| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2005 3:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Not "muscle cuirasses" but leather cuirasses were definitely worn - though possibly not in Europe until the Middle Ages. Villani specifically states that a cuirass made of four layers of leather was considered proof against all weapons of the day.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Jun, 2005 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark A wrote: | | One a few replica sites I have seen formed leather muscled cuirasses and describe it as 'commonly' used by the Greeks and Romans, but I can't find any historic references to this. |
Well, never trust a site that's selling something on historical details! We know leather was used as armor as far back as the Bronze Age, but it's usually impossible to tell what form it took. There is a piece of Roman rawhide lamellar dating to 250 AD, and a Roman reference that says leather armor is no good in wet weather because it gets soggy. So it did exist. But I'm one of those who feel that the muscle cuirass, during the Classical period when it was in common use, was not made of leather but rather hammered from bronze. Things get shakier during the Roman Empire, because the artwork is (or at least MIGHT be) more and more stylized. I still think muscle-style cuirasses worn in battle would be metal, though there are garments or items that are clearly flexible. Travis Clarke's website has the most research and cogent ideas I've yet seen on the subject:
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/
| Quote: | | Some later Auxilaries wore a soft leather tunic over their mail. |
Pure theory. Might be derived from old Victorian theories that practically EVERYTHING on Trajan's Column was leather! (Armor, helmets, shields, tunics, you name it...) Some Roman carvings seem to show a garment worn over armor, but we have no idea if it's leather or fabric. There IS a late Roman description of a padded garment worn UNDER armor, with a covering (or separate garment) of leather worn over the fabric as waterproofing. There are also suggestions in literature that colorful tunics were worn for ceremonial occasions (possibly over armor), and hints of weather covers for armor or helmets on campaign.
| Quote: | | Some replica sites have gone as far as to make harden leather lorica segmenta, saying it 'must' have existed. |
Fantasy, I'm afraid! There are sites all over the Roman world that yield brass lorica fittings still riveted to bits of rusty iron, and others that turn up shoes, tent pieces, shield covers, and other leatherwork, but not a scrap of leather "armor". It's pretty clear that a leather lorica would have to be as heavy as iron and much thicker and bulkier to be anywhere near as protective as iron, and it wouldn't look as shiny and godlike (as we know the Romans liked to look!). (The "must have existed" argument always worries me!)
For more about the lorica segmentata and other types of Roman armor, see my Legio XX site:
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorica.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/squamata.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/hamata.html
There is a small school of thought that the lorica segmentata should be called "lorica laminata". "Lorica" is the Roman word for "armor", but both of the other terms are modern applications. "Segmentata" is pretty entrenched, and isn't likely to be replaced in regular usage. We don't know what the Romans called this type of cuirass!
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...We know leather was used as armor as far back as the Bronze Age, but it's usually impossible to tell what form it took. There is a piece of Roman rawhide lamellar dating to 250 AD, and a Roman reference that says leather armor is no good in wet weather because it gets soggy. So it did exist. But I'm one of those who feel that the muscle cuirass, during the Classical period when it was in common use, was not made of leather but rather hammered from bronze. Things get shakier during the Roman Empire, because the artwork is (or at least MIGHT be) more and more stylized. I still think muscle-style cuirasses worn in battle would be metal, though there are garments or items that are clearly flexible. Travis Clarke's website has the most research and cogent ideas I've yet seen on the subject: |
Beautifully put.  I couldn't agree more.
I have some pictures here of lamellar armour:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...mour_1.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...etan_1.jpg
In addition to being used by the Mongols, Japanese and Chinese, lamellar armour was also widely used in medieval Islamic countries, Eastern Europe and the Byzantine empire. As far as I know, no complete Islamic lamellar armour survives, although fragments of lamellar have been found in Syria and Iraq. Islamic minature paintings, vases and metalwork sometimes have very stylised representations of lamellar armour.
I don't think that there actually is a type of armour called "laminated", although there are many armours that would qualify for and deserve that description, such as the "Lorica Segmentata". Here is another armour that could be called laminated:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...12th_C.jpg
It is from David Nicolles' 'Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, Islam, Eastern Europe and Asia'. He describes it as follows:
| Quote: | "Military equipment, costume and harness, Jazirah, late 12th-13th centuries (private collection)
A- yellow and black stained cuirass consisting of hoops made of stiched layers of hardened leather; B- Exterior of red stained cuirass consisting of hoops made of layers of hardened leather stiched together in a different manner... D- Incomplete cuirass of hardened leather hoops painted with an overall decoration and with an inscription on the raised neck protection (C); E- probable shoulder piece from one of the hardened leather cuirasses.. " |
Another type of armour that could also deserve the name laminated armour are the "mail-and-plate" armours worn in the Middle East, Iran, Russia and India from the late 14th century to the 19th century:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...Armour.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...15th_C.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lamelar scales have been found in viking era scandinavia, as well. Probably imported from the east. (This causes half the north european viking reenactment comunity to wear one, because they are lighter than maile... :/ )
There was one Lamelar found at Visby, as well, probably imported as well.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Lamelar scales have been found in viking era scandinavia, as well. Probably imported from the east. (This causes half the north european viking reenactment comunity to wear one, because they are lighter than maile... :/ )
There was one Lamelar found at Visby, as well, probably imported as well. |
I am one of those who feel it was very likely that the Vikings did use lamellar armour, after all they knew about it, it was available and it was probably cheaper than mail. In addition Norsemen also served as Varangian guardsmen in Constantinople, I think it is possible that some poorer Varangians who couldn't afford mail bought lamellar instead, then took it home with them. Its also possible that Norsemen got hold of lamellar armour as loot when carrying out raids in Russia.
However a fellow member of the myArmoury.com Forums has pointed out to me on another thread, that although Viking era lamellar has been found at Birka in Sweden, there is no evidence that it was actually worn by native Norsemen. I got the distinct impression that this is a rather controversial subject among people interested in Viking armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
My guess is that people would buy/loot them on trading expeditions in the east, but that they where not produced localy. As usual when it comes to the Vikings, we don't know.
But if they where widespread, I would think that you would find more lamels in the archeologic material.
If they where made localy, there would also need to be a reason to stopp using them.
As for the Varangians, the job paid very well indeed. In fact, in the later years you had to buy a position in the guard, due to the pay and benefits....
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | ...But if they where widespread, I would think that you would find more lamels in the archeologic material.
If they where made localy, there would also need to be a reason to stop using them..... |
Good point.
It is a bit of a mystery to me why lamellar armour is hardly ever encountered in Western Europe, when its use was widespread in other places. Even in the Middle-East and Russia, lamellar armour went out of fashion in the 15th century, yet in Japan and Tibet it clung on until the 19th century.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Jun, 2005 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Possibly because mail was superior in performance to lamellar and in Western Europe mail making was an advanced industry - enabling it to be produced more efficiently and cheaply than other parts of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going back to why lamellar disappeared from the Middle-East in the 15th century after being used for over a millennium, I suddenly remembered something last night.
Many years ago I read Mohammed Ibn Iyas' history. Ibn Iyas was a Egyptian historian who lived from from about 1450 AD (i'm not sure exactly when he was born) to about 1522 AD. He wrote a chronicle covering Egypt's history from 1468 AD to 1520 AD, much of which he was an eyewitness to. When he describes mamluks preparing for battle he says "...they put on their berkestewans of velvet and steel...". Which suggests that the berkestewan was some form of brigandine. Persian miniature paintings from the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries show warriors wearing helmets, bazu-band vambraces and mail and plate cuisses but their cuirasses, instead of being mail or lamellar are often brightly coloured fabric with yellow dots on them arranged in patterns, once again possibly brigandines.
Sorry to be so long-winded about this, but this suggests to me that in the Middle-East, lamellar armour was superseded by brigandine.
What I would like to know is, does any know if brigandine offers a higher degree of protection compared to lamellar? Is it easier to manufacture? And is it easier to maintain?
BTW a couple of Iranian miniature paintings depicting what might be brigandine (it could also be a brightly coloured surcoat or a form of kazaghand). The first is dated 1435-40, the second is dated 1610.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I rember, the Viking/visby lamelar is held together by leather straps; A brigandine would be riveted together, making it stronger and requiering less maintaninace. Also, it looks better. 
It could also bee that the larger plates of the CoP was seen as superior to the smaller lamelar plates.
On another note, there are several depictions of continental european foot soldiers,especialy german, wearing scale maile over their hauberks, in the 13th and 14th century.
One example from the Manesse Codex:
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung2/cp...d=PAGE0454
(the helmet is another favorite...Fish with feathers.. nice... )
I have only seen this on foot soldiers, never on kights. This might be due to the knightly habit of wearing a surcoat, but I somehow doubt it.
Could imported scale maile have served as a "poor man's Coat of Plates"?
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hisham Gaballa wrote: | | When he describes mamluks preparing for battle he says "...they put on their berkestewans of velvet and steel...". Which suggests that the berkestewan was some form of brigandine. |
Berkestewan could be referring to the kazaghand - a mail shirt sewn inside a padded garment. It was fairly common in the Middle East.
Elling, please don't call it "scale maile" it is simply "scale arrmour". And "maile" doesn't exist in any language. "Mail" is English "Maille" is French.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Elling, please don't call it "scale maile" it is simply "scale arrmour". And "maile" doesn't exist in any language. "Mail" is English "Maille" is French. |
Proper spelling is historically incorrect.
Thus any term referring to a re-17th century English, or pre 16th hundreds German, item can be spelled in any way you like, as long as it is pronounced roughly the same.
Also, dictionaries do not exist before well into the 19th century. Thus, again, the only way to know what a certain word refers to is to hold said item up into the air and pointing to it, while mouthing the word slooooowly several times while pointing, in a very deliberate fashion to the above mentioned item.
Since none of us where present at the fist such instance of pointing/pronunciation at the protective garment made of interlocking rings, be this in France, England, or Lemuria, we can only guess at what the word was, how it would be put down in letters, and what the term did, and did not encompass.
And, oh, there is only one “r” in armour.
Enough of that.
If stitching mail to the back of/inside a garment was a known practice, could they have done the same with Lamelar, ending up with the Brigandine?
But, again, if they did, and it worked, why did they stop? One would expect to find these garments in museums and collections. The middle east has a much better preserved past than Europe does.
I am under the impression that, in the west, Brigandine was first used in Italy? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Anyhow, Italy has strong trade relations with the east, both by way of its Slavic neighbours, (which where the source of f.e the Schivona), the Byzantines, and the Islamic countries. Either the Brigandine itself, or the lamellar, could have reached them that way.
Just a couple of thoughs.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Proper spelling is historically incorrect. Thus any term referring to a re-17th century English, or pre 16th hundreds German, item can be spelled in any way you like, as long as it is pronounced roughly the same. |
By that logic we can spell anything today any way we like because that is how it was done in the past. There is a perfectly acceptable modern English spelling of mail armour. Why are you using an antequated spelling for that one term and modern English for every other armour term? However my main problem was your use of the term "scale maile". Please don't. It is Victorian nonsense.
http://www.knights.arador.com/materials/chainmailandringmail.pdf
Nicolle reckons that the Europeans learnt how to make brigandines from the East (he seems to think that Europeans were stupid and couldn't invent anything on their own), but it is more likely that the brigandine was developed in Europe. It is fairly clear that it is a descendant of the CoP and Corrazina. Brigandines were also independently developed in Asia. Seeing as though the Middle East traded frequrently with both, it is reasonable to conclude that it was worn there also. What is uncertain is where it came from - East or West. Brigandines have more in common with scale armour than they do with lamellar though. The link between brigs and lamellar is probably no stronger than brigs and scale, or brigs and CoPs.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Jun, 2005 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know that brigandines were used in China up until the 19th century, but I can't remember off the the top of my head when they were first used. I suppose it is possible that they were adopted by the Mongols after their conquest of China and taken westward. The Mongols after all did invade Iran, Iraq and Syria before being defeated by the Mamluks at the battle of Ayn Jalut. they also invaded Russia and Hungary (i'm not too sure about Hungary actually, I would be grateful if someone confirms this) and defeated the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Liegnitz (?) in 1241 (I'm not sure about this either, I'm typing this from work and I don't have my books handy). Since the coat of plates seems to first appear in the 13th century, there is at least remote possibilty that its appearence was as a result of Mongol influence.
With regards to kazaghands, they were used in the Middle-East from the 12th century, David Nicolle refers to Salah-ed-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (AKA "Saladin") wearing a kazaghand. So it is possible that the berkestewan was a kazaghand and the name had changed by the end of the 15th century. However I believe that the outer cover of the kazaghand was usually silk not velvet. Ibn Iyas also refers to an Indian Sultan giving the Mamluk sultan Qansuwah El-Ghuri an live elephant wearing a Berkestewan of velvet and steel as gift!
There is a Mamluk armour in the Museo Stibbert in Florence (pictured in Mayer's Mamluk clothing) which is called a "Brigandine". It is made of strong fabric, covered in velvet and decorated with rivets. However I believe there are no plates on the inside! I'm guessing it may have been some kind of "parade armour".
In India in the late 18th century there was a type of armour called "coats of a thousand nails" which were made of studded velvet, with metal plates over the chest, abdomen and thighs.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Jun, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about anticent chinese body armour, like the ones worn by the Terracotta warriors?
This seems to be reminicent of a CoP with the plates on the outside. The plates on the upper body does not seem to overlap (at least on this picture), whereass the "skirts" seems to be made of overlaping scales, and are fastened/ secured with leather straps on the outside. anybody got real closeups of the armour?
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's an interesting point. I'm home now and I've just had a look in H.R. Robinson's Oriental Armour. The Chinese name for brigandine is ting kia, 'armour with nails'. Robinson believes it may have been invented as early as the 8th century when a form of armour called k'ai i 'armour clothing' first appears. most of the earliest surviving Chinese brigandines however are 18th century, when armour was going out of use and becoming a uniform and little else.
