Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Transition of Maile
#16
(03-01-2016, 09:50 AM)Renatus Wrote: Having looked at several images of the Vacheres warrior from all angles online, it seems clear to me that the only edging visible is that on the shoulder doubling. This tells us nothing about what may have lain under the mail shirt itself and certainly cannot be used as evidence of an integrated liner.
Of course not. You need to look at a lot more examples than just the Vacheres statue. There aren't just depictions of mail edging, there are also depictions of what appears to be armour being worn over regular clothing.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#17
(03-01-2016, 10:33 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: Of course not. You need to look at a lot more examples than just the Vacheres statue. There aren't just depictions of mail edging, there are also depictions of what appears to be armour being worn over regular clothing.

With respect, if you cite an example, that is the one that will be examined and, if appropriate, challenged. If there are better examples, perhaps you should have mentioned them.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#18
(03-01-2016, 10:33 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: There aren't just depictions of mail edging, there are also depictions of what appears to be armour being worn over regular clothing.

Depictions of edging that is not on the shoulder doubler?

Surely any armour would appear to be worn over clothing, unless the subarmalis (or whatever we call it) was longer and showed at the hem, or had pteruges? If it was the same size as the mail hauberk itself, or shorter, it would not necessarily show beneath it.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#19
Quote: There aren't just depictions of mail edging, there are also depictions of what appears to be armour being worn over regular clothing.

So wait, I'm supposed to wear clothes under my armor? I've been doing it wrong this whole time!
Reply
#20
You don't need a dedicated subarmalis. Regular clothing is perfectly serviceable if the armour is lined with light padding.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#21
(03-02-2016, 08:17 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: You don't need a dedicated subarmalis. Regular clothing is perfectly serviceable if the armour is lined with light padding.

Surely the point being made is that the depiction of regular clothing is entirely neutral. It tells us nothing about what may be acting as padding for the armour, be it a subarmalis or an integrated liner.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#22
This is interesting - from Trajan's Column, I think:

[Image: Screenshot_2.png]

Here we see mail with a pretty clear edging strip, worn over another garment which itself has pteruges on the arms and a thick hem of some sort. There looks to be a kind of drawstring arrangement (?) on the right hip as well. The sculptor's taken care to carve this in detail, and it certainly appears to show mail worn over a 'subarmalis'. I don't see how an 'integral liner' could produce this effect.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#23
(03-02-2016, 11:12 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Here we see mail with a pretty clear edging strip

I agree, this looks much more like a leather edge than an integrated liner?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#24
(03-02-2016, 11:01 AM)Renatus Wrote:
(03-02-2016, 08:17 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: You don't need a dedicated subarmalis. Regular clothing is perfectly serviceable if the armour is lined with light padding.

Surely the point being made is that the depiction of regular clothing is entirely neutral. It tells us nothing about what may be acting as padding for the armour, be it a subarmalis or an integrated liner.

Metal armour cannot function correctly without some kind of underpadding. It was used with plate, lamellar, mail, and scale armours. If you see a depiction of armour being donned over a regular tunic then the subject is obviously not wearing a dedicated subarmalis and so must be wearing armour with integrated padding. Integrated padding was standard practice for scale and bronze plate cuirasses. Lamellar and brigandines never had integrated padding. What is in dispute is how common this practice was for mail. We have precedent for both methods (integrated padding and separate underpadding) depending on the culture and time period.


Quote:I agree, this looks much more like a leather edge than an integrated liner?

The leather edging protects the stitching that is used to attach the liner. This edging is also evident on some plate cuirasses that have padded liners. A depiction of leather edging on an illustration of metal armour is a good indicator of some kind of liner.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#25
I do like the images of the Collosus of Barletta, which clearly show that the armour was worn over both a subarmalis and a tunic- https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+co...NO3FwxM%3A
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#26
The third Century Mail excavated at Arbaia Fort in 1997 is complete and was very well preserved, it doesn't have any evidence of integral padding.
Andy Ross

"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there's no difference"
Reply
#27
Quote:The third Century Mail excavated at Arbaia Fort in 1997 is complete and was very well preserved, it doesn't have any evidence of integral padding.

Romans wore mail armour for nearly a thousand years. Sometimes it had a padded liner. Sometimes it didn't. The contention is how prevalent each method was during a particular time.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#28
Greetings from Denmark Smile

Whilst in no way a Classical Historian, as a Medievalist, I agree that mail needed to sit over thick or padded material to work effectively. However, I have strong reservations against lorica hamata having an integral lining, less the shoulder doubling.

From a practical perspective, might I suggest that a hauberk becomes more challenging to don and remove if it has an integral lining. The exception being, of course, those that have a full opening, such at one side or to the front. That, however, weakens the protective qualities of the hauberk and I do not believe matches current research on lorica hamata design. Separate underpadding of some form is also easier to clean and maintain, as is the mail.

Regards,
Reply
#29
Applying a modern mindset to ancient cultures rarely proves fruitful. There are plenty of surviving examples of mail with integrated liners all over the world. In some cultures such as Japan, pretty much all of their mail was lined. Its practicality can't be disputed. The only contention is how common it was for the Romans.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#30
Hi Dan and thank you for your swift response Smile

Can you confirm that you are specifically citing closed hauberks, such as lorica hamata, or do you refer to the use of mail shirts in general? For example, Japanese (Kusari) mail shirts seemingly enjoyed front or side openings, which, as I referred to in my initial post, radically affects the dynamics of putting on or removing the armour.

As an aside, why do you assume that I am applying a modern mindset rather than simply applying the historical method to this matter?

Regards,
Reply


Forum Jump: