Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 5:21 am
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| Nope, no evidence of scale armor either. Scale and lamellar look cool and would seem to be a logical progression.. |
Not progression at all. It is regression. Scale has been around for at least a thousand years before mail and lamellar a few centuries. Mail is the most successful and versatile armour ever invented and it was used continuously for longer and in more regions in the world than any other type of armour.
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 5:55 am
Using that logic there must have been Norman ninjas with highlander swords and pirate hats. There is no evidence to say that there weren't any.
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 6:05 am
| Alexander Bastoky wrote: |
| But you do make an excellent point about mud, blood, etc. getting into the lamellar and the leather threading and causing all sorts of problems. I never would have thought of that. Interesting, realistic commentary on effectiveness from primary sources. What was the source for that information? I bet he had a number of interesting, real world comments about military matters of the time. |
I've read accounts from both Asia and the Middle East. I like this Japanese one.
"When soaked with water the armor becomes very heavy and cannot be quickly dried; so that in summer it is oppressive and in winter liable to freeze. Moreover, no amount of washing will completely free the lacing from any mud or blood which may have penetrated it, and on long and distant campaigns it becomes evil-smelling and overrun by ants and lice, with consequent ill effects on the health of the wearer."
Sakakibara Kozan, Chukokatchu Seisakuben
Last edited by Dan Howard on Fri 20 Apr, 2012 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 6:42 am
If a Norman needed additional armour then it would be far more reasonable to assume that he wore a second layer of mail rather than lamellar. At least we have some evidence for this.
And IIRC it has been over a year since I asked for evidence of Byzantines wearing lamellar over the top of mail and nobody's produced anything credible. This combination seems to have been worn on occasion in the Middle East but nowhere else. You'd need to prove that the Byzantines wore this combination before trying to argue that the Normans adopted the practice from them.
Posts: 1,523 Location: Sydney, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 8:46 am
| Dan Howard wrote: |
If a Norman needed additional armour then it would be far more reasonable to assume that he wore a second layer of mail rather than lamellar. At least we have some evidence for this.
And IIRC it has been over a year since I asked for evidence of Byzantines wearing lamellar over the top of mail and nobody's produced anything credible. This combination seems to have been worn on occasion in the Middle East but nowhere else. You'd need to prove that the Byzantines wore this combination before trying to argue that the Normans adopted the practice from them. |
peter beatson has done a lot of research into this area so he might be a good person to ask
Posts: 746 Location: Louisiana
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:46 am
| Dan Howard wrote: |
If a Norman needed additional armour then it would be far more reasonable to assume that he wore a second layer of mail rather than lamellar. At least we have some evidence for this.
And IIRC it has been over a year since I asked for evidence of Byzantines wearing lamellar over the top of mail and nobody's produced anything credible. This combination seems to have been worn on occasion in the Middle East but nowhere else. You'd need to prove that the Byzantines wore this combination before trying to argue that the Normans adopted the practice from them. |
What about the Reims Cathedral statue?
[ Linked Image ]
The Gross-Comburg Chandelier dated 1140
[ Linked Image ]
Codex Manesse. That looks like mail on the arms beneath the scale torso, and a gambeson beneath maybe.
[ Linked Image ]
I don't really know much about this subject, so I am not saying this is evidence for.... Just trying to clarify
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 2:33 pm
So which one is supposed to be depicting byzantine lamellar over mail?
Posts: 746 Location: Louisiana
Fri 20 Apr, 2012 2:59 pm
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| So which one is supposed to be depicting byzantine lamellar over mail? |
The Reims Cathedral one. You can't see it as well in that pic, but if you look at the same statue in Edge and Paddock's A&A of the Medieval Knight pg41 you can see the statue has maille on its arms (presumably under the scale). Edge and Paddock say of the statue:
"Below: An early thirteenth century figure carved in stone, from Rheims Cathedral. The warrior, probably modeled on a contemporary Byzantine warrior, is wearing scale armour."
I don't know what E&P base that on, just relaying what I'm reading. Like I said, Lamellar/Scale is not my forte. I have mostly just dismissed it as a SCAism and stick with maille.
The Codex Manesse atso shows maille under scale, although not in a Byzantine context, so it must not have been that much of a regress.
Posts: 330
Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:31 am
Pro's and cons of lamellar..
Pro..fairly easy to construct out of pretty simple flat , rectangular plates..either metal of some sort, or leather. Each plate needs 10-12 holes punched in it, not a lot of skill needed Once individual plates made, quick to construct
Con..plates all laced together with either leather thonging, or some sort of woven materials. Lacing on outside surfaces relatively vulnerable to cutting or wear..lacing breaks, plates fall apart..not good for *Primary* protection.
As to whether or not Normans used..possible, but not likely. ..at least not in large numbers.
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:56 am
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| Dan Howard wrote: | | So which one is supposed to be depicting byzantine lamellar over mail? |
The Reims Cathedral one. You can't see it as well in that pic, but if you look at the same statue in Edge and Paddock's A&A of the Medieval Knight pg41 you can see the statue has maille on its arms (presumably under the scale). Edge and Paddock say of the statue:
"Below: An early thirteenth century figure carved in stone, from Rheims Cathedral. The warrior, probably modeled on a contemporary Byzantine warrior, is wearing scale armour." |
The Rheims cathedral statue is a "generic foreign bad guy". There is no way to know what or who it was modelled from. The fact that they chose to depict the evil foreigner in scale armour suggests that the locals didn't wear it at the time. So, if it is evidence of anything, it is evidence against Normans wearing scale/lamellar.
Posts: 1,523 Location: Sydney, Australia
Sat 21 Apr, 2012 9:57 am
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| Robin Smith wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | So which one is supposed to be depicting byzantine lamellar over mail? |
The Reims Cathedral one. You can't see it as well in that pic, but if you look at the same statue in Edge and Paddock's A&A of the Medieval Knight pg41 you can see the statue has maille on its arms (presumably under the scale). Edge and Paddock say of the statue:
"Below: An early thirteenth century figure carved in stone, from Rheims Cathedral. The warrior, probably modeled on a contemporary Byzantine warrior, is wearing scale armour." |
The Rheims cathedral statue is a "generic foreign bad guy". There is no way to know what or who it was modelled from. The fact that they chose to depict the evil foreigner in scale armour suggests that the locals didn't wear it at the time. So, if it is evidence of anything, it is evidence against Normans wearing scale/lamellar. |
umm i thought he said it was evidence of the BYZANTINES earing lamellar ovr maile. not the normans..
the byzantines hadlamellar they had scal they had maile.
the normans have no evidence of wearing lamellar or scale.. just maile.
its much less of a leapto suggest the byzantines had lamellar vr maile. whether they actually did so is another story, as you pointedout
as for why lamellar over maile, the same reason for a coat of plates over maile lamellar reacts to impacts ifferently than maile
ts also maybe considered to be point protection i.e extra armour to secifically proect the vitals.
Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Sat 21 Apr, 2012 8:46 pm
The Rheims cathedral statue is not representative of anything more definite than a "foreigner". It can't be used as evidence of Byzantine equipment. It could just as easily be Russian or Middle Eastern but is more likely just a stereotypical simplification of all of them.
One thing the Rheims statue can be used for is the implication that foreigners, not locals, wore scale armour.
If used in this context, then the statue contributes to the argument that Normans did not wear scale armour.
Posts: 704
Tue 24 Apr, 2012 11:18 am
| Quote: |
| Codex Manesse. That looks like mail on the arms beneath the scale torso, and a gambeson beneath maybe. |
That clearly looks like scale or possibly lammelar over mail.
The sleeves clearly look like other rperesentations I have seen from this time of mail armour, so it's scale/lammelar over mail, unless the mail is just in the sleeves, which a seriously doubt.
Posts: 64 Location: Medina del Campo, Spain
Tue 24 Apr, 2012 1:53 pm
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
| Quote: | | Codex Manesse. That looks like mail on the arms beneath the scale torso, and a gambeson beneath maybe. |
That clearly looks like scale or possibly lammelar over mail.
The sleeves clearly look like other rperesentations I have seen from this time of mail armour, so it's scale/lammelar over mail, unless the mail is just in the sleeves, which a seriously doubt. |
I do not think the Codex Manesse was a good example.
The fact is that, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, was common represent crossbowmen and and troops of artillery with a lamellar armor, while others warriors wear chain mail or another protections. This is very clear in some scenes of Las Cantigas of Alfonso X of Castile.
[ Linked Image ]
Regards
Posts: 746 Location: Louisiana
Tue 24 Apr, 2012 2:58 pm
| Alexander Bastoky wrote: |
| José-Manuel Benito wrote: | I do not think the Codex Manesse was a good example.
The fact is that, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, was common represent crossbowmen and and troops of artillery with a lamellar armor, while others warriors wear chain mail or another protections. This is very clear in some scenes of Las Cantigas of Alfonso X of Castile. |
That's very interesting José-Manuel. I guess that spawns two questions from me.
1. Has anyone seen any scholarly analysis on this pattern of painting misslemen in scale and maille, if it is indeed a pattern?
2. Does the Codex Manesse qualify as a reliable source of evidence for the use of lamellar/scale over maille in Byzantine forces? If so, it does not seem totally ridiculous to me that Norman knights in the Mediterranean , who were adept at serving, conquering, and assimilating (as they did in Italy and Sicily), would possibly adopt some Byzantine/near Eastern fashion, to include armor. |
I don't the Codex Manesse is evidence for Byzantine use. I was just posting it as an example that scale (and/or Lamellar) was in fact worn over maille. The argument had been made that scale over maille would be a "regress". I was just showing a period source that pointed otherwise. That example had nothing to do with whether Normans a couple centuries earlier could have gotten it from the Byzantines. Codex Manesse was from early 14th C Germany. I would say the Rheims Cathedral is a better example of a reliable source of a "foreign" (IOW Byzantine or Middle Eastern) wearing scale over maille, and points to the fact that atleast by the 12th C the French were atleast aware of scale being worn over maille.
That said, it is in no way proof that Normans ever did. Any attempt to use anything other than maille for a Norman is speculative at best. If you want to do a historical depiction of Norman you're gonna have to stick with maille. Period. No matter how cool you think it looks...
Posts: 25
Tue 24 Apr, 2012 4:17 pm
Thank you all for contributing to this discussion. I certainly love work by artists like Angus McBride and Giuseppe Rava, but I wanted to do some historical fact/evidence checking before I started any major projects based on their work. Thanks for your opinions and help.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum