01-31-2012, 10:58 PM
Hi Sean, thank you for the line to line answer. Let me give some quick feedback below.
Depends on the circumstances. Maybe it was more comfortable (eg. in a case of muddy ground). There are circumstances that feet may beat shoes. First thing that comes in my mind is the metal floor of a modern ship. However, on the dusty grounds of Greece feet cannot beat the show just like that. All armies fighting in dense formations in history wore footware why would Greeks be the exception - especially when carrying 15-20kg of armor (even easier to slip)?
Going naked in the Olympics was a rare exception and it was noted as such by ancient writers and accompagnied with a full story of how this tradition (only gradually adopted by most Greeks and over a long period of time) ended up. Had soldiers gone to battle naked, there would be no fuss about it.
Agreed but metal plates on legs and arms does not need more padding as no matter how much you add it will do little good to you while reducing agility. A more tight fit there is thus preferrable. This does not apply to body and head armour. A tight fit both hinders, tires, protects less and can be dangerous when pierced by magnifying the wound. Do the experiment. I cannot find a reason why it would had worked differently - leave the comfort aside, its physics getting into it. A tight fit is more expensive and performs inferior. Armors found do not seem to be that much tight fit either (take into account that people back then were much much thinner than us).
Writers in the period up to 1200 AD did not write anyway much about much more basic equipment rather than the "modest" inner padding. I find this natural. Same can be for the ancient world.
This is the best assumption. It is extremely difficult to assume of the opposite of what I am saying given that the armor with integral padding had to be done and repaired by a highly qualified technician while the separate padding could be woven by your wife at home. Simple economics. Common sense. Nothing else. Arguing like sophists in the sense " and how do you know? How do you prove it" it will lead us nowhere. We certainly do not know and we can not prove. Let us start from the most common sense assumption while also testing other theories.
... you mean to our modern bodies. For their bodies were much shorter and thinner.
Quote:There is a similar lack of evidence for soldiers wearing hard boots in the Latin part of the medieval world. I think there are a few primary sources from the Latin world talking about men stripping off their shoes for a better grip ...
Depends on the circumstances. Maybe it was more comfortable (eg. in a case of muddy ground). There are circumstances that feet may beat shoes. First thing that comes in my mind is the metal floor of a modern ship. However, on the dusty grounds of Greece feet cannot beat the show just like that. All armies fighting in dense formations in history wore footware why would Greeks be the exception - especially when carrying 15-20kg of armor (even easier to slip)?
Quote:Since many ancient fighters fought naked, or just in trousers or a tunic, I don't think this is a very good argument! Someone with too much "common sense" probably wouldn't end up in the front rank of a phalanx in the first place.
Going naked in the Olympics was a rare exception and it was noted as such by ancient writers and accompagnied with a full story of how this tradition (only gradually adopted by most Greeks and over a long period of time) ended up. Had soldiers gone to battle naked, there would be no fuss about it.
Quote:Nikanor post=305321 Wrote:1st Fact: No matter the work put on it, any metallic armor of any weight and with any type of thin lining worn over civilian-like cloth or naked skin (i.e. without padding) is not comfortable and hinders the fighter in real battle conditions. A loose fitting makes it move around all over the place, a tight fitting reduces tragically the protection offered. Period.
Are you sure this is true? The evidence that Greek greaves were worn over bare skin, with just the integrated felt lining for padding, is pretty strong.
Agreed but metal plates on legs and arms does not need more padding as no matter how much you add it will do little good to you while reducing agility. A more tight fit there is thus preferrable. This does not apply to body and head armour. A tight fit both hinders, tires, protects less and can be dangerous when pierced by magnifying the wound. Do the experiment. I cannot find a reason why it would had worked differently - leave the comfort aside, its physics getting into it. A tight fit is more expensive and performs inferior. Armors found do not seem to be that much tight fit either (take into account that people back then were much much thinner than us).
Quote:Do you have any examples of proof of this from Latin Europe between say 600 and 1100 CE? After de Rebus Bellicis, the first evidence of a separate padded garment under mail is from the 12th century. Dan Howard and others have been very politely insistent asking for sources, but nobody- including some pretty good medievalists and armour historians- has turned up anything.
Writers in the period up to 1200 AD did not write anyway much about much more basic equipment rather than the "modest" inner padding. I find this natural. Same can be for the ancient world.
Quote:Nikanor post=305321 Wrote:3rd Strong evidence: In terms of costs, the fabrication of armors with full integral padding to be worn over civilian-like cloth is more expensive than the fabrication of armors with simple lining to be worn over an inner padded garment. In most cultures these were seen more as form of high-art worn by aristocrats rather than weaponry for the average soldier.
How do you know this? The only study I have seen, of English prices circa 1300, doesn't address whether a hauberk or pair of plates was lined because the primary sources don't talk about it. Jacks of plate in the 16th century were armour for common soldiers
This is the best assumption. It is extremely difficult to assume of the opposite of what I am saying given that the armor with integral padding had to be done and repaired by a highly qualified technician while the separate padding could be woven by your wife at home. Simple economics. Common sense. Nothing else. Arguing like sophists in the sense " and how do you know? How do you prove it" it will lead us nowhere. We certainly do not know and we can not prove. Let us start from the most common sense assumption while also testing other theories.
Quote:I'm not sure that a bronze plate cuirass could be adjusted that much! They were fitted pretty closely to the body.
... you mean to our modern bodies. For their bodies were much shorter and thinner.
