Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Matthew Amt]

We're dancing around the subject of leather armor because several folks seemed to state categorically that there was no leather armor anywhere, anytime. Now we've shifted to, yes, there was leather armor but only for show and only for upper class. Or only somewhere else.

It's true that I was very anti-leather armor in general for a long time. The recent debate about the Greek spolas converted me on that score, at least. BUT I am still a stickler for evidence! And sometimes I think we do sound too much like "There wasn't any" when it should come across more like, "There is no evidence for it so we really should not speculate further on how common it was or what it looked like."

I really don't know, but the issue seems less clear than some of the absolute statements would lead one to believe.

Oh, yes! Good research always questions the answers rather than answering the questions, ha!

Back to sub-Roman British cavalry. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a man wealthy enough to own a horse (or two) suitable for combat would also have a decent kit of combat gear? Perhaps including something to protect his chest and back?

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, offhand. BUT you might find illustrations from more or less that era, showing *unarmored* horsemen in battle. So either they are wealthy enough to own the horses but not armor, or they can afford it but haven't bothered with it, or they are retainers who were "issued" the horses but not armor, etc. So the evidence doesn't really answer the question.

Most sources agree that mail would have been hugely expensive during this period. So, tell me what's the logical--preferably supported by some sort of sources--next step below metal armor?

The sources that I have seen--Late Roman and early medieval illustrations--show combatants either in armor (mail or scale), or in just their tunics. That's how it is for hundreds of years, in different parts of Europe. So it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to apply it to Post-Roman Britain. Certainly mail was expensive enough to reserve it for the upper class--I'm not sure I'd say "hugely" expensive, unless it's agreed that the upper class tended to be hugely rich! But compared to today there wasn't really much of a "middle class" (I'm thinking the retainers of the nobility, merchants, some well-off craftsmen), most of the population being on the "low" end of the economic scale. So there wasn't much need for "middle-class" armor.

Osprey's book cover and Plate C. of Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars (sorry, Robert, I didn't name the book) shows a supposed North British cavalryman wearing what looks like scale armor. They (assumedly Angus McBride, since he did the illustrations) identify his helmet as Romano-Byzantine 5 c. from an example in the Coptic Museum in Cairo (p. 35), but say nothing about the armor. Lorica squamata was well attested to in the Roman period, but may not have been available in sub-Roman Britain. What was?

Well, like leather armor, there aren't any finds of scale from Britain for that period, but then there aren't finds of darn much anything! There are certainly enough depictions of scale armor from a few centuries before and after that I think it's safe to conclude that it was used, though mail seems to have been more common. So the McBride painting could have been inspired by any number of depictions of nobles or heroes in scale armor.

Incidentally, scale armor does not have to be metal. In other places and times it could be made of horn or even (Ta-daaa!) rawhide. So there's your "leather armor". BUT it still isn't for commoners--only leader-types are shown wearing scale armor (until you get up into the 12th century or so). (I'm planning a shirt of scale armor for my own "Post-Roman" impression, and I would LOVE to use horn but that would mean buying a lot of horns... Scrounging steel is free! So curiously (cuirassly?), metal is the cheap option for the modern reenactor, while the leather and other organics are outside the budget!)

Craig, many other folks have brought up leather gloves and aprons in this sort of debate, but it's really just another "logical" argument when we're really looking for evidence. And plenty of reenactors have tried leather tunics under mail--some love it, some hate it! It has the potential to bunch up more than wool, and it's going to be stuffier. That may make a big difference to guys who might be wearing armor quite often, but fighting only rarely. It should also be noted that gloves are almost *never* seen in depictions of early medieval combat.

Gosh, I hope I didn't scare poor Nicholas off!...

Valete,

Matthew