Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Scale Armour (Brunea): Why they fell out of favor? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Kyle Eaton





Joined: 28 Jun 2013

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 1:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, so your argument was that lamellar was uncommon and not whether if it was used or not. If you mean by that lamellar was uncommon amongst most Scandinavian and Germanic Vikings, then I can agree with that. If you are to argue that Vikings never used lamellar then I totally disagree with you. I'm too lazy to type out my thought process of why I used Harald Hadrada as an example and of why I mentioned something from the 14th century. The Norse and many other groups of people preferred to get their arms and armour from the Franks.
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 2:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kyle Eaton wrote:
Lack of evidence doesn't always equate to lack of existence.


Historical inquiry specifically means referring to the evidence that is available. Conjecture based on the absence of evidence is fantasy at best and has no bearing on actually appreciating the realities of the past.

Kyle Eaton wrote:
If you are to argue that Vikings never used lamellar then I totally disagree with you.


Okay then... What actual evidence do you have to prove that Vikings wore lamellar? Matthew's argument for them not using lamellar is perfectly aligned with the evidence that's been presented in this thread - none at all.

From an historian's perspective, the answer to this question is simple. First, the right question has to be asked: has lamellar ever been discovered in the context of a Viking find or does any positive depiction or description of lamellar exist in the context of Viking art or literature? The answer to both of these questions is "no."

Could some Vikings have come across lamellar via trade routes or expeditions into foreign land? That's certainly a possibility. Is there any absolute proof of that? Again, the answer is no. If you want to make a conjectural argument, so be it... But facts and conjecture are not and never will be the same.

-Gregory

(EDITED for typo!)


Last edited by Gregory J. Liebau on Mon 21 Dec, 2015 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 3:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter B. wrote:
Well that sounds like, excuse the pun, a drawn out process. Makes me wonder if the preparatory work of making mail is significant compared to the assembling of the ready made rings.


I think not just significant, but it's the majority of the work.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 3:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
[Field repairs may be easier with scale and lamellar.

All you need to repair mail in the field is a small length of twisted wire. Even if you wanted to do it properly you only need a small pouch of links and rivets, and a crimping tool. It can be made as good as new in a few minutes.


Which is still more than the piece of string/thong you'd need to repair scale/lamellar.

Dan Howard wrote:
Quote:
To make mail, you need to be able to make wire. You need better quality iron. You can make scales out of iron you can't draw wire from.

This is the key. People today underestimate how difficult it was to make wire using the available technology. A single mail shirt requires one-two thousand feet of wire (double this if it is all-riveted instead of demi-riveted).


How common was it for welded rings to be made from wire? How common are welded rings compared to punched? It seems to me that wire is a Good Thing - the iron is proven to be tough enough to draw into wire. Given sound riveting/welding, it'll be able to resist something (like an arrowhead) trying to stretch it to breaking point. Would one have the same confidence in cut-from-sheet-and-welded or punched from sheet rings?

Perhaps why we see all-riveted mail.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bram Verbeek





Joined: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 217

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 3:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But we do see a lot of alternating rivetted and punched rings in earlier mail.
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 335

PostPosted: Mon 21 Dec, 2015 4:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:

Historical inquiry specifically means referring to the evidence that is available. Conjecture based on the absence of evidence is fantasy at best and has no bearing on actually appreciating the realities of the past.


You can go too far in either direction. We essentially experience the past through a telescope with a narrow field of view, what we see is only a fraction of what there once was. The things we do have evidence for should be represented as correctly as possible but if you want to present or experience the information and artifacts in a dynamic and lifelike way there's going to have to be some fleshing out of the greater context based on best guesses from available data. Artifacts or information presented out of context can be just as misleading as anything else.
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 3:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" was something some guys used to say to justify all sorts of ahistoric things at re-enactment group I used to be part of. I showed up dressed as a Ninja at a feast one time, and tried to explain that with ninjas, lack of evidence is proof they were there. They didn't seem to find it convincing.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 6:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

While I generally agree with what Gregory said, I would temper his conclusion. The very presence of the Birka lamellar pieces prove that SOMEone was using it, obviously, it's just that the context and related finds seem to suggest a foreigner. Note all the weasel words! We also have the references to "spangenbyrnie", and we don't know for certain what that means. The one example that was thrown out in disgust might just have been a particularly crappy one, for all we know. (With the caveat that I don't recall the passage exactly!)

The point is that all of this added up and interpreted as broadly as we can still is only a small minority of the evidence compared to the use of mail.

Mike Ruhala wrote:
Gregory J. Liebau wrote:

Historical inquiry specifically means referring to the evidence that is available. Conjecture based on the absence of evidence is fantasy at best and has no bearing on actually appreciating the realities of the past.


You can go too far in either direction. We essentially experience the past through a telescope with a narrow field of view, what we see is only a fraction of what there once was. The things we do have evidence for should be represented as correctly as possible but if you want to present or experience the information and artifacts in a dynamic and lifelike way there's going to have to be some fleshing out of the greater context based on best guesses from available data. Artifacts or information presented out of context can be just as misleading as anything else.


Again, that sort of argument is often used to support speculation where none is really needed or desirable. The archeological record may be a lot richer than you think, and if the finds are consistent and agree with the pictoral and written sources, then it's pretty clear that we have a decent cross-section. It's kind of like an opinion poll--you only get answers from 0.2 percent of the population, but it's considered a statistically accurate reading of the whole. It may not be the *whole* picture, but it doesn't have to be if it's a reasonably correct slice.

So if you're trying to create a well-rounded presentation, and the best archeological, literary, and pictoral sources all point to mail being the armor typically used, that's what you go with. If you want to throw in an Avar or other Easterner very distinctly dressed and wearing lamellar, excellent! I would just say that a "lifelike" impression or summary doesn't necessarily include all of the most unusual finds or literary bits. It's generally enough to stick with the typical. If it ends up looking like everyone came out of the same mold and just got different paint jobs, that is probably pretty accurate! They were all fashion slaves, after all.

I should point out that many of the reenactors that have lit this flame under us by wearing so much lamellar are members of groups that engage in competitive combat of various styles, and they may require some kind of armor protection for safety. The group I was in for many years only did semi-choreographed stage fighting, but we still required helmets and gloves for all participants. It was a non-historical detail, and we knew it and tried to make that clear to the audience. (And we could ditch the gloves at least for nice group photos!) But when a group needs a much higher ratio of armor than was actually used, and the participants feel that mail may not be enough for their purposes, lamellar becomes an obvious choice. Again, it's used WAY beyond any possible historical rationalization simply because they have to have something for safety. Visually, though, it gives very much the wrong impression about history. THAT's what some of us tend to go on about!

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





Joined: 28 Jun 2013

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 6:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Okay. Could you please read my previous posts and at least attempt to understand my perspective? I get that I used what is considered a weak argument, so please don't quote the one or two lines I've said and shove it down my throat and brand me the title of "ignorant." That would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Edit: not directed towards you, Matt.
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 8:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mike Ruhala wrote:
Gregory J. Liebau wrote:

Historical inquiry specifically means referring to the evidence that is available. Conjecture based on the absence of evidence is fantasy at best and has no bearing on actually appreciating the realities of the past.


You can go too far in either direction. We essentially experience the past through a telescope with a narrow field of view, what we see is only a fraction of what there once was..


And anyone interested in history should be able to appreciate that fact without feeling a need to postulate what's been lost in the gaps, especially where/when already unstable evidence is concerned. That's what leads to fruitless debate and biased opinions among academics and laymen alike. Lots of history is lost, and we're only able to appreciate what we know was there based on what survives.

Good archaeologists and historians attempt to reconstruct evidence from every reasonable angle before deciding what is the most reasonable theory they've considered - and any reasonable theory should be considered before drawing final conclusions. Even if some other idea seems fancier or might fall neatly into place based on a preconditioned bias, it is the goal of scientific inquiry to be as sure as possible about things. Modern historians and archaeologists might not always come to the right conclusions (as subsequent evidence often proves) but if their work is done with scrutiny and scruples,it's typically hard to argue that the best conclusion has not been found, given the available data. A majority of those "best" or "right" conclusions, based on little or debatable evidence, are undoubtedly those that rely on the least amount of conjecture.

Matthew Amt wrote:
While I generally agree with what Gregory said, I would temper his conclusion. The very presence of the Birka lamellar pieces prove that SOMEone was using it, obviously, it's just that the context and related finds seem to suggest a foreigner.


That has essentially been my understanding of the Birka finds since I read a report some time ago that Dan posted about the topic. I would not call the find one that falls under a "Viking" context unless if new evidence is discovered to suggest a more direct link between the local inhabitants and the likely settlers/traders situated in the Birka fort.

Kyle Eaton wrote:
Okay. Could you please read my previous posts and at least attempt to understand my perspective?


I'll assume you meant me... I happened to have read every post in this thread a couple of times before I decided to chime in. If you don't want your statements to be debated, perhaps you shouldn't include them in your messages. I quoted words of yours that I particularly wanted to address and have every right to do so.

-Gregory
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 335

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 8:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:

Again, that sort of argument is often used to support speculation where none is really needed or desirable.


Then I would say that's taking it too far in the other direction. Razz

Quote:
The archeological record may be a lot richer than you think, and if the finds are consistent and agree with the pictoral and written sources, then it's pretty clear that we have a decent cross-section. It's kind of like an opinion poll--you only get answers from 0.2 percent of the population, but it's considered a statistically accurate reading of the whole. It may not be the *whole* picture, but it doesn't have to be if it's a reasonably correct slice.


It's ideal when we have artifacts, artwork and written evidence in congruence. What I'm thinking of are the things that are more in the gray areas, for instance kite or heater shields with center grips. They show up more rarely in artwork than the shields with enarmes but often enough to suggest the existence of a somewhat rare variant but AFAIK we have no surviving artifact examples. Or consider the Gokstad shields, what do they represent and what did they really look like when made new? We have some really spectacular sword finds from Finland but AFAIK no armor whatsoever. Some of the weapons are of such fine quality it's easy to assume anyone who could have afforded them could have also afforded a helmet. Come to think of it the matter of helmets seems to be a bit fuzzy with Viking finds, too. I'm a hands-on kind of guy so I like to experiment with stuff and see how it might work but at the same time if something is a product of conjecture I believe it should be clearly represented as such.

In regards to Birka and lamellar I agree that the seemingly unique find shouldn't be used as an excuse to equip an entire contingent of native western Vikings in that kind of armor but it is an interesting data point from the site and it wouldn't be bad to include some interpretation of it as a conversation starter and means of illustrating cross-cultural contact. If there was an area inhabited by foreigners with such gear that's actually pretty neat and probably a radical new concept to some people with preconceived notions about the "dark ages."
View user's profile Send private message
Kyle Eaton





Joined: 28 Jun 2013

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 10:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

@Gregory, allow me to repeat what is discussed in the thread from my perspective. The thread is about whether or not scale would be appropriate in Western and Northern Europe. Matt says that scale and lamellar are an impossibility even though there are illustrations that do display the usage of scale and lamellar in Western European areas. I am telling Matt that if he considers the possibilities and the likeliness of scale and lamellar based upon some historical evidence and clues, then it might be okay for activities such as historical reenactment. Matt then tells me that my historical evidence is too weak to support my argument. I sort of agree with him, but I am attempting to figure out whether he is arguing against the likeliness of lamellar and scale are used or not, or because of raw historical evidence that is almost totally non-existant, or because he really hates viking reenactors that wear lamellar and scale and it is in his book of faith to disagree.

Gregory and Nat, I have no idea what you both are trying to accomplish other than by telling me I am spouting total BS. Yes, I agree that the argument "just because something isn't recorded doesn't mean something doesn't exist" is weak and a potential fallacy. I will probably never use that argument again and I typed it because I've personally never seen anyone use it. However, my purpose to this thread is to convince Pedro that due to the likeliness and possibilities due to some nearby and suggested evidence and clues, it would be okay to assume that scale and lamellar would be used. How much of scale and lamellar was not specified.

Gregory and Nat, I assume you both are trying to convince me that there is no lamellar and scale recorded in the unspecified regions we all assume are discussed- which is Western and Northern Europe. Yes, I agree that there is no solid historical evidence of any lamellar and scale being used. Now kindly back off or I am going to assume your goal is to drive me into an emotional corner using historical facts that I can not argue against.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 10:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mike Ruhala wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:

Again, that sort of argument is often used to support speculation where none is really needed or desirable.


Then I would say that's taking it too far in the other direction. Razz


Ha, fair enough! All I mean is that, to make up a completely wild example, there is no reason to speculate on whether Viking articulated swim fins were controlled pneumatically or mechanically, since there is no reason to believe such a thing existed or was needed. And no reenactor, book illustrator, or other scholar needs to have one for his Viking project, either.

Quote:
Quote:
The archeological record may be a lot richer than you think, and if the finds are consistent and agree with the pictoral and written sources, then it's pretty clear that we have a decent cross-section. It's kind of like an opinion poll--you only get answers from 0.2 percent of the population, but it's considered a statistically accurate reading of the whole. It may not be the *whole* picture, but it doesn't have to be if it's a reasonably correct slice.


It's ideal when we have artifacts, artwork and written evidence in congruence. What I'm thinking of are the things that are more in the gray areas, for instance kite or heater shields with center grips. They show up more rarely in artwork than the shields with enarmes but often enough to suggest the existence of a somewhat rare variant but AFAIK we have no surviving artifact examples.


Oh, I'm like you, I LOVE artifacts! Lacking them, however, in this case I would say that as long as the illustrations are not known to be untrustworthy or definite fantasy, they are decent evidence for the existence of those shields.

Quote:
Or consider the Gokstad shields, what do they represent and what did they really look like when made new?


Those are infuriating, aren't they? I change my mind every time I argue about them! (Luckily that isn't often!)

Quote:
Come to think of it the matter of helmets seems to be a bit fuzzy with Viking finds, too.


Right, and that's a big issue with reenactors. Snarky ones point out that the only existing one is the Gjerbundmu helmet (assume I've misspjelledd thjat...). But we have perfectly clear depictions of conical helmets just like those known to be used in other areas. So spangenhelms, 4-panel conical helmets, and one-piece conicals are all very legitimate. Good pictoral evidence *is* evidence, after all!

Quote:
I'm a hands-on kind of guy so I like to experiment with stuff and see how it might work but at the same time if something is a product of conjecture I believe it should be clearly represented as such.


You're singing my song.

Quote:
In regards to Birka and lamellar I agree that the seemingly unique find shouldn't be used as an excuse to equip an entire contingent of native western Vikings in that kind of armor but it is an interesting data point from the site and it wouldn't be bad to include some interpretation of it as a conversation starter and means of illustrating cross-cultural contact. If there was an area inhabited by foreigners with such gear that's actually pretty neat and probably a radical new concept to some people with preconceived notions about the "dark ages."


Agreed! And it's something we can certainly argue and debate in a place like this--I never meant to give the impression that we shouldn't talk about it at all! We'd all love to know more. But it's also something I'm likely to skip over if I only have 5 minutes with an audience to tell them all I know about Vikings. It's a distraction which may be completely irrelevant and misleading, in that case.

Kyle, hang in there, amice, I'll be back to you shortly!

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




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 335

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 11:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
there is no reason to speculate on whether Viking articulated swim fins were controlled pneumatically or mechanically, since there is no reason to believe such a thing existed or was needed. And no reenactor, book illustrator, or other scholar needs to have one for his Viking project, either.


Oh great, thanks a lot! Now my life won't be complete without a pair of Viking swim fins! Also, I'm pretty sure the pneumatically controlled variety came after the 12th century renaissance, so technically not Viking.

Kyle Eaton wrote:
The thread is about whether or not scale would be appropriate in Western and Northern Europe.


As a point of interest it was definitely being used in the 16th century. It was probably inspired by some pseudo-patriotic neoclassicism but we do have art that shows it being used in battle, most peculiarly in the form of a helmet. If you're willing to look a little further east to Hungary and Poland they were producing some gorgeous examples apparently as late as the 18th century.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 12:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kyle Eaton wrote:
@Gregory, allow me to repeat what is discussed in the thread from my perspective. The thread is about whether or not scale would be appropriate in Western and Northern Europe. Matt says that scale and lamellar are an impossibility even though there are illustrations that do display the usage of scale and lamellar in Western European areas.


My apologies if I gave the impression that I thought anything was "an impossibility", I certainly didn't mean to do that! Not sure where I might have implied that on this thread, either...

Quote:
I am telling Matt that if he considers the possibilities and the likeliness of scale and lamellar based upon some historical evidence and clues, then it might be okay for activities such as historical reenactment. Matt then tells me that my historical evidence is too weak to support my argument. I sort of agree with him, but I am attempting to figure out whether he is arguing against the likeliness of lamellar and scale are used or not, or because of raw historical evidence that is almost totally non-existant, or because he really hates viking reenactors that wear lamellar and scale and it is in his book of faith to disagree.


Hey, now, try to be reasonable, eh? I don't think we've wildly misunderstood your point of view, though we have objected to your methodology. If you stepped on a landmine it isn't necessarily your fault, just take care not to keep stomping around. (Though yes, Gregory could have been a tad more tactful!)

To clarify, the very use of the term "spangabyrnie" (yes, I'm spelling it differently than I did at first!) strongly implies a type of armor that is not mail, but is instead made of small plates. That seems to mean something like scale or lamellar. And since lamellar plates have been found at Birka, clearly at least a few folks around there knew about it. Just how much made it into general Viking warrior use is the big question! We can't rely on just archeological evidence for the answer, nor even for the debate. Literature and illustrations have their place, too. With a lot of nitpicky care, in every case!

Scale armor is clearly shown in a lot of Carolingian artwork, way too much (in my opinion!) for it to just be some artistic convention. (And it isn't showing mail if the "rings" have midribs!) So I would say that scale armor is absolutely appropriate for some times and places. In fact it's been a project on my "long list" for years, and one that I see as much more achievable (with my personal capabilities and budget) than a shirt of riveted mail! Almost no one that I know of has succeeded in making a really nice medieval scale shirt, but LOTS of them have lamellar...

And just to fill in a little background, I have for a few decades been seen as a sort of reenacting guru in more than one era, at least in my general region. I have learned to be careful about saying that something is "good" or "bad", because too many people might grab my words and run amok with them! So I don't like to say, "Sure, a Viking could wear lamellar armor", because even though I'm visualizing ONE guy among 20 in mailshirts in a shipload of 100 warriors, what I'll see at the next encampment is 8 Viking women with 4 guys and 5 lamellar vests, and not a mailshirt in sight. Sigh...

So ultimately what concerns me is EVIDENCE, of all 3 types, and what it actually means, and how it is applied and sometimes misused. And yes, the interpretation and *application* of that evidence by reenactors and artists, as well as by modern writers of all sorts. I've seen all kinds of stuff taken out of context over the years, which means I can knee-jerk when someone new brings up an old bugaboo. No offense intended! We know a lot, and there is a lot we don't know, and I often feel we just need to make it more clear that we're not sure about something. BUT that at the end of the day, the EVIDENCE is where I'll stand. (And if you can bring me enough to sit on, that'll take a load off my feet!)

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





Joined: 28 Jun 2013

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 2:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

@Matt: I must've wildly misunderstood you then because I sympathize with your recent post. I think our understanding, likes, and dislikes are aligned, its just that the difference were that we approached this thread at a different angle of purpose. Forgive me for I am human! It's difficult to understand people unless they step by step tell their entire thought process which not a lot of people do including myself.
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Tue 22 Dec, 2015 7:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kyle,

Matt's previous response comes from a different angle than my own - because Matt and I do different things - yet I agree with all of his points completely. However, his perspective as a reenactor is not necessarily aligned with mine (I have a degree in Medieval History and try to keep busy writing research articles for historical magazines). The specific reason I entered this conversation was regarding points that you made regarding the use of lamellar among Vikings, and the literal phraseology that I quoted in my first post that you used to defend your argument. As an amateur (and perhaps overenthusiastic) historian I almost feel obligated to jump on such loose argumentative contrivances. However, despite my nitpicking, please refer to a quote from my first post:

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Could some Vikings have come across lamellar via trade routes or expeditions into foreign land? That's certainly a possibility. Is there any absolute proof of that? Again, the answer is no. If you want to make a conjectural argument, so be it... But facts and conjecture are not and never will be the same.


Am I trying to give an absolute verdict? No. Am I trying to back you into a corner? No! Matt and I have both been engaged in dozens of conversations like this on various fora, often at the same time, and I can say at least for myself that it's never personal. However, it is my hope that if anyone else scours this thread for information, that my previous remarks will be read in conjunction with what I see as incorrect methods of historical inquiry. I don't care if your name is Kyle Eaton Matthew Amt or Queen Elizabeth II - my convictions are simply as stated. Cheers (Truly)!

-Gregory
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Wed 23 Dec, 2015 6:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kyle Eaton wrote:
Forgive me for I am human!


Forgive me for I am *not*! Muahahahahahaaaa.....

No problem at all. These discussions are always a useful exercise for me, cuz I keep thinking, "*I* know what I *meant*, but what the heck did I SAY??" And finding a balance between "Nope. No evidence" and a 5-page philosophical dissertation!

Well, it beats chasing cars!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pedro Paulo Gaião




Location: Sioux City, IA
Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 422

PostPosted: Sat 22 May, 2021 6:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes, I'm reviving the topic, after 6 years. Much has changed in my understanding of armor, but I think this is a relevant discussion so I would like to give my two cents.

Much of the discussion revolves around Methodology, which is an important issue, but I would like to mention that different countries follow different streams of methodology which sometimes is relevant in how you should interpret historical evidence; for example, Brazilian Academia tends to be at odds with the way the British do History: essentially, their methodology. It's controversial on the other hand because Brazillian Medieval Studies was historically influenced by the French (a graduation course is heavily based on French literature; good courses explain the French methodology's problem as well) and even by Marxist Historians. So it's not uncommon that I found myself at odds when a British historian discards the recorded use of shields in Scottish Schiltrons because the source describing it is English, therefore "biased" (even bias has a logic behind it). Methodology issues are, necessarily, controversial, even in Academic circles. To quote Jacques Le Goff's extreme idea: "every document is a lie"

So, about the issue, I extract the following from it:

1) Mail was the most common form of armor used by Scandinavians;

2) So far no one denies other sorts of armor had at least some use by Scandinavians, the point of discussion is if it was less or more uncommon (e.g. 15% of all the armor is still a minor proportion, but it's greater than 2% or 0,05%);

3) Spangabyrnia is something different than mail, and while most argue it's scale armor, some argue it can be lamellar or even both types of armor.

4) Scale armor is shown in Carolingian Art, but no extant example exists; however, I'm not aware of any extant Carolingian body armor as well, so it's a moot point. It could be used, and if it was used, there is also a correlated possibility that Scandinavians might have them either acquired them by looting, smuggling and such. Even still, no positive evidence exists of both.

5) There are lamellar pieces in Birka, Sweden, but at least here some of you are arguing they belong to foreigns in the fort, not necessarily Scandinavians

6) No description of scale or lamellar armor exists in former Varangians, although some of them are described using Byzantine civil garments. Again, this is not definitive.

7) Extant lamellar armor exists in Visby findings. This means that at least in 14th century Visby, lamellar armor was at use, how reliable it is to assume or suppose it was used in Viking Age could be discussed.

The whole issue with "lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is that, although that's true, that's not the ONLY rule or method when dealing. Of course, something could be historical while lacking modern evidence, but a false thing necessarily lacks evidence as well, this is not enough to discuss the reliability of it.

You add many things to conclude whether something is necessarily false, likely false, improbable, impossible to know, likely, necessarily true, and such. Perhaps my experience with researching the Byzantine Iconomachia (where it's not just about evidence, but if the said evidence was not forged or interpolated, or dated wrong) might have given to me a more holistic view.

I work with a PhD in Hoplogy, this year he solved a puzzle of where plackarts were worn with brigandines; again, we didn't had uncontested positive evidence they existed, as people argued they could be cloth-covered cuirasses and such. He proved the idea by finding a Castilian document specifying that a plackart was intended to be worn with a brigandine and both would be placed under a tabard. That's an example something that we didn't have evidence, but doesn't NECESSARILY means it's false. Life can be tricky. That's why there are many standards for judging that and even something very unlikely to exist doesn't necessarily is plainly false.

In my particular view, spangabyrnia was either scale or an ambiguous name for scale and lamellar (we can't just assume they treated both under a same name, disinterested people often do that daily). However, I particularly think all or at least most of the spangabyrnia references relate to scale, either obtained from the Franks or made locally; perhaps lamellar was more of a thing in Sweden (anyways, why are supposing all the Scandinavians dressed the same?). Anyways, we don't have time travelling technology, so our work is to reconstruct from the evidence.

“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Millman





Joined: 10 Feb 2005

Posts: 581

PostPosted: Sat 22 May, 2021 7:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dear Pedro,

I don't read the thread quite as you do. In particular, I'd respond to two of your points:

On Saturday 22 May 2021, you wrote:
2) So far no one denies other sorts of armor had at least some use by Scandinavians, the point of discussion is if it was less or more uncommon (e.g. 15% of all the armor is still a minor proportion, but it's greater than 2% or 0,05%);

As far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has been willing to assert that any other form of metallic body armor is attested for early-medieval Scandinavians than mail, because the only extant evidence is for mail. They do not deny that other sorts may have been used. If so, the frequency is unrecoverable given the lack of evidence, but must be low.

Quote:
5) There are lamellar pieces in Birka, Sweden, but at least here some of you are arguing they belong to foreigns in the fort, not necessarily Scandinavians

I believe that the argument is that the lamellar pieces belong to a single individual of non-Scandinavian origin. To the best of my knowledge, the archaeological team found them in only one grave, and that grave is agreed by the archaeologists and later commenters to be that of a person not originally from Scandinavia.

For the rest, I agree with you, although perhaps with slightly different emphases.

Congratulations to your colleague the hoplologist! By his discovery, he has vastly improved the evidence for a practice that previously was only the subject of speculation--which is one of the goals of historical study.

Best,

Mark Millman
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Scale Armour (Brunea): Why they fell out of favor?
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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