Why was mail used and not scale/lamellar armor used in Western Europe?

[Common Soldier]

One thing that always puzzled me is why did medieval western Europe primarily use chain mail armor instead of at least sometimes using some form of scale or lamellar metal armor? While scale or lamellar armor might not have completely been unknown, it does seem to have been relatively rare compared to mail. Especially if mail was much more expensive.

While most other societies used mail, they did not do so to the near exclusion of scale/lamellar armour you find in western Europe.

Could it be that western Europe found the cost of making mail armor cheaper than other parts of the world compared to making scale scale/lamellar armor? We have solid evidence that medieval western Europe was making metalmetal wire through the modern method of drawing it through draw plates, which would have the. Production of metal wire cheaper than making it through the older hand methods, and by the 14th century were using watermills in producing metal wire in Europe. If other regions were making wire by hand using older methods, it would have made wire expensive and hence mail armor more costly compared to scale/lamellar armor than it was in western Europe. We have illustrations showing the use of draw plates to make metal wire from the 12th century in the work of Theophilus "On Divers Arts", and draw plates from 10th Viking finds. The earliesr evidence of the use of draw plates in China date from the 17th century, at a time the Jesuits were in China and could have transfered the knowledge. (We know that Jesuits transmitted a lot of technological knowledge to the Chinese, including areas as diverse as cannon making, map making, and copper plate engraving printing, so there is nothing unlikely that wire prodiction using draw plates wasn't a one of the technologies.)


And while there was labor to link all the rings of mail armor together, there was all the labor to making the thousands of plates/sscales of scale and lamellar armor, and drilling out all the holes needed to lace it together. The laboe to make mail arnor might not have been that much greater than making the rings and linking them together. A crimping tool based on a modified pair of pliers might have allowed one to flatten the ends of the ring and punch the holes. Making the rings and linking them together might have been tedious, and time consuming, but not required a great deal of skill.

[paleologos]

The points you are making seem correct to me.
I also think that maille hauberks were easier to maintain than scale and lamellar.
Scales required to be riveted on leather or canvas backing and that was not to last forever.
Then an artisan would have to remove the scales in order to mend the backing.
Lamellar requires leather laces that would also eventually break.
Damaged ring mail on the other hand would only require just a few new rings to be added and the rubbing of the rings against each other kept it rust free.

[Cyclops]

I recall reading (where? can't remember the source) that when worn maille links rub against one another removing some rust build-up. Perhaps it was slightly better suited to the damp climes of western and northern Europe than lamellar or scale armour?

Think also of the armour's functionality. I think scale has particular value against arrows, lamellar is decent all around, whereas maille is best against slashing weapons. That may play to a stereotype of eastern horse archer vs western knight, but the mounted mailed knight was the apex of European warfare from Charlemagne to the Battle of the Spurs, or maybe as late as Nancy.

[Common Soldier]

The points you are making seem correct to me.
I also think that maille hauberks were easier to maintain than scale and lamellar.
Scales required to be riveted on leather or canvas backing and that was not to last forever.
Then an artisan would have to remove the scales in order to mend the backing.
Lamellar requires leather laces that would also eventually break.
Damaged ring mail on the other hand would only require just a few new rings to be added and the rubbing of the rings against each other kept it rust free.

I completely agree with everything you wrote.

Still, I would think that some might chose scale/lamellar armor if it was significantly cheaper - better inferior armor, then none at all. This is why I think, for Europeans at least, there wasn't that big a price difference for maille. Lamellar or scale wasn't that much cheaper to put up with its drawbacks. In other parts of the world, where lamellar armor was used with maille, the situation was different, possibly indicating a bigger cost differential.

[paleologos]

I don't know who said that scale and lamellar armor were cheaper to make.
A point that also we need to consider is that eastern soldiers were more likely to be exposed to arrows from powerful composite bows.
Scale and lamellar armor seems to have provided better protection against that than maille.
Western soldiers on the other hand were more likely to be exposed to slashing blows, against which maille was sufficient.

[Roma_Victrix]

One thing that always puzzled me is why did medieval western Europe primarily use chain mail armor instead of at least sometimes using some form of scale or lamellar metal armor? While scale or lamellar armor might not have completely been unknown, it does seem to have been relatively rare compared to mail. Especially if mail was much more expensive.

While you are basically correct in applying this statement about chain mail to medieval Europe (at least until mail was largely superseded by Gothic and Maximilian plate armor of the 15th and 16th centuries), you better be more than extremely careful applying it to the western half of the Roman Empire, which encompassed virtually all of Western Europe minus Ireland and Scotland (although even the Scottish Lowlands were occupied by the Romans on occasion, where they built the Antonine Wall well north of Hadrian's more famous one). In fact, we'll get back to Roman-era Scotland in a moment (and archaeology more generally), but first, artwork!

If I were you I would just give up now. Throw in the towel. Hoist the white flag. All of that, because you're almost certainly wrong (99.99999999% certainty) about scale mail in Western Europe if we are talking about Antiquity. Back then it was known to the Romans as lorica squamata (as opposed to chain mail, lorica hamata, or laminar plate armor, lorica segmentata and overlapping laminar plate arm-guard, the manica/cheires, or the good-old-fashioned leather linothorax and standard Greek hoplite panoply including the muscled cuirasses and metal greaves, the muscled breastplate being favored by Imperial Roman officers and many earlier Republican-era legionaries). I probably don't need to mention the various works of Roman artwork featuring scale mail, such as the early 3rd-century AD Arch of Severus in Rome that shows different troops wearing either plate armor, chain mail, or scale mail (Kelly Devries, Robert D. Smith, Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History of their Impact, ABC-CLIO, 2007, p. 24). We even have Roman emperors depicted wearing it, such as this bust of Vitellius (d. 69 AD) currently housed in Munich by Hermann Historica:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata01b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Aside from monumental architecture it was also depicted in floor mosaics, such as those from the 4th-century AD Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily.

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata03b.jpg


Take a look at this charming chap from northern Italy, a 2nd-century Roman bronze figurine now housed in the Archaeological Civic Museum of Bologna.

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata35b.JPG

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's a carved relief image from a funerary monument in Verona, Italy depicting Lucius Sertorius Firmus, officer of the Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis (which, although was usually stationed in the Balkans along the Danube, also saw service in northern Italy and the Rhineland).

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata02b.jpg


Here's yet another 1st-century AD artwork from Verona, depicting the centurion Quintus Sertorius Festus

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1/stude...image/SC7.html


A fuller image of the latter:

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=4146

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yet all of this artwork is from Italy, as you might say, and while Italy is technically part of Western Europe, what about Spain, Portugal, France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, western Germany, and the British Isles? I can't seem to access these image via Google images, but there is a 3rd-century AD tombstone from Chester, England depicting a Roman cavalryman wearing lorica squamata, now housed in the Grosvenor Museum of Chester (Karen Dixon, Pat Southern, The Roman Cavalry: From the First to the Third Century AD, Routledge, 1992, p. 114). There is also another cavalryman, this time from the 1st century AD, depicted wearing lorica squamata on the Triumphal Arch of Orange in France (H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome, Ch.Scribner's Sons, 1975, p. 51). There's also this relief from Carnuntum, Austria, now housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna, depicting the scale armor possessed by T. Calidius Severus, a centurion of Legio XV Apollinaris (Robinson 1975: 157).

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1/stude...cimage/SC5.JPG


Now we come to the part about archaeology and excavated pieces of armor, and oh boy is this where the whole premise of your thread crumbles into dust, gets crushed into powder, and scatters like ash in the wind.

Remember how Hannibal beat the Romans at the Battle of Lake Trasimene in 217 BC? Well, here's an ACTUAL 3rd-century-BC suit of scale armor reassembled from excavated pieces found from that very site in Italy (courtesy the Australian National University webpage "Scale: Lorica Squamata"):

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1/stude...ale/scale.html


As that Australia National University site makes clear, we have found excavated Roman scale armor from sites as varied as Corbridge in England, Newstead in Scotland, Straubing in Germany and Carnuntum in Austria. We have even found fancier lorica plumata scales at Ham-Hill and Hod Hill in England. Here's the set from Staubing, for instance:

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1/stude...cimage/SC1.JPG

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here we have scale mail from Mainz, Germany (housed in the Landesmuseum):

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata05b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From Augsburg, Germany:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata06b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From Newstead, Scotland (ancient Trimontium, now housed in the National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh):

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata33b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From the Corbridge Roman Fort Museum in England:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata16b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From the Arbeia Roman Fort & Museum in South Shields, England:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata15b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From Brugg, Switzerland, housed in the Vindonissa Museum:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata07b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And just for fun (and to rub the salt in a little deeper), since you mentioned lamellar armor, here's part of a set from Roman-era Switzerland, housed in the Musée de l'Hospice du Grand-Saint-Bernard:

http://www.roma-victrix.com/images/a...quamata21b.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, to recap, you're generally right about the Middle Ages from what I know, but when it comes to Antiquity you are dead wrong, and you might even be wrong about the Early Middle Ages in Western Europe, which technically begins with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. I'm pretty sure dudes in Western Europe were still using scale armor at that time. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong, nanner nanner boo boo, chocolate covered doo doo.

[hellheaven1987]

I just did a quick research and already found out OP is wrong about scale armor in West Europe.

Many scales and fragments of scale armor survive, ranging from middle eastern examples dated as early as ca.1700 BC to finds from imperial Roman sites in Europe dated as late as the 3rd or 4th century. The visual evidence for medieval scale armor, however, exists only in the form of artistic representations such as sculpture and manuscript illuminations. These sources indicate that scale armor was worn fairly frequently through the early middle ages, more sporadically by the l lth to 12th centuries, and appears to have disappeared entirely from western Europe as a primary means of defense by the mid-14th century. It continued to be relatively common into the 15th century in central Europe and Byzantium. Thordeman has pointed out that as the coat of plates came into use, spreading rapidly in the course of the 13th century, the use of scale armor in western Europe waned correspondingly. Thus the New Mexico scales present a paradox: that there should be found in a region not visited by Europeans before ca. 1600 the remains of a coat of scales, a type of body armor not known to have existed for two to three hundred years. They also present what may be the only physical evidence for the construction of this type of armor as it may have existed in late medieval Europe.

Source

We even had an old thread that debunk OP's theory.

[Roma_Victrix]

^ Hah! So not only was he wrong about Antiquity, he was also wrong about the Middle Ages?

Come to think of it, doesn't the Norman-era Bayeux Tapestry depict scale mail? Or is that supposed to be chain mail? It doesn't look like chain mail to me.

EDIT: it certainly is scale armor, as confirmed by this source (John F. Szabo, Nicholas E. Kuefler, The Bayeux Tapestry: a Critically Annotated Bibliography, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015, pp. 22-23).

https://deadliestblogpage.files.word...pestry-009.jpg


I suppose a "/thread" is warranted at this point. I thought that the whole premise of the thread was undermined by my post about Antiquity, but since it was also used in the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages in Western Europe, the OP of this thread should provide a note at the end to reflect this or it should simply be abandoned due to its spurious premise. At this point I don't see how we could possibly continue this conversation other than to argue why chain mail was simply more common, and why use of scale mail declined during the Late Middle Ages, i.e. 14th-15th centuries (Kelly Devries, Robert D. Smith, Medieval Military Technology, 2nd edition, University of Toronto Press, 2012, p. 74).

[Mamlaz]

It is generally accepted that the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail.

As to the question, it is possible that Europeans, for some reason, simply made superior mail than the mail produced in the east.

After all, mail was invented by rowdy Celts, in Europe.

In several Muslim sources during the period of the crusades, it is mentioned that some important person within their ranks managed to get themselves some western mail instead of domestic.

For instance, Baha' al-Din describes a Muslim warlord presenting his Frankish mail shirt to Saladin as he is questioned about his equipment.

So perhaps European mail simply rose to be on par with lamellar and scale, but unlike both, did not encase the body, but allowed body heat to escape far easier, making it superior at least in that regard.

As to the archery argument, I disagree completely, the Alexiad clearly shows the Romans being shocked by the effectiveness of western mail against arrows, in a period before gambesons became popular in Europe, as it is even mentioned that Alexious declared that shooting the knights with arrows was essentially useless and that the horses should be aimed at instead.

It could be simply tradition and fashion though, as, for example, the Ottoman lancers did not adopt European plate armor even though it was far, far superior at impact absorption than any other form of armor.

Or perhaps domestic production was required, and the warriors simply bought whichever armor was available locally, so if the smiths of an entire region for some reason start specializing at crafting one type of stuff, you are basically limited to that type of stuff, as importing armor in large quantities across continents through trade is unheard of to my knowledge.

Well, that is at least my 2 cents.

[hellheaven1987]

As to the question, it is possible that Europeans, for some reason, simply made superior mail than the mail produced in the east.

Nope, my post already deal that question; scale was really popular in West Europe during Early Middle Age, declined during 11th to 12th Century (perhaps due to chaotic political situation after collapse of Carolingian Empire that made higher cost scale armor less popular), and completely disappear when partial plate show up. Consider the Medieval habit of recycling materials, the lack of scale armor from that period might well because everyone "upgraded" their armor to partial plate by recycling their scale armor. Nevertheless it still existed in West Europe even up to 16th Century (my source is an academic source discussing scale armor fragements which were discovered in New Mexico).

[Roma_Victrix]

It is generally accepted that the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail.

The source I cited above states that the soldiers in the tapestry are wearing a variety of different armors, including both chain mail AND scale armor.

[Charerg]

I am genuinely curious if there exists some archaeological finds that verify that scale was indeed widespread in early medieval Europe. We know that Roman scale was relatively common since it appears regularly in archaeological finds. But I am a lot more sceptical of Dark Age scale being common, especially if this relies purely on interpretations of Dark Age art (where mail could easily be mistaken for scale and vice versa). Although lamellar did see use in early medieval Europe, most of it does seem to have been steppe-influenced at least to some degree. However, scale armour is a different matter, and seems to have seen a fairly universal decline after the late Antiquity (being replaced by mail and lamellar), and not just in Europe, I'd argue that even in Central Asia and the Middle East scale armour became increasingly rare.

[Common Soldier]

I just did a quick research and already found out OP is wrong about scale armor in West Europe.



Source

We even had an old thread that debunk OP's theory.

You and your sources are wrong with regard to scale armor in the medieval post Roman western Europe. The example you gave doesn't debunk anything. That an example of possible scale/lamellar armor was found in New Mexico at a time when even the writer of the article admitted lamellar had ceased to be used just means the most likely explanation was that a poor Spanish soldier had acquired some lamellar armor overseas, in North Africa or other place overseas, even China, that the Spanish were known to have visited. There is no evidence that the armour in question was European in manufacture. A free armor, even if inferior, is better than no armor at all.

And a few examples of scale and lamellar in art, which might just be due to artistic license, doesn't dispute the fact that the overwhelming archaeological remains indicate the use of mail armour over scale or lamellar. The few examples of scale or lamellar armor may be just gifts from foreigners, or armor obtained in combat with foreigners, rather than western European manufacture.

The rear of William's helmet has tassles reserved for commanders. His mail is ornately decorated along the lower border. Although both hauberks appear to have "squared" rings, this is most likely the transition of the artisans from square and diamond patterns to rings, as they increased in familiarity with their work on the Tapestry. Note Harold's sword scabbard extending below his mail, and the hilt showing through a slit in his armor. His sword belt is worn under his armor, very clearly depicted here. http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bayeux_...sect16_18.html

Again coifs are mentioned but have never been found, so we can only guess as to their original shape. By the beginning of the tenth century these had become quite common amongst the professional warriors. By the eleventh century the coif was often integrated with the hauberk becomming a hood. The 'ventail' section of mail on or near the chest that folds up over the neck and chin, and hooked into position over the lower face, is the best explanation for the shapes found on the knights armour in the Bayeux tapestry

https://regia.org/research/warfare/Mail.htm

The Bayeux Tapestry, which was completed sometime in the 1080s and is by far the best pictorial source of information about the arms and armour of the Normans, contains a total of 201 armed men of whom 79 are wearing some armour. The usual form of body armour used by the Norman horseman was a knee-length mail shirt called a hauberk that had three-quarter-length sleeves and was split from hem to fork to facilitate riding https://britishheritage.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armor/

These interpretations are supported by the archaeological evidence. While numerous remains of mail armor have been found in many Viking and other medieval sites, very few similar examples have been found for scale or lamellar armor in Scandinavian. . The depiction of scale or lamemellar armor in early medievial illustrations may reflect the use of armor by outsiders, or armor imported from outside Western Europe (lower cost). And despite the a few examples of the apparent use of scale or lamellar armor in MEDIEVAL Western Europe, mail armor was the overwhelming predominant armor used, and the OP is correct and the critic wrong. I did not say lamellar or scale armor was never used in medieval western Europe, just that mail was the overwhelming favorite. Even in eastern Europe, where lamellar was known to be used, mail was the favorite.

In Scandinavia, only one analogy of lamellar armour (or rather fragments) has been known so far, from Birka (see for example Thordeman 1939: 268; Stjerna 2001; Stjerna 2004; Hedenstierna-Jonson 2006: 55, 58; Hjardar – Vike 2011: 193–195; Dawson 2013and others).............

The armour was dated to the first part of 10th century (Stjerna 2004: 31). Scholars agree on it´s nomadic origin from Near or Middle East and it´s closest paralel comes from Balyk-Sook (for example Dawson 2002;Gorelik 2002: 145; Stjerna 2004: 31). Stjerna (2007: 247) thinks that armour and other excelent objects were not designed for war and were rather symbolic („The reason for having these weapons was certainly other than military or practical“). ............

People often think that there are many finds from the area of Old Russia.In fact, there are only a few finds from the period of 9th-11th century and they can be interpreted as eastern import, just like the example from Birka (personal conversation with Sergei Kainov; see Kirpichnikov 1971: 14-20). From this early period, finds come for example from Gnezdovo and Novgorod. The Russian material dated between 11th-13th is much more abundant, including about 270 finds (see Medvedev 1959; Kirpichnikov 1971: 14-20). However, it is important to note that until the second half of the 13th century, the number chainmail fragments is four times higher than fragments of lamellar armour, pointing out that the chainmail was the predominant type of armour in the territory of Old Russia (Kirpichnikov 1971: 15). With high probability, Old Russian lamellar armour from the Viking Age came from Byzantium, where they were dominant thanks to their simpler design and lower cost already in the 10th century (Bugarski 2005: 171)............

While these arguments are understandable, it has to be stressed that lamellar armour is in no way suitable for Viking Age reenactment. The argument that this type of armour was used by Rus can be counteracted by the fact that even in the time of the greatest expansion of lamellar armours in Russia, the number of chainmail armours was four times higher. What is more, lamellar armours were imported.
http://sagy.vikingove.cz/lamellar-armours-of-the-viking-age/

And note, I never said that lamellar or scale was never, ever used. But it is clear that chainmail was the overwhelming choice, and my OP still stands, correct. That on a few RARE occasions scale or lamellar was used in noway detracts from the point of the thread, which mail was overwhelmingly used over scale and lamellar, and the lack of archaeological evidence supports that assertion.

[Common Soldier]

It is generally accepted that the Bayeux tapestry depicts mail.

As to the question, it is possible that Europeans, for some reason, simply made superior mail than the mail produced in the east.

But what would make the European mail better? Could it be that wire produced by draw plates made better wire, less brittle, less likely to fail, than wire produced by hand with the older methods?

So perhaps European mail simply rose to be on par with lamellar and scale, but unlike both, did not encase the body, but allowed body heat to escape far easier, making it superior at least in that regard.

Mail is also more flexible. also making it more comfortable. And durable - no lacing that would need periodic replacing as you have on lamellar armor

As to the archery argument, I disagree completely, the Alexiad clearly shows the Romans being shocked by the effectiveness of western mail against arrows, in a period before gambesons became popular in Europe, as it is even mentioned that Alexious declared that shooting the knights with arrows was essentially useless and that the horses should be aimed at instead.

I agree. Studies have shown that riveted mail armor, with a gambeson, was pretty effective against arrows. Not perfect, but not much worse, if any, than scale or lamellar. Iff mail were significantly worse than lamellar against arrows, you would think at least the leaders of the Crusaders would have adopted it, but they didn't. The Europeans had plenty of opportunities to learn to make lamellar armor from the Byzantines and others if they chose to, but they chose not to. Even if lamellar were less durable, that wouldn't have stopped a king from adopting it if it offered significantly better protection. Clearly, lamellar and scale did not offer significantly better protection.

On the other hand, if mail cost a lot more, you can see why the Byzantines and others did not always use it, and preferred the cheaper (to them) lamellar and scale armor.

It could be simply tradition and fashion though, as, for example, the Ottoman lancers did not adopt European plate armor even though it was far, far superior at impact absorption than any other form of armor.

The Ottomans may have lacked the technology to make articulated plate armor, which is quite sophisticated. Or it was too expensive. The Europeans started off with a combination of plate and mail before going to fully plate armor.

Or perhaps domestic production was