The Armour Archive

Ok, so I see on Ebay and other places maille hauberks that have what appears to be edging or trim on the bottom "hem"

I check the BT and find this and the most telling scene is from the bottom strip, in the area where they show dead guys being stripped of their armour. It is not clear though if the hauberk alone is being removed, or the undershirt as well, as the treatment of the bodies by the artist seems to suggest they are naked...
http://mirax.files.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... rold-1.jpg

The scene of the loading of the ships, where hauberks are carried on poles, suggests that there is "something" like a edging or trim..
http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh3 ... istics.JPG
Which also appears to be covering the edges of the "face squares"


So how common was this? Was there a particular period where maille armour was trimmed?

There is no way to know that is what it is or if it was common. Some people interpreted those images to mean leather edging so others want more solid proof. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Mail from India / Persia which was collected "in use" was commonly sewn to a backing.

Perhaps this was the case here as well.

After making an aventail with a sewn in lining and seeing how it drapes and moves I am convinced these hauberks were lined.
Edit- Forget my theory! I just looked at the book that has the tapestry in it that I have always referred to and the pages have been bound out of order or they didn’t pay attention to the sequence, because the page that shows the hauberks being loaded is after the page that depicts the battle. In the book “Chivalryâ€

Or showing off the mail so we, the readers of the tapestry, can see that they're marching to war.

I have been struggling with this question as well, as I'm currently tailoring some riveted mail for my just pre-conquest Saxon kit. I haven't decided what to do yet, though lining the mail could solve a few problems (the lack of evidence for an arming garment, keeping my tunics from getting filthy).

I have no opinion on whether it was done or not but it sure makes a mail shirt look nicer IMO.

Alric of Drentha wrote: though lining the mail could solve a few problems (the lack of evidence for an arming garment, keeping my tunics from getting filthy).

Really what is the difference in having a lining on your maille or a dirty tunic? The liner is using basically the same amount of cloth. I have a tunic meant for the maille that is permanently dirty.

Because I haven't gotten around to sewing a dedicated dirty mail tunic yet . You are right, of course.

Alric of Drentha wrote:Because I haven't gotten around to sewing a dedicated dirty mail tunic yet . You are right, of course.

Well,

Considering the nature of maille, one could simply "point" -so to speak- a dedicated tunic of sturdy but coarse and inexpensive material and leave it there.

This would be tied or pointed, but easily removable and would be worn for the duration of a campaign, and then removed and washed or simply replaced if it was too beat up. It would surely make donning and doffing the armour a lot easier, and it would act as a removable liner, keeping the tunic underneath relatively cleaner from dirt and oil..

That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

Alric of Drentha wrote:Because I haven't gotten around to sewing a dedicated dirty mail tunic yet . You are right, of course.

Well,

Considering the nature of maille, one could simply "point" -so to speak- a dedicated tunic of sturdy but coarse and inexpensive material and leave it there.

This would be tied or pointed, but easily removable and would be worn for the duration of a campaign, and then removed and washed or simply replaced if it was too beat up. It would surely make donning and doffing the armour a lot easier, and it would act as a removable liner, keeping the tunic underneath relatively cleaner from dirt and oil..

That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

Glaukos the Athenian wrote:That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

Well lets not take the art to literally, if you look at it closely the whole thing should be inside out and if it was lined or a tunic under it you would see that not the maille.

One of my fellow history students pointed out that if it were drawn that way, there would be no way to tell that it was supposed to be mail instead of a tunic. Thus, even if it were lined, the artists might well draw it like that so we can tell what they're representing.

As the local "Knitting Circle' of the time is thought to be responsible for most of the work I consider the BT more of a historical comic book than historical documentation.

We often go looking to use it to document things that the creators probably had very little knowledge in and probably never intended to 'document'

I am sure there were folks that had outside input but there are still things on the BT that even the scholars who have spent their whole life with the damned thing cant work out:)

Much like the sagas its a primer, a good place to start, but not so much of a primary (and some would argue secondary) source.

If you go strictly by this picture: http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh3 ... istics.JPG

I would say it is leather edging, notice the mail seen through the neck hole, if it was a lining, that whole area would have been colored or shaded in, that level of detail "inside" the mail would suggest it's lining.

I don't think that's the neck hole we're seeing. I think that outline represents the 'bib' we see on people's chests later in the tapestry.

Yep, I think Alric is pot on about the 'bib' thing

Glaukos the Athenian wrote:That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

For those of you who wear hauberks and know what it entails to take them off, if I was unconscious and you tried to remove my hauberk you'd find that my tunic will come with it. So, not to 'poo poo' the theory but just because a tunic is depicted as coming off with the hauberk, it can't be assumed it is a liner. In reality, it is probably a tunic.

GreenShield

Greenshield wrote:

Glaukos the Athenian wrote:That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

For those of you who wear hauberks and know what it entails to take them off, if I was unconscious and you tried to remove my hauberk you'd find that my tunic will come with it. So, not to 'poo poo' the theory but just because a tunic is depicted as coming off with the hauberk, it can't be assumed it is a liner. In reality, it is probably a tunic.

GreenShield

If one were to want to use that image as evidence one way or the other, it seems to me that it completely disproves the hauberk being lined while proving that the edges were trimmed. If you look at tha image, the hauberk is completely removed except from the head. The only way that you could have a hauberk removed from everything but the head, and have it in the position shown is if it were inside out at that point.

Ingvarr wrote:

Greenshield wrote:

Glaukos the Athenian wrote:That would also explain why the "tunic" is coming out together with the maille in the representation at the bottom strip of the tapestry showing maille being taken from dead guys. Notice especially this one

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/310101/31010162.jpg

For those of you who wear hauberks and know what it entails to take them off, if I was unconscious and you tried to remove my hauberk you'd find that my tunic will come with it. So, not to 'poo poo' the theory but just because a tunic is depicted as coming off with the hauberk, it can't be assumed it is a liner. In reality, it is probably a tunic.

GreenShield

If one were to want to use that image as evidence one way or the other, it seems to me that it completely disproves the hauberk being lined while proving that the edges were trimmed. If you look at tha image, the hauberk is completely removed except from the head. The only way that you could have a hauberk removed from everything but the head, and have it in the position shown is if it were inside out at that point.

It would also prove that the hauberk was worn over the skin.... without a gambeson or anything, which is somewhat silly...

There is of course the cartoon-like convention needed by the artist to show what he is trying to show, and then there are the glimpses that we can try to elicit from reasonably reviewing the images from the perspective of armour users.

It makes sense to think that the people depicted the Bayeux Tapestry operated in a bio-mechanical sense the same as we do. It also makes sense to assume that maille, though not identical to what we wear, was comparable in weight and behavior, especially mild steel maille.

I believe of especial importance is the scene of the loading of the ships, where the hauberks are seen hanging from poles


First of all they are being carried by two people. Were they so much heavier than ours? or there is an advantage in carrying them in that fashion?

Second, there is clearly some type of edging shown in this image, which seems to be the same type of edging on the "squares" by the chest which have been identified both as reinforcements as well as face covers

Here the trim on the bottom is visible as well as on the edges of the elbow-length sleeves


Notice how the artist takes pains to show the back of the head covered NOT with maille but with fabric or leather (Yes more like like Charlton Heston than Orlando Bloom) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__GePcCMuWX0/T ... 969195.png

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/kingdom1.jpg

(I love that helmet!)


Though these knights are surely wearing maille on the back of their heads



Go figure about the lining. I would imagine that it would make sense if you have fancy, not easy to replace tunics underneath, and may serve as a built-in gambeson if made think enough. The edging looks pretty solid though, at least for the upper class warriors.

IMO a great deal of historical mail was lined. Certainly a lot more than we assume today. It helps to explain why we don't see much evidence for dedicated arming garments for mail in many cultures.

Dan,

You don't think wear, tear, filth, and "layering" are significant factors in whether or not "permanent" linings were used for mail in NW Europe for the 10-12th centuries?

Edit:
I did not write the above. Who is editing my posts without my permission?

Dan Howard wrote:Anyone with enough wealth to wear mail has more than enough servants to keep the liner maintained.

Perhaps... and the "they had servants argument" is certainly one that applies to a great many things we don't think about nowadays. But, I'm not so much thinking about "day to day" as I am wear-and-tear on campaign. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the possibility of an attached internal liner, I'm just trying to work through the logic of it (which is almost our only choice given the sparsity of evidence).

An integrated liner is far more comfortable than trying to wear mail over separate padding.

I have not tried an integrated liner, so I have no comparison. Could you share your experiences?

Where did I use the word "permanent"? Anything worn under mail would need to be replaced regularly if it saw frequent use. It doesn't matter whether it is a separate garment or an integrated liner.

You didn't say permanent, but I would imagine it would have to be fixed pretty well to function properly; not forever, which is why I put the world "permanent" in quotations.

Dan:

I profusely apologize; I just realized what I've done. I hit the "edit" button and meant to hit the "quote" button and as such my response ended up being an editing of your post rather than a response. Sloppy on my part, and I'm sorry not only for doing so to your post but for screwing up what was a really neat thread.

No worries Glen, no harm done. I suspected that is what was done but nobody who had initially participated in this thread had that sort of access. I had no idea who I was replying to.

I have not tried an integrated liner, so I have no comparison. Could you share your experiences?

Most of my experience with mail underpadding comes from experiments with Roman reconstructions so I can't say much about Norman mail. Roman mail is commonly depicted with leather edging and I can't find any reason for it to exist except to help hold in place some kind of liner. I would apply the same reasoning to the edging on Norman mail - assuming that is what it is. It is possible that the kazaghand/jazerant of a century later is an extension of this construction with a padded cover over the front as well.

Regarding comfort - it assumes that the comparison is with a dedicated arming garment, not regular clothing. If one ignored the padding all together and just put the mail on over a woollen tunic then that would also be comfortable but perhaps provide less protection against blunt trauma - especially on extremities such as the shoulder and collar bone. The other advantage is that the armour can be donned more quickly if the padding is integrated rather than being a separate garment.

Thanks for your understanding, Dan; I'm a total bonehead sometimes.

As for the integral liner: you've really made me curious about this... what are your thoughts as to how it would have been attached and how "padded" it would have been? I'm very tempted to experiment and try this out...

Personally I think it would be pointed to the maile across its surface and the edges stitched to the maile. The points would minimize the maile sliding across the liner and would probably decrease wear, to what extent I have no I deal. I would like to see a comparative test of 2 similarly constructed undergarments, one worn separate and one pointed to the maile. I wouldn't expect it to last more than a year with out significant repairs, but I think it is plausible that it would remain serviceable for the length of the traditional campaign season, with minimal repair.

I didn't find much difference in function between a lining that was pointed across its surface and a lining that was only attached around the edges. I have never worn armour long enough to judge how long it might last during a campaign though. There would be no problems with the Romans however. They had plenty of armourers available to keep equipment maintained. Segmentata fittings, for example, are notoriously flimsy and required constant repairs. There are two main ways to do padding. You can quilt maybe a dozen layers of linen together or you can use a single layer of weft-twined linen. Doesn't need to be very thick - weft-twined linen can be around 5mm thick. Both methods seem to have been done during the period in question. I wouldn't bother with the third option - stuffing loose material into pockets quilted together.

I feel that a stitched/laced on lining is quite feasible, if not provable, as jazeraint armour is know to have existed at this time - at least in the East (I have even read of Bishop Odo's armour described as jazeraint). If it was know to where mail completely encased in fabric- why not just the underside? Like i said - pure speculation...

Dan Howard wrote:I didn't find much difference in function between a lining that was pointed across its surface and a lining that was only attached around the edges. I have never worn armour long enough to judge how long it might last during a campaign though. There would be no problems with the Romans however. They had plenty of armourers available to keep equipment maintained. Segmentata fittings, for example, are notoriously flimsy and required constant repairs. There are two main ways to do padding. You can quilt maybe a dozen layers of linen together or you can use a single layer of weft-twined linen. Doesn't need to be very thick - weft-twined linen can be around 5mm thick. Both methods seem to have been done during the period in question. I wouldn't bother with the third option - stuffing loose material into pockets quilted together.

the reason I suggest that it would be pointed at intervals across the surface is to minimize the mail sliding around over the lining reducing wear.

How does weft-twined linen differ from regular linen? Is weft-twined linen something that's still being made, or do you have to weave it yourself?