| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 6:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | The point I was getting at is; although we might do experiments today to determine which kind of armour is "superior", does this information really matter, would the people who bought and wore this armour to battle be aware of this?? |
No. Most types of armour provided similar protection. The choice of armour was based on other criteria: cost, weight, comfort, fashion, etc.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | Mart. Yes sorry I should have specified. When I said that cuir bouilli armour was an optional extra, I meant in terms of war, not in tournaments.
Ben I stand by saying that cuir bouilli armour was an optional extra. We know from various surviving laws what people were required to own in terms of arms and armour. AFAIK cuir bouilli armour is never mentioned. If it was not legally required, then IMO it was am optional extra. |
I'd say that's a different matter of what "optional extra" means. When I hear "optional extra" I'm hearing something that doesn't provide protection and really doesn't mean anything whether your wear it or not, unless it's providing some sort of creature comfort.
If we're looking at exclusively JUST the laws, then there's a whole lot of armors and equipment that were optional extras . . . some of which the people who could afford the best didn't see as optional. That's the point I was trying to make. When you can afford the best you don't settle for the "legal minimum" . . . especially when it's going to be your life on the line.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Stephen Curtin wrote: | | The point I was getting at is; although we might do experiments today to determine which kind of armour is "superior", does this information really matter, would the people who bought and wore this armour to battle be aware of this?? |
No. Most types of armour provided similar protection. The choice of armour was based on other criteria: cost, weight, comfort, fashion, etc. |
Strongly disagree, here. We've got lots of documented evidence that we KNOW different types of armor provided superior protection over others; and we KNOW that there was a never-ending war between weapons and armor to beat the other in combat. Otherwise, why would anyone ever have considered upgrading armor through the years between a hauberk of mail to a coat of plates to a full plate suit? If they provided "similar protection" then no one would have cared and armor wouldn't have changed. People would have just sat there and said "Why waste all of that money on a suit of plate when my mail works just fine and provides similar protection." Instead, the people who could afford it were upgrading as fast as they could.
The quality of protection mattered a great deal; and we have all the evidence out there to show that it changed with the times to provide the absolute best protection possible to defeat the best weapons on the field as much as possible. To believe that they didn't test the armor or didn't care about how well it actually protected you is patently absurd. All the evidence we have attests to the exact opposite. The only evidence we don't have, probably because most craftsmen took their secrets to the grave and/or the recorders of history didn't care about the activities of the craftsmen themselves, is what testing they did do on the armor they created to prove it provided the desired levels of protection.
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kew
Location: London, UK Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
A couple of quick notes:
Firstly, we have some suggestions - proofing by shooting a crossbow or firearm at the armour. I wouldn't be too surprised if some legal codes specify details about the weapon used to proof, but I don't have a citation to hand.
Secondly, there's evidence to suggest that the dramatic rise of plate is correlated with price shifts relative to mail - by the 15th century, plate was the same price or cheaper in at least some locations. See assorted comments and citations towards the end of the the Mail: Unchained article on this very cite.
HEMA fencer and coach, New Cross Historical Fencing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T. Kew wrote: | | Secondly, there's evidence to suggest that the dramatic rise of plate is correlated with price shifts relative to mail - by the 15th century, plate was the same price or cheaper in at least some locations. See assorted comments and citations towards the end of the the Mail: Unchained article on this very cite. |
However, that's also by the late 15th century, when plate was beginning to reach its peak. Again, there's a reason the jump was made from mail to a coat of plates, by the people that could afford it, as soon as possible; and again to the full plate when that was available and they could afford it.
Of course there's a dramatic rise of plate when the technology of superior production facilities drove down the price. It became such that more people could afford it than before, and they jumped on the technology that they KNEW to be superior. If mail was superior or equal protection, then why would people buy a new suit of armor otherwise, when they had something that worked just as well?
Otherwise, that's like saying that the only reason the automobile was actually superior to the horse drawn carriage was because the price came down with assembly line production. The automobile had already superseded the carriage as a means of transportation; and everyone knew it . . . it was just prohibitively expensive for most. However, it became common place because it was it was vastly superior AND that mass manufacturing via assembly line production drove down the cost to levels that the common person could afford it. That happens with every type of technology advancement out there. Something superior is made, but its cost are prohibitive, leaving it to only the elite or well-to-do to get their hands on it. However, as costs come down, via superior production methods, then it becomes more common place.
