Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next 
Author Message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 10 Dec, 2014 9:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's a bit of an aside, but Hannibal's force suffered over 10% dead in casualties at Cannae by the standard account. The defeated Romans took 5,700 enemies with them.

As far as greaves and vambraces go, they apparently weren't needed at the time. Mail is a strong defense, so this makes sense.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sun 14 Dec, 2014 7:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
I wasn't saying that riders can't ride in close formation, I was just saying that that calvary can't be formation as densely as an infranty formation, if you tried to get density of with calvalry formation as dense as a infranty formation, the horss wouldn't be able to move. they would kicking each other in the legs or worse simply by the fact that horses are wider than human beings.


But does that really matter in a tactical or military sense? No, because a clash between cavalry and infantry isn't just a matter of physics and mathematics. It's largely about morale, and can be best described as a colossal game of chicken where the charging cavalry tries to make the infantry break and run before contact and the infantry tries to make the cavalry balk and abandon their attack before contact. The outcome of the fight is essentially decided before weapons are crossed except in relatively exceptional instances where charging cavalry did meet unbroken infantry and engage in hand-to-hand combat.

(And if horses can't be packed together as closely as infantry because they're larger than humans, well, they're larger than humans. They may be a bigger target but they're also bigger. Just bigger. Size counts in a fight.)


Quote:
Thanks for clarification. Not easy, but easier, fighting someone or killing someone you have enveloped is cake walk but as far as combat is concerned, capturing or killing person or group of people have completely surrounded give you the highest chance of success,


This where I have to agree with Matthew in saying that you seem to have some grossly unrealistic ideas about the mechanics of massed combat. The easiest way to kill people is to make them break and run and then cut them down while they're trying to flee with no semblance of order or organisation. Military commanders and theorists have known for over two thousand years that completely surrounding an enemy force without giving them an opportunity to escape (or offering them the chance to surrender) is a bad idea because it might convince the surrounded force to fight to the death. The Mongols deliberately left a route of escape open for the Hungarian army they had defeated at the battle of the Sajo River/Mohi because they knew killing completely surrounded men who knew they had no hope of escape would have been much more difficult than hunting the same men down as they made a disorganised flight to (a false) safety.


Quote:
just look at how few causalities Hannibals forces suffered after Achieving the double envelope at the battle of Cannae.


We don't have solid data to distinguish the losses they suffered during the initial phase of the battle (before the double envelopment) from the ones taken after they executed the envelopment. Nothing in the sources deny the possibility that most of the Carthaginians' losses could have been incurred as they hemmed in and tried to annihilate the Romans who had no choice except to fight back. In any case, though, as William said, the Carthaginian losses were far from insignificant, and in the long term Cannae didn't have as much strategic impact as Hannibal had hoped. Rome didn't sue for peace the way a Hellenistic or Phoenician city would have after suffering such a defeat, and the defection of Capua and some other regional powers in Italy to the Carthaginian side might have proved counterproductive since it drove their local enemies (especially smaller rival cities that used to be under the regional powers' domination before Rome took over) more firmly into the arms of Rome. It's probably one of most overrated battles in history and an abject lessons for generals who are obsessed with seeking a "decisive battle" without thinking of the larger consequences.


Quote:
Yes, if you fail to see off your attackers by the fact that you failed in that endevour you will be captured or dead regardless of armour. My point is that armour , specifically in this situation matters allot because the calvaryman is stopped and surrounded by enemies and it extremely hard to aviod getting hit and excaping from adversaries without being struck at least once.


On the other hand, don't forget that armour is just a last resort when tactics and technique have failed. The cavalryman shouldn't have allowed himself to be stopped and surrounded in the first place -- what the **** was he doing TO GET HIMSELF SEPARATED FROM HIS UNIT ARGHASDFASFDJHUBKDFL -- and he probably deserves to be mobbed and killed for that kind of stupidity. He should have thought a great deal less of armour and a great deal more about teamwork.
View user's profile Send private message
Isak Krogh




Location: Sweden
Joined: 07 Feb 2012

Posts: 20

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 5:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A good hauberk protects the groin and thigh and even tends to wrap around the leg when riding, making it really hard to even lift the mail up.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7963/



 Attachment: 81.82 KB
Even with a modern saddle my groin and thigh is very well protected. [ Download ]
View user's profile Send private message
Tom King




Location: florida
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 429

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 9:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but during the vendel period (and potentially earlier/later) there are finds of either splint metal greaves or vambraces, as well as several reconstructed body armors.

there is also evidence of varangian guardsmen utilizing splint vambraces, such as the valsgard 8 find. Cross cultural interaction and all that means (in my humble opinion) forearm defences were at least known of during the medieval period, if not produced or acquired through trade. But as has been stated, forearm/lower leg cuts are actually surprisingly rare in combat (at least effective ones) and a round, octagonal, or kite/heater shield is very effective defense.

It is kind of like why every US infantryman isn't wearing a eod suit as body armor; something much lighter and less mobility hindering exists at a fraction of the cost and offers 9/10ths the real world protection. Until the high middle ages and later (and before the advent of the castled saddle and stirrup) hard thrust protection via solid armor, limb protection, etc. seems to have taken a backseat due to material cost, hindering affects, and limited battlefield gain.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 9:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tom King wrote:
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but during the vendel period (and potentially earlier/later) there are finds of either splint metal greaves or vambraces, as well as several reconstructed body armors.

there is also evidence of varangian guardsmen utilizing splint vambraces, such as the valsgard 8 find. Cross cultural interaction and all that means (in my humble opinion) forearm defences were at least known of during the medieval period, if not produced or acquired through trade. But as has been stated, forearm/lower leg cuts are actually surprisingly rare in combat (at least effective ones) and a round, octagonal, or kite/heater shield is very effective defense.

It is kind of like why every US infantryman isn't wearing a eod suit as body armor; something much lighter and less mobility hindering exists at a fraction of the cost and offers 9/10ths the real world protection. Until the high middle ages and later (and before the advent of the castled saddle and stirrup) hard thrust protection via solid armor, limb protection, etc. seems to have taken a backseat due to material cost, hindering affects, and limited battlefield gain.

Have you looked at the Wisby skeletons? most of the slash mark are on the forearms and lower legs.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tom King wrote:
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but during the vendel period (and potentially earlier/later) there are finds of either splint metal greaves or vambraces, as well as several reconstructed body armors.

There were several attempts to reconstruct splinted fragments into body armour, but they turned out to be wrong. The only evidence for splinted armour is on the limbs.

Quote:
there is also evidence of varangian guardsmen utilizing splint vambraces, such as the valsgard 8 find.

There definitely is not. We have no clue what armour the Varangians wore. There are no illustrations of Variangians wearing armour and no remains of armour that can be attributed to a Varangian.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 11:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
Have you looked at the Wisby skeletons? most of the slash mark are on the forearms and lower legs.

Which tells you that limb armour wasn't a priority, even as late as the 14th century.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Bunker




Location: Somerset UK
Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posts: 483

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2014 12:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tom King wrote:


there is also evidence of varangian guardsmen utilizing splint vambraces, such as the valsgard 8 find. .


Valsgard 8 is Vendel, nothing to do with Varangians.

The V8 splinted vambrace and greaves were mentioned earlier in this discussion.

"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Tue 16 Dec, 2014 1:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/...fences.htm this article shows the evidence we have when limb armour WAS used. however the geographical frame of reference is the byzantine empire and their neighbours, such as the balkans, the black sea coast, and anatolia/ the levant.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kevin Lehr




Location: Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2015 10:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There does seem to remain a very strong possibility that arm and leg armor WAS made of leather during this period, possibly splinted. The instance of surviving leather of any type is extremely rare, and depends on almost perfect conditions to do so. Just because we haven't discovered it, dose not indicate that it did not exist. We know, for instance, that shields were covered, usually on both sides, with leather, but I'm not aware of even a scrap of this that has survived.

Clearly this kind of protection would be of limited usefulness to a direct sword strike, but avoiding a banged shin or bruised funny bone at the right moment could well save a life. An attacker would be looking for any exposed areas to strike. It just makes sense to offer as few of these as possible, and leather vambraces and greaves would be an easy and inexpensive way to do this. I've little doubt that the Germanic tribes had no problem borrowing technology from their Roman adversaries whenever and wherever they could.

Kevin Lehr
Owner/General Manager
Saxon Shield and Leather
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Fri 12 Jun, 2015 12:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kevin Lehr wrote:
There does seem to remain a very strong possibility that arm and leg armor WAS made of leather during this period, possibly splinted. The instance of surviving leather of any type is extremely rare, and depends on almost perfect conditions to do so. Just because we haven't discovered it, dose not indicate that it did not exist. We know, for instance, that shields were covered, usually on both sides, with leather, but I'm not aware of even a scrap of this that has survived.


Sorry, but no. There are already several threads on leather armor on this board, you can probably find them with a simple search. And they will all tell you that PLENTY of leather items survive from medieval and ancient sites, including shoes, pouches, scabbards, and even a few archers' bracers, but no vambraces before the 14th century. There are also no depictions of any vambraces, aside from some lovely splinted ones from Easter Europe. We do have surviving splints from Valsgarde, and some vague literary references such as the description of Charlemagne's armor. But for the rank and file, NOTHING. Zippo. Even detailed regulations listing what every man in the militia is required to have never mention leather armor at all, let alone vambraces. In other words, we are well beyond "absence of evidence"--we have good evidence of absence! They just did not exist.

Quote:
I've little doubt that the Germanic tribes had no problem borrowing technology from their Roman adversaries whenever and wherever they could.


It's actually surprising how little they did borrow, though there were direct imports of Roman weaponry to Germany and Scandinavia. None of that included leather armor or vambraces, since the Romans didn't use those, either! In the later Empire, there is a lot more German influence on Roman equipment, but again, no vambraces.

If you can come up with some historical evidence (archeological, pictoral, or literary), that would be great! So far, everything has been mentioned in this thread already. And all we have are a very few splinted defences worn by royalty and aristocrats, in a few places at particular times.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 12:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I was wondering how the Germans could have borrowed leather or splinted limb armour from the Romans when they never used them either.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Márk György Kis





Joined: 02 Jul 2013

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 1:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Seriously, guys, we have evidence for limb armor in the period. It's called mail. Cool
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 8:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Márk György Kis wrote:
Seriously, guys, we have evidence for limb armor in the period. It's called mail. Cool


Sure, but depending on the era, the mailshirt might be short-sleeved or sleeveless. And there are clearly still people who insist that even people who couldn't afford mail HAD to have thought of strapping leather to their forearms. But even the earlier examples of splinted vambraces are only seen on wealthy warriors, and they seem to be the *last* item added to the panoply, not the first. (Well, aside from hand armor!)

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 10:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Márk György Kis wrote:
Seriously, guys, we have evidence for limb armor in the period. It's called mail. Cool


Sure, but depending on the era, the mailshirt might be short-sleeved or sleeveless. And there are clearly still people who insist that even people who couldn't afford mail HAD to have thought of strapping leather to their forearms. But even the earlier examples of splinted vambraces are only seen on wealthy warriors, and they seem to be the *last* item added to the panoply, not the first. (Well, aside from hand armor!)

Matthew


Well, there's that other defense, called a shield.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Bunker




Location: Somerset UK
Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posts: 483

PostPosted: Sun 14 Jun, 2015 10:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kevin Lehr wrote:
We know, for instance, that shields were covered, usually on both sides, with leather, but I'm not aware of even a scrap of this that has survived.


If none had survived, how do you think that we know that they were covered on both sides?

Happy

"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
View user's profile Send private message
Bartek Strojek




Location: Poland
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Likes: 23 pages

Posts: 496

PostPosted: Mon 15 Jun, 2015 6:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Bunker wrote:
Kevin Lehr wrote:
We know, for instance, that shields were covered, usually on both sides, with leather, but I'm not aware of even a scrap of this that has survived.


If none had survived, how do you think that we know that they were covered on both sides?

Happy


Well, it seems that some shields covered on both sides had survived though.

http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Tarcza_z_Tirskom_1

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/tirskom.html

If description is to be believed, this shield from modern Latvia was covered with leather ob both side, plus some grass.
View user's profile Send private message
Radim Vanousek





Joined: 22 Jan 2016

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun 24 Jan, 2016 1:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I accidentally stumbled upon this painting last month. Alas, i know nothing more about it.


 Attachment: 80.38 KB
davidgoliath.jpg
David and Goliath
Manuscript: BL Cotton MS Nero C IV St. Swithun Psalter (Winchester Psalter) Folio 06r-2 Dating: 1150 From: Winchester, England Holding Institution: British Library

View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jan, 2016 6:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, it's David and Goliath, for starters. That's David in both the orange and the green, cutting off Goliath's head at right and presenting the head to King Saul at left. So David and Saul are the only ones with those odd cuffs. Neither of them are in armor, either, in fact David was specifically UNarmored, so not sure how far we can stretch this. If you really want to call them vambraces, great, they are solid evidence for leather forearm protection for Late Bronze Age kings and shepherds...

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike Ruhala




Location: Stuart, Florida
Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Posts: 335

PostPosted: Mon 25 Jan, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Only if it is also evidence for kite shields in the Late Bronze Age. For that matter Goliath is said to have worn bronze greaves which aren't evidenced in this image and he used a shield bearer. I am aware that many of these DvsG images were copied and reproduced century after century but in this case it's clear enough that the equipment is contemporary and does not closely match the description given in 1 Sam 17. The truth is at the moment we don't have enough information to say with any kind of certainty exactly what those apparent vambraces are besides a piece of equipment that is very rarely represented in surviving data. There is another image that seems to show them though, check out the fellow with the scourge on the lower right.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages
Page 5 of 6 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum