06-17-2013, 11:49 PM
To be specific, here is the passage from Dawson's Osprey book:
"An episode from the battle of Dyrrakhion in 1081 recounted by Anna Komnene regarding her father, Emperor Alexios I, shows just how much protection Roman cavalry armour in the period could afford. Separated from the army, Alexios was attacked with lances from one side by three Norman knights. Since Alexios was protected by layers of padding, iron lamellar and possibly also mail, their weapons caused him no injury, but served only to partially unseat him, with the entanglement of his spurs in his horse's trapping preventing him from falling entirely. Another group of Normans charged at him in a similar way from the other side, also driving their spears at his body, yet they only succeeded in pushing him back into his saddle. At this point Alexios made his escape (Anna claims his horse bolted) with several of the Normans' lances still entangled in his epilorikion... "
Here is what Comnena actually said (Alexiad [4.6.110], Dawes translation):
"The battle did not come to an end because the Emperor still maintained his resistance, therefore three of the Latins, one of whom was Amicetas already mentioned, the second Peter, son of Aliphas, as he himself asserted, and a third, not a whit inferior to these two, took long spears in their hands and at full gallop dashed at the Emperor. Amicetas missed the Emperor because his horse swerved a little; the second man's spear the Emperor thrust aside with his sword and then bracing his arm, struck him on the collarbone and severed his arm from his body. Then the third aimed straight at his face, but Alexius being of firm and steadfast mind was not wholly dismayed, but with his quick wit grasped in the flash of an instant the thing to do, and when he saw the blow coming, threw himself backwards on to his horse's tail. Thus the point of the spear only grazed the skin of his face a little and then, hitting against the rim of the helmet, tore the strap under the chin which held it on and knocked it to the ground. After this the Frank rode past the man he thought he had hurled from his horse, but the latter quickly pulled himself up again in his saddle and sat there calmly without having lost a single weapon."
The first lance missed him completely because his horse moved. Alexios parried the second lance with his sword. The third lance missed because Alexios ducked out of the way. No mention of armour at all, except for his helmet being knocked off his head. Nothing about lances entangled in epilorikons either. I've gone through the entire book and can't find where she describes Alexius' armour anywhere. As far as I can tell, Dawson's account is a garbled version of two completely separate battles written by two different authors about two different emperors.
The second passage was written by Michael Psellos (Chronographia [7.13], Sewter translation) about the emperor Isaac:
"Some of our men saw him (they were Scyths from the Taurus district, and not more than four at that) and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective... Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle. To Isaac this seemed a favourable omen, when attacks from right and left both failed to dislodge him..."
No mention of armour here either but since he was hit simultaneously by multiple lances one can assume that he was wearing some kind of armour. Both Alexius and Isaac could just as easily have been mail as lamellar. We know that mail was capable of withstanding the impact of a war lance. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts stating it. There are some accounts here.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
In addition, Comnena specifically said that Frankish mail was superior to Byzantine armour (at least against arrows):
"He [Alexius] furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt." [Alexiad, VIII.8]
Not only does Comnena state that mail was an excellent defence against arrows but she also implies that the Byzantines were accustomed to armour that was not so resistant. Suggesting that Byzantine lamellar armour was not as protective as Frankish mail.
"An episode from the battle of Dyrrakhion in 1081 recounted by Anna Komnene regarding her father, Emperor Alexios I, shows just how much protection Roman cavalry armour in the period could afford. Separated from the army, Alexios was attacked with lances from one side by three Norman knights. Since Alexios was protected by layers of padding, iron lamellar and possibly also mail, their weapons caused him no injury, but served only to partially unseat him, with the entanglement of his spurs in his horse's trapping preventing him from falling entirely. Another group of Normans charged at him in a similar way from the other side, also driving their spears at his body, yet they only succeeded in pushing him back into his saddle. At this point Alexios made his escape (Anna claims his horse bolted) with several of the Normans' lances still entangled in his epilorikion... "
Here is what Comnena actually said (Alexiad [4.6.110], Dawes translation):
"The battle did not come to an end because the Emperor still maintained his resistance, therefore three of the Latins, one of whom was Amicetas already mentioned, the second Peter, son of Aliphas, as he himself asserted, and a third, not a whit inferior to these two, took long spears in their hands and at full gallop dashed at the Emperor. Amicetas missed the Emperor because his horse swerved a little; the second man's spear the Emperor thrust aside with his sword and then bracing his arm, struck him on the collarbone and severed his arm from his body. Then the third aimed straight at his face, but Alexius being of firm and steadfast mind was not wholly dismayed, but with his quick wit grasped in the flash of an instant the thing to do, and when he saw the blow coming, threw himself backwards on to his horse's tail. Thus the point of the spear only grazed the skin of his face a little and then, hitting against the rim of the helmet, tore the strap under the chin which held it on and knocked it to the ground. After this the Frank rode past the man he thought he had hurled from his horse, but the latter quickly pulled himself up again in his saddle and sat there calmly without having lost a single weapon."
The first lance missed him completely because his horse moved. Alexios parried the second lance with his sword. The third lance missed because Alexios ducked out of the way. No mention of armour at all, except for his helmet being knocked off his head. Nothing about lances entangled in epilorikons either. I've gone through the entire book and can't find where she describes Alexius' armour anywhere. As far as I can tell, Dawson's account is a garbled version of two completely separate battles written by two different authors about two different emperors.
The second passage was written by Michael Psellos (Chronographia [7.13], Sewter translation) about the emperor Isaac:
"Some of our men saw him (they were Scyths from the Taurus district, and not more than four at that) and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective... Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle. To Isaac this seemed a favourable omen, when attacks from right and left both failed to dislodge him..."
No mention of armour here either but since he was hit simultaneously by multiple lances one can assume that he was wearing some kind of armour. Both Alexius and Isaac could just as easily have been mail as lamellar. We know that mail was capable of withstanding the impact of a war lance. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts stating it. There are some accounts here.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
In addition, Comnena specifically said that Frankish mail was superior to Byzantine armour (at least against arrows):
"He [Alexius] furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt." [Alexiad, VIII.8]
Not only does Comnena state that mail was an excellent defence against arrows but she also implies that the Byzantines were accustomed to armour that was not so resistant. Suggesting that Byzantine lamellar armour was not as protective as Frankish mail.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