Those facets don't suddenly make its function more superior to when it cost more to make . . . it just means more people can afford it. That also applies to the armor. There's more than one reason why people were using cuir bouilli, in my opinion. The testing hasn't been done in the modern era to (re)discover the reasons and/or we need to truly (re)discover how cuir bouilli was made so we can truly understand its properties; and that, in turn, will allow us to make proper comparisons. That's another reason why I think Tod's early experimentation is so important to understanding this whole subject. Cuir Bouilli was obviously superior in some facet -probably blunt trauma protection- and was an armor of choice for a reason in certain situations and/or combinations of armor . . . we just need to figure it out to understand why the choices were made in the medieval era.
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Joy wrote: |
Strongly disagree, here. We've got lots of documented evidence that we KNOW different types of armor provided superior protection over others; and we KNOW that there was a never-ending war between weapons and armor to beat the other in combat. Otherwise, why would anyone ever have considered upgrading armor through the years between a hauberk of mail to a coat of plates to a full plate suit? If they provided "similar protection" then no one would have cared and armor wouldn't have changed. People would have just sat there and said "Why waste all of that money on a suit of plate when my mail works just fine and provides similar protection." Instead, the people who could afford it were upgrading as fast as they could.. |
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that everyone tested their armour to see which provided the best protection and then say that they ignored all this and wore the ones that didn't perform very well.
It is pretty simple: if a particular armour did not stop the most common threats, it was augmented till it did or it was discarded completely. The end result is that they all provided similar levels of protection. If any of our modern testing does not come to this conclusion then the test is fundamentally flawed. Either the armour is not layered in the same combination as it was at the time, or the armour material is wrong, or the weapon is not used in a manner that simulates battlefield conditions, or the target .does not properly emulate a moving, flexible, resilient human being.
More expensive armour did not provide better protectrion. More expensive armour covered more of the body, was lighter, more comfortable, and more fashionable.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Joy wrote: | | However, that's also by the late 15th century, when plate was beginning to reach its peak. Again, there's a reason the jump was made from mail to a coat of plates, by the people that could afford it, as soon as possible; and again to the full plate when that was available and they could afford it. |
So where is your evidence that the COP was more expensive than mail? Where is your evidence that they discarded mail at this time? The coat of plates was worn in conjunction with mail, not instead of it. It was an augmentation, not a replacement. In earlier times they would have had to wear several layers of mail to get the same protection.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ben I think that you missed the context in which I called cuir bouilli armour an optional extra. I was responding to Dan Howard, who said that many young troops couldn't wait to take off their armour. My point was, legally speaking, these men were not required to wear cuir bouilli over their mail. For those that found armour burdensome they might only wear the bare minimum, yet we know that many did choose to wear more armour than was legally required of them.
For example the assize of arms from 1181 does not mention mail chausses as being required by any class of people. However we know that chausses were popular at this time for cavalry at least.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
 |
|
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | Ben I think that you missed the context in which I called cuir bouilli armour an optional extra. I was responding to Dan Howard, who said that many young troops couldn't wait to take off their armour. My point was, legally speaking, these men were not required to wear cuir bouilli over their mail. For those that found armour burdensome they might only wear the bare minimum, yet we know that many did choose to wear more armour than was legally required of them.
For example the assize of arms from 1181 does not mention mail chausses as being required by any class of people. However we know that chausses were popular at this time for cavalry at least. |
Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding. Looks like we're pretty much on the same page, then.
Dan, you're the one trying to have it both ways, here, in both things you're quoting.
First, you can't make a statement asserting that all of these armors provided similar protection (see you're previous quote, you very directly made that statement) and were only differentiated for comfort and fashion, then say that they didn't protect equally, and then say that they needed to be improved or augmented until they met the demands against the threats on the field. You just proved my points for me. Thank you.
Secondly, I never said anywhere that they discarded mail completely and that it wasn't worn by anyone. I said that those who could afford to upgrade, did (if you'd like, I could rephrase the previous comment to mail, then coat of plates + mail, to then full plate armor . . . if you want to nit-pick . . . but I thought the context was obvious); and those that couldn't -at the time- did so as soon as it became affordable to them to upgrade. People always want to get the best of anything that's out there, especially when it comes to protection; and in turn history has shown that they've upgraded through the ages as soon as said upgrades were affordable to them.