Robinson believed that brigandine was a simplified form of lamellar, I think your idea of it being descended from the armours of the terracotta army is interesting, I can almost see those armours evolving into brigandine!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Jun, 2005 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kazaghands were covered with every type of material imaginable - silk, velvet, cloth of gold, cloth of silver, damask, fustian, etc. Just like brigandines. The Mamluk armour in the Museo Stibbert is what I call "faux brigandine." Brigandines were very fashionable and civilian dress imitated them. They consisted of a garment similar to a real brigandine with rivets on the outside but without the burden of the metal plates underneath. They were never intended as armour. They were common in China and are evident in Europe but more rarely.
A brigandine with the plates on the outside would be defined as "scale" armour. However, the terracotta warriors are wearing lamellar since there is no backing - the plates are laced to each other. Yes the plates do overlap though it isn't evident except close up. The armour has nothing in common with a CoP or brigandine. Those "dots" are not rivets but small patches of lamellar lacing. The holes in the plates are close together - the lacing goes out one hole and back in the other so only a very small part of the lacing is exposed. The lacing on the torso and the skirt and the shoulders is all the same - just different lengths are visible on the outside. As I said, the link between brigs and lamellar is probably no stronger than brigs and scale, or brigs and CoPs.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Jun, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Kazaghands were covered with every type of material imaginable - silk, velvet, cloth of gold, cloth of silver, damask, fustian, etc. Just like brigandines. The Mamluk armour in the Museo Stibbert is what I call "faux brigandine." Brigandines were very fashionable and civilian dress imitated them. They consisted of a garment similar to a real brigandine with rivets on the outside but without the burden of the metal plates underneath. They were never intended as armour. They were common in China and are evident in Europe but more rarely.
A brigandine with the plates on the outside would be defined as "scale" armour. However, the terracotta warriors are wearing lamellar since there is no backing - the plates are laced to each other. Yes the plates do overlap though it isn't evident except close up. The armour has nothing in common with a CoP or brigandine. Those "dots" are not rivets but small patches of lamellar lacing. The holes in the plates are close together - the lacing goes out one hole and back in the other so only a very small part of the lacing is exposed. The lacing on the torso and the skirt and the shoulders is all the same - just different lengths are visible on the outside. As I said, the link between brigs and lamellar is probably no stronger than brigs and scale, or brigs and CoPs. |
Interesting, I would never have guessed that the "terracotta" armours were Lamellar.
I like the term faux brigandine too, it sounds better than "parade brigandine".  I had a quick look in H.R. Robinson's Oriental Armour to see how he classed Indian chihal'ta hazar masha, "coats of a thousand nails". I thought the description faux lamellar could also be applied to them, as they also are made up of layers of fabric, covered with velvet and decorated with studs. Robinson however simply classes them as fabric armour.
I thought I should have a picture of a "coat of a thousand nails" here as well (Courtesy of Dorling Kindersley ):
I think the only type of armour that hasn't been discussed in this thread yet are Islamic "mail-and-plate" armours. I'll leave that for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Jun, 2005 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Allan Senefelder wrote: | | Nate the African knight to which you refer is from the Sudan . The Sudanese also used maille and maille and plate armours as well as axes of somewhat European form and a type of sword called a kaskara which looks somewhat like a bit of a stylised European medieval sword . Some of these were made from European blades ( a few as old as the middle ages) and some of the nicer ones are quit attractive. Several Northern African countries used equipment like this until almost the end of the 19th century and the "belief" is that this sort of equipment was adopted due to exposure to crusaders moving through the area. |
Early Arab and Islamic swords were usually straight. Curved sabres were introduced to the Islamic world by the Turks in the 11th century, although small numbers of sabres had been imported before then. Sabres become the dominant style of Islamic sword during the 14th century. The mamluks continued to use straight swords for ceremonial purposes until the end of the Mamluk sultanate in 1517. The Arabs, being more conservative used straight swords for a lot longer. Sudanese Arabs continued to use the straight type right until the early 20th century. At the battle of Om-Durman in 1899 Arab Sudanese 'knights' wearing quilted armours or mail hauberks and armed with swords and lances fought British troops armed with machine guns and modern rifles. I think you can guess the result.
Going back to the oringinal thread , quilted armours, similar to European gambesons were widely used in the Sudan and sub-saharan Africa from very early times right till the early 20th century. Some examples of these at the Royal Armouries are brightly coloured. The Sudanse also used mail, but a lot of it was old Mamluk and Ottoman mail which had been passed down from generation to generation. In addition to their own helmets, they also used Ottoman and Mamluk helmets which some times were heavily modified:
Check out the helmet posted by B.I. in post number 9 here:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?...ght=helmet
A picture of a kaskara
A very early Islamic sword:
And an Islamic "Crusade-era" sword:
I wish I also had a picture of Sudanese quilted armour, so I can get back to the topic, but I can't find one at the moment. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a