing makes many people less able filter out errors in what they're being shown or told.

AND they don't appreciate what it's like to walk 10 miles barefoot in the snow to school every day. Uphill. Both ways. Darn whippersnappers.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 07 Dec, 2014 7:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ha!

But really, far more than anything, I think it just comes down to the fact that people who use weapons and wear armour know about them, and people who don't, don't. Which is just the same now as it was back then - and if it seems otherwise, I'd say that's mostly because a hugely disproportionate portion of the period accounts we're familiar with were penned (or dictated) by people who did know arms and armour (both because a great many of them were produced by people like that, and because we're specifically interested in and deliberately seek out accounts by people like that). I don't think the average ancient Greek peasant or fisherman knew significantly more about swords and armour than the average modern day factory or office worker knows about guns. Happy

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Mon 08 Dec, 2014 12:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
Ha!

But really, far more than anything, I think it just comes down to the fact that people who use weapons and wear armour know about them, and people who don't, don't. Which is just the same now as it was back then - and if it seems otherwise, I'd say that's mostly because a hugely disproportionate portion of the period accounts we're familiar with were penned (or dictated) by people who did know arms and armour (both because a great many of them were produced by people like that, and because we're specifically interested in and deliberately seek out accounts by people like that). I don't think the average ancient Greek peasant or fisherman knew significantly more about swords and armour than the average modern day factory or office worker knows about guns. Happy


however a lot more knew how to cast a sling or throw a javelin, swing an axe or cut with a knife or shoot a bow.

not to mention a much larger, percentage of the population was involved in defense of their town or village, especially in the archaic period where constant sporadic fights and clashes happened all the time (the book i mentioned before compares the songs about greek warriors to modern rap songs, taking turf (farmland) women and booty and killing those on the other side yes you just heard greek poetry get compared to rap...) but the picture im seeing is that small scal it was fairly constant. and i'd imagine it was similar in other parts of the world.

sure those potters and bakers in the local militia wouldnt kniow as much as the proffesionals in the retinue of the strategos, or like the spartan equals who did it full time, but theyd know which end of the spear to hold and how to move in formation without knocking your mates over with your shield or stabbing their feet with your sauroter, that sort of thing.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Mon 08 Dec, 2014 6:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
Ha!

But really, far more than anything, I think it just comes down to the fact that people who use weapons and wear armour know about them, and people who don't, don't.


Very true! Though we do have the factor of movies and such that portray any sort of weapons or fighting unrealistically, making a large percentage of the audience *think* they know more than they do.

William P wrote:
however a lot more knew how to cast a sling or throw a javelin, swing an axe or cut with a knife or shoot a bow.

not to mention a much larger, percentage of the population was involved in defense of their town or village, especially in the archaic period where constant sporadic fights and clashes happened all the time (the book i mentioned before compares the songs about greek warriors to modern rap songs, taking turf (farmland) women and booty and killing those on the other side yes you just heard greek poetry get compared to rap...) but the picture im seeing is that small scal it was fairly constant. and i'd imagine it was similar in other parts of the world.

sure those potters and bakers in the local militia wouldnt kniow as much as the proffesionals in the retinue of the strategos, or like the spartan equals who did it full time, but theyd know which end of the spear to hold and how to move in formation without knocking your mates over with your shield or stabbing their feet with your sauroter, that sort of thing.


Exactly. The Greeks were especially competitive, and prowess in battle was a major part of a man's worth. Warfare was considered the natural state of mankind, while peace was an abberation. Even for those who never fought, they KNEW that a spear was a WEAPON, and armor was ARMOR--they never started with the basic assumption that everything was a votive offering and useless in battle. It was similar for many other tribal people around Europe, in which a boy became a man when his father gave him weapons.

I like to tell my audience that swords and other bladed weapons are *more* dangerous today because in ancient times everyone already knew that they were *deadly weapons*. Modern kids assume they are props or CGI and frequently just run up and grab them. By the blade.

Yeah, it's a different world!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matthew Bunker




Location: Somerset UK
Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posts: 483

PostPosted: Mon 08 Dec, 2014 1:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region,


Everyone appears to have forgotten the pair of splinted greaves and the splinted vambace from the boat burial (number 8) at Valsgärde, Sweden. Late 6th/early 7th century.

"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
View user's profile Send private message
Gary T




Location: Missouri
Joined: 10 Mar 2014

Posts: 40

PostPosted: Mon 08 Dec, 2014 3:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
More seriously, rather than the kids these days being lazy and weak, I'd actually blame this on the insidious and frustratingly insistent tendency of even people who really should know better to romanticize the past into an outlandish fantasy realm filled with heroes and deeds that cannot be replicated in this degenerate age we now live in. Add to that the equally insidious tendency to think of less technologically advanced cultures as a bit stupid - but in a noble, heroic way, of course, because they lived in the fabled past and were nothing like the spineless kids these days! - and you get more than halfway to understanding where all the Victorian style wild assumptions and baseless speculation presented as fact come from.


I agree. There seems to be two ways the deeds of antiquity are looked at, either that they were supermen unlike the degenerates we now have due to lack of physical labor, OR that they were somehow physically inferior due to the fact of nutrition, that man is bigger now by a few inches, etc.etc.

Both of these are accurate and flawed depending upon the exact situation.

Modern athletes are conditioned better than their predecessors. The combination of better nutrition, supplements that may be illegal in some areas, and a more scientific approach to training as well as advances in medicine make the modern athlete far superior. Pretty well all records in the Olympics have been broken, oft times many times over, with each new generation performing better and better. The human race being a little bit bigger helps here as well, though difference in size between modern and ancient man are usually overestimated.

Man's current height took years to recover following the onset of the industrial revolution, the height of 13th century man was a few inches taller than 16th century man. The Agricultural revolution had the same effect, lowering man's height for a few thousand years. Interesting that height often indicates ow much "pressure" a society is under, taller being more healthy. Makes you wonder how great these two "revolutions" really were for man Big Grin

But as modern athletes get better and better as time goes on, the common man is another story. He also has better nutrition going for him, though junk food is a negative. Biggest factor of course is the sedentary lifestyle, though there were couch potatoes or more sedentary positions in the past as well.

So a modern athlete can carry more, carry it faster, draw a heavier bow, etc. etc. better than man in antiquity did. But modern men being more sedentary will find it difficult. But even a modern man who might be a bit of a "health nut" or "gym rat" could very well do better than that man from antiquity.

Bear in mind there are some/many "deeds" that require training over months or years to develop the proper strength. And there are also certain "specialist" deeds that require specialized training for the strength required. I'd put drawing a bow here, though someone who has spent years working out their lats and biceps should be able to transfer to this rather well and rather quickly.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 1:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Bunker wrote:
William P wrote:
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region,


Everyone appears to have forgotten the pair of splinted greaves and the splinted vambace from the boat burial (number 8) at Valsgärde, Sweden. Late 6th/early 7th century.


that is true, however i tend to treat it as the exception rather than the rule and not really indicative of general practice wheras the other souces have a bit more repetition to them to show more widespread adoption. so i sometimes hesitate to mention the valsegarde vambraces and greaves

the manuals of the byzantines about limb armour are for general issue to certain troops (mostly cavalry and armoured naval marines) the archaic greek hoplites have a fairly large sample size.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 6:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Bunker wrote:
William P wrote:
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region,


Everyone appears to have forgotten the pair of splinted greaves and the splinted vambace from the boat burial (number 8) at Valsgärde, Sweden. Late 6th/early 7th century.


Right, I hadn't forgotten those, in fact I had assumed they'd already been mentioned! There's a reference to Charlemagne having "iron greaves" or something like that as well. But they just don't seem to have been at all common, even among the upper class. Heck, greaves and splinted stuff seem to show up more in the Migration and pre-Viking era, then they go away for a while. Wyrd.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
T. Kew




Location: London, UK
Joined: 21 Apr 2012

Posts: 256

PostPosted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 8:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Matthew Bunker wrote:
William P wrote:
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region,


Everyone appears to have forgotten the pair of splinted greaves and the splinted vambace from the boat burial (number 8) at Valsgärde, Sweden. Late 6th/early 7th century.


Right, I hadn't forgotten those, in fact I had assumed they'd already been mentioned! There's a reference to Charlemagne having "iron greaves" or something like that as well. But they just don't seem to have been at all common, even among the upper class. Heck, greaves and splinted stuff seem to show up more in the Migration and pre-Viking era, then they go away for a while. Wyrd.

Matthew


I did mention them in post 8 (although obliquely).

As noted, I think the explanation is linked to how people are outfitted. The Vendel/Valsgarde graves are from the period when germanic chiefs tend to be using a panoply based on late Roman cavalry models*, and that includes limb armour. They may have still ridden into battle, even. When you go into the Viking age, everyone is definitely fighting on foot, and so the limb armour goes away.

That's my loose speculation, anyway. I'll dig up some sources when I'm not quite so busy.

*There's some interesting cultural exchange going on here in the late Empire, with barbarian chieftains coming in and training as officers in the army for a while.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 11:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

T. Kew wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
Matthew Bunker wrote:
William P wrote:
the only place limb armour shows up in in the eastern roman armies AND in the horse cultures around the black sea region,


Everyone appears to have forgotten the pair of splinted greaves and the splinted vambace from the boat burial (number 8) at Valsgärde, Sweden. Late 6th/early 7th century.


Right, I hadn't forgotten those, in fact I had assumed they'd already been mentioned! There's a reference to Charlemagne having "iron greaves" or something like that as well. But they just don't seem to have been at all common, even among the upper class. Heck, greaves and splinted stuff seem to show up more in the Migration and pre-Viking era, then they go away for a while. Wyrd.

Matthew


I did mention them in post 8 (although obliquely).

As noted, I think the explanation is linked to how people are outfitted. The Vendel/Valsgarde graves are from the period when germanic chiefs tend to be using a panoply based on late Roman cavalry models*, and that includes limb armour. They may have still ridden into battle, even. When you go into the Viking age, everyone is definitely fighting on foot, and so the limb armour goes away.

That's my loose speculation, anyway. I'll dig up some sources when I'm not quite so busy.

*There's some interesting cultural exchange going on here in the late Empire, with barbarian chieftains coming in and training as officers in the army for a while.
Makes me wonder, if the Romans had greaves and Valgarde chieftains had greaves, why didn't then developed chausses? from what If seen of splinted lower legs, it only covers the front of the leg, The roman's made chainmail one the most pervasive forms of body armour in western europe. Wearing greaves over chausses give ton more protection than greaves over bare legs or clothing, the spaces into between the splints or synbalds act as gaps and the back of the leg in completely open to attacks than severe it.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages
Page 3 of 6 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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