Leather scales??? In the earth?? Wow that's somthing I'll look up and get back on. If that's true, then that's very cool! OK, I've done some research now, and I've found a decent (english-language) link: http://www.ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk/uk0017.html It seems that there has indeed been found "scale" armor in Birka, but not leather; metal. Metal lamellar armor is somthing we believe vikings going southeastwards imported from the areas around the black-sea(along with the fashion of the baggy-pants that I pose with in the axe-thread). What I'm talking about is the ones making leather-scale-armor based on metal finds. I don't know of any archeological source on leather lamellar armor :hat:
Look into the weapons of the time leather works well and could reduce a bit of impact from a blade but eventually a good hit would do damage. A thrust could be bad but depending on the point of the weapon it may not penetrate enough to be a major issue. A solid thrust would be most deadly in the situation a good sized weapon may break bones things such as an axe. I would go with leather with mail and or plate in strategic areas. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLGwNY3xMjM&feature=related"]YouTube - More leather testing - part 4: hardened lamellar armour[/ame]
If I was going to describe what a dude who would spend time hitting a milk carton through a tiny piece of armour with a variety of old blade weapons in the middle of some wood would look and dress like, I'd have described that guy right down to the fingerless gloves. Isn't the general consensus that people would have worn some sort of padding underneath armour? Mitch
Leather was used in armor, but not as armor, at least in medieval europe. All trace of padding that have been found, or is mentioned in old texts or are depictured in pictures shows textile armor for padding, or as stand-alone-armor, not leather. If someone can point me to a source stating otherwise I'd be very interrested!
wow thats really cool....textil armor....was it expensive....i think cloth was kinda expensive back in the day......i remember hearing about how soulders in even the american civil war would take a good patch of cloth off a dead guy
Textile was much more expensive than today, and the nobility used more expensive textiles than nessecary. Some garnments worn by nobility in medieval times (and later periods) took up a huge chunk of their finances. A letter from a norwegian nobleman from the 1500's complains to a relative that he won't be able to attend the kings annual ball in Kopenhagen as he cannot aford a new set of galla-clothes, and he doesn't dare to show up with the same clothes as last year :hat: So knights textile armor could be as expensive as the metal armor, many actually glued/riveted textile to the plate-armor. Here are some examples: Textiles with gold/silver woven into the fabric (brocade) was very popular, here's an example of a dress from early 15th century, with gold brocade on red fabric: http://pat.nithaus.org/Dress-Diary-gold/ I have an attachment of a nobleman of the same era with brocade jacket. The more common man would often be equipped with whatever their masters would supply them, uniformation started in late 14th century, when warlords started buying textiles for equipping their foot-men with protection. The uniformation was at first coincidentally, as it often was cheaper to conclude big contracts than several small, so you often got stuck with -say 3 tons of green wool; that could then be used as gambersons on their archers and pikemen.
Dunno if it of relevance, but my mrs runs a small business making light leathergoods (mostly soft furnishings) and as a consequence, she owns a number of very old leather items, one of which being a blackjack-styled leather bottle. The blackjack is kiln-hardened and I would guess the leather is around 6-8mm thick (she reckons the leather would have been 60% thinner than that before the hardening process) - but it is as hard as nails. I mean ZERO give in the leather. The only difference in feel from iron is that it is lighter and warm to the touch. I doubt that an edged weapon of more than say, bodkin diameter, could penetrate it. If leather 'plate' (cuirass-style) armour was anything like this, then I would say yes, leather armour is/was jolly effective (depening on the era/weapon of course).
Have you tried to cut it? (I don't mean that you should cut it, old artifacts should live IMO, but it would be interresting to try to make somthing similar and test-cut it.)
total guesswork on my part, but... could hardened leather armour on the forearms have had an offensive as well as defensive purpose for gladiators? I.e. stops nasty cuts that could lead to infection to an important bit of the gladiators body - thus reducing his capacity to earn money for his owners, and, something nice to say, smash someone in the face with when you get up close to them? paul
It's possible I suppose with the legs but I can't see the padding on the forearms being more effective than a cestus and I don't think they were that expensive. Could still be possible though even if it wasn't part of the original design I'd be suprised if they didn't use it to hit each other with.
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but I came across some interesting information in a TV program. Apparently some research was being done on the remains of individuals identified with a gladitorial site in Turkey. The focus at one point had to do with the diet. Evidently gladiators tended to build a layer of fat on their bodies as a kind of defense against attacks. Attempting to seize a person was more difficult with this fatty layer, and a layer of fat also served to absorb some of the energy of a strike as well as shield more vulnerable structures farther under the skin. Anyhow, I thought it was interesting. Sorta goes against the "lean" stereotype in the movies. Best Wishes, Bruce
Ever noticed the same with boxers? Bruno (being heavily muscular) always suffered incredible torso pain (said in an interview once) where his stockier counterparts flourished and suffered less.
My experience with trying several types of Armour is. Cloth, medium impact protection, poor slash protection Hardened Leather, medium impact protection, medium slash Chain, poor impact protection, good slash protection. Plate, excellent impact protection, excellebt slash protection. The Bear.
Not to derail a good subject....but someone mentioned lamellar armour earlier. I was wondering if anyone has actually tracked its origins. I know that the TERRA COTTA Army of the 1st Qin Emperor (Shi Huang Di; d. 210 BCE) wore lamellar armor and used iron swords, but has anyone tracked back farther than this. Sources? Best Wishes, Bruce
I knwo they have a big amount of force beihnd them but wasn't the focus on maces and hammers that plate wasn't brilliant at impact protection? Or am I being a tit and smashing it in is just the only way you're going to do anything?
I have hit a guy as hard a possible doing an experiment with plate and he didn't blink. It dented the plate pretty badly. Unless you have a spike to penetrate the plate it's practically invulnerable. The Bear.
**THIS THREAD NEEDS MORE SOURCES** Interesting, what did you hit him with? I don't have any experience to compare your with, so you must be right, but I saw a medieval arms expert on TV where they went through some very interesting stuff (plate that stops longbow arrows for instance) and his testing suggested that impact weapons were still potentially lethal. Slo mo footage of the plate around body shaped padding showed the material take a serious battering (plate bent enough to be breaking ribs even though it returned elastically to an undented state & shock front tore through the body). I would naively expect this trend to remain, because of the momentum change being the dominant consideration and the armour is still strapped to your body...
Body armor is not that much different than being inside a car during a head on collision. 1) Maybe the car bends all out of shape but absorbs most of the impact and leaves you okay. 2) Or, maybe the car does not bend at all but you inside the car smash your head against the dashboard or get thrown through the front windshield. 3) Or maybe a piece of metal penetrates right through the car and impales you. 4) Or maybe, the car gets crushed and you get crushed inside the car. IMHO, the primary use of body armor is to stop penetration. If an object penetrates through the armor, it goes right into your body. The secondary use is to lessen penetration, basically by slowing down the velocity of the weapon. The next use is to absorb force of the object that does not penetrate so it does not transfer that force into your body in a harmful way. When we are talking about armor made from hardening of leather, the first question is, what weapons would actually penetrate that armor at an angle of incidence of zero? You might find that most steel weapons such as a thrust with a tanto or crossbow bolt and such would penetrate right through. They might be slowed down, but they would not stop it. However, increasing the angle of incidence could make a big difference from a penetrating stab to a glancing blow. Also if the weapon was made of something not nearly as hard and sharp, like a copper knife, the chance of penetration would be much less than with steel. It mainly has to do with the hardness of the armor material compared to the hardness and force of the weapon applied over the area of impact. The problem with soft armor is that it won't be good at stopping the penetration from hard sharp weapons. The problem with hard armor is that the material can be brittle as well. If it is brittle, it might crack or break under the force and allow the weapon to penetrate or the broken pieces of the armor could be driven into the person. The armor must be able to absorb the force and not break. Let's eliminate glancing blows again by assuming angle of incidence of zero. If the armor successfully stops the penetration of the weapon and the armor absorbs the force of the weapon without breaking into pieces, then there is the matter of the transfer of the force into the body. The remaining force of the weapon will be felt by the body through the most direct and weakest points. For example, if a mace were to hit a helmet, you could have some interesting effects. One possibility is the helmet stops the mace completely but snap, the remaining force transfers to break the neck of the person (as a side note, the weight of the helmet could aid in the breaking of the neck). Of course, without the helmet, you might have a crushed skull. Anyway, no real point, just some thoughts.
