ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Library => Topic started by: Lord Dane on 2014-07-19, 21:35:11
-
Saw this pictorial demonstrating steps to putting on 12th century Crusader/Templar armor. Thought it interesting for posting.
-
Looks remarkably comfy.
-
Ugh...Step Four. How I hate Step Four......
-
only issue is step 5. is there enough evidence that it actually existed.
-
only issue is step 5. is there enough evidence that it actually existed.
Mail would be terrible without padding in full force combat. :(
-
I think he's mentioning the front lacing gambeseon.
-
Ugh...Step Four. How I hate Step Four......
Don't we all. ;)
-
nope i'm not. there is no evidence for a gambeson. none.
-
nope i'm not. there is no evidence for a gambeson. none.
Had to be padding underneath maille. No way you would wear it without.
-
really? can't say i've ever worn padding before.
-
really? can't say i've ever worn padding before.
Isn't this true for Viking era as well?
-
Even early eastern armor had some form of linen layered between or underneath. Lamellar would be interwoven with fabric. I would imagine when western armor started it involved layers of cloth, linen, leather, or some combination prior to maille , scales, or plate pieces being common place or standard.
-
I always assumed the striped sleeves peeking out from the mufflers on some effigies was a quilted/padded garment. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
(http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/jean_de_candoire_s115_r2227_large.jpg)
-
really? can't say i've ever worn padding before.
Isn't this true for Viking era as well?
I was under the impression Vikings layered several tunics beneath their maille and they didn't start using aketons until they came in contact with the Rus (who got them from the khazars).
-
I always assumed the striped sleeves peeking out from the mufflers on some effigies was a quilted/padded garment. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
That effigy is mid to late 13th century.
-
I wear padding, but that is because I'm unused to bearing the weight; I've no doubt that if I wore it regularly, it wouldn't be as onerous.
-
I always assumed the striped sleeves peeking out from the mufflers on some effigies was a quilted/padded garment. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
That effigy is mid to late 13th century.
Ah, right. We're talking the 1100s here. Got confused, sorry. :-[
These guys are late 12th century. While it looks to me that they have the same striped sleeves, it's not quite as clear and compelling as the later effigies. I'm not quite as convinced on these ones, but...maybe?
(http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/henri_i_of_eu_s115_r2213_large.jpg) (http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/jean_of_eu_s115_r2214_large.jpg)
-
The armoring sequence also depicts the second half of the 13th century, not the 12th, if it's showing a great helm.
-
The armoring sequence also depicts the second half of the 13th century, not the 12th, if it's showing a great helm.
12th century would be showing nasal style helms. Although this manuscript claims to be dated to the year 1200 and shows full head coverage, but it's the exception not the rule if that date is even correct:
(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1004-1_gallery.jpg)
However, early great helms pop up in the early 13th century from multiple regions and sources, not necessarily just the second half.
I have no idea when the first evidence for a padded or quilted underlayer for maille appears though.
-
What about early pot helmets or barrel styles??
Still looking for something more accurate or closer to 12th century but I found this effigy dated 1217.
-
What about early pot helmets or barrel styles??
Aside from that one outlier, they start to pop up in art around 1215ish...
1215 Italian Fresco:
(http://armourinart.com/media/cache/armourinart.com/original/171_large.jpg)
1225 Switzerland:
(http://armourinart.com/media/cache/armourinart.com/original/525_large.jpg)
~1215-1240 France:
(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/551-3_gallery.jpg)
1225-1229 Germany:
(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/367-2_gallery.jpg)
1230 France:
(http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/152-5_gallery.jpg)
1217 England:
(http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/william_de_lanvalei_s82_r1446_medium.jpg)
1240 England:
(http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/wells_cathedral_knight_f_s359_r5664_medium.jpg)
-
However, early great helms pop up in the early 13th century from multiple regions and sources, not necessarily just the second half.
True, what I should have said was that later style great-helms appear in the second half of the 13th. The one in the armoring sequence looks like a later, barrel-shaped great helm to me, rather than the high-backed, or faceplate styles that you tend to see in the first half of the century.
-
Baeyeaux Tapestry shos something, and I know that the Romans used padding in their Hamata.
