| Author |
Message |
Nathan Beal
|
 Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Adrian Pendry wrote: | | The Vikings ( as with anyone who wore ringmail ) would most definetely have worn a gambeson. There is lots of proof for Gambesons if one looks hard enough. Lots of re-enactors dodge the Gambeson question possibly because metal is cool, cloth is not, added to the fact that they are not, in my experience, very comfortable on a hot summers day "on the battlefield". The fact is that gambesons are essential for actual ringmail, otherwise it is of very very little use. If you've ever seen real ringmail, you'll understand... |
Beyond the raindeer armour mentioned in one saga (that is magical, from a source written down in the 1200's in a different country and clearly isn't worn with mail) can you please demonstrate a primary or secondary source for textile armour worn in conjuction (or alone) with mail before the end of the C12th in scandinavia or western europe.
Would love to see concrete evidence for gambesons before the 1188 ordinances in england/normady that mention them as an alternative to mail.
Cheers
N.
Beware of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Beal wrote: | | Would love to see concrete evidence for gambesons before the 1188 ordinances in england/normady that mention them as an alternative to mail. |
Me too.
Hey Nathan. Have you had any luck getting an accurate translation of that Gerald of Wales passage?
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
The byzantines used gambesons, but, as previously mentioned, they where half the world away.
The saga's dont mention gambesons much before the 12th century, either.
it is "posible" (yes, yes, washing my mouth with soap...) that they where introduced to western europe by the crusades.
As for the "Mail needs a an arming coat" argument, this is only the case if you are familiar with arming coats. If you are not, your main concern is a garment that keeps the mail from getting uncomfortably heavy, wich ca be done with a woolen tunic. Even that might not be necessary; I've run around for days on end with my Fourth Armoury hauberk over a thin linen tunic...
There is a gotland picture stone with a pattern that has been intrepented as a jack. But, agian, you might find [i]anything[/?] if you are determined enough that you'll find it...
The picture stone is quite curde, and offers no definite answer.
Gambesons are generally accepted at european viking events, but evidence is scarce.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
  |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
My old stainless steel butted maille shirt I can wear, or could before I outgrew it ( Almost ), I can wear with just a light cotton shirt. Very smooth and not irritating at all.
Cut or draw cut protection should be as good as with a gambison but blunt trauma protection just about nil. 
Now with my, cheap, India made riveted maille the flattened part were the rivet holds the ring together makes it necessary to wear something a bit thicker or the riveted maille feels uncomfortable in comparison to my butted maille.
Now, I realize that only riveted maille would have been used and that it might have been finished better, without any rough edges: The butted maille I mentioned just because it is very smooth and my impressions about how little one can wear under maille is influenced by it.
Maybe no real gambison early on but a linen shirt and a wool one over it should be enough. Or, maybe just one thick shirt ?
Side note: I wonder how miserable it would have been to have no alternatives to wool if one was allergic to it ? Even for us who are not allergic, there seem to be scratchy wools out there as well as smooth ones 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If you were seriously allergic to anything you were likely to be dead before you turned 1year old. Just another statistic on the high infant mortality figures. There is some merit to the argument of those who think modern medicine is corrupting the human gene pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | If you were seriously allergic to anything you were likely to be dead before you turned 1year old. Just another statistic on the high infant mortality figures. There is some merit to the argument of those who think modern medicine is corrupting the human gene pool. |
Or if the allergy wasn't that serious and you lived, you were miserable all your life maybe not realizing that everybody else wasn't itchy wearing wool.
There is a theory that keeping little kid out of dirt makes them more apt to develop allergies.
Oh, with lice probably everybody was itchy anyway. Hmmmmmm: The whole lice thing during the middle ages is that accurate or one of those myths ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
J. Ven
Location: London Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Apr, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: |
As for the "Mail needs a an arming coat" argument, this is only the case if you are familiar with arming coats. If you are not, your main concern is a garment that keeps the mail from getting uncomfortably heavy, wich ca be done with a woolen tunic. Even that might not be necessary; I've run around for days on end with my Fourth Armoury hauberk over a thin linen tunic...
|
Hi there 
Firstly, I completely agree with you on the comfort of running around with a linen tunic (and possible woolen overtunic depending on the weather). It is indeed very comfortable, by comparison, especially when using simple butted mail, or smaller riveted mail - perhaps less so when wearing heavy riveted mail, as the links are inclined to rather "chew up" whatever is underneath. For re-enactment/living history/roleplaying purposes, it presents no problem, as one does not expect to receive a substantial (i.e. harmful) attack.
Perhaps if one considers the wearing of mail in a more historical context then arguments may need to be more flexible and adjusted somewhat to allow for other considerations. Firstly, mail alone maintains the significant benefits of preventing slashes and thrusts cutting the skin, but more significant blows would have simply driven the metal links into the body if no form of padding was worn underneath.1 One would imagine this definition taking into account softer tunics and other fabric.
Depending on geography and period, the choice of padding or 'bracing' undergarment remains diverse, from earlier Scandinavian leather gambesons (perhaps Sutton Hoo inscriptions give an archaeological indication of this -from memory im not a 100% sure I'd have to go look it up though I'm sure the more resourceful or bored could chase it up if desired) to the padded/quilted aketon of the Normans and so on.
This is not merely a Western European trend. Arab sources (and I'm thinking crusades mainly as they tie in nicely with the former) do testify to its effectiveness as well. Usamah ibn-Mundiq in his famous chronicle describes a family member of his being pulled from his horse and repeatedly stabbed and kicked by Christian footsoldiers, to be found to have only minor bruising when rescued by friendly troops several minutes later.2
The point remains that padding is proven to be tremendously effective. Whilst one is ever cautious to use this argument: the fact that evidence is sparse for the earlier period does not mean that the practice was never adopted, so it could be suggested that whilst not proven, padded/toughened undergarments (or "arming jackets" in context here) would likely appeal to any warrior of experience and sense during the wider period discussed.
I hope this helps
- J.
ps. I decided not to go into the origins of padded sub-mail thigh and knee protections of the Byzantines (inc. varangian guard) and Crusaders (and by extension Normans) as this would veer away a little too much from the main thrust of the discussion, but it is certainly a point worth further consideration and development in the forums by those with enough spare time and knowledge of the period.
1 Nicolle, D., The Medieval Warfare Sourcebook Vol.1:Warfare in Western Christendom, (London, Arms and Armour Press, 1996), p135.
2Gabrieli, F., Arab Historians of the Crusades, (California, University of California, 1984). cannot find the exact page at the moment but I know its in there somewhere if you are curious enough.
IN ADDITION, for anyone concerned with early to high-medieval war, Western Warfare in the age of the Crusades, 1000-1300 by John France is perhaps a little demanding but gives an excellent overview of the different aspects of war, including arms and armour and tactics, during the period. Granted, Nicolle is also another world expert to look at, but the sourcebooks are bloody expensive.
God Wills It!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Apr, 2009 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Ven wrote: | | Perhaps if one considers the wearing of mail in a more historical context then arguments may need to be more flexible and adjusted somewhat to allow for other considerations. Firstly, mail alone maintains the significant benefits of preventing slashes and thrusts cutting the skin, but more significant blows would have simply driven the metal links into the body if no form of padding was worn underneath.1 One would imagine this definition taking into account softer tunics and other fabric. |
As has already been said, that padding can easily be achieved by wearing a couple of woollen tunics underneath. There is still no evidence for a Scandinavian padded garment specifically made to be worn under mail.
| Quote: | | Depending on geography and period, the choice of padding or 'bracing' undergarment remains diverse, from earlier Scandinavian leather gambesons |
What is the evidence for Scandinavian gambesons and how do you know they were made of leather? By "gambeson" I mean a garment specifically designed to be worn under mail and not a standalone armour in its own right. "Aketon" is probably a better term.
| Quote: | | This is not merely a Western European trend. Arab sources (and I'm thinking crusades mainly as they tie in nicely with the former) do testify to its effectiveness as well. Usamah ibn-Mundiq in his famous chronicle describes a family member of his being pulled from his horse and repeatedly stabbed and kicked by Christian footsoldiers, to be found to have only minor bruising when rescued by friendly troops several minutes later.2 |
This anecdote makes no mention of any undergarment at all. Osama attributes his cousin's survival to “a coat of mail the links of which were so strong that their lances could have no effect on it." He was attacked by mounted knights, not footsoldiers. There is no mention of him being kicked, just stabbed repeatedly with lances as he lay on the ground. I get the impression that the Franks in question never dismounted their horses. His injuries are not mentioned. Usamah just says that he was extricated "safe and sound". Nothing that even implies minor bruising or anything else.
Source: Ibn-Munquidh, U. An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munquidh. Philip K. Hitti (trans.) New Jersey: Princeton. 1978, p. 88.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Apr, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My point was that even if mail without padding does not give the same defensive benefit as mail with padding, it is still a HUGE improvement over no armour at all.
An unarmoured man can't withstand any sword blows at all. You can be as tough as you like, when your muscles and/or arteries are severed, you are are at best disabled.
Compared to this, a blow that causes massive concussion damage through the mail is still minor; Without the mail such a blow would have severed your arm and stopped somewhere past the middle of your ribbcage.
As such any warrior wearing mail would be much better of than their unarmored coleauges. However, as time went on, the protection was not found to be suficient, and one started making improvements.
The first really visible improvements of armour since roman times are depicted as late as the 11th century (with the introduction of full hauberks and chauses on the bayoux tapestry), which would seemt to indicate that previous to this period the existinng armour style (Short sleeved mail, or lammear in the east) was seen as good enough, by those lucky enoug to have it.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Gadda
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | My point was that even if mail without padding does not give the same defensive benefit as mail with padding, it is still a HUGE improvement over no armour at all.
An unarmoured man can't withstand any sword blows at all. You can be as tough as you like, when your muscles and/or arteries are severed, you are are at best disabled.
Compared to this, a blow that causes massive concussion damage through the mail is still minor; Without the mail such a blow would have severed your arm and stopped somewhere past the middle of your ribbcage.
|
This is not true - blunt force trauma can be a HUGE, HUGE concern. Indeed, it is even possible to receive serious penetration wounds through flexible armor without compromising the armor itself. This has been an issue with modern kevlar type body armor, where the bullet is, in fact, "stopped" by the armor, but the backface deformation is severe enough to result in an actual penetration wound on the victim. See Wilhelm, M; Bir, C. "Injuries to law enforcement officers: The backface signature injury". Forensic Science International 174. 2008., for more details.
Parenthetically this is why I am fairly convinced that maille was always, without exception, backed with some sort of aketon or the like. Exactly how thick such padding need be is an open question, but there can be little doubt that it was worn. That we have little direct evidence for such is unremarkable - maille finds themselves are extremely rare from before Middle Ages (indeed, from the period in question, we have exactly one: Gjermundbu) and of course garments of any kind are not terribly common survivors in the archaeological record, given the propensity of fabrics to rot in the ground in fairly short order (let alone after 1000 years).
One point that is missed here, also, is consideration of weight vs. protective value. As noted, maille by itself likely does not offer enough protection - only when backed by padding does it become worthwhile.
To cite from the example above, without the weight of maille, the victim in question might have dodged the blow altogether. And if properly backed by padding, the wearer might only have a bruise. But if worn simply by itself, with no padding, then the wearer has the worst of both worlds: he is encumbered by extra weight, resulting in greater fatigue, but without the padding the above cited blow, whilst not cutting off the arm and into the torso, would nevertheless result in a broken arm, leaving the wearer little better off then before. Now unable to properly defend himself, there is little doubt that his assailant would press home the attack and finish him off. That it takes a couple extra blows is of small comfort indeed to the fool that donned his maille without the appropriate padding!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Apr, 2009 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is not true - blunt force trauma can be a HUGE, HUGE concern. Indeed, it is even possible to receive serious penetration wounds through flexible armor without compromising the armor itself. This has been an issue with modern kevlar type body armor, where the bullet is, in fact, "stopped" by the armor, but the backface deformation is severe enough to result in an actual penetration wound on the victim. See Wilhelm, M; Bir, C. "Injuries to law enforcement officers: The backface signature injury". Forensic Science International 174. 2008., for more details. |
Does his study involve hand weapons and medieval projectiles or is it only devoted to modern firearms? If it discusses, say, modern stabbing injuries then it would be very useful. If it only discusses modern firearms then it has little to offer since the energies involved are too high to be relevant to older weaponry.
I also believe that the vast majority of mail involved padding of some sort. Padding could take the form of a heavy woollen tunic or several lighter ones. Mail was also often lined with integrated padding stitched onto the back. I have still to see any evidence of a Scandinavian padded garment specifically designed to be worn under mail and to suggest that they MUST have worn one is baseless speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Apr, 2009 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think this subject is very well covered and further argument can lead only to aggression as it already has a few times. I don't see a point in arguing if vikings wore padding specifically designed to be worn under the mail or only a few woolen vests who function very well and are already a part of their everyday clothing. If we have no evidence for real padding we should stick with the woolen vests theory. They function well enough and we know they wore them. They may have worn some other forms of padding but we don't know because we have no real and direct evidence. This should pretty much be the end of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jul, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
of course with the varangian guard themselves, though they arnt at all representative of the viking world at large due both to the status, and numbers of the men who served, it stands to reason (if not current evidence) that the norse, being in the service of the emporer, who indeed used gambeson like garmens, apparently they possessed two types, the epilorikion, bambakion and esolorikon the former being described as being paddingused to cover on top of whatever metallic armour they would have worn. and the latter two refer to under armour padding,
for example, the vestiaritai swordsmen of the byzantine armies are described, as having a bambakion (which is a 3/4 inch or more thick cotten cloth padded gambeson a lorikion of scaleor chain maille. then a epilorikion noted as being a quilted cloth armour gambeson on top, to help stop blunt force trauma.
as for the test of police vests having little to offr, i disagree, mainly since, kevlar armour , testing against stabbing weapons would be extremely similar to testing against a quilted gambeson, primarily because a spike or a blade can pass through and pushthe fibres aside, you can really do that with maille.
and also, kevlar exists almost exclusively to stop bullets, because the material is elastic enough to stop high velocity blunt trauma, which is essentially what a bullet impact is. unless you count FMJ and armour piercing steel rounds which are often sharp to the touch
though id agree that the particulars of the test are irrelevent, since we had neither firearm bullets (we had slings though) nor kevlar.
but it does prove that flexible woven (of either metal or cloth) armour which is not in itself broken, can cause blunt trauma wouns if not backed up with something to absorb blunt force trauma that results from the material giving under stress.
these guys seem to have shown this pretty substantially. http://www.youtube.com/user/ThegnThrand#p/u/30/Q74SOH9Bgp4 seeing what happens when you attack a maile shirt with a katana. cut and thrust, note the thrust impacts in particular.
they also test against piece of home made lamellar based on the japanese style. attacking it with a viking type X sort of sword, it doesnt turn out well for the lamellar. might be of interest to you dan. though its not a ACTUAL piece
|
|
 |
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The varangians nonwhitstanding, there are to my knowledge few finds of byzantine military equipment in a scandinavian context, the influences beeing either frankish or slavic, for the most part.
As for the effect of blunt trauma, it is of course a consern. However, as pointed out earlier, the advantage of a mail shirt is still huge, as it removes the cutting effect of the attack.
Also, keep in mind that the most common attack on the dark age battlefield where spear thrusts. A full force spear thrust can penetrate mail. However, even a sligth touch will penetrate flesh. I have litterally pushed a sharp spear through a pork ribcage, with little or no resistance. Compared to this, the mail still has a definite edge.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | I don't see a point in arguing if vikings wore padding specifically designed to be worn under the mail or only a few woolen vests who function very well and are already a part of their everyday clothing. If we have no evidence for real padding we should stick with the woolen vests theory. |
Yes in the absence of evidence for dedicated padding it does make sense to assume that the use of the normal period clothing would be enough if it was sufficient to give some blunt trauma protection. ( No need to design something special if your regular heavy clothing are doing an adequate job. At a later period it may have been decided to go for thicker under armour protection for some reason ? ).
I also wonder if the number of layers of " tunics " worn might have been chosen by season ( Winter cold/Summer hot ) and/or perceived treat level and personal preferences ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
does anyone have an idea what the sagas and other recods, like the writings of anna comnena describing the rus varangians say about the presence of things under the armour.
and just to be clear, how many people have tested this idea, i.e getting hit with a gambeson under mail. and then just some regular period clothing layers under maille and see what the effect is in terms of pain etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI&feature=related this video shows someone thrusting at maille, on top of a layer of tshirt thick linen one of cotten and one of thin soft leather, no damage when thrusted with a spear. however the second video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqagYSP3PGs&feature=related
shows him remove the padding and thrust at the maille again, THIS time, he punches right through.
it shows that having SOMETHING under maille, even just a simple wollen tunic seems enough to in fact strengthen the maille, which also explains dans mention of maille with an integrated liner,
though will someone explain what he means, does he mean maille that has been sewn onto a backing,?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hadrian Coffin
Industry Professional
Location: Oxford, England Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 404
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
I will make a relatively brief comment on the test video itself, as I am a bit loathe to re-enter this rather taboo debate again. Unfortunately this test really is worthless in regard to actual academic study. In reality backyard testing is almost always flawed due simply to the problem of cost. Proper scientific testing is actually quite difficult, and expensive. Seemingly innocous details can drastically effect the overall results. Weapons must be manufactured using correct materials, including metals mined and smelted in a historically accurate manor, forged and finished by hand without power tools. Western martial artists, experts in period correct weapons handling, must be hired to properly strike the material. Cloth backing must be made from hand-woven cloth, hand-stitched in accurate patterns. Leather must come from animals raised on a historically correct diet, and tanned/dyed following period practices. Mail must be made from hand-drawn iron wire, and hand-punched iron plates, the iron must again be smelted accurately. A change in the number of slag inclusions in the metal could adversely effect results. Once all of this is gathered the test must be replicated at least a hundred times on the off chance of one fluke result. You then have the problem of having utilized pig meat, or (if you can get the licensing, based on it being a scientific project) human cadavers. The non-living flesh will most likely yield a mildly different resistance to living flesh.
I started trying to gather appropriate funding at one point, but after $40,000 I was still not close to actual testing and we had to drop the project. Perhaps in the future...
Best,
Hadrian
P.S. Please excuse any punctuation/spelling errors. I am composing this from my mobile and it is a bit difficult to see what I am actually typing.
Historia magistra vitae est
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | which also explains dans mention of maille with an integrated liner,
though will someone explain what he means, does he mean maille that has been sewn onto a backing,? |
Yes. Perhaps a few layers of lightly quilted linen.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: |
and just to be clear, how many people have tested this idea, i.e getting hit with a gambeson under mail. and then just some regular period clothing layers under maille and see what the effect is in terms of pain etc.
|
Reenactors do this quite a lot. There are two main leasons. One is that padding helps. There is a reason it became standard later on. The other that the blunt trauma of a 1,1 kg sword hitting you is quite survivable.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hadrian Coffin
Industry Professional
Location: Oxford, England Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 404
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jul, 2011 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reenactment has its merits; it helps get people interested in history, and helps educate the general public. That said, there is a fundamental difference between reenactment and actual warfare.
Cheers!
Hadrian
Historia magistra vitae est
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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