The Armour Archive

Now that everybody has whetted their bloodthirstiness in slashing attacks and parries regarding leather armor, you can initiate WW-III in critiquing this interesting crew of Russian reenactors:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... &hpv=local

Erm ... there's apparently a little more to 'em than just being reenactors.
http://www.kyivpost.com/world/30751
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... quare.html

Now that everybody has whetted their bloodthirstiness in slashing attacks and parries regarding leather armor...

Why is it "bloodthirstiness" when people have arguments and disagreements over historical research (or the lack thereof)?

Glen K wrote:

Now that everybody has whetted their bloodthirstiness in slashing attacks and parries regarding leather armor...

Why is it "bloodthirstiness" when people have arguments and disagreements over historical research (or the lack thereof)?

Sorry, I painted with an overly broad brush; however I do find our tendency to "pig-pile' on those we consider less informed to be frequently disturbing. (I include me, especially when it comes to historical/hysterical movies.) Just because someone asks what we might consider an ignorant or stupid question does not mean that they are either ignorant or stupid.

I have observed that our standard reaction to saga evidence is about the same level of condescension as a dry-fly fisherman observing a boy fishing with earthworms. It's not the text, it's the tone. You, and Mord, tend to be notable exceptions. To be truthful, I think that since the subject of Viking armor comes up so frequency, and everybody retreads the ground when it comes to the question of leather armor and other variants from mail, you and Mord could compile an FAQ on the subject based on the previous postings for future reference; then once the person has gone over that, the questions could be a little more fine-tuned and to the point.

I'll continue this note on the other thread, but...

I really am interested in a general critique of the armor and clothing shown on the link, even if it is worn by what may be a crew of ultra-nationalist extremists. Seems like an ideal situation to compare and contrast Norse and Slavic armor, right up there with the eternal debate about Russia's earliest history as seen by the "Nordic" and "Slavic" schools of historians.

Re Leather VA leather Armor

I generally ignore the questions these days unless the poster comes across as actually wanting to know vs somone trying to justify what they want to do with the cowskin they bought at a flea market

Same answers each time and the person generally does what they want anyway

Ive better use for my breath (fat men generally do:)

"Vikings" and Russian/Slavs (even early ones) are not the same thing fwiw

Vikings 'visiting' Russia are Vikings the same as foriegn traders visiting other countries are foriegn traders

Vikings going to Russia and staying become Russians:)

Whether or not LARGE VOLUME trade went on even amoung visiting traders is questionable IMO

Certainly the occasional bauble was passed but I am still unconvinced there was a large scale trade in lamellar and chimney helmets between the Rus and 'Vikings'

Cap'n Atli wrote: Seems like an ideal situation to compare and contrast Norse and Slavic armor, right up there with the eternal debate about Russia's earliest history as seen by the "Nordic" and "Slavic" schools of historians.

For those truely interested in this debate, I highly recommend the following:

The Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state: a critical analysis by Alexander Valentinovich Riasanovsky (IIRC its the fellows Master Thesis paper and I found it very interesting)

Last post for a bit:)

First, from what little I know of Rus kit of that time they seem to look fine

Second, I dont mind Glen's hard hitting approach to answering questions, he is one of the guys that convinced me that if its worth doing its worth doing right (in fact all of the FitzOsbern guys fall into that category)

Half assing an attempt at kit is often twice as hard as doing it right so why not do it right the first time anyway?

As I said above, some folks come here looking for justification instead of answers, Glen (and others) dont mess with that sort of thing

As 'leaders' in the "LH" world we (as in many of the folks on the AA) should be more firm when it comes to the differences between the two IMO

This isnt to say we have to be jackasses to anyone, just upfront and honest about how the questions should be answered vs padding the answer so folks go away feeling its ok to not do it right if they want.