[Jean Thibodeau]

Maybe leather armours might have been used in very ancient almost prehistoric times with the source coming from hunted animals. ( With bone or even wood used as reinforcements. )

If as Elling said leather was expensive there would be little reason to use it instead of fabric armour or even maille if the cost of leather armour would have been anywhere close to the cost of maille.

It only seems like a good idea to us to use leather because we are not factoring in economic considerations: Good theory that would explain things.

Oh, I think the Egyptians used crocodile hide for some armour and other exotic materials may have been used somewhere sometime.

[Geoff Wood]

[Geoff Wood]

Not direct evidence for armour as such, but regarding availability of materials, leather thick enough for protection was used, unsupported, for shields during the bronze age. I don't know if the climate was peculiarly good for cattle in that period, as compared with that under discussion, and it may be that it was a material for a small elite (although bronze was also used for shields of otherwise similar design).

[Felix Wang]

True, the Clonbrin shield is one of these. Hide shields are known from other parts of the world - the American Great Plains (presumably bison hide), and the ancient Chinese used rhino hide for shields.

Of course, hide is used for lamellar and scale in places other than Europe.

The evidence for fabric armour is much sounder than leather armour, and it isn't because fabric is so much better preserved in the ground. We know of linothoraces and gambesons, and have rumors of the thoracomachus and subarmalis; all on literary and artistic evidence. If leather really were widespread, there should be rather more literary or artistic evidence than we find.

[Elling Polden]

There are byzantine literary sources for cloth gambesons and arming jackets, as well as leather lammelar, in the 10th century.
However, these are a long way from northern europe.

over all, mail is a better bet; cloth armour is a possibility, but we don't have any direct sources for their use in the viking age. (the sagas are all written in the 13th century...)
However, (northern european) viking reenactment has a tradition for allowing cloth armour and lammelar, leather or regular, so it should be OK for Regia. (Unless they are a lot more strict than the vikings I've run into at Mousgård)

[Joe Maccarrone]

[Chris Last]

[Jamie Baker]

[Jamie Baker]

Unofortunately further research amongst the Saga's seems to show that battle-sarks just another name for a mail byrnie

[Chris Last]

And again unfortunately I haven't been able to find any source documentation for "A Record of European Armour and Arms
Through Seven Centuries".

[Jamie Baker]

[Nick Trueman]

[Elling Polden]

Skaldic poetry is based on aliteration rythems. That is, they rime on the first sylable rather than the last.
Thus, there is about five million methaphors for swords, spears, mail, arrows, and everyhthing else that need to be in a heroic poem.
Thus, even if there is reffernce to the"leaping of the salmon of shields" this does not mean that they carried actual salmon into battle... :P

[Randall Moffett]

Elling,

Sounds like a fishy practice to me salmon shields..... Sorry. Is it not thought that the armour in Sutton Hoo had the remains of a leather breastplate or torso defence?

RPM

[Geoff Wood]

[Gary Teuscher]

I've discussed this with others who insist the predominant armour for ancient greeks was leather, and that it was common in the middle ages

I;ve recently seen some leather armour testing on youtube. They were using 4 weight and 8 weight leather. I'm not sure how much thicker than that you could go due to both finding that thick of leather, and also how flexible it owuld be.

Neither offered much of any resistance to a sword cut or thrust, even two layers of the 8 weight stuff were cut through with little or no resistance.

Also tested was hardened boiled leather. This was of 8 weight I believe, and shrunk some. It was also very brittle. I'm not sure if perhaps there was a better way of treating it, but based on this the boiled leather would have a very short battle life. The piece stood up pretty well to cuts and thrusts (IIRC only a two handed axe penetrated it), but was cracked in many places after one test.

The lammelar of herdened leather, also of the same 8 weight I believe, held up well. It was not penetrated, and apparently the fexibility given it by the lacing of small lammalae gave it some give - there were not hardly any cracks. Some of the lames were cut though, so it could stand up for a while but hardly something to be worn for years and years if you saw any combat.

The cost of leather armour at the time is something I'm curious about. There is the statement that a Buff leather coat cost more than a plate cuirass, but I'm not 100% sure a buff leather coat could have been in at least some cases a form of Brigandine.

But I see why leather would not be used much as amrour. It would not be extremely cheap compared to metal amrour, not as good of performance (though not bad with the lammelar), but not as durable.

As for weight, 8 weight means 8 oz per square foot. Plate is 1.6 lbs for a 1mm thickness square foot by comparison. I'm thinking Torso armour in the early ages of plate and mail was more in the 1-1.5 mm thickness, or 1.6 or so to 2.4 pounds per square foot. The leather lammelar I'm guessing with a 50% overlap would be in the 12oz range, with lacing bringing it closer to 1 lb per square foot, Lighter sure, but not a huge weight difference.

And a plain leather garment of the 4-8 weight range would be no better than a few layers of thick cloth, more expensive, heavier, and less likely to handle moisture well.

I think these are all reason why leather was not a common armour material. The leather lammelar maybe, particularily in a animal rich metal poor society (Steppe Nomads?). But even there, you are spending a lot of money when metal armour was not a lot more expensive, not a lot heavier, performed at least as well if not better, and lasted a llot longer.

I could see it perhaps used in a fabric/leather composite, like the gambesons mentioned. Some sources state Gambesons were 17 layers of linen. Perhaps some gambeson incoporated lawyers of leather as well in the construction. IIRC, the Byzantine Bambakion was a padded leather garment, desing to be worn under lammelar. I recall reference of Vikings wearing padded leather armour, whether this is a misinterpretation of the sagas or based on other eveidence I do not know. It was also used in the buff leather jackets of later times, so perhaps there was some of this leather/fabric composite.

[JE Sarge]

I'd wager Schmitthenner could craft you some if you provided details on exactly what you wanted. They offer some now, but you would need to make some modifications to come up with more of the idea you are looking for.

An example:

http://www.schmitthenner.com/images/SCH1577ac.jpg

Their website:

http://www.schmitthenner.com

I have a good deal of their stuff and they are really easy to work with and have a fast turnaround time. I had the last full harness I ordered from them WITHIN two weeks. Maybe not 100% historically accurate, but they will do whatever you want done on a custom level for pretty cheap compared to alot of other leather shops out there.

[Hadrian Coffin]

look here...
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=143802&highlig

I have been highly interested in this subject and have been researching it quite a bit.

Some remnants of something thought to be a leather tunic at Hedeby
(Haithabu), Schleswig Holstein, northern Germany.

Irish annals mention a Muircertach na gCochall gCroicionn (of the Leather Cloaks) who for the winter campaign he conducted gave a gift of a leather cloak to each of his soldiers. These were apparently long enought to be both a garment by day and a body covering by night.

In 1204, King John spent....He also knighted one of his valets, Thomas Esturmi, that same year but spent only £6 10s on the latter's robes: 'A scarlet robe and a hood of deerskin.

Viking and Medieval Dublin from the National Museum of Ireland. #186
"Portion of leather waistcoat. Stiching holes along margin. 13th century. High Street."

The Bayeux Tapestry Bishop Odo wearing what seems to be a leather jerkin with plates of metal stitched on.

Several metal plates from a coat-of-plates style garment have been found with "...holes fore rivites and remmanentes of leather, of which the plates were attatchede" from various places plates tend to be from c.900-c.1100


DAN HOWARD Wrote:

[Dan Howard]

Maybe you have some definition of armour that nobody else uses. My definition of "armour" is a garment designed with the purpose of resisting the most common threats on a battlefield. In this case spears, arrows, and an occasional sword or axe cut. Most of your so called evidence falls into the category of clothing not armour.

There is no way that any reasonable person could conclude that anything depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry is leather and not textiles.

Anyone who works with reindeer hide will tell you that it is completely unsuitable for making into armour.

Most people would classify Scale armour and Coats of Plates as METAL armour, not leather.

[Hadrian Coffin]

definition of Armour: Primarily english variant of Armor
definition of Armor: Protective clothing worn in battle primarily made of metal, textiles, or leather

True one cannot assume material based off of a cloth tapestry (embroidery). Though there are archeological finds of an armour that would look very similar to what Bishop Odo was wearing. What one has to base material off of is written evidence and off of archeological evidence. Both of which there are (innumerable finds of leather, reindeer hide in a saga).
I would define a leather jerkin with leather plates as being a leather and metal armour.
I have examined some of your past posts and you seem to be very anti-leather what is it you have against leather? Leather was a readily available material to medieval man archeological evidence supports this.
In conclusion, you have no evidence to support what you say and thus I cannot take it into consideration. I am providing ample evidence to show leather's existence as a material and as a likely armour. Not only do we have the sagas and the leather items found we also have an amazing resource of modern works by archeologists, professors, linguists, and historians. I can think of many many modern books that talk about the existence of leather armour, why should I choose to believe what you say over what they say?
I believe leather armour existed based on the sagas, the art, and the archeological finds.