[Hisham Gaballa]

[Dan Howard]

I'm afraid that I'm lost. What is the actual point of this thread? If it is to prove that these studs somehow create functional armour, or improve the protective capability of other types of armour then I've seen nothing to suggest this. There is nothing to suggest that these studs provide anything other than decoration or to act as a substitute for quilting. The only time that so-called "studded armour" was ever worn on the battlefield was if the studs were used as fasteners to hold metal reinforcing, or the studs were used in padded jacks or gamboised cuisses as a substitute for quilting. If this thread is simply to accumulate a pile of pics related to "studded armour" then by all means continue. The more the better.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

Dan
We're back to semantics again, aren't we? Perhaps the "studs" don't offer any real additional protection, but the look of a padded coat either possessing "studs" and quilting or "studs" substituting for the quilting could be called "studded". You do agree that a padded garment, regardless of whether or not it had studs, is protective in nature, correct? My original argument was that there could have been padded garments with attached studs worn in early 14th century England, and that they could be called "studded armour" based on their look. Again, maybe I'm looking at it with "artist's eyes" instead of an "engineer's eyes". I do understand a specific analytical mind; I spent several years as a biology and health lab tech before I decided to go off in a more "creative" direction! I guess I understand your argument against calling these padded garments with studs "studded armour", but isn't it splitting hairs a bit? How important is it what we call these garments?

However, I would argue that "studded armour" such as is being discussed here could be worn as battlefield armour. Medieval soldiers certainly relied on padded gambesons and jacks as a sole defence, correct? Knights and common soldiers could also rely on the combination of aketon-hauberk-gambeson as a defence during the 13th and 14th centuries, right? All I am saying is that there is some evidence that the outer gambeson occasionally bore "studs". The only difference between a plain gambeson and a "studded gambeson" are the studs, correct? If knights of 14th century England wore a "studded gambeson" onto the battlefields of 14th century Europe, then "studded armour" was used!

I don't understand your insistence that all armour must be a "perfect" defence. Don't you agree that the late 13th and early 14th centuries were a time of experimentation? Many materials, including leather and cuir bouilli (we do have an existing leather vambrace), whalebone (mentioned in 14th century manuscripts), lateen (used in the Black Prince's gauntlets), and padding were used for armour in that time period. Armour evolved from mail to plate, and sometimes different things were tried and then discarded. I do not feel you can make the broad declaration that "studded armour" as is being discussed here was never used on the battlefield. Jean le Bel, a contemporary chronicler, did comment about the "old fashioned" nature of early 14th century English armour. There is evidence that they used a "studded gambeson" when the rest of Europe might have been using a coat-of-plates.

Are you sure the medieval mindset didn't see studs as an additional defence, even if it didn't really function in that fashion? We can make modern tests to determine the effectiveness of armour, but we can't get into the heads of the armourers that experimented with different things until they got it right!

Do the "studs" themselves create a functional armour? It's highly doubtful. Can a protective padded garment peppered with studs be called "studded armour". Why not, as long as we understand that the studs are decorative? We call armour decorated with blackened and polished areas "black and white" armour, don't we? Should we cease to call them "black and white" armours because the decorative blackened and polished areas serve no protective function to the wearer? Of course not!

I'm sorry if this has gotten you confused. I was just trying to create a discussion about the battlefield use of padded garments with studs. I still agree with you that the "studded" leather armour (without padding) so popular in role playing games is a fantasy, but I don't agree that all "studded armours" are decorative or mere fantasy.

Stay safe!

[Nick Trueman]

Hi

I just thought we were having a discusion about viability, and seeing if their was any historical use for rivette/studs on padded armours? I think functionality is as almost as important as protection. If a few strategically placed studs or sewn motifs turn a 3' thick gambeson into a 1 1/2' thick one with no ill effect to its protective abilities then it is viable?
And there is evidence for this style of armour, there are referances to byzantine kivadions being made this way. Wether the the stud was sewn or metallic is unknown.

N

[Jean Thibodeau]

Just functionality and LOGIC: Lets say that the studs or rivets are at least 1/2" in diameter, maybe even bigger, the density and pattern is such that any strait line drawn on the surface a few inches long will intercept at least one rivet, no matter what angle is chosen, will intersect a cut. Further the metal of the studs or rivet is thick enough and hard enough that it would be very improbable that it could be cut through.

So under those conditions how can it be said that a dense pattern of studs or rivets would have zero effect on the protective quality of a fabric or leather armour. Does this mean that such an armour gives perfect protection !? Absolutely NOT, as a thrust can easily avoid any of the metal reinforcements.

This his either true or not independently of whether it was used or not in any specific historic period: If the above is not a logical conclusion based on the premises ( Conditions I outlined above ) then I would be glad to hear an argument based on the premises. ( Either my conclusions are wrong or my premises are flawled ! )

One can have a discussion about armour design, one can have a discussion about history, one can cover both aspects: One shouldn't discuss either without making it clear which one we are basing our arguments or rebuttals on !

I can fully understand that if one's interest in arms and armour is exclusively in the context of historical truth one may be irritated by purely theoretical design questions or bored by it.

My first interest personally is in the design aspects which for me also leads to an interest in history, war, politics, psychology, philosophy, religion, human folly etc ... But that's just me: Priorities and interests vary.

[Nick Trueman]

Hi

If anyone has the 'Companion to medieval Arms and Armour' fig IX 15 (no page no?) shows what seems to be a rivette/padded armour?
From a Byzantine wall painting, St Mercurios - 1295-1305. Church of Panagia Olympiotissa.
It clearly shows round button type fixtures at the point of each diamond.
Judging by the other equipment shown with this armour ( open quiver, bow case similiar to those found at Moschevaya Balka, Alanic, paramerion/ sabre and kettle style helmet.) The artist has taken great care in the information he has recorded.

