10-27-2007, 06:52 PM
Sorry, I thought I had done, I certainly put my name somewhere. :?
I'd like to address some of the other themes of the discussion.
Most of the contemporary images of Byzantine soldiery depict military saints and this has some distorting influence. Saints are normally depicted bareheaded so helmets are rarely shown. It is also probable that, as the artists were undoubtedly aware that the saints had lived many years in the past, archaisms were deliberately introduced. In the later period, (post 1250) this led to artistic invention and an apparent desire to depict saints in pseudo antique (classical) armour. In the 11th and 12th centuries I think that most of what was depicted was an accurate rendition of contemporary equipment, but that artists tended to choose those aspects of contemporary armour that gave an impression of antiquity. Therefore simple depictions of elbow/mid thigh length mail shirts, which undoubtedly were fairly common, were largely eschewed in favour of the klibanion, which had the same outline as an antique muscle-cuirass, and the sleeves and skirt of a quilted undergarment (or spint/lamellar armour) showing, giving the impression of pteruges. The result would therefore look like the armour of a senior Roman officer of the distant past.
Some of these illustrations certainly show elaborate upper arm defences consisting of splint or lamellar rerebraces and a plate shoulder-cop or pauldron. Interestingly archaeological remains of a Khazar burial of the 8th century contained such a plate pauldron, plus plate greaves. Byzantium and the Khazar Khaganate maintained close relations, the Byzantines built the main Khazar fortified cities and one emperor had a Khazar mother. Though some apparent 'pteruges' below the waist are probably the skirt of a quilted garment others appear to be of splint construction, possibly attached directly to the quilting, a few images show lamellar skirts. Another type of lower body/thigh defence is quite interesting. The lower edge shows that the garment is relatively thin, ie not quilted, and arranged in very crisp pleats. The front of the pleats is shown with a definite structure and appearance of solidity. What appears to be shown is a pleated garment like a kilt the outer faces of which have attached metal splints running vertically from top to bottom. Such a protection would allow movement due to the pleats in its fabric (leather or a woven material) with the metal splints affording protection. This would afford a better defence against cuts than against thrusts, but it would be at least as useful as mail.
The images of saints were primarily for devotional purposes so a visible face would be a necessity, but there seems to be a distinct reluctance to show face-covering armour in any Byzantine art (except for some late-period illustrations). Face-covering mail is described in texts (such as Leo's military treatise) and is referred to, in passing, elsewhere. The same lack of depiction in Byzantine illustrations also applies to nasals. These are relatively common in archaeological contexts from the North Pontic Steppe area, and are not unknown in Kievan Rus contexts. Both areas were in close contact with Byzantium and some of the helmets might even have been of Byzantine manufacture, though evidence for this is not likely to be forthcoming (though metallurgical investigation might yield clues).
With reference to Alexius I in the Alexiad pushing the mail from his face I was very impressed with the illustration shown by Egfaroth. I had puzzled about how a face-covering mail aventail could be moved off the face , but a simple stud or hook above the brow of the helmet at the front would be all that would be needed. I think the interpretation of the figures with the bunched and folded mail at the brow of the helmets as showing such face-covering mail aventails hooked up must be correct.
A number of incomplete anthropomorphic face masks were discovered on the site of the Great Palace in Istanbul, with an associated coin of Manuel II. Interestingly in Kinnamos (Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus) Manuel is described as wearing a helmet with face protection which may refer to this sort of face-mask (similar to the Kipchak - Kara-Kalpac masks discussed earlier).
I'd like to address some of the other themes of the discussion.
Most of the contemporary images of Byzantine soldiery depict military saints and this has some distorting influence. Saints are normally depicted bareheaded so helmets are rarely shown. It is also probable that, as the artists were undoubtedly aware that the saints had lived many years in the past, archaisms were deliberately introduced. In the later period, (post 1250) this led to artistic invention and an apparent desire to depict saints in pseudo antique (classical) armour. In the 11th and 12th centuries I think that most of what was depicted was an accurate rendition of contemporary equipment, but that artists tended to choose those aspects of contemporary armour that gave an impression of antiquity. Therefore simple depictions of elbow/mid thigh length mail shirts, which undoubtedly were fairly common, were largely eschewed in favour of the klibanion, which had the same outline as an antique muscle-cuirass, and the sleeves and skirt of a quilted undergarment (or spint/lamellar armour) showing, giving the impression of pteruges. The result would therefore look like the armour of a senior Roman officer of the distant past.
Some of these illustrations certainly show elaborate upper arm defences consisting of splint or lamellar rerebraces and a plate shoulder-cop or pauldron. Interestingly archaeological remains of a Khazar burial of the 8th century contained such a plate pauldron, plus plate greaves. Byzantium and the Khazar Khaganate maintained close relations, the Byzantines built the main Khazar fortified cities and one emperor had a Khazar mother. Though some apparent 'pteruges' below the waist are probably the skirt of a quilted garment others appear to be of splint construction, possibly attached directly to the quilting, a few images show lamellar skirts. Another type of lower body/thigh defence is quite interesting. The lower edge shows that the garment is relatively thin, ie not quilted, and arranged in very crisp pleats. The front of the pleats is shown with a definite structure and appearance of solidity. What appears to be shown is a pleated garment like a kilt the outer faces of which have attached metal splints running vertically from top to bottom. Such a protection would allow movement due to the pleats in its fabric (leather or a woven material) with the metal splints affording protection. This would afford a better defence against cuts than against thrusts, but it would be at least as useful as mail.
The images of saints were primarily for devotional purposes so a visible face would be a necessity, but there seems to be a distinct reluctance to show face-covering armour in any Byzantine art (except for some late-period illustrations). Face-covering mail is described in texts (such as Leo's military treatise) and is referred to, in passing, elsewhere. The same lack of depiction in Byzantine illustrations also applies to nasals. These are relatively common in archaeological contexts from the North Pontic Steppe area, and are not unknown in Kievan Rus contexts. Both areas were in close contact with Byzantium and some of the helmets might even have been of Byzantine manufacture, though evidence for this is not likely to be forthcoming (though metallurgical investigation might yield clues).
With reference to Alexius I in the Alexiad pushing the mail from his face I was very impressed with the illustration shown by Egfaroth. I had puzzled about how a face-covering mail aventail could be moved off the face , but a simple stud or hook above the brow of the helmet at the front would be all that would be needed. I think the interpretation of the figures with the bunched and folded mail at the brow of the helmets as showing such face-covering mail aventails hooked up must be correct.
A number of incomplete anthropomorphic face masks were discovered on the site of the Great Palace in Istanbul, with an associated coin of Manuel II. Interestingly in Kinnamos (Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus) Manuel is described as wearing a helmet with face protection which may refer to this sort of face-mask (similar to the Kipchak - Kara-Kalpac masks discussed earlier).
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Fac me cocleario vomere!