-
tapestry shows a later date of people who got bored sewing . multiple versions of mail. even the bishop odo
Romans, now Romans at least knew of something. a Subarmalis. found in one writing. nothing physical in drawings, paintings, finds, lists/rosters etc
i can not remember the quote, but during the crusades the western crusaders were bewildered about the Mediterraneans having coats of layers.
so WESTERN Europe. i do believe up until the maybe late 12thc early 13thc had nothing more than woolen tunics. felted maybe. maybe thick wool maybe. but theres no evidence to show any thing else. i know in the absence of evidence blah blah, save that thought for the hitler channel or syfy lol
-
From a practical stand point, mail without padding is not good protection against swords; you won't get cut, but bones will break like candy. And broken rings driven into flesh, from not having padding, would be an unpleasant experience (if not death from infection).
I have no problem wearing mail over a t-shirt to walk around or piddle. But for combat? No way. I'm also a soft 21st century guy, so, who knows. :)
-
That is a neat little pciture. Well, the gambeson we see in the 13th century must have derived from something. I don't think the idea just popped out of no where and the use of it spread throughout Europe instantly. There must have been something existing before. That's just my opinion.
-
Baeyeaux Tapestry shos something, and I know that the Romans used padding in their Hamata.
Yes I also noticed that. Perhaps just a shirt.
Perhaps The possibility of just somewhat thick shirts before late 12th century and as time went on it began to evolve more and more, to what we know now, the fact that it was used and differentiated as the middle ages went on.
However, early great helms pop up in the early 13th century from multiple regions and sources, not necessarily just the second half.
True, what I should have said was that later style great-helms appear in the second half of the 13th. The one in the armoring sequence looks like a later, barrel-shaped great helm to me, rather than the high-backed, or faceplate styles that you tend to see in the first half of the century.
Those Helms look like topfhelms, so Faceplate/ Highback styles, but those were a lot less protection than the helmets we begin seeing in the mid to late 13th century. I think Faceplate style started in the late 12th, although it definitely was not the Norm of helmets to have back then.
the picture should be called 13th century. Since evidence of gambesons closer to that exists more, and the type of helmet we see in the sequence.
From a practical stand point, mail without padding is not good protection against swords; you won't get cut, but bones will break like candy. And broken rings driven into flesh, from not having padding, would be an unpleasant experience (if not death from infection).
I have no problem wearing mail over a t-shirt to walk around or piddle. But for combat? No way. I'm also a soft 21st century guy, so, who knows. :)
Well Even though mail and padding seem to go hand and hand, It is quite possible that just a thicker shirt was worn. Since people still used shields as their main defense, the mail was only there to help against cuts. Because even if you have thick padding, If someone hits you with a mace or sword, It is Going To hurt Very bad.
(since we know due to the start plate smaller shields were being used by late 13th, but padding was still essential)
Look at this image that dates to 13th century. Their are no shields Perhaps because as armor got better(during this era would be mail and helmets, then plate.. but that was later) there would have to be a reason none of these men are using shields(perhaps because of thicker padding, or maybe it was a test of skill.) I also remember reading that there may have been a type of mail for jousting that was extra thick.
But what this image would show is that armor was protective enough that the combatants would be willing to not use shields. Where as in earlier century's the shield was the most important protection. more padding and better armor could have been adapted as people needed to be better protected if they lost a shield in combat. but in earlier century's armor protection was less adapted.
I guess what I make of it is that padding evolved just as armor did. Weather or not this is already a known fact, I do not know.
-
But what this image would show is that armor was protective enough that the combatants would be willing to not use shields.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Without viewing this (or any other) medieval illustration within the context of the text, it's impossible to say much about what's depicted therein.
I will add that this particular picture is also famous for it's illustration of knights grappled with each other to remove their enemies' helm. This alone does not mean that such tactics were common. It is not until you combine this with other sources across space and time that the truth of the picture comes into focus.
Scott
-
theres nothing from rome to the aketons of 13thcish?. no pictures, paintings, finds, lists, descriptions, packings, sculptures, nothing
-
But what this image would show is that armor was protective enough that the combatants would be willing to not use shields.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Without viewing this (or any other) medieval illustration within the context of the text, it's impossible to say much about what's depicted therein.
I will add that this particular picture is also famous for it's illustration of knights grappled with each other to remove their enemies' helm. This alone does not mean that such tactics were common. It is not until you combine this with other sources across space and time that the truth of the picture comes into focus.
Scott
I will do so Scott.
-
Yes, analyzing historical imagery can be quite tricky. Often, what's shown in the image is meant to convey information that's implied or symbolic, as well as what's shown exactly.
For example, often when a character is depicted with a mace, it's to symbolize that the person is important (as maces were a symbol of power or strength). It doesn't indicate how many people actually used maces.
-
really? can't say i've ever worn padding before.
Not really a relevant statement – I think I am 100% safe in stating that you’ve never been in a real mediaeval battle before either… Seriously, have you really had someone try to run you through with an actual battle worthy (as opposed to blunted reenactment) spear, or try to cleave you from shoulder to navel with a razor sharp Dane axe? Of course not, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Given that fact, your statement is meaningless. Sure, if all you are doing is wandering around a Renaissance Faire then, yes, even a tee-shirt will suffice. To prevent debilitating or even lethal injury then some sort of “padding” (we’ll define that term more fully in a bit) is an absolute necessity.
And if you really don’t believe that “padding” as such is necessary, I can suggest a test: I have an Albion Valkyria, an Arms & Armor Viking spear, and hopefully in the near future a Dane axe from Eric McHugh. If you wish to show that there is no need for padding, simply don thy mail and let me use you as a pell with the above – if you are right, then you have some serious bragging rights in that you will have largely settled the issue.
Alas, though, if you are wrong you will, at best, be in some serious bloody awful discomfort… and in all honesty likely severely injured, or even dead.
-
theres nothing from rome to the aketons of 13thcish?. no pictures, paintings, finds, lists, descriptions, packings, sculptures, nothing
This is not a fair assertion. The Vikings, for example, did not make “pictures, paintings… lists, descriptions, packings(?-not at all sure what this refers to), sculptures” in the first place. They made very crude, highly stylized art, and rune stones. The latter do not typically have detailed inventories, let alone descriptions. There is a reason it is called the Dark Ages! As for finds, do remember that textiles rot and are very rarely found – I estimate very, very loosely a survival rate of perhaps ~.005% or even much worse, based on some very rough estimates of population in Scandinavia at the time, likely number of garments an individual had over that lifetime, and how many fragments we have found (note that this number is a S.W.A.G. and wonts for refinement, but I think is in the ballpark at least). Further, this applies only to everyday things, as opposed to a hypothesized specialty garment meant to be used by the elite of a rather small warrior class, which is a much, much smaller number than tunics, cloaks, trousers, etc., etc., etc.
Keep in mind that we barely have find evidence for mail during the entire period from c. 800-1300 A.D.!!! For that entire FIVE CENTURY span of time we have exactly four finds that I am aware of (Gjermundbu, Kungslena, Lund, and Birka, and the latter two are small fragments only). That is an INSANELY low survival rate. Helmets are almost as bad; for the Viking Age I can think of only two off hand (Gjermundbu and Tjele), though starting in the late 10th and going into the 11th century we do have several conical helmets. But after that there is another gap, with many proto-great helms, sugerloafs, etc., existing only in art, but not a single find up until the Dargen helm (last half of the 13th century). Heck, even Roman equipment, though there are many more finds, is still a tiny fraction of a percent of the hundreds of thousands that easily once existed.
For that matter, what actual finds of aketons, etc. do we have from the 13th century onwards, when most folks don’t argue against their existence? Do we even have one example? (I’m asking the question seriously – offhand I don’t know that we do).
Based on the above observations, is it really all that rational to assume that, if say a million aketons existed, even a single one may have survived? Or if some have, they have been found? Or, having been found in a highly fragmentary state, recognized for what they are? I don’t believe that at all, and nor should anyone who can understand basic math and statistics.
And even if paintings were made, remember that any sort of aketon is usually worn under the mail, and would not be depicted in the first place! In any case, the period artwork tends to be very abstract and relatively crude, and is nowhere near the same level of fidelity to life or detail of, say, a 15th century van Eyck masterpiece, and it is disingenuous to even remotely compare the two. Put another way, if the Vikings had done paintings in this style, then we likely would see this sort of detail. But they never did; indeed, they never came even close.
Finally, I have yet to see a runestone with an inventory of anything, let alone a detailed arsenal inventory… Documents of any kind from the period are very scarce, let alone arsenal inventories, to put it mildly. Though there may be some Saga references - having said that, though, I don’t recall off hand what might be out there from this source.
The point I am making is if the categories of evidence do not really exist (whether due to negligible survival rates, lack of detail quality, or something that would never have been created – I’m thinking arsenal inventories here) then it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assert that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Note and note well: this does not prove that aketons or whatever DID exist, but it DOES mean that you simply cannot assert that they DID NOT, at least not based on that observation alone, and certainly not with anything faintly resembling finality. Unless, of course, you’ve got a Time Machine tucked away somewhere that you have not disclosed...
(P.S. As an aside, it might be worthwhile endeavor to bring together all known references to padding, whether artifact, artwork, literary, or even modern experimentation, and assemble them in one place. I also need to refine my estimates for the survival rates of both clothing and Roman war gear – I have run across some figures for the latter that would be useful for comparison purposes)
-
tapestry shows a later date of people who got bored sewing . multiple versions of mail. even the bishop odo
Romans, now Romans at least knew of something. a Subarmalis. found in one writing. nothing physical in drawings, paintings, finds, lists/rosters etc
i can not remember the quote, but during the crusades the western crusaders were bewildered about the Mediterraneans having coats of layers.
so WESTERN Europe. i do believe up until the maybe late 12thc early 13thc had nothing more than woolen tunics. felted maybe. maybe thick wool maybe. but theres no evidence to show any thing else. i know in the absence of evidence blah blah, save that thought for the hitler channel or syfy lol
Actually the Legio XX online handbook states that there are “several” literary references, and a 4th century description, which uses the term thoracomachus, says it is made of thick cloth, covered with leather (or with a separate leather garment over it) for waterproofing. Omitted from this webpage is the tiny fragment, reasonably though not with absolute certainty in my mind interpreted as the remnant of an aketon, from Dura Europos (found with a mostly complete mail hauberk and the remains of the person who wore it and dated firmly by numismatics to 256-7 A.D.). I do seem to remember some sort of artwork depiction, as well, though the specifics elude me.
I would be curious about the Crusader’s quote.
As for the rest, see the next and last post.
-
nope i'm not. there is no evidence for a gambeson. none.
Yes, there is indirect proof for existence, but before proceeding further, we should discuss terminology. When I say “aketon” or “padding” I am very generally and broadly referring to something specifically worn under mail to prevent blunt trauma type injury. It need not be quilted, however, or be incredibly thick, but it will be somewhat thick and substantial to be of value. There is room for debate as to what qualifies – a plain, normal tunic, though, emphatically does not. Note that this may not be too far off from Sir Wolf, as he states that they, “…had nothing more than woolen tunics. felted maybe. maybe thick wool maybe. but theres [sic] no evidence to show any thing else.” I just want to avoid talking past each other over semantics.
My position is this: I do not believe that mail, by itself, is effective, and that it must be combined with some sort of padding to absorb shock to allow it maximum efficiency in preventing injury from attack. I base this on scientific, controlled testing Alan Williams performed for his book “Knight and the Blast Furnace”. The appendices have considerable information regarding performance testing done on samples of armour, including a 15th century piece of mail. Upshot was that a quilted jack accounted for just a bit less than 50% of the effectiveness of the mail. Now, for a variety of reasons, I do not consider this enough to absolutely seal the case. There is room for criticism of the testing, mostly from the standpoint of completeness and asking the right questions. Nevertheless, a very clear case can be made for the difference made by padding. Without it, a strong case can be made that a square hit WILL compromise the mail, and translate into disabling or even fatal injury to the wearer. However, *with* padding, that blow can be effectively stopped. Assuming that there is no serious flaw in the testing, then it really is a no brainer – padding almost certainly HAD to be worn, or else the armor does not offer sufficient protection relative to its weight to be worth the expense and loss of mobility to wear. Note that this is not some sort of “manly man” thing – it really is a binary “works/doesn’t work” type of situation.
As an aside, I do tend to think that this was some sort of dedicated specially tailored, specific purpose type of garment, and not merely “a heavy shirt”, if only to prevent slowing a warrior’s movements. But going beyond that I do think that to be effective, such a garment might well be pretty heavy duty. Remember, it is not just to prevent death, but to help prevent any injury serious enough to take the warrior out of the fight. And it is possible to stop pretty much all period threats with mail and sufficient padding backing it. But you have to have sufficient padding to do so…
And do not think that the Vikings and other cultures of this period lacked the sophistication to conceive and construct such a garment! The complex construction of the Gjermundbu helmet and mail, to say nothing of their swords and shipbuilding, dispel outright any suggestion in that direction.
Ultimately I put my faith in the immutable laws of physics. If someone can disprove or otherwise give cause to seriously doubt the testing (and there is some room to challenge here, as noted, but do keep in mind that Alan Williams is one of the foremost researchers in the world on this subject; if you are going to challenge him, you’d better bring your “A-Game”), then fine, I will change my views. I am hardly a fanatic about it. But until then the currently available (indirect) evidence clearly shows that padding was necessary. Arguments that it did not exist because no direct evidence has been found are irrelevant, given (1) the miniscule chances of survival for textiles from the period, (2) limited numbers of this type of garment due to being part of the panoply of the tiny number of elite warriors, (3) scarce, limited and crude artwork of the period, and (4) lack of much of any kind of period documents, outside of religious texts.
Whew! And this isn't even going into detail on some of the statistical analysis that needs more detail! As one can see, this is a big subject!
-
^ Never looked at it that way
But what this image would show is that armor was protective enough that the combatants would be willing to not use shields.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Without viewing this (or any other) medieval illustration within the context of the text, it's impossible to say much about what's depicted therein.
I will add that this particular picture is also famous for it's illustration of knights grappled with each other to remove their enemies' helm. This alone does not mean that such tactics were common. It is not until you combine this with other sources across space and time that the truth of the picture comes into focus.
Scott
I will do so Scott.
I found nothing Scott.
-
I think Sir Wolf has a new admirer!
-
I think Sir Wolf has a new admirer!
Second that. He gets an A in effort just for the time to write all that.
-
Looks like someone studied something more than amateur armchair history. I applaud you sir on your demonstrated abilities in research, analysis, and most importantly, historical interpretation.
-
your conclusions are riddled with fallacies. sorry but constant stuff makes me glaze over and i dont read all of it. you shot yourself in the foot by commenting that cause cause i wasn't in real medieval combat... then said they had it in rome so musta been used later. derppppppp wrong lol
-
Seriously, have you really had someone try to run you through with an actual battle worthy (as opposed to blunted reenactment) spear, or try to cleave you from shoulder to navel with a razor sharp Dane axe?
see hahaha actually yes. we've done lots of tests and guess what, the padding wouldn't have made a hill of beans. wanna know why? cause the spear head went right thru the riveted mail on all accounts. over and over and over.
ever shot a 25 layer jack with a longbow to test it? i have didn't go thru that. now the arrow went thru a lesser one and hit the mail under it. boy that was fun day.
ever seen a lip cut open from infantry vs horseman testing? ehhehe he spit his chewing tobacco thru the hole hehehe fun day of testing.
don't make assumptions that you can't back up with facts. it makes for bad history and aliens on tv. now discoveries are made every day that are jaw dropping and inspiring. i will wait for the professionals to tell me and not the internet.
-
But until then the currently available (indirect) evidence clearly shows that padding was necessary.
I'll nitpick this a little bit, and say padding wasn't and isn't NECESSARY, but it certainly is BENEFICIAL.
Every test I've seen where attempting to pierce mail and/or padding underneath is done over a solid surface, like a wooden pell. I'd like to see one over a ballistics gel torso, or something that has the same "give" as a human body being struck. I'd bet the penetration and break rates are lower when the target has movement to it, rather than a fixed solid backing.
In my opinion, the tests we've seen against those solid-backed targets are more indicative of what might happen if you got shot / thrusted when you had your back solid against a solid object (like a wall), and not a battlefield attack.
-
Every test I've seen where attempting to pierce mail and/or padding underneath is done over a solid surface, like a wooden pell. I'd like to see one over a ballistics gel torso, or something that has the same "give" as a human body being struck. I'd bet the penetration and break rates are lower when the target has movement to it, rather than a fixed solid backing.
In my opinion, the tests we've seen against those solid-backed targets are more indicative of what might happen if you got shot / thrusted when you had your back solid against a solid object (like a wall), and not a battlefield attack.
This is a very important point. Part of the reason mail armor works as well as it does, is because it's a machine with moving parts. The links pull in around the "puckering" caused by a thrust, using more of them to spread the impact. But to do so, the material underneath has to be soft. Padding will help. A person underneath can provide this as well. The damage to the armor will always be greater when it can't move.
But having said that, you can put considerable force behind a spear, and mail with or without padding may be insufficient protection.
-
Every test I've seen where attempting to pierce mail and/or padding underneath is done over a solid surface, like a wooden pell. I'd like to see one over a ballistics gel torso, or something that has the same "give" as a human body being struck. I'd bet the penetration and break rates are lower when the target has movement to it, rather than a fixed solid backing.
In my opinion, the tests we've seen against those solid-backed targets are more indicative of what might happen if you got shot / thrusted when you had your back solid against a solid object (like a wall), and not a battlefield attack.
This is a very important point. Part of the reason mail armor works as well as it does, is because it's a machine with moving parts. The links pull in around the "puckering" caused by a thrust, using more of them to spread the impact. But to do so, the material underneath has to be soft. Padding will help. A person underneath can provide this as well. The damage to the armor will always be greater when it can't move.
But having said that, you can put considerable force behind a spear, and mail with or without padding may be insufficient protection.
All very true, but mail isn't designed for impact warfare. It's for cuts and slashes. That's why plate armor came about. That being said, getting a whack is inevitable. The padding just acts as a layer to absorb some of the shock. It also acts as a second defense against the little point that makes it through, like that of an arrow or sword tip. do you think it's possible padding was made with boiled wool to help create a greater defense?
-
Any armor can be compromised, there was no such thing as a fully proofed harness. Since we are talking about personal belief:
My position is this: I do not believe that mail, by itself, is effective, and that it must be combined with some sort of padding to absorb shock to allow it maximum efficiency in preventing injury from attack. I base this on scientific, controlled testing Alan Williams performed for his book “Knight and the Blast Furnace”.
...it is my belief that armor was largely psychological in aspect. That is, it made the wearer more capable in a fight (or rather, that he/she believed this to be the case) and (the hope anyway) it intimidated the opponent. There are countless examples where armor did not keep its wearer from being killed. It isn't perfect- much depended on the wearer being good enough to avoid a killing blow, the armor serves to bolster that ability. That is my belief.
-
Every test I've seen where attempting to pierce mail and/or padding underneath is done over a solid surface, like a wooden pell. I'd like to see one over a ballistics gel torso, or something that has the same "give" as a human body being struck. I'd bet the penetration and break rates are lower when the target has movement to it, rather than a fixed solid backing.
In my opinion, the tests we've seen against those solid-backed targets are more indicative of what might happen if you got shot / thrusted when you had your back solid against a solid object (like a wall), and not a battlefield attack.
This is a very important point. Part of the reason mail armor works as well as it does, is because it's a machine with moving parts. The links pull in around the "puckering" caused by a thrust, using more of them to spread the impact. But to do so, the material underneath has to be soft. Padding will help. A person underneath can provide this as well. The damage to the armor will always be greater when it can't move.
But having said that, you can put considerable force behind a spear, and mail with or without padding may be insufficient protection.
do you think it's possible padding was made with boiled wool to help create a greater defense?
That is causing me to do some light research on it, when it existed, and how it was used. Since wool was One of the abundant materials of the middle ages, perhaps it would be possible. (Although modern padding, is mostly linen(Im not sure how historical that is)) It would really change a lot testing wise if the testers used boiled wool surcoats(also note the wool would already have to be knitted so it becomes even tighter, or from what I can gather so far)
Any armor can be compromised, there was no such thing as a fully proofed harness. Since we are talking about personal belief:
My position is this: I do not believe that mail, by itself, is effective, and that it must be combined with some sort of padding to absorb shock to allow it maximum efficiency in preventing injury from attack. I base this on scientific, controlled testing Alan Williams performed for his book “Knight and the Blast Furnace”.
...it is my belief that armor was largely psychological in aspect. That is, it made the wearer more capable in a fight (or rather, that he/she believed this to be the case) and (the hope anyway) it intimidated the opponent. There are countless examples where armor did not keep its wearer from being killed. It isn't perfect- much depended on the wearer being good enough to avoid a killing blow, the armor serves to bolster that ability. That is my belief.
I can agree with this, It also creates things the knight or wealthy foot soldier would just not have to worry about.
-
Seriously, have you really had someone try to run you through with an actual battle worthy (as opposed to blunted reenactment) spear, or try to cleave you from shoulder to navel with a razor sharp Dane axe?
see hahaha actually yes. we've done lots of tests and guess what, the padding wouldn't have made a hill of beans. wanna know why? cause the spear head went right thru the riveted mail on all accounts. over and over and over.
ever shot a 25 layer jack with a longbow to test it? i have didn't go thru that. now the arrow went thru a lesser one and hit the mail under it. boy that was fun day.
ever seen a lip cut open from infantry vs horseman testing? ehhehe he spit his chewing tobacco thru the hole hehehe fun day of testing.
don't make assumptions that you can't back up with facts. it makes for bad history and aliens on tv. now discoveries are made every day that are jaw dropping and inspiring. i will wait for the professionals to tell me and not the internet.
I have offered scientific facts, nothing more. Apparently you think Alan Williams, one of the preeminent authorities on arms & armour on the entire planet and indeed, a "professional" is incorrect. Fine, by all means prove that it is so. Obviously you have a vast corpus of rigorously documented scientific data that completely disproves him. That is excellent! Publish it and settle this matter once and for all!
-
your conclusions are riddled with fallacies. sorry but constant stuff makes me glaze over and i dont read all of it. you shot yourself in the foot by commenting that cause cause i wasn't in real medieval combat... then said they had it in rome so musta been used later. derppppppp wrong lol
Prove even one "fallacy." Note that I firmly believe it to be possible that there is something wrong - I did point out concerns about Williams' testing. But you plainly have never been in a real mediaeval fight. You may be a veteran of a modern battlefield - I'd not be surprised if you'd seen action in the Sandbox, for example. But that gives little insight into the value of mail in combat.
-
Seriously, have you really had someone try to run you through with an actual battle worthy (as opposed to blunted reenactment) spear, or try to cleave you from shoulder to navel with a razor sharp Dane axe?
see hahaha actually yes. we've done lots of tests and guess what, the padding wouldn't have made a hill of beans. wanna know why? cause the spear head went right thru the riveted mail on all accounts. over and over and over.
ever shot a 25 layer jack with a longbow to test it? i have didn't go thru that. now the arrow went thru a lesser one and hit the mail under it. boy that was fun day.
ever seen a lip cut open from infantry vs horseman testing? ehhehe he spit his chewing tobacco thru the hole hehehe fun day of testing.
don't make assumptions that you can't back up with facts. it makes for bad history and aliens on tv. now discoveries are made every day that are jaw dropping and inspiring. i will wait for the professionals to tell me and not the internet.
Split lips do not equal split heads. Certainly SCA style combat results in injuries. It seldom results in deaths, and is not the same thing as a real mediaeval battle (though, in fairness, as close as you can get without being thrown in jail...). Nor are "tests" the same thing as actual combat, so my assertion that you have not been in real mediaeval combat is still perfectly correct. Yes, you may be a real war hero on the modern battlefield (as far as I'm concerned, pretty much anyone who deployed over there is a hero) and have taken fire, but that has very little if any bearing on this particular discussion point.
-
oh good grief
-
your conclusions are riddled with fallacies. sorry but constant stuff makes me glaze over and i dont read all of it. you shot yourself in the foot by commenting that cause cause i wasn't in real medieval combat... then said they had it in rome so musta been used later. derppppppp wrong lol
But you plainly have never been in a real mediaeval fight.
I'm not sure anyone participating in this conversation has been. :)
-
your conclusions are riddled with fallacies. sorry but constant stuff makes me glaze over and i dont read all of it. you shot yourself in the foot by commenting that cause cause i wasn't in real medieval combat... then said they had it in rome so musta been used later. derppppppp wrong lol
But you plainly have never been in a real mediaeval fight.
I'm not sure anyone participating in this conversation has been. :)
-
LOL @ Aiden
Right.