Part 1

A Reply to Shadiversity - Part 2: The Evidence

Introduction

It’s been a long time since I wrote the first part of my reply to Shad. Originally I was going to get this out much quicker, but a variety of things, most of them unrelated to this post, mean that I haven’t been working on this post consistently over the last year and a bit. However, I recently met Shad at the Abbey Medieval Festival, apologised in person for my original post and received some encouragement from him to continue writing this reply, which gave me the boost needed to finally finish writing this post.

On the bright side, while it has been a long time in the making, the extra time has allowed me to find evidence that I didn’t know had existed before and to consider the evidence more closely. It hasn’t changed my views on leather armour over all - that it was common and relatively cheap - it has helped me consider the issue with more nuance.

This current post is all about the evidence for textile and leather armour. I’ve searched through the available manuscript miniatures on manuscriptminiatures.com, been through all the images on warfare.gq, scoured books for additional references, both artistic and literary, and located all the archaeological information I could find. Nothing much in terms of physical and artistic has been added to my prior post, but I have added more and better sources about infantry armour specifically.

This does mean that I have been unable to answer Shad’s challenge to find archaeological evidence of leather chest armour. However, Shad has also not shown an artistic representation or archaeological remains of textile armour prior to the mid to late 14th century. All his artistic examples of textile armour have been from the late-14th, 15th or early 16th centuries, and the extent physical remains date from the mid-14th century (in one case), the mid-15th century (four cases) and the 16th century (one case, though I don’t know if Shad is aware of the Rothwell Jack). I intend to go into this further in the relevant section, but I want to emphasise that while I’ve acknowledged the flaws in my evidence Shad did not address the flaws in his evidence that I raised in my initial post.

I should note that I did send Shad a copy of my first draft a month and a half ago so that he could check and see if I’d misinterpreted any of his arguments. I sent it via his email address, which he had given to me in Messenger, but I’ve not heard back from him since, in spite of a follow up email and two messages via Messenger. I’m not sure whether he received the original draft or not, but I am satisfied that I did my best to ensure that I was understanding his arguments and position correctly this time around.

As a final note, I’d like to thank Sean Manning and all the other contributors to this thread over on the Armour Archive forums. While I would have found (and, for that matter, did find) all the references I’ve used in this particular post independently of the thread, the compilation of references assured me that I wasn’t missing any well known texts, put the lack of descriptions of infantry armour into more context for me and has provided some extremely useful sources that I wouldn't have discovered on my own for the fourth part of the series, when I discuss construction and economics.

Part 1 - Textual Evidence

This is the most abundant form of evidence, spanning from the mid-12th century to the mid-13th century. It includes information from romances, poems, chronicles, legal texts and administrative texts. As mentioned in my first post in this series, I’ll attempt to provide both the original text and a translation wherever possible. You’ll also notice that this list of examples is different from that provided in the original post, as further research and looking at the original texts has resulted in some additions and removals. I’ve also chosen to focus on texts specifically about the armour of the lower classes, since this is a major point of contention between Shad and myself. In that vein, not only is armour connected with knights not mentioned, but also armour connected with infantry who are also wearing mail, as they are clearly not poor soldiers but wealthy individuals.

Leather Armour

• Gesta Herewardi (Anonymous)

And they were girt and protected with these arms: with coats of felt dipped in pitch and resin and incense, or tunics of strongly cooked leather

(Miller, p29; “strongly cooked” substituted for “strongly made” as per below)

hujusmodi armis praecincti et muniti; cum feltreis togis pice et resina atque in thure intinctis, seu cum tunicis ех coria velde coctis

(Hardy and Martin, p361)

This is the oldest mention of either leather or textile armour that I’ve found to date, with modern experts putting the date of composition as some time between 1109 and 1131. I’ve chosen to go with the transcription of Hardy and Martin here, as opposed that undertaken by Miller, because “coria velde coctis” (“leather strongly/powerfully/greatly cooked”) makes more sense than the literal translation of “coria velde cortis” (“leather strongly enclosed”), which is Miller’s transcription.

In the context of this passage, the inhabitants of “Scaldemariland” (possibly the islands of the Scheldt estuary) are arming themselves in order to attack the army of Flanders. In addition to their armour, they’re equipped with spears studded with bent nails so that when fighting they can thrust, pull away (possibly pulling away a shield or pulling their opponents off balance) or strike (presumably as a club) and three or four javelins apiece. Only one man in three has a shield and axe or sword. These are not, then, knights, burghers or wealthy peasants, but quite poor peasants, and their choice of armour is either a felt based armour or hardened leather.

(with thanks to Len Parker, who originally posted the source on myarmoury.com)

• Policraticus Book IV, Chapter 6

Therefore, when he perceived the mobility of the foreigners, he selected for the mission soldiers who fought in the same way, since he resolved that they were to engage in battle practise in light armament, assaulting in rawhide boots, chests covered by hardened straps and hides, throwing up small light shields against the missiles, and at one time hurling javelins, at another employing swords against the enemy.

(Nederman, p113-114)

Cum ergo gentis cognosceret leuitatem, quasi pari certamine militiam eligens expeditam, cum eis censuit congrediendum leuem exercens armaturam, peronatus incedens, fasciis pectus et praeduro tectus corio, missilibus eorum leua obiectans ancilia et in eos contorquens nunc spicula, nunc mucronem exerens, sic fugientium uestigiis inherebat ut premeretur

(Webb, p19)

The Policraticus was written by John of Salisbury between 1156 or 1157 and 1159. John was a churchman, philosopher and historian, whose intellectual work would have a significant effect on those who came after him. This doesn’t necessarily make him a good source, by John Hosler has recently made a strong argument for his being very knowledgeable with regards to war and warfare (Hosler, 2013).

The most important part of the text is the phrase “fasciis pectus et praeduro tectus corio”. While Nederman has translated this as “chests covered by hardened straps and hides”, my own preference is for “chests covered by a band of very hard leather”.

While the Welsh and their heavily pastoralised economy probably falls into one of Shad’s exceptions, it’s likely that John was actually writing to encourage the Anglo-Norman knights to abandon their heavy armour and reliance on their horses in order to better pursue the Welsh, rather than referring to an event that took place a century earlier. A similar idea is expressed by Gerald of Wales, although he seems to favour mercenary infantry over knights changing their equipment (Thrope, p266-270).

• Roman de Rou, by Wace

Some had fine leather jerkins, which they had tied to their waist, many had on a doublet and they had quivers and sheaths girt about them.

(Van Houts, p177)

Alquanz orent boenes coiriees, qu'il ont a lor uentres liées; plusors orent uestu gambais, colures orent ceinz et tarchais;

(Andresen, p334-335)

Written later than his Roman de Brut, Wace’s Roman de Rou was composed some time during the 1160s and 1170s, when he stopped composition (c.1175). Apart from the reference to leather armour, it’s also the earliest use of the word “gambeson”. While Elizabeth van Houts has translated “coiriees” as “leather jerkins” and “gambais” as “doublet”, she appears to be using an older dictionary, rather than the more recent Anglo-Norman Dictionary, which makes it clear that the 12th/13th century “gambeson” is not the same as a 16th century “doublet” and does not assign the term “jerkin” to “cuiries” (the standardised spelling of “coiriees”).

The specific reference is to the Norman foot soldiers, who were also described as being armed with a sword and bow. I’m not entirely sure whether or not the text is saying that the cuiries were worn by some of the archers along with gambesons, or whether some archers wore cuiries and others wore gambesons. Either way, these are not knights or members of the nobility, but neither are they poor peasants as Shad has indicated most infantry were. Rather, they represent the more typical mercenary, member of a civic militia or wealthy free peasant who made up most offensive armies of this period.

• De nugis curialium, by Walter Map

Our King Henry II also banishes from all his lands that most mischievous sect of a new heresy, which with its mouth to be sure confesses of Christ what we do, but (in act) gathers bands of many thousands, which they call routs, who armed cap-à-pie with leather, iron, clubs, and swords, lay monasteries, villages, and towns in ashes, and practise indiscriminate adulteries with force, saying with all their heart, 'There is no God.'

(James, p119)

Rex noster eciam Henricus secundus ab omnibus terris suis arcet hereseos noue dampnosissimam sectam, que scilicet ore confitetur de Christo quicquid et nos, sed factis multorum milium turmis, quas ruttas uocant, armati penitus a uertice ad plantas corio, calibe, fustibus et ferro monasteria, uillas, urbes in fauillas redigunt, adulteria uiolenter et sine deletu perpetrant, pleno corde dicentes 'Non est Deus'.

(James p118)

Walter Map was a Welsh lay cleric of the 12th century who rose to quite high office under Henry II and composed a loosely series of works that he later combined into a book. It wasn’t very widely circulated, probably because it had a very uneven tone, not deciding whether it was going fully fantastical or fully historical, and was only rediscovered in the 19th century. Most of the book was written in the early 1180s, but it was worked on through into the 1190s. While Map is frequently unreliable, his sections on English history from the 1130s on are mostly correct. His section on the armour of the Brabacon mercenaries employed by Henry II is therefore probably mostly correct.

Although some have interpreted the “leather” part of “leather and iron” as being a gambeson (see, for example, Fig. 42 from Ian Heath’s Armies of Feudal Europe), there’s no textual evidence for this. Given that leather armour separate from textile armour is present in the Gesta Herewardi and Roman de Rou, I believe it is more likely to be ordinary leather armour rather than a gambeson with a leather facing.

• Genoese Armour Prices

The next solid reference that I’ve been able to find involving leather armour for non-nobles. I’m not confident in reproducing the table, so I’ve taken a screenshot for you instead (Bonds 1969, p133). A couple of things stand out. Firstly, the only times a corellus (cuirass) has a higher median price than a panceria (gambeson) is 1225 and 1250. At all other times, it is either equal in price or less than a panceria, in some cases significantly so (1222).

Secondly, wherever we have a price for a hauberk, the median price is at least double than of a panceria. This rules out the corellus being a coat-of-plates or something similar, since where we have prices for coats-of-plate in the 13th century (admittedly at the end rather than the start), the average price for a coat-of-plates is higher than for a hauberk. While I think a tenuous argument could be made that the corellus is simply a cheap coat-of-plates rather than leather armour, I disagree due to the early dated use of the term (prior to use outside of the wealthiest nobles and knights) comparative rarity of metal armour in the Bolognese armed societies (see below).

• Military Equipment of the Bolognese Armed Societies

Dr Jürg Gassmann has recently published an article on the armed societies of Bologna between 1230 and the early 1300s, and part of the article is a breakdown of the types of armour required by members of the armed societies, one of which had leather armour as an option for torso armour (Gassmann 2014, p227-228). The society was that of the Cervi, and the regulations were laid down in 1255. Other options included two types of textile body armour (the zuppa and the guayferia; what the latter is isn’t known, as it seems localised to Bologna with no descriptions available of how it was made) and a coat-of-plates (“lameria”).

Now, with metal body armour an option, it might be suggested that the leather is also an expensive option. However, only four other societies list metal armour (either a coat-of-plates or a hauberk) and none of them permit leather helmets, which the Cervi and only one other society (the 1256 Vari by-laws) does. What does this suggest? Well, firstly it suggests that leather was likely a cheaper option that steel, but probably also less prestigious, since only two of the societies permitted leather helmets.

Secondly, given the context of the societies - a period where there was a need to integrate freed serfs and craftsmen from other cities into the community - it’s probable that the required arms are minimums and that some societies were more thorough than others in listing possible armour. This would explain why only a handful of guilds list anything other than textile armour. This thoroughness probably extended both ways, to the poorest members as well as the richest, with the Cervi and could well suggest that the leather armour was for the poorer members.

I know that this is speculation, but taken together with the prices for leather armour from Genoa at the same time (cheaper or equal to textile armour), as well as the low price of leather armour in late 13th century England (bearing in mind that English currency had an exceptionally high silver content), I think it is reasonable speculation. The fact that no other societies had leather armour as an option may be as simply as leather armour being a sign of a poorer man, or simply because it didn’t have as much space to put the society’s insignia on it.

• Additional Notes

I want to stress here that this is not the sum total of references to infantry wearing leather armour, merely those which are unambiguous (perhaps excepting Walter Map) and which I’ve been able to double check in the original language. I’ve not been able to verify David Nicolle’s belief that leather armour was common for infantry in Spain and Italy during the 12th and 13th centuries, since I can’t read Spanish or Italian, and that’s what his sources are written in (Nicolle 2002, p209-10). I see no reason to doubt him but, without being able to read what he’s basing his statements on, I’ve decided to leave them out of this discussion.

Textile Armour

As you’ll have noted above, the Gesta Herewardi, Roman de Rou, Genoese records and Bolognese armed societies all mention textile armour, and I won’t reproduce them here.

• Caithréim Chellacháin Chaisil

gur scoilset a sceith. gur leadairset a luirecha. gur coimrebsad a cotuin.

(Bugge 1905, p47)

they cleft their shields, and cut their armour into pieces, and tore their aketons

(Bugge 1905, p106 - modified translation)

Ocus mar do bhadar annsin co bhfacadar na .V. catha coraighthi ar lar an muighi fo glere sciath 7 lann 7 luirech fo ghlere shleagh 7 chotun 7 cathbarr

(Bugge 1905, p54)

And as they were there, they saw five battalions drawn up in the middle of the plain with choice shields, and swords, and coats of mail, and with shinning spears, and aketons, and helmets.

(Bugge 1905, p114 - modified translation)

The Caithréim Chellacháin Chaisil is an anonymous Irish text likely written sometime between 1127 and 1134, and is the second oldest reference to textile armour that I’ve been able to find. I have modified Bugge’s translation of “cotuin”/”chotun” from the original “target” to “aketon” on the basis that the Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language (eDIL) only lists “cotún” as a word for “targe” in one case, namely Bugge’s translation. In all other cases it refers to textile armour. Similarly, none of the words for “targe” are similar. I’ve therefore amended the translation on the basis of probability.

Although this work is set in the 10th century, the equipment referenced, as with most medieval texts, are more likely to be contemporary rather than those of the past. We should consider the reference to textile armour as reflecting the situation in the early 12th century rather than in the 10th century.

• Assize of Arms 1181

This is one of the most famous and commonly cited texts in the field of medieval military history, so I don’t see any reason to quote the Latin as well as the translation (which is from Wikipedia to save me typing it out myself).

1. Whoever possesses one knight's fee shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every knight shall have as many shirts of mail, helmets, shields, and lances as he possesses knight's fees in demesne.

2. Moreover, every free layman who possesses chattels or rents to the value of 16m. shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every free layman possessing chattels or rents to the value of 10m. shall have a hauberk, an iron cap, and a lance.

3. Item, all burgesses and the whole community of freemen shall have [each] a gambeson, an iron cap, and a lance.

The third item, featuring the townsmen and rural freemen, is where our interests lie. On the surface, it appears that gambesons were cheap enough that every freeman could afford one, but it’s necessary to look at later modifications to the laws to get the full picture. For instance, in 1230 the freemen were divided into two groups: those who earned 40 shillings or more were required to have the equipment of the 1181 Assize, and those who had between 20 and 40 shillings were only expected to have an axe or lance (Powicke 1962, p85-6). Then, in 1242, the category for mandatory ownership of textile armour was raised to 5 pounds income/20 marks in goods and chattels (approximately 13 pounds; Powicke 1962, p88-89). I’ll go into this in greater detail in a later part, when I discuss military service, but it can be seen from the gradual increase in wealth - even taking inflation into account - required for a gambeson that it was expensive enough that only a minority of farmers were expected to be able to afford one.

• The Song of the Albigensian Crusade

Que cascus d'els aporta complida garnizo o escut o capel, perpunt o gonio, e apcha esmolua, aucilha o pilo, arc manal o balesta o bon bran de planso, o cotel o gorgeira, capmailh o alcoto.

(Tudèle 1875, p218)

...each with his full equipment, be it shield or iron hat, tunic or pourpoint, with sharpened axe, scythe-blade or javelin, handbow or crossbow, good lance, knife, gorget, mail-hood or padded jacket.

(Shirley 2017, modified translation)

The Song of the Albigensian Crusade is a text about the wars in southern France at the start of the 13th century and was written by two authors. The first was written by William of Tudela around 1213, and it was continued anonymously afterwards, taking up the narrative from 1213 to 1219. The section quoted is from the second author, who was probably a native of Toulouse and describes the town of Toulouse preparing to fight the Crusaders. Interestingly, it refers to two types of textile armour: the pourpoint (“perpunt” - Shirley seems to have translated it as “tunic”) and the aketon (“alcoto”), although it doesn’t distinguish between classes or offer any information to discern a different construction. However, the “gonio”, which Shirley has translated as “leather jacket”, more likely means “tunic”, or perhaps “coat”.

• Additional Notes

The Song of the Albigensian Crusade is the last text, excluding the previously cited English and Italian sources, before the 1260s which list mention textile armour worn by foot soldiers, and it is the last narrative source which describes their armour. After this point, I’ve been unable to locate anything but regulations which describe the kind of armour the infantry wore. As this is at the end of the period where I think leather armour was commonly worn, I won’t list them, although I may discuss them later when I talk about medieval infantry soldiers. If I do, I’ll be sure to quote them in full there.

I’ve also omitted two references to English foot soldiers wearing textile armour in conjunction with mail during the Third Crusade, since this is a discussion about the lower end of the infantry scale, and several references to knights wearing only textile armour, again, for the same reason.

Part 2 - Visual Evidence

Leather

This is, as I mentioned in the original post, a rather small list. What is probably the clearest example is f.027v of the Morgan Bible, which features a soldier sitting in the cart, holding a banner and wearing what is probably a cuirie and a leather cap. Shad has cast doubts on it being leather and speculates that it could be a thick gambeson (27:21-27:2), but I see no reason why the very careful and skilled artist would suddenly decide to omit the quilting lines he has drawn on almost every single piece of textile armor for this one piece of armour that looks nothing like a gambeson. Yes, there are a couple of instances where the quilt lines haven’t been drawn on the infantrymen, but they’re clearly wearing textile armour, while the figure in f.027v wears nothing like any gambeson shown, which tend to be depicted as stiffened tunics, with all the bunching and folds associated (see f.003v, for instance). It might not be 100%, but it’s far from 50/50.

In addition to the images mentioned in my first post, I have also found f.093 of the Moulins BM Ms.01 Bible Souvigny. This is so heavily influenced by Byzantine art styles, that I wasn’t entirely sure if I should include it. However, it does also feature the earliest example of textile armour (worn beneath the leather breastplate) in Western art that I’m aware of, so I’ve decided to include it in order to point out that only David is shown wearing Western European armour (the scene shows two Davids: one in Saul’s armour and one without), while everyone else is clearly portrayed as an Eastern “Other”. It therefore shouldn’t be used to support the existence of either leather or textile armour.

Textile

The earliest claimed representation of textile armour that I’ve found is Figure 22 from Ian Heath’s Armies of Feudal Europe, which is supposed to be based on a 12th century sculpture. However, as I have been unable to find the original image and as the diamond pattern is not an uncommon representation of mail in the period (sculpture, fresco, illumination), I don’t believe it can be taken at face value. However, if the original sculpture was genuinely depicting a gambeson, this would be the only image of one before the very end of the 12th century.

The next possible depiction of textile armour that I know of comes from Verona and was created around 1200 (Nicolle 2002, p12). The baptismal font in the Verona cathedral, depicting the Massacre of the Innocents, shows two soldiers wearing short sleeved, short bodied garments that are clearly quilted. I do find the turban and archaic swords somewhat out of place, and they do raise the possibility that the carving is not depicting contemporary fashions, but is creating an Eastern “Other”, much as the Moulins BM Ms.01 does. However, it also can’t be discarded as evidence either, just treated with caution.

Following the baptismal font, the next artistic depiction of textile armour, which is also the clearest, is the well known Morgan Bible, which is honestly one of the greatest works of medieval art.

After the Morgan Bible, there is f.011v in the Besançon BM MS.54 Psalter Bonmont which, apart from the highly Eastern armour of the far left hand figure, does show an infantry soldier in a gambeson, and f.011r, f.012r, f.014r and f.015r of the WLB Cod.Don.186 Psalter, which similarly show infantry wearing textile armour. Finally, this late 13th century mural from Spain, while not showing any quilt lines, almost certainly has several instances of textile armour to judge by the collars and two piece construction of what several soldiers are wearing.

Part 3 - Archaeological Evidence

There are only two pieces of archaeological evidence for our period (c.1100-1250) that I’m aware of: the Sleeve of St. Martin of Bussy, which dates to some time between 1160 and 1270, and some fragments of leather from an excavation in Dublin, dating to between 1150 and 1200. In both cases, the garment was certainly textile based, as the leather was clearly intended to function as the top layer for a quilted garment. Additionally, we can tell that the Sleeve of St. Martin was an aketon and intended to be worn under armour.

The Sleeve is quite an interesting garment. Although it offers next to no protection in and of itself (it’s a mere 8mm thick at the thickest point and has only 4 layers of textiles), there is a clear reduction of thickness from the upper arm to the forearm, almost a halving of width, which may show an expectation that the worst blows would be expected above the elbows. It also tallies quite well with the 2-3 pounds of cotton that Sean Manning has shown to be the most common weight of filling in 14th century aketons/arming doublets which, in turn, suggests that 13th and possibly even 12th century aketons were constructed in this manner as well.

The Dublin fragment is harder to interpret, as we don’t know whether it was the face of a stand-alone piece of armour, or if it was the face of under armour padding. I suspect that it probably comes from a stand-alone piece of armour, as we have a 15th century French (Ffoulkes 1912, p87) and a 16th century English source (Skene 1837, p229n.1) describing jacks with a layer of deerskin as the top layer. These are considerably later sources, but nonetheless present a more plausible interpretation or the archaeological find to my mind than the idea of it being part of padding does.

Shad did mention a 14th century leather breastplate found in the Netherlands (15:31-15:46), however the two pieces originally thought to have been a breastplate and backplate has since been demonstrated by Chris Dobson to have been a pair of cuisses, not a breastplate (Dobson 2018, p44), so I say with some regret that there is not even any archaeological evidence of leather chest armour after the period I'm considering.

Part 4 - Interpretations

One thing that has become obvious to me while researching this post is just how little specific evidence there is for infantry armour in general. We have four narrative and two administrative/legal accounts of leather armour, and four narrative and five administrative/legal (3, if you lump all the English accounts into 1) accounts of textile armour for the whole period of 1100-1255. And, in terms of artwork, we can be certain of only 3 manuscripts showing textile armour in the same period, with two carvings potentially also showing it. The evidence for leather armour is even bleaker, with just one manuscript showing what might be one worn by a foot soldier.

Of course, what evidence we have is informative to some degree. The Gesta Herewardi, for instance, associates textile and leather armour with the poorer class of soldier, while John of Salisbury associates leather armour with foot soldiers rather than knights, whether he actually meant the Welsh or not. Wace and Walter Map also see leather armour as a feature of Continental mercenaries, and these were the best infantry of the day, although their equipment is not very well known. The Genoese source suggests it was common in Northern Italy between 1220 and 1250, it offers a slightly different look in terms of relative cost, showing that while leather armour was typically cheaper than textile armour, it was often not by much. The Bolognese sources, however, offer an interesting contradiction in that leather armour was only considered appropriate in one case.

When it comes to textile armour, the evidence is also informative. Between the Gesta Herewardi and Caithreim Cellachain Caisil, we can date its use to at least the 1130s, and the fact that “cotún” was in the Irish vocabulary at this early date, before the Norman invasion, suggests that aketons were widely used and known across Europe by this date. Wace adds the information that they were one choice, or perhaps the base layer, of mercenary infantry, and the Song of the Albigensian Crusade places it as an option for town militias to wear in Southern France. The Genoese source highlights the difference in price between textile and mail armour, while the English and Bolognese sources present an image of textile armour being the primary entry level armour.

Naturally, these sources are not easy to interpret as a whole. Leather armour was common in Genoa, but apparently not in Bologna at the same time. Leather armour was the primary choice for mercenaries in the mid-to-late 12th century, yet by the end of the 12th century textile armour was the legal minimum. Judging by the men who wore leather armour in the 12th century sources, leather was quite cheap, but the 13th century Genoese source raises questions about whether it was really that much cheaper than textile armour, and certainly suggests that it wasn’t a “poor man’s armour”.

One possible reason for leather’s popularity in the 12th and 13th centuries could be that, covering only the torso and being relatively light (perhaps as little as 2kg), it was more comfortable to wear for a long period and on a long journey than textile armour which, even if it didn’t weigh much more, surely would have trapped a lot of heat during long marches. Covering only the body, it would also have restricted archers less. However, offering less coverage, you could say that textile armour would be cheaper for a given area and, protecting more of its owner, would seem a better choice for those in command who wanted their heavy infantry to be as well equipped as possible.

Another possibility is that there were “cheap” forms of leather armour which common soldiers might have worn, as well as more expensive versions that merchants chose. While there are several examples of hardened leather armour that are only made from one thickness of leather - such as those detailed in Marloes Rijkelijkhuizen and Marquita Volken’s paper, cited by Shad - Chris Dobson has detailed a number of pieces which were constructed with two layers of cowhide (Dobson 2018, p61). Similarly, a 15th century description of how to make a hardened leather breastplate calls for two layers of cowhide to be used (Black 1845, p1221). If there were two levels of protection offered, then the cheap one worn by thepoorer members of society may well have been made from one layer and cost less than textile armour as a result, but offered less protection, while the more expensive one may have been made from two layers and had a similar cost to textile armour, but protected less of the body even if it offered similar protection.

These are, I stress, merely two possible interpretations of the evidence, and I’m open to alternatives. They do, however, explain some of the contradictory evidence, although it must be said that they don’t really explain why leather armour declined in use and ceases to show up in records beyond the 1250s.

If we accept, then, that textile and leather armour were in common use during the 12th and early 13th centuries, although without establishing their precise relationships or relative ratios, the question becomes: why don’t we see more of them? It’s not as if we don’t have good depictions of infantry during the period. The Basilica of San Zeno in Verona, for instance, is an excellent and, so far as we can tell, accurate representation of the city militia, yet in spite of Italy’s strong links to the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world (who both had textile armour), there is only infantry wearing mail and infantry wearing tunics. Even in the late 12th century, the militia of Milan are shown in the Porta Romana as either armoured or unarmoured, with no textile armour.

It’s not just Italy. England, Germany and Spain all have manuscripts that contrast armoured men-at-arms with unarmoured infantry, while France omits the lesser infantry altogether - I’ve had no luck finding infantry in French artwork who aren’t wearing mail before the Morgan Bible.

The lack of representation doesn’t just encompass infantry armour, since under armour padding is missing from even the Morgan Bible (f.003v, f.028r), a manuscript whose illuminations are considered some of the most accurate illustrations of medieval arms and armour. As I noted in my original post and again in the first part of this series, so far as medieval artists were concerned, under armour padding didn’t exist until the end of the 13th century, in spite of what the literary sources say.

And this is the problem with Shad’s appeal to artwork (11:50-12:30, 14:16-14:40, 27:08-28:01) in proving that leather armour wasn’t common. Medieval art was never intended to be 100% true to life and there are greater and lesser degrees of stylisation, to the point where it contradicts archaeological evidence (the Sleeve of St. Martin) and literary sources (which make it clear that aketons were worn under mail). If even well attested armour components aren’t shown in medieval art, how can you rule out a particular piece of armour, especially if it belongs to a class the artist isn’t interested in?

A similar issue arises with archaeological evidence. It can be used to rule things in - that is, to say that we definitely know an object existed and what its form was - but it’s very hard to use it to rule things out. Shad is right that there’s no archaeological evidence of leather torso armour (14:22-15:13) in spite of other leather objects being preserved, but he fails to apply the same standard to textile armour. Namely, we have no textile armour from the 12th or 13th centuries (the Sleeve is padding, not armour, and the Dublin fragment is ambiguous), in spite of plenty of textile fragments - including layered linen - surviving. If gambesons were so common, to the point where the vikings wore them (Why Vikings DID wear padded armor / gambeson), why don’t we have any before the 14th century?

The answer is, in the first place, armour was not as common as other everyday objects, and so is already at a disadvantage in terms of preservation. I’ll go into this more in my next part. Secondly, the armour not only needs to be buried ground that is suitable for preservation, but it needs to be where archaeologists will find it. This is a big reason why we have such a small amount of armour and equipment from the 12th and 13th century. Sometimes, preservation just doesn’t happen.

Conclusion

The evidence for infantry armour in the 12th and mid-13th centuries is sparse and often contradictory. For whatever reason, the artists of the period chose not to depict it, and the literary sources are difficult to reconcile, as they make it clear both that textile armour was the preferred minimum level of armour, but also that leather armour was commonly used. They offer no easy explanation for why leather armour wasn’t considered an appropriate minimum armour, while also showing that it was, in general, cheaper than textile armour. Archaeology, as with art, has little to offer in the solving of this problem, and it cannot be used to support either leather or textile armour as common.

In my next part I will break down who made up the bulk of medieval armies, how they compared in wealth to the average peasant, and why Shad’s view of the poor man with only one cow is not a correct representation of medieval warfare. Unlike this present part, it won’t take a year to write, but it is going to take a couple of months as I hunt down the appropriate sources to avoid focusing too heavily on medieval England.

Until next time!

References

In the comments, as this post was too long to put them in the main body.

Submitted September 01, 2019 at 10:38AM by Hergrim https://ift.tt/2UksVR4