Can anyone shed some light on this "Splinted Coat of Plates"

[King Henry the Everlasting]

Found this earlier today when I was looking through an Osprey book. It's from a swedish wall painting and it depicts an armour which I have never seen or even heard of before. Does anyone know anything about this? There is a short description of it in the picture.

[Buster]

Interesting find. It looks like a coat of plates style armour with the plates on the outside. Here is another example from England:
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... 770/large/

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... 617/large/
Notice the plates at the side-gap in the surcoat and at the armpit are very similar. In period they weren't as concerned with strictly identifying armour types as we are, so it just is what it is.

[Dan Howard]

Found this earlier today when I was looking through an Osprey book. It's from a swedish wall painting and it depicts an armour which I have never seen or even heard of before. Does anyone know anything about this? There is a short description of it in the picture.

Would need to know how much of the wall was damaged. I've seen reconstructed paintings where a small corner patch remained and the artist invented the other 90%.

[King Henry the Everlasting]

Interesting find. It looks like a coat of plates style armour with the plates on the outside. Here is another example from England:
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... 770/large/

http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... 617/large/
Notice the plates at the side-gap in the surcoat and at the armpit are very similar. In period they weren't as concerned with strictly identifying armour types as we are, so it just is what it is.

Thank you, some more pieces of the puzzle.

Found this earlier today when I was looking through an Osprey book. It's from a swedish wall painting and it depicts an armour which I have never seen or even heard of before. Does anyone know anything about this? There is a short description of it in the picture.

Would need to know how much of the wall was damaged. I've seen reconstructed paintings where a small corner patch remained and the artist invented the other 90%.

A very good point. I'm swedish so I'll see if I can dig up some further information regarding the original wall painting.

[King Henry the Everlasting]

Didn't take much time to find a photograph of the wall painting. A good amount of the armour is visible in the original painting. What's your guys' opinions?

[Baron Alcyoneus]

It is a period example of something similar to what you posted previously. Most likely, it is drawn by someone who didn't understand how armor needs to work. There is only a limited amount of flexing needed from side to side, since the human body isn't jointed to bend that way. We bend forward and back all the time, so you primarily need the flexibility vertically. Rotate this coat of plates/brigandine 90 degrees with the rivets on top, and it will work. Think about how accurately an engine would be drawn by an Amish farmer than has never ridden anything larger than a one horse powered cart. Or me.

The previous coat you posted is more of a bad interpretation of a period design than something that would not work ever, or was never done, IMO.

[King Henry the Everlasting]

It is a period example of something similar to what you posted previously. Most likely, it is drawn by someone who didn't understand how armor needs to work. There is only a limited amount of flexing needed from side to side, since the human body isn't jointed to bend that way. We bend forward and back all the time, so you primarily need the flexibility vertically. Rotate this coat of plates/brigandine 90 degrees with the rivets on top, and it will work. Think about how accurately an engine would be drawn by an Amish farmer than has never ridden anything larger than a one horse powered cart. Or me.

The previous coat you posted is more of a bad interpretation of a period design than something that would not work ever, or was never done, IMO.

Then what about the effigy Buster posted? We have two examples of this armour, one in England and one in Sweden, isn't that too much of a coincidence for an artist's mistake? The armour in the pit on the effigy from England could be a mistake, but on the lower part they are virtually identical.

[Russ Mitchell]

I've worn something similar in Hungary and greatly appreciated the flexibility. Would be very surprised if it were a mistake.

[Dan Howard]

Hi Russ. Do you have a pic of what you wore?

[Ernst]

Baron A,
The majority of CoPs recovered from Wisby (Type IIs) use only vertically oriented plates.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-9r677pXjMQA/TFiN8 ... 520COP.png

FWIW, this church painting is dated c.1325, although the boards have been re-used in the current church building of c.1800.

Nearby Linköpings Cathedral show this scale armour in contemporary use.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/87/fjllisjr4.jpg/

[Buster]

In the effigy I posted the plates seem to be oriented the other direction (horizontal) but the basic concept and construction looks the same, and I don't see why vertical plates wouldn't have worked either.
Lamellar armour is constructed of a bunch of small vertical plates, and, as Ernst mentioned, many of the Wisby coat-of-plates used vertical plates.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Good point, but they were laced to each other, not riveted along one vertical edge. I just looked in my copy of Wisby, and none of them were constructed by a simple row of rivets along one edge. With the exception of a handful of plates that are probably quality control issues, they had multiple rives at the top and the bottom, like the Type II you show.

download/file.php?id=46693

That also shows "banded mail" which I don't think anyone really thinks existed in that form.

So I still vote for either artistic misunderstanding, or convenience of the artist to depict it that way rather than the way it really appeared.

Others that have been posted here tend to show early forms of brig (from a narrow gap in the surcoat you can't tell how large the plates are), scale, or other forms of plate.


I can't see the detail on this one well enough to give an informed opinion:
björsäter kyrka väggmålning 2.jpg

[Ernst]

Wisby Armor #24 has vertically aligned rivets, though they tend to be centered in the small, overlapping plates. I don't see where it would be that difficult to align small plates (Wisby Types IV or V) in vertical rows (like the Type II) and rivet them down the center or along one edge rather than along the top.

[King Henry the Everlasting]

Good point, but they were laced to each other, not riveted along one vertical edge. I just looked in my copy of Wisby, and none of them were constructed by a simple row of rivets along one edge. With the exception of a handful of plates that are probably quality control issues, they had multiple rives at the top and the bottom, like the Type II you show.

download/file.php?id=46693

That also shows "banded mail" which I don't think anyone really thinks existed in that form.

So I still vote for either artistic misunderstanding, or convenience of the artist to depict it that way rather than the way it really appeared.

Others that have been posted here tend to show early forms of brig (from a narrow gap in the surcoat you can't tell how large the plates are), scale, or other forms of plate.


I can't see the detail on this one well enough to give an informed opinion:
björsäter kyrka väggmålning 2.jpg

In my humble opinion, the original wall painting does not seem to depict "banded maille", only the artist's reconstruction seems to do that.

[RandallMoffett]

I do not think this is anything like what buster posted. I think his is horizontal long bands for some reason outside the foundation layer while Henry's is something that seems more akin to scale, maybe lamellar. There are some Wisby ones that have smaller vertical plates like this but the foundation was outside as can be figured from the rivet set up. I'm interested in Russ's harness. Never seen anything like this that worked well. We made some of the three holes on one side scale at the top and it worked but having them on the side seems odd in some ways.

Yeah do not think it is banded mail, though I think banded mail is largely in Europe a myth though. The only real examples I know of are not European. I see 0 reason to assume this is banded.

RPM

[ThriftyKnight]

http://www.bestarmour.com/armour/armour_19a.jpg

This may be a relevant interpretation.

[Ernst]

Never seen anything like this that worked well. We made some of the three holes on one side scale at the top and it worked but having them on the side seems odd in some ways.

Can we be sure the rivets are on the edge? It seems to me that having the adjacent vertical row overlap the edge would make it appear that the rivets are on the edge, when they might be centered in the vertical line of the plate.

[Dan Howard]

Can we be sure they are rivets? Everyone thought the terracotta warriors wore riveted armour until it was properly analysed and found to be lacing.

[Russ Mitchell]

I'm interested in Russ's harness.

Wasn't mine, and didn't belong to my group, so I only got to wear it once. But what was kinda neat was that the lines were sorta perpendicular to where the right shoulder wanted to "push in" against the armor when crossing the centerline, so it was rigid, but didn't impede the weapon arm much (while being a bit stiffer on the left).

[Russ Mitchell]

Sorry Dan, no pics. It was basically an armored surcoat with the plates on the inside, and I gotta say, it worked and worked well.

[RandallMoffett]

I could not say it was or wasn't laces over rivets. That said I am not sure how likely laced lamellar would be in this area at this time.

RPM

[Buster]

Wouldn't the plates being riveted separately possibly allow for more movement than lamellar? I agree the rivet placement is a bit odd, but it's entirely possible there is something we're not seeing/understanding.

As for banded mail, I believe the term actually refers to a form of armour quite different from normal mail, consisting of washer rouleaux held together with leather bands. Like this: http://archive.org/stream/britishforeig ... 5/mode/2up
It's largely theoretical, but I think there's a small chance it existed as Charles Ashdown describes it.

[Dan Howard]

As for banded mail, I believe the term actually refers to a form of armour quite different from normal mail

Depends on how you define "mail". If you use the Victorian definition then it is just another term for armour. Banded mail is the term they used to describe segmented plate (armour of bands).

If you use the real definition of mail then it consists of regular 4-in-1 mail with bands of leather woven through the rows.

consisting of washer rouleaux held together with leather bands. Like this: http://archive.org/stream/britishforeig ... 5/mode/2up
It's largely theoretical, but I think there's a small chance it existed as Charles Ashdown describes it.

There is no chance of it existing as Ashdown described it. If you try making a hauberk out of it, it falls apart unless it is attached to a backing. If it is attached to a backing then it no longer looks like the illustrations since the mail is not visible on the inside.

You really should forget you ever read that book. Get a copy of Blair's book and read it over and over until Ashdown is purged from your memory.

[Dan Howard]

I could not say it was or wasn't laces over rivets. That said I am not sure how likely laced lamellar would be in this area at this time.

Hell, I'm not sure how I ended up on this side of the debate. I've never advocated lamellar in Western Europe either. My point is that the illustration is so simplistic that it could be interpreted half a dozen ways.

[King Henry the Everlasting]

I might be inclined to agree with you Dan. This might be lamellar armour with vertical plates over a surcoat, but just maybe.

EDIT: A friend of mine brought this armour to my attention. It's a reconstruction of one of the armours found at Visby.

[RandallMoffett]

Henry,

Except the Wisby lamellar was not bound together with laces but largely rivets. It seems to have been very much modified to be pair of platish.

Be careful with reconstructions. Go to the source.

RPM

[King Henry the Everlasting]

True enough Randall. The armour I posted above bound together with rivets instead of laces would look an awful lot like the wall painting armour though, don't you think?

[Effingham]

It is a period example of something similar to what you posted previously. Most likely, it is drawn by someone who didn't understand how armor needs to work. There is only a limited amount of flexing needed from side to side, since the human body isn't jointed to bend that way. We bend forward and back all the time, so you primarily need the flexibility vertically. Rotate this coat of plates/brigandine 90 degrees with the rivets on top, and it will work. Think about how accurately an engine would be drawn by an Amish farmer than has never ridden anything larger than a one horse powered cart. Or me.

The previous coat you posted is more of a bad interpretation of a period design than something that would not work ever, or was never done, IMO.

Heck, all you really need to point to is armour drawn by artists illustrating roll playing games. They seem to have little to no idea of how armour actually works, its dynamics, or even how the human body works (e.g., what needs to be protected and how).

[RandallMoffett]

There is evidence of leather thongs but I think what they were doing was creating something more like a COP, hence less lamellar. I'd love to get more info on them than Thordmann gives as his drawings is where more of my supposition on this comes from as his detail in Book I is lacking.

RPM

[Russ Mitchell]

A better comparison might be "people drawing pictures of cars." Medieval people saw armor all the damned time. The longer I'm in this game, the more and more skeptical I get of the "this was stylized" argument -- I've just seen far, far too many "that can't possibly be real" items turn out not only to be real, but commonplace (granted, in my own historical context, not Scandinavia or NW Europe, but still).

[Buster]

A better comparison might be "people drawing pictures of cars." Medieval people saw armor all the damned time. The longer I'm in this game, the more and more skeptical I get of the "this was stylized" argument -- I've just seen far, far too many "that can't possibly be real" items turn out not only to be real, but commonplace (granted, in my own historical context, not Scandinavia or NW Europe, but still).

I also get tired of hearing people say the medieval artists "didn't really know how the armour looked/functioned."
Sure many manuscript illustrations omit details, but that probably has more to do with the scale of the art than the artists knowledge. (And even still, many illuminations have great details.)
The artists may not have understood how actual combat looked, but I'm sure their knowledge of the equipment used would have been good.
Splinted vambraces/rerebraces are a good example of armour reconstructed from art that was only recently confirmed by surviving examples.

[Dan Howard]

It is really simple to test. Show a class full of kids a mail shirt and ask them to draw it. You will see every variation that shows up in all of the illustrations and many more. And this is when there is a genuine example right in front of them. This suggests to me that whether medieval illustrators knew what real armour looked like or not makes no difference.

[RandallMoffett]

Or ask an average nonmilitary type person in the USA to draw an M16. Bet it looks generally right but not really that accurate.

RPM

[Russ Mitchell]

It's not "really simple." We know that not all mail was the same: we have numerous references to versions of mail for which we have NO IDEA of its visual appearance. What was "doubled mail?" What was a "hauberc de jouste," and how did it differ from the version Joinville was wearing in combat *before* he fell ill (except insofar as it kept him from being injured by arrows, which his "regular" version did *not*)?

Yes, there's lots of varieties of how to draw mail. I've done it myself: draw a shirt, fill it full of L's. But that is NOT sufficient to simply dismiss everything for which we have no answers.

[Buster]

I think there would be a big difference between someone who made brasses or sculpted for a living, and an average person being asked to draw something from vague memory. (Or a class of kids, who are not professional artists, and couldn't be reasonably called upon to draw something accurately.)
A professional sculptor or brass maker should have had a good knowledge of what he was portraying, as well as the ability to depict it accurately.
It actually seems to have been commonplace for medieval sculptors to depict conventional mail in a detailed and realistic manner, no stylization necessary.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... /original/
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/static/mo ... s2_r58.jpg

They were better artists than they often get credit for, and were capable of depicting things quite accurately.