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Fri 12 May, 2017 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ben. Dan has a point. If armour testing was widely done in the 13th century, and the protective values of different types of armour were compared to one another, then cuir bouilli probably wouldn't have been used outside of tournaments. This is because modern tests show that pound for pound layered linen protects better against points that cuir bouilli. Yes cuir bouilli is good against blunt impacts, but the no.1 danger on the battlefield were spears and arrows.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Joy wrote: | Dan, you're the one trying to have it both ways, here, in both things you're quoting.
First, you can't make a statement asserting that all of these armors provided similar protection (see you're previous quote, you very directly made that statement) and were only differentiated for comfort and fashion, then say that they didn't protect equally, and then say that they needed to be improved or augmented until they met the demands against the threats on the field. You just proved my points for me. Thank you.
Secondly, I never said anywhere that they discarded mail completely and that it wasn't worn by anyone. I said that those who could afford to upgrade, did (if you'd like, I could rephrase the previous comment to mail, then coat of plates + mail, to then full plate armor . . . if you want to nit-pick . . . but I thought the context was obvious); and those that couldn't -at the time- did so as soon as it became affordable to them to upgrade. People always want to get the best of anything that's out there, especially when it comes to protection; and in turn history has shown that they've upgraded through the ages as soon as said upgrades were affordable to them. |
Using your logic, everyone would have worn plate if they could get it, so how do we explain this? We have a report of England written by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557.
---------------
"..... and for the body they either use some sort of breastplate (qualche petto di corsaletto) which guards the forepart, although indifferently, or else more willingly (especially those who have the means) some jack (zacco) or shirt of mail; but what they usually wear are certain canvas doublets, quilted with many layers, each of which is two inches or more in thickness; and these doublets are considered the most secure defence against the shock of arrows. Upon their arms they place plates of mail, put lengthways, and nothing else."
----------------
We have an eyewitness telling us that the only people who wore plate were those who could not afford anything better and that the most popular armour was a two-inch thick quilted doublet.. All the armours described above stopped the same weapons. A gambeson provides the same protection as a coat of plates. The difference is that the gambeson is five times thicker and half again as heavy, more if it gets wet. Armour was selected not by how much protection it afforded but by using other criteria such as comfort, or fashion, or coverage, or price.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Ben. Dan has a point. If armour testing was widely done in the 13th century, and the protective values of different types of armour were compared to one another, then cuir bouilli probably wouldn't have been used outside of tournaments. This is because modern tests show that pound for pound layered linen protects better against points that cuir bouilli. Yes cuir bouilli is good against blunt impacts, but the no.1 danger on the battlefield were spears and arrows. |
That's a completely bogus assumption because that's modern tests and yet we don't even KNOW how the stuff was made, exactly, or what it's properties were. Seriously, most of the first page of conversation is basically, "What is this stuff?"; and even then NO ONE puts up anything that's completely concrete and definitive of what cuir bouilli truly is and its properties. Tod's own mentioning of tinkering and early experimentation make that much perfectly clear . . . especially with the mention that it truly merits further study, but no one has really done it. You can't use a modern test as an assessment when the modern test might not even be testing the right thing. That's like saying we're going to test the penetration power of medieval bows by using a modern compound hunter's bow (which is technically more arrow launching pulley machine then it is bow) because that's how we "think" a medieval bow was like. You can't make a declaration to the effectiveness of something if you don't even truly know what that something was.
Also, as far as protection goes, if it's being layered with mail on a battlefield, then maybe the mail is meant to protect from the spears and arrows while the cuir bouilli is meant to protect you from the hammers, maces, and other "blunt" implements. If it's being used by itself, then maybe it was actually cheaper -in some cases- then gambeson and thereby more affordable to people who couldn't afford the best. Again, very broad and weak assumptions over something we don't even know if we have the right materials to test . . . or even really documented evidence over how well the stuff performed.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Using your logic, everyone would have worn plate if they could get it, so how do we explain this? We have a report of England written by Giovanni Michiel, late Ambassador to Queen Mary and King Philip, to the Venetian Senate, on the 13th May 1557.
---------------
"..... and for the body they either use some sort of breastplate (qualche petto di corsaletto) which guards the forepart, although indifferently, or else more willingly (especially those who have the means) some jack (zacco) or shirt of mail; but what they usually wear are certain canvas doublets, quilted with many layers, each of which is two inches or more in thickness; and these doublets are considered the most secure defence against the shock of arrows. Upon their arms they place plates of mail, put lengthways, and nothing else."
