The Armour Archive

Now I do agree that wool was the mainstay of the lower classed combatants in northern europe but leather was used at times, probably for the middle to upper lower class fighters

If we are talking about the period c.500-1000AD in northern Europe, then provide evidence please. Moreover, what constitutes 'class' in this period, let alone such vague ideas as 'middle' and 'upper lower'?

I'm not sure what period the original post said but I'm thinking around 300-900AD, also known as the dark ages. I do know that the Sarmatians of the eurasion steppes also used leather armor, as well as horse hoof scale armor as well.

By what I consider to be those classes, minor and major land owners. Too few mind you, but they would have the money to actually use leather extensively for their personal armor.

But again, my opinion. I admit I could be completely wrong but then again, so could the rest of us.

Class between 800-900AD actaully developed a distinction with Charlemagne's reign and the Franks in general. This I actaully read up on.

Sean Powel Wrote:

"Maybe they had a star-gate connection to atlantis or rode into battle on unicorns."

I had to clean Diet Coke off my keyboard here at work.

To add to Owyn's post, I suspect felted wool would perform even better than woven wool. I felted a hat recently, and in parts it's at least a cm thick. Folks with more experience tell me that it can be made even thicker, and even boots were made of wool felt in period. Seems like a felted jacket would be not only a good start on keeping someone from slicing you up, but would be nice and warm too, an added bonus during much of the year in northern Europe.

I agree with Micheal, felt wool would have performed almost like leather if thick enough, probably best layered.

SirMendor wrote:I'm not sure what period the original post said but I'm thinking around 300-900AD, also known as the dark ages. I do know that the Sarmatians of the eurasion steppes also used leather armor, as well as horse hoof scale armor as well.

By what I consider to be those classes, minor and major land owners. Too few mind you, but they would have the money to actually use leather extensively for their personal armor.

But again, my opinion. I admit I could be completely wrong but then again, so could the rest of us.

Class between 800-900AD actaully developed a distinction with Charlemagne's reign and the Franks in general. This I actaully read up on.

OK, so I can be clear that your evidence for claiming…

…leather was used at times, probably for the middle to upper lower class fighters

is that the Sarmatians used it? That seems like very weak evidence, if anything at all.

It seems to me that we need to recap. Is there evidence that leather been used as armour anywhere, at any time? Yes, it has. Is there any evidence that it was in use in northern Europe in the first millennium? No, there is not at present. Saying ‘Yes they did’, or ‘they must have done’ is as has already been said, inadequate and proves, or even argues, nothing.

well, I never said that they did in northern europe. Just said it would be a logical assumption. And I have fully admitted that I may be wrong.

Felted wool on the other hand, I think I heard that some was found in graves of vikings but I can't be too sure.

Now I do agree that wool was the mainstay of the lower classed combatants in northern europe but leather was used at times, probably for the middle to upper lower class fighters

well, I never said that they did in northern europe. Just said it would be a logical assumption. And I have fully admitted that I may be wrong.

OK...
I think you've got it now though!:)

While wool and felt might be more plausible, we are still along way from being probable. All the evidence that we have points to a warriors from northern Europe in the first millennium being armoured (as opposed to clothed) either in metal, and/or behind a shield. The shield being the most common form of ‘armour’ used at this time.

Dalloch, I think what is meant by "armour" is body armour not shields.

There's something in the back of my mind saying that there were padded garments. Could be wrong.

I do believe that felt was used in eastern euarope throughout the first and second millenium, could have easily migrated west.

SirMendor,
Yes, it was personal. And you apology is absoutley accepted!
Thank you for that!



Back to the thread:

Innovation is hard.
Hindsight is easy.

The hardest thing we need to do is not apply modern thinking to the past.
That's why it's best to see what WAS, and build up from there -- that way your foundation is solid.
Not to come up with a concept, and then try to find something to support it -- you'll be shaky at best, more likely full of holes.

Pm replied, my most humble apologies.

Because I don't have a smiley eating popcorn icon:

Hey, maybe they used horse hide! Yeah, thats it.




You can take a horse to water...

Dalloch, well, the the sarmatians did if my memory serves. This is all from the Men at Arms series of books from Ospry publishing. But thy could be wrong as well.

The Sarmatians absolutely did (likely not horse-hooves, however, and not horn -- modern experimental archaeology has shown horn scale to be completely worthless as an armor material: too brittle).

But we're going afield, significantly, because the material culture of eastern Europe is dramatically different. Felt, otoh, is quite reasonable to presuppose, as we know it was used later, and felt itself can be made to be VERY protective. (It's another one of those things I've tested the hell out of: felt repels bodkin arrows, for instance, MUCH better than horn does).

Andrew's right about "leather," as I also alluded (though I've not tried antifreeze... have to look into that). Rawhide is a possibility. Oil-tanned leather (based on large fish stocks) which is not, however, softened, could also be used for the purpose. But again, it's not going to be a poor man's material: it's too inherently ablative.

SirMendor wrote:On the subject here, it's onlu logical to assume that the poorer combatants (ie the infantry and skermishers) to have some form of leather armor. Nothing like a leather version of plate, but more lik a padded leather vest or some sort. If my memory serves, I saw a show on PBS about vikings and they said that the basic raider did wear such armor.

A "PBS show" isn't what any reasonable researcher would consider a valid source for information They may, but probably did not, have based their script on solid research up and down the line. As a matter of past practice, I would say they didn't. As a matter of the specific material, I would say they didn't - because if there were good evidence out there that when people went a viking they wore leather armour there would be some familiarity with that evidence among this audience.

And before I'm dismissed as just one more anti-leather armour type - I build the stuff and I try to do my homework about it.

Despite repeated statements to the effect that there are no surviving examples, no archaeological record and so forth - there are surviving examples, over a surprisingly wide period of time and with significant geographic dispersion.

But there are not a great many such examples and there is a very difficult to overcome presumption that what we see in art is always something other than leather.

The persistent statements that there are "no examples" and the high threshold on the subject of artistic representation are both a matter of bias against leather armour and quite unfortunate.

However - the argument "they could have so they must have and it just hasn't survived" is worse than useless when it comes to addressing the problem. It only serves to feed the bias and rightfully so, since it's just not a good argument. A tempting argument, but not a good one.

Hi Gavin, if you have evidence of leather armour in Northern Europe from the period c.500-1000, please post it on the thread I started in 'Historical research', as I would love to see it!

As and aside, I have nothing against leather armour, I even use it, and have made it. What I have not seen up till now is compelling (or even slight) evidence of its use in Northern Europe in the first millenium.

Lorik Thorsson wrote:[
(minus a few posters who spouted nonsense - like me!).

Yep. You clearly don't recognize how your comments read when seen by other people thousands of miles away. You also, clearly, don't recognize it when people point that out to you. And you admit to spouting nonsense.

Thanks for clarifying that your posts are to be ignored.

SirMendor wrote:See, that wasn't a personal attack, just a point. Everyone at one time or another doesn't know what they are talking about. Even me.

Now I do agree that wool was the mainstay of the lower classed combatants in northern europe but leather was used at times, probably for the middle to upper lower class fighters

es02, I wasn't refering to victorian paleontologists, even though they did some important work, most of it was a joke.

audax, "For some reason you and Mendor have chosen to act like jackasses in response. " Read above and do please keep you ignorant opinion of me to yourself.

You just made me wish that we had an "ignore" function on the Archive.

You have the brass to tell other people to keep their ignorant opinions of you to themselves while you go off insulting people ? And yes, you did insult D. Sebastian - and now you've insulted Audax as well.

You really know how to make an impression. Unfortunately, from everything I've seen so far, you will just file this comment under personal attacks to be ignored, rather than considering the possibility that you might actually have a genuine need to make some changes in your approach.

sigh.

!Attention Please!
After posting this thread, I awoke in the middle of the night with a 'dear god what have I done' realization.
I want to appologize to any and everyone who has been entangled into this debate. Many arguments for or against the subject topic were given, and if any good came of it, I am glad. However...
I wrote this shortly after reading a poster's stating that leather could not have been used as none has been found. This reasoning irked me, and as a result, I displayed poor-forethought by creating this article.
I realize now that I was overly aggressive in my statements and that I have stirred up a can of worms better left...um...unstirred.

It all comes down to the simple fact of reinactors will fight in whatever gear they want to fight in. The wonderful (or horrible, depending on the perspective) thing about the SCA is that, as a fighter, one does not need have, as far as provable accuracy of appearance of his kit is concerned, the aproval of his peers. As long as he is safe, that is good enough for most.
(unless he is wearing football shoulders and blue barrel cuirass )

Once again, I am deeply sorry for posting this thread. And I, once more, appologize for any animosity, hurt feelings, or name calling that may have ensued thereof.
-Swete

I apologized to Sabastian in PM and he accepted. Now Audax went after me for no real reason as this was about me and Sabastian (which got resolved).

If he feels I insulted him, then I publicly apologize.

Now Kilkenny, if we could get back to the subject at hand please?

Swete, you'll learn better, trust me. I've done the same in the past.

Apology accepted on my end.

Swete wrote:It all comes down to the simple fact of reinactors will fight in whatever gear they want to fight in. The wonderful (or horrible, depending on the perspective) thing about the SCA is that, as a fighter, one does not need have, as far as provable accuracy of appearance of his kit is concerned, the aproval of his peers. As long as he is safe, that is good enough for most.
(unless he is wearing football shoulders and blue barrel cuirass )

I have no problem with people doing what they will. What irks me is when people say ' I'm going to do x because, despite little/no/vague evidence, they must have done it .

I'd rather it was ' I'm going to do x, because I like it and I can make it look good. I know it’s not historical and I'm not going to claim it as such'.

Dalloch wrote:I'd rather it was ' I'm going to do x, because I like it and I can make it look good. I know it’s not historical and I'm not going to claim it as such'.

Indeed.
I have seen many kits that were beautiful, but lacked true historical context. (of course they had, say a Nordic flair or a Chinese air about them, etc,). I admire anyone who is willing to take the time, patience, and materials to make a nice looking kit.

Joaquin wrote:I've heard professors of medieval literature repeat the tired old nonsense about swords weighing twenty pounds.

I once stood at a Celtic archeological site beside my ancient history professor, who was a terrific guy and looked like John Denver's German twin.

We were here:




Standing in the autumn mud, our History Prof got all misty eyed, gazing upwards to the beatific ghosts of Caesar and Herodotus, exclaiming "The Celts were not cannibals. My Celts were not cannibals."

We were standing beside a trench, and standing in the trench was the very archaeology professor who had personally removed several barrelfulls of second century human bones with butchery marks from that very spot.

The archaeologist was very polite and simply rolled his eyes...

now not to start another flame war, I just have to point out that the Romans thought that all people were barbarians and cannabals and that they were the only civilized people on this earth.

In truth they were the barbarians, more focused on war and conquest than the truly more civilized Greeks. Ever heard of a Roman philosipher(sp?).

SirMendor wrote:now not to start another flame war, I just have to point out that the Romans thought that all people were barbarians and cannabals and that they were the only civilized people on this earth.

In truth they were the barbarians, more focused on war and conquest than the truly more civilized Greeks. Ever heard of a Roman philosipher(sp?).

Cicero. Seneca. Tacitus.

barbarism is in the eye of the beholder (and once again i cite Life of Brian... hmm.. ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78

SirMendor wrote:now not to start another flame war, I just have to point out that the Romans thought that all people were barbarians and cannabals and that they were the only civilized people on this earth.

In truth they were the barbarians, more focused on war and conquest than the truly more civilized Greeks. Ever heard of a Roman philosipher(sp?).

ummmmmm, ever heard of Alexander the Great?

Focused on war? YA THINK!

*bows* I stand corrected.

Ah, but he wasn't greek proper, he was a Macidonean(sp?). And if memory serves still a seperate country from modern day Greece.

As for kits and whatnot.
This pic, for example: Not historically accurate in the least, but damn cool looking.

Riders of Rohan!!!


(Very pretty.)

Nice kit. Does look like it's out of Lord of the Rings, though.

If made SCA legal, I'd wear it!

now that I look at it better, I think that helm is actually a reproduction of Aomir's(sp?) helm.

Avete!

The not-so-little voice in my head is telling me in no uncertain terms NOT to get dragged into this (though it is heartening to see the apologies and generally improving tone!), but I was surprised no one responded more strongly to this bit:

Swete wrote:I consulted a professor at my college who wrote her doctorate on Anglo-Saxon culture, literature, and folklore (this includes warfare), and she believes it is sheer stupidity for one to be so very certain that leather was not used merely because no existing armours have been found. It was a common rescource and even in its un-boiled/waxed state, can stop many sword blows. Sure, it does not protect as well as maile, but it is better than a stand-alone tunic. And anything that stands between you and the sharp implement of your enemy, is a good thing.
To quote Dr. Alice Blackwell as directly as I can, "You would have to be insane to believe that the poor schmuck on the front of that shield wall wouldn't have made the best of any possible amour source available to him. Even if it was a thick woolen tunic or a simple leather cuirass"

I'm a little taken aback at being called "insane" by Dr. Blackwell for asking what *evidence* there is on the subject! I had thought that the practice of basing conclusions on facts was the preferred method of scholars, while lapsing into personal attacks like that was the tactic of one losing an argument...

Being a professional hisorian does NOT imply a working knowledge of military details. I've met any number of teachers and professors of history with any number of higher degrees who don't know a thing about armor or weapons, or the practice of ancient or medieval warfare. Many of them invite me into their classrooms to do demos for their students BECAUSE they understand that I know a heck of a lot more than they do! But I've also met teachers who think that movies like "Gladiator" are historically accurate. There is simply too much to know from any era, so even brilliant expertise in literature may be accompanied by utter ignorance of weapon use, metallurgy, etc. This is not necessarily a bad thing!

But you'll forgive me if I don't bow down and change my mind simply because Alice Blackwell, PhD., thinks scholarship is stupidity.

I saw your retraction and apology, Swete, and I DO appreciate it! I just felt this point needed emphasizing, and it seemed fair to do it at Dr. Blackwell's expense...

Most of the rest of the arguments in this thread have been very well addressed by other folks. Just a couple minor points, and I want to stress MINOR!

Sean Powell wrote:Everything after this is either going to be supposition or drawn from secondory or tertiary sources like artwork and ballads.

Careful! Artwork and ballads can be very valuable historical sources! Supposition is NOT. Don't put them all in the same catagory.

If a soldier had to equip himself as best as he could afford then a spear is the cheapest weapon because it uses the least steel to still be deadly and is useful for hunting ... but it generally takes 2 hands and a lack of shield leaves you vulnerable to arrows, rocks and any other weapons you can't blockt or dodge.

Spears were used *with shields* by any number of cultures, particularly Northern Europeans in the "Dark Ages". You can see that on dozens if not hundreds of depictions from those times, and the combination of shield and spear is the typical requirement of the poorest fighting classes in the militia laws of several cultures (including Scandinavian and Carolingian). (Oddly enough, those remarkably detailed laws never make mention of leather armor!) (Any PhD of Saxon literature should have been able to tell us this...) (NOT to be implying that you posted Dr. Blackwell's comments, Sean!)

SirMendor wrote:When it comes to natural preservation, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Then you already know that in some conditions such as those on the Mary Rose, leather was perfectly preserved while iron and steel were nothing but stains in the mud.

SirMendor wrote: now not to start another flame war, I just have to point out that the Romans thought that all people were barbarians and cannabals and that they were the only civilized people on this earth.

In truth they were the barbarians, more focused on war and conquest than the truly more civilized Greeks. Ever heard of a Roman philosipher(sp?).

Actually, Roman writers such as Tacitus and Suetonius wrote extensively about the moral superiority of barbarians such as Germans and Britons, as a lesson to their fellow Romans. However, those civilized Greek philosophers felt that peace was an abberation, while warfare was the natural state of mankind. One famous Greek author's tombstone has no mention at all of his 80 known plays, but merely says, "I fought at Marathon."

Again, I saw your bow in response to the mention of Alexander, and I appreciate it. But Greece and Rome are among my main areas, so I couldn't resist jumping in! No offense intended. Heck, it's more rewarding responding to folks like you, since you show a good tendency to learn and admit mistakes!

Thanks, all. Hey, did I write more than Andrew?? hee hee hee...

Matthew