Nick

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Jean Thibodeau]

Richard;

I think I can say that we are in basic agreement about how one can look at each aspect, design and historical use, in tandem.

I think that speculation based on research but also on " thought experiments " i.e. logical arguments, both have a place in this specific topic but also as a general approach to any discussion about almost anything. Arriving at definite conclusions beyond doubt or further questions is more problematic. ( I tend to distrust absolutes in almost all things: At best I tend to think in terms of the odds of something being certain. There is a difference between saying that something is 100% proven and saying that the odds are very high like 99.999 % certain, or simply more certain than not. )

Oh, and I have enjoyed your posts since you recently joined.

[Dan Howard]

This is an interesting thread but stay away from Osprey. The only images in those books that can be seriously considered are photos of actual artefacts. Many of the colour plates in Osprey publications have little factual basis.

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

Dan,

Rest assured, I place much more emphasis on the photos or line drawings of the effigies and brasses in Osprey. That being said, I have enough other resources to compare many of the colour plates to photos and quality line drawings of the same thing (effigies, brasses, and the like) that the Osprey illustrators and authors use as their source material. I can't really comment on the accuracy or the authenticity of the peltast in the one Osprey book; I've never seen the actual Byzantine images. I brought it up because another member mentioned the possibility of "studded padded" armour shown in Byzantine sources. However, I know most if not all of the plates in German Medieval Armies 1300-1500 are based on actual effigies, sculpture, and other forms of medieval art, as well as existing pieces of medieval armour. The reconstruction of Gunther von Schwarzberg matches his effigy.

I think you would agree that some Osprey books are better than others. The ones authored by David Nicolle do sometimes show some more "speculative" armour. However, he has travelled throughout Europe and the Middle East looking at hundreds if not thousands of examples of medieval arms and armour depicted in period art and examining period manuscripts. The Osprey books he has authored have his own photographs to prove it. I would leave anything speculative he wishes to be shown as a "possibility" until proven absolutely false. The ones authored by Christopher Gravett seem to be less "speculative" and show more examples that are definitely backed up by representations in museums or period art.

I believe Osprey books can be a good source if used in conjunction with other sources. That's why I have such a huge library; I've found many images in some of my older, out-of-print books that match some of the things shown in Osprey that aren't usually shown in the "standard" tomes about arms and armour. I would not outright discount what some of the Osprey authors talk about or show, since they could be using rather obscure and unknown sources. One thing that they used to do, and don't seem to anymore, is state in the captions what source material was used for the colour plates. Certainly you can't discount those!

I agree care must be taken with any "artistic rendition" of arms and armour, but I wouldn't "stay away" from Osprey books completely. As I already said, they can be a good resource, but used in conjunction with other resources!

Stay safe!

[Daniel Staberg]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Dan Howard]

It wasn't an exaggeration. It was a generalisation. I am hardly going give a review of every Osprey publication, listing the good and bad points of each, on an online forum. I can assure you that my latter list will be far longer than the former. The Osprey artists have little control over what they illustrate. They are dictated to by the author. I didn't mean for you to stay away from Osprey entirely. Just leave any artistic impressions out of this discussion since they are not primary sources and serve no purpose but to confuse things. I have already said that any Osprey photos of extant artefacts are relevant and useful.

[William Knight]

Actually, from what I've heard most consider McBride a good artist in terms of talent, but a tad on the speculative side in terms of his reconstructions. IE some of his Rus pictures are rather fanciful, and many others include elements that are not quite right. So I'd say that Embleton and Turner are pretty good but even they sometimes include 'reenactorisms' that aren't supported by primary sources, and that like everyone else their understanding of history is evolving.

Now, as to 'studs' I'd say that everything presented here seems to me like fastening and reenforcement rather than protection in their own right. Because a stud -means- a nailhead or other protruding metal thing, the use of the term implies that the purpose of them was to protrude, rather than being half of a fastener and thus is misleading rather than a matter of semantics. As to the English effigies, you say that the existence of other quilting seems to obviate the necessity for any rivets to compress the layers, but I think it's quite possible, as someone pointed out regarding the varangian armour, that if you want to compress the layers and hold them together a rivet is tighter and holds better than a stitch, particuarly if you're dealing with 15+ layers of linen.

As to the hypothetica effectiveness of the 'studs' as defense, I think their tendency to catch a sword and their small size make it apparent that their protective value is around nil. The is, in as much as armour seems to evolve better glancing surfaces in response to new threats, just festooning it willy-nilly with studs will more likely catch blows then stop them. As to whether the studs could protect against slashes, I would say first that a sword blow covers so little of the armours area, and moreover that the 'studs' will be in some particular pattern, there will be many angle of cut that don't hit any 'studs' at all and there is no reason why a cut that does hit a stud won't simply slide off and sink in to unprotected fabric. Further, primary sources (ie an Italian visitor to England in the 15th century) speak of how a jack could turn a sword-thrust anyway, and we know that maille can. And studs are too small and too unreliable (for reasons stated above) to be protective against the -thrusting- threats of lance and arrow and quarrel, or a heavy cleaver like a Halberd, which given the adequacy of mail against sword-cuts probably had more to do with the evolution of plate armour anyway. Thus, I think their defensive value is neglibible and we should call them 'nails' or 'rivets' instead.
-Wilhelm

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!