----------------
We have an eyewitness telling us that the only people who wore plate were those who could not afford anything better and that the most popular armour was a two-inch thick quilted doublet.. All the armours described above stopped the same weapons. A gambeson provides the same protection as a coat of plates. The difference is that the gambeson is five times thicker and half again as heavy, more if it gets wet. Armour was selected not by how much protection it afforded but by using other criteria such as comfort, or fashion, or coverage, or price. |
Dan . . . where in that quote does it mention anything about comfort, costs, or fashion? All that states is WHAT they're wearing and nothing to do with WHY they're wearing it. Now, if you've got some real context in there to explain the WHY, then maybe you're on to something. Otherwise, what you just posted is completely hollow.
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
So now you think that plate was not the most protective armour?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | So now you think that plate was not the most protective armour? |
So now you're grasping at things I've never said to create a straw-man argument? I never said it wasn't the most protective armor. Would you like to actually target what I'm saying and make a valid argument, now?
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've already explained it. I can't use any smaller words. If an armour did not offer the desired level of protection, it was augmented till it did, or it was discarded. The end result is that all the various constructions and combinations provided very similar levels of protection.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 9:59 am Post subject: Re: Why use cuir bouilli? |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | From the late 12th through to early 14th century we have references for pieces of armour made from cuir bouilli (hardened leather). I haven't looked through each of these references, but AFAIK most if not all of this hardened leather armour was worn over mail. |
Reference for leather armor in late 12th century? I would be greatly appreciate if someone could share such references
| Quote: | Apart from hardened leather, other options for supplemental armour include; wearing a second layer of mail, gambesons, scale armour, early forms of breastplate, and coat of plates. My question is, why would someone choose hardened leather armour to supplement their mail instead of these alternatives?
I would think that the iron armours (mail, scale, and plate) would easily be superior to hardened leather. Also modern testing suggests that armour made from layered linen is superior to hardened leather of similar weight. So what am I missing. Why did people wear hardened leather armour over their mail? |
Perhaps you are missing a central point: using mail over an already layer of mail armor would be not only redudant, but also overcumbersome and perhaps even uncofortamble.
Another thing that should be noticed is that scale armor and coat of plates wasn't always available in certain places and didn't always fit an economical, cultural or even fashion reality. The very first references for leather arms and leggings armor came from Netherlands and Italy, unquestionable up-to-date places for armor in Europe, even by this early date. I read in an online magazine edition about the archeological finding of a leather vambrace dating from 1250's Flanders, perhaps the oldest leather vambrace known so far (I lost the magazine when I had my phone stoled), and there are plenty of late 13th century evidence for leather leggings armor in italian art, coexisting with the very first references for closed greaves there. A thing that it's very important noticing is that such italian leather armor was in no means for poorer soldiers only: most of them had brass or bronze decorations on it,. It's possible to say that some men-at-arms - when they actually had the oportunity to choose between plate greaves and leather ones - they would choose leather rather for aesthetics than for better protection, a thing that wasn't unusual in some places (15th century Portuguese soldiers favoured vibrant brigandines and textile covered armor over white plates that was a way commoner in France and England).
Remember that leather cuirasses are quite attypical evidence, and coat-of-plates only protect torso by 13th and early 14th centuries. I can't confirm the veracity of these information, but in Osprey's Armies of Castile and Aragon the author states that 13th and early 14th century armor in those kingdoms often used leather arms and leggings' armor rather than plate. Since spanish armor, to the very end of middle ages, was often imported from Italy and Flanders, it might be a reflex of italian harness culture.
Last edited by Pedro Paulo Gaião on Sat 13 May, 2017 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We've defined a culture here for years but maybe some folks don't get what is going on here. Let me be more clear:
Argue and attack opinions, poke holes in theories, and disagree all you want. Frankly, I welcome that because it promotes learning. Please continue bringing this sort of thing to this site.
The problems come when people stop attacking the opinion of a person and move onto attacking the person. Argumentum ad hominem will not fly here. We do not want to see attacking a person's character or motivation on this site. Such things don't help your argument in any way and often lose it for you anyway.
I see two things at play here:
1) There's too much ridiculous and annoying baiting that is happening here. That needs to stop now
2) People are taking the bait and instead of returning an intelligent counter, a personal attack or insult is thrown in
This makes it appear that #1 is within bounds and #2 is out of bounds. While this is technically true, both are at fault and are getting an administrative warning here.
Dan, stop trying to rile people up and make them tilt. Nobody likes this and I'm sick of seeing it.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Joy wrote: | | That's a completely bogus assumption because that's modern tests and yet we don't even KNOW how the stuff was made, exactly, or what it's properties were. Seriously, most of the first page of conversation is basically, "What is this stuff?"; and even then NO ONE puts up anything that's completely concrete and definitive of what cuir bouilli truly is and its properties. Tod's own mentioning of tinkering and early experimentation make that much perfectly clear . . . especially with the mention that it truly merits further study, but no one has really done it. You can't use a modern test as an assessment when the modern test might not even be testing the right thing. |
Until now I have purposely avoided talking about how cuir bouilli was made because I feel this is a subject worthy of its own thread, but it seems it is impossible to talk about cuir bouilli without discussing how it was made. I very much respect Tod as a craftsman, so this shouldn't be taken as criticism of him or his abilities, but by the sounds of it Tod has only dabbled with making cuir bouilli (if I'm mistaken Tod then I apologize). AFAIK the leading authority on the history and manufacture of cuir bouilli is a man named Chris Dobson. I haven't personally read Mr. Dobson's work but I was under the impression that we are almost certain how cuir bouilli was made. IIRC it involves soaking the leather in warm water, then shaping it, the applying heat to dry it out and harden it.
| Ben Joy wrote: | | You can't make a declaration to the effectiveness of something if you don't even truly know what that something was. |
The tests I'm referring to are published in "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams. AFAIK Mr. Williams doesn't mention how the cuir bouilli he tested was made, so I'll concede that these tests shouldn't be thought of as definitive, but until further testing they are the best we have. I can't prove it, but i think that it is likely that the leather used in Williams tests was hardened using Dobson's method as they have been fairly well known about amongst armourers for many years now.
| Ben Joy wrote: | | Also, as far as protection goes, if it's being layered with mail on a battlefield, then maybe the mail is meant to protect from the spears and arrows while the cuir bouilli is meant to protect you from the hammers, maces, and other "blunt" implements. |
This could indeed have been the case.
| Ben Joy wrote: | | If it's being used by itself, then maybe it was actually cheaper -in some cases- then gambeson and thereby more affordable to people who couldn't afford the best. |
Affordability wasn't really an issue. In most countries at this time, if you couldn't afford a gambeson then you weren't required to serve in the military. I don't think that cuir bouilli was worn as stand-alone armour (except in tournaments), rather it was worn as a supplemental armour over mail.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Joy
|
| Posted: Sat 13 May, 2017 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | *snip* |
That's really good info to have, thank you. However, one reason why I do contest that is because the way Tod's experimentation seems to imply, there could have been a way to work the cuir bouilli (with materials they have at the time; and there's apparently -as he stated- some others that believe a similar vein of thought) that is almost exponentially better than what we're currently thinking on the more literal translation of the "boiled" leather armor.
I think that deserves a great deal more study before we can say definitively "Yeah, this is how it was made and how tough it was." When there's still quite a bit left to learn there. After all, there's next to nothing really written down about how the stuff was made, from what I've read here or other places. For example, there've been many aspects of the lifestyle that only recently we've really rediscovered . . . like the myth that they were all just dirty, nasty, unwashed people who didn't care about hygiene. Only in more recent times have people sat down to do the research, investigation, and dispel that myth; and I think there are still quite a few mysteries left to uncover . . . cuir bouilli being one of them.
"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Sun 14 May, 2017 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Reference for leather armor in late 12th century? I would be greatly appreciate if someone could share such references |
I know that the earliest reference to cuir bouilli comes from the chanson d'Antioch dating to 1185, but I don't know if this refers to armour or something else made of leather. I can't seem to find any other 12th century references right now, but Mart Shearer has recently shared a reference for cuir bouilli armour from the first quarter of the 13th century.
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | Perhaps you are missing a central point: using mail over an already layer of mail armor would be not only redudant, but also overcumbersome and perhaps even uncofortamble. |
Again I can't seem to find a reference (though I'm almost certain that I've seen at least one) for a European knight wearing two mail shirt, one over the other. There is a fairly well known reference to a Saracen in the service of Saladin wearing a kazaghand with two layers of mail. Back in Europe we have evidence of men wearing two layers of mail on their heads and neck. Think of the aventail of a bascinet, underneath which was often worn a mail collar. Also if you search for the word coiffette, you will find examples of men wearing both a full mail coif, as well as a skull cap of mail. So yes some people did indeed wear two layers of mail.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic