A History of Lamellar and Scale Armour in the West

[mcbishop]

Just discovered this whilst wandering through the verdant groves of academia.edu. Note that it is not showing up in Amazon and, given the various problems with History Press (and Amazon, when it comes to publication dates), don't blame me if this turns out to be a no-show on the given date.

Mike Bishop

[M. Val. Naso]

I've already pre-orderes one, been waiting for months for this. Two and a half left at most

[Medicus matt]

Just discovered this Note that it is not showing up in Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armour-Wearies-L...er+wearies

[mcbishop]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armour-Wearies-L...er+wearies

Silly me. Made the mistake of searching under the title the author actually gave for it on academia.edu ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Medicus matt]

You're obviously not well aquainted with Dr T? Flighty he is, flighty and fickle...

[Condottiero Magno]

An hundred and twenty-eight pages seems short for a title that's supposed to cover several millennia of technological development. :neutral: :unsure:

[TDawson]

I am not a great exponent of waffle, Condottiero Magno! And, of course, lots more information flooded in ... as soon as the manuscript was submitted.

Still, I am sure lots of people will find it just like the tutors found my university essays - "interesting and challenging"!

T.

[Kai]

I am rather worried that Dawson will reiterate his position of the vastly superior (Byzantine) lamellar armour besting the easy-to-pierce, cheap-to-produce mail... With this premise of his I wonder how he is going to explain the repeated rejection of lamellar in the west in favour of mail.

[M. Val. Naso]

Kai: still lamellar was favoured in the east for some reason, and modern bohurt-fighters massively favour any kind of lamellar opposed to mail.

[Dan Howard]

Kai: still lamellar was favoured in the east for some reason.

Was it? Even in Byzantium it seems to me that officers preferred mail. As far as I can tell lamellar was munitions armour issued to the rank and file because it was cheaper and faster to produce than mail. I've read Dawson's Osprey book where he cites from Anna Comnena about the lamellar worn by Alexius and can't find that passage anywhere in her entire book.

[Dan Howard]

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.

[M. Val. Naso]

Dan:

I did not mean only byzantines for the east. There are the rus, slavs, and nomadic settlers, also later russians. The bohurt-fighters especially like lamellar armour, when they fight in the aforementioned people's equipment.

Also, Anna Comnena implies nothing. She simply writes frankish mail was a great thing. Seeing a devaluation of byzantine lamellar is the same extremity, which you accuse Mr. Dawson of.

[Dan Howard]

Why would Alexius have had to warn his archers against shooting the riders if they were accustomed to fighting people wearing arrowproof armour?

The reason why lamellar was preferred was because it was cheaper and faster to produce. If it was available, those with the wealth to afford it usually wore mail, even in the east. China seems to have been the main exception. There was plenty of mail in Russia and Eastern Europe - their museums have drawers full of it in their reserve collections and the best examples are on display.

[M. Val. Naso]

Because the previously fought against poorly armoured bulgarians and seljuks. Not byzantines. They were the byzantines.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have to agree with mark george here, Byzantine lamellar was much better, generally the lower classes of an army couldn't afford armor, even in the cavalrymen, so it wasnt a problem. Turks and Byzantines had most of their armies equipped with Lamellae or Mail, so archers couldn't attack the rider, or not as effectively, without something like a hunnic or turkish bow.