Main > The Library

How to put on 12th century armor

<< < (7/11) > >>

Sir Edward:

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.

Chuck G.:

--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2014-07-22, 11:36:09 ---really? can't say i've ever worn padding before.

--- End quote ---
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.

Chuck G.:

--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2014-10-11, 03:13:52 ---theres nothing from rome to the aketons of 13thcish?. no pictures, paintings, finds, lists, descriptions, packings, sculptures, nothing

--- End quote ---

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)

Chuck G.:

--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2014-07-22, 23:39:23 ---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

--- End quote ---

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.

Chuck G.:

--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2014-07-22, 00:49:14 ---nope i'm not. there is no evidence for a gambeson. none.

--- End quote ---

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!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page