The Armour Archive

The attached pictures show the current form of my banded lamellar armour and the final form I'm leaning towards.

Couple detailed questions:
(1) I saved this picture a long time ago so am not sure of it's background other than it being a 13th century icon of Nestor (maybe from Greece instead of a Rus principality.) Does anyone have a more accurate date and location for it?

(2) Have you seen the "D-shaped" plate between the torso and skirt in another icon/illumination? Looking for some more data points so I can assess whether this detail is more likely to be a figment of one artist's imagination or representative of reality.

Thanks for you input,

John

#2: it's n0ot a plate. It's a gap between the two armors which becomes apparently once not on horseback, typically reinforced with a mail shirt. Other images show this much more clearly.

Russ,

Yeah I've seen pictures like that, too. (Although a quick google search isn't turning them back up.)

Those images show a "football shape" section missing. They also show plates in horizontal rows which do not curve and are cut along this outline.

This image shows a "D-shape" missing. In this image the plates curve along the outline instead of being cut.

This image is clearly different--just not sure whether it's an aberration or an alternate style.

John

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think the football and D-cut are basically depicting the same thing, with variations mroe or less as they could easily have happened IRL. I suspect the "cut" isn't exactly that per se, but distortion of a rectangular shape as laid across the human body (thus resulting in a lower edge which doesn't maintain a clean horizontal).

I'm not a byzantinist, though, so ymmv or I may be missing the point completely.

Managed to track down an image of the other style I was talking about and attached it, too. You could be correct, but zoom in on the image and look at the contour of the rows and you'll see what I'm noticing.

Russ is right. They are all depicting the gap which opens up between the two sections of armour when standing. The gap closes up when in the saddle.

I would third that sentiment. If there appears to be any designs beneath the gap, it's probably caused by the artist trying to render the texture of a padded garment underneath.

-Gerhard

I understand the hypothesized function for the "gap."

However, (if we can rely on the details in the images to be correct), the two pictures look different to me.

In the Nestor image:
(1) The "gap" has been filled in with gold paint instead of matching the color of the tunic.
(2) The rows bend around the "gap."
(3) The "gap" is shaped like a D.

In the other image:
(1) The material in the "gap" matches the chain that the figure is wearing underneath their lamellar.
(2) The rows do not bend. Instead, (zoom really close to see this since the picture isn't wonderful), the plates are cut to produce the gap.
(3) The "gap" is shaped like a football.

Is it more likely these details are not reliably depicted? Or more likely these two images represent distinct styles?

I'd reckon two different artists did two different things with the same basic concept. You can't look at two similar pieces of artwork and say that minor differences mean that there's a difference in what is being depicted. Find a dozen or so images that show this gap, compare them all, and draw a much more sound conclusion. Having seen quite a few myself, I'd reckon that the artists can show many things under the gap - clothing, padded garments or mail, even. It's reasonable to assume that all three could have been worn under this form of armor. As for the shape of the gap, I'd also reckon that the artists may have merely interpreted this functional element differently for their work, or that perhaps different 'shapes' of the gaps could be produced by different patterns of the armor in question.

The further you run with an idea that relies on only a small percentage of available depictions, the further you are probably getting from the truth. Stick to the basics. We see armor laid out in a particular fashion, we see gaps where there could likely be gaps in a two-piece setup for cavalry use. We see various designs under the gaps, probably representing various undergarments. We see different shapes in the gaps, probably representing different patterns.

-Gerhard

Yep. These things aren't photos. One artist decides to erase a piece of armour so you can see the fine clothing being worn underneath. Another changes an enclosed helmet to an open one (or removes it completely) so you can see the subject's face. One artist makes solid metal armour flex at an impossible angle so the subject can be depicted in a classical pose. Another covers iron armour in gold leaf so that his patron can say that it cost more than the painting his neighbour had comissioned last week. One artist doesn't give a crap about what the armour looks like and just wants to commemorate a special event.

Iconographical evidence by itself is completely useless since you can interpret it in any way that fits your pet theory. Without corroborating evidence from archaeological finds or period documents you have nothing but unfounded speculation. When this happens all we can do is put together a handful of reconstructions that all look like the armour in the painting and see which is most likely to function like real armour.

I mislike broad brushes. It's quite clear that some images are rendered carefully with a great eye to detail. It's clear that some images aren't. It's clear that we're often unsure which is which.

Yep. Unless we have some period documentation or archaeological evidence to help us tell which artist was more acccurate, the paintings aren't much use. And there is no point trying to compare features in different paintings unless one can demonstrate that they were all done by the same person since each artist has a different style and approach to a subject.

A very good case study for this sort of dodgy analysis can be found in any of Raffaele D'Amato's work. He is very adept at twisting the evidence to fit a preconception. It is like reading a book that was written in the 19th century.

Interesting discussion. Brought up these questions both to confirm that there are visual differences between the images and to hear this kind of detailed feedback about what those difference may/may not represent.

Although there will be some speculative aspects in my kit since no one has (that I've heard about anyway) found an intact Byzantine-style klivanion, I would like my kit to be "as plausible as possible." So, I agree I shouldn't copy the details of a one-off. Flip side is it seems wrong to dismiss ALL the details which make these images look different from one another.

So, now I'm looking for more data points. Have you other ikons which match the details in the Nestor painting? Even better, are there non-religious images (illuminations, etc...) showing this style of armour that I could look at instead? Have (I admit this is probably a long shot) researchers conducted a survey that catalogues the different details in these images (to get an idea whether there is any correlation between these details and the time or location the image was produced)?

John

One *bump* because I want to ask a specific question before I let this drift off folks radar.

I'm interested in collecting more data points.... Have you seen other images which match the visual peculiarities of the Nestor painting? Or am I looking at this with a more intense level of detail than other folks have?

-John

I've seen at least a dozen icons of this sort that show the gap we're discussing... But I can't say I recall anything particularly about trends. I'd suggest you collect what iconic imagery you can and reckon it for yourself. We may all come up with different hypotheses, but the fact remains that we probably won't know for sure. Do what you think is most right based upon your observations, support it with good data, and you'll be fine.

Just typing "Byzantine Lamellar" into Google Images and browsing it for two minutes, I saw at least five contemporary depictions that could be useful for you. Keep us posted if you start building anything. Always interesting to see what one comes up with from such muddied evidence!

-Gerhard

p.s. I found this one particularly interesting.