You might also read this article:
http://www.geocities.com/egfrothos/Adoption.html
It is an interesting take on the adoption of Byzantine equipment by Varangian guardsmen.
I'd like to go back a bit here...it was mentioned that lamellar was relatively cheap (at the time) compared to other kinds of metal armor.
I can certainly understand that it would be much cheaper in labor costs as compared to say mail (riveted, not butted as was used during the last few centuries of the Byzantine empire). It also had the advantage of being more easily field reparable by the average soldier if needed, again particularly compared to mail. But has anyone come across any references as to how much either actually cost?
I understand that a armory listing simply will NOT show the two armors side by side with relative pricing. Also, comparing prices for each style can be tricky as they were typically produced in different areas with economies that likely reflect different relative costs and of course prices change over time. A straight comparison of man-hours or weight in gold/silver might nevertheless be promising.
That being said, it would make an interesting study - particularly if overlapped with an evaluation of protective qualities.
I can certainly understand that it would be much cheaper in labor costs as compared to say mail (riveted, not butted as was used during the last few centuries of the Byzantine empire). It also had the advantage of being more easily field reparable by the average soldier if needed, again particularly compared to mail. But has anyone come across any references as to how much either actually cost?
I understand that a armory listing simply will NOT show the two armors side by side with relative pricing. Also, comparing prices for each style can be tricky as they were typically produced in different areas with economies that likely reflect different relative costs and of course prices change over time. A straight comparison of man-hours or weight in gold/silver might nevertheless be promising.
That being said, it would make an interesting study - particularly if overlapped with an evaluation of protective qualities.
| Karl Randall wrote: |
| I can certainly understand that it would be much cheaper in labor costs as compared to say mail (riveted, not butted as was used during the last few centuries of the Byzantine empire). |
Where have you read that butted mail was ever used by the Byzantines or anyone else during this time? Every single surviving piece that has been properly analysed (i.e. x-ray analysis) has turned out to be riveted.
| Quote: |
| I understand that a armory listing simply will NOT show the two armors side by side with relative pricing. Also, comparing prices for each style can be tricky as they were typically produced in different areas with economies that likely reflect different relative costs and of course prices change over time. A straight comparison of man-hours or weight in gold/silver might nevertheless be promising. |
There are only four main types of metal armour. Solid plate, mail, segmented plate, and scale/lamellar. IMO the latter two would be the cheapest to produce regardless of what method is used to determine cost. If one had the mass production capacity of the Romans then segmentata would be cheapest. If not, then scale/lamellar would be cheapest.
| Quote: |
| Where have you read that butted mail was ever used by the Byzantines or anyone else during this time? Every single surviving piece that has been properly analysed (i.e. x-ray analysis) has turned out to be riveted. |
Yes, I was quite surprised to read about period butted mail as well.
Robinson, H. Russell, Oriental Armour (New York: Dover Publications, 2002), 42 (top of page).
"One should note add that this was more common on later shirts of butted mail."
Robinson is apparently referring to "Persian" armor of the 13th century (NOT Byzantine, as I have previously mentioned - my apologies for the misinformation). Has this since been refuted?
And I completely agree that scale/lamellar armor would be cheaper to produce (I suppose we could probably add brigantine armor of the renaissance as well). The fact that it was cheaper and yet wasn't as popular in the West was what peaked my interest, as it implies that there was some reason that it wasn't used.
Lack of local knowledge is likely a factor, but the pilgrimage routes would have at least brought SOME westerners into contact with soldiers wearing lamellar or scale. Similarly the Northern Trade Arc carried goods from Constantinople through Scandinavia to Britain. Armor, not being a luxury item, likely wouldn't have been at the top of the list of goods to trade however but some of the traders would likely again have seed lamellar or scale armor first hand.
There is also the pictorial evidence that Gavin posted. Gavin, if you don't mind me asking, where did you find that picture and could you post it here please?
Relative protective quality might be another option. Perhaps mail just plain protected better or perhaps afforded a greater freedom of movement that made it (mail) more desirable for those who could afford it. I haven't seen any materials testing comparing the two but if anyone has heard such tests it would be great if you could post a reference or results.
Then there is the question of "cultural inertia." Generally speaking, people/cultures tend to stick with what they have unless a clear superiority of sufficient margin can be shown providing an incentive to change. Since armor was primarily the purview of the wealthy (or in service of the wealthy) then the difference in cost just might not have been a concern. In the end it was only during the renaissance that cheaper armor perhaps became important as army size continued to grow and a money economy returned in force to Western Europe.
I'm not so sure that mail armor cost more than lamellar armor, always if we give credit to Jan Heat. :)
Perhaps it was technically more difficult to lamellar armor?
This, of course, for the ancient blacksmiths.
Ciao
Maurizio
Perhaps it was technically more difficult to lamellar armor?
This, of course, for the ancient blacksmiths.
Ciao
Maurizio
The amount of material and labour involved just to make wire would exceed the cost of lamellar. Only the finest quality bloomery iron can be drawn into wire. The left over rubbish can be used to make scale and lamellar.
Dan,
I think that what you say is more likely. I know a little bit of steel, I agree on your thoughts.
Thank you all for your contributions, I learned a lot.
Ciao
Maurizio
I think that what you say is more likely. I know a little bit of steel, I agree on your thoughts.
Thank you all for your contributions, I learned a lot.
Ciao
Maurizio
| Dan Howard wrote: |
|
There are only four main types of metal armour. Solid plate, mail, segmented plate, and scale/lamellar. IMO the latter two would be the cheapest to produce regardless of what method is used to determine cost. If one had the mass production capacity of the Romans then segmentata would be cheapest. If not, then scale/lamellar would be cheapest. |
This make perfect sense to me.
A frustrating aspect of discussing if Europeans had metal armour over much of Migration era is that many authors consider Merovingians / Carolingians with certainty (based on period mentions of it, funerary casket and some art depictions, etc.) to have possessed metallic body armour of some form. Yet, body armour of any form has rarely been found in these subjects' tombs. I have read authors stating that a few fragments of what appeared to be small fragments of lamellar have been found in Merovingian tombs in France and Germany. But, I have not seen documentary photos even of these alleged fragments. It is really a separate topic, but I have been contemplating the possibility that body armour was considered too precious to bury ritually over a wide region during Migration era. We do know that horse burials and other ritual traditions ceased fairly early in much of Gaul as well. Alan Williams in "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" stated that the armour of this period was recycled. (He did not go out of his way to support it as a theory other than giving corresponding dimensions of lorica segment plates versus some segments of Coopergate helms, and reference to another source finding obvious dissimilar material/ method repair work on maille fragments such as some from Sutton Hoo.)
Similar problems with recycling occur when attempting to find Silla (Korea) dynasty armor of non-royal origin. Lamellar was typical for the period, but it apparently was customary to place the armor ON TOP of the grave site so that anyone who wanted could make use of it. As a result there aren't too many examples. This comes from a single article in an English language newspaper in Korea however so while interesting, I'm not willing to take it as gospel.
Royal burials of course were full of kit if found undisturbed.
Royal burials of course were full of kit if found undisturbed.
Lamellar is a tricky subject because the quality and design can vary wildly. most Chinese armor designs that I've seen in text or pictures have more complicated overlapping designs and often had some metal plates over the top of key areas as well.
From the Song dynasty (around 9th-12th century ) military manuels... it noted th two different forms that they used for standard, I guess this is for the common soldier
light
heavy
horse
And yes, Chinese also seem to have recycled their armors, helps more that they're usually a central government that had a tight check on the army equipments. which is why we can't seem to find any of the stuff that the books and paintings seem so abundant in.
The peak of Chinese lamellar design seem to be depicted in the heavy version, notice the protection for the thigh and chest area have that star shaped design? that seem to be a interlocking design that completely hide away all the lining.
From the Song dynasty (around 9th-12th century ) military manuels... it noted th two different forms that they used for standard, I guess this is for the common soldier
light
heavy
horse
And yes, Chinese also seem to have recycled their armors, helps more that they're usually a central government that had a tight check on the army equipments. which is why we can't seem to find any of the stuff that the books and paintings seem so abundant in.
The peak of Chinese lamellar design seem to be depicted in the heavy version, notice the protection for the thigh and chest area have that star shaped design? that seem to be a interlocking design that completely hide away all the lining.
Perhaps of interest to present discussion?
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/...55161B.pdf
cheers
Dave
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0241/...55161B.pdf
cheers
Dave
Contemporary attempt to make scale:
[ Linked Image ]
A short article of this one (in Czech but with piccies): http://www.livinghistory.cz/node/57. Apparently the shoulders are covered by a 'circle' formed from scale rows.
In action:http://www.oook.cz//events/wothanburg08/4469.html
[ Linked Image ]
A short article of this one (in Czech but with piccies): http://www.livinghistory.cz/node/57. Apparently the shoulders are covered by a 'circle' formed from scale rows.
In action:http://www.oook.cz//events/wothanburg08/4469.html
One (or three) questions i have
the first is have we tried/ found out how lamellar was made in the period it was used , this also goes for scale armour
my two theories are that, small sheets were hammered out from the billet, and the plates cut out of that sheet
secondly, small pieces of iron are hammered into one or two lames at a time
have we found any evidence of half made lamellar? or has anyone tried different methods to see which one makes the most sense historically
also secondly how heavy is lamellar compared to maille or plate armour http://www.wojmir.pl/balyk-sook-001skan.jpg this one, known as the balyk -sook is apparently 16-17 kg
the first is have we tried/ found out how lamellar was made in the period it was used , this also goes for scale armour
my two theories are that, small sheets were hammered out from the billet, and the plates cut out of that sheet
secondly, small pieces of iron are hammered into one or two lames at a time
have we found any evidence of half made lamellar? or has anyone tried different methods to see which one makes the most sense historically
also secondly how heavy is lamellar compared to maille or plate armour http://www.wojmir.pl/balyk-sook-001skan.jpg this one, known as the balyk -sook is apparently 16-17 kg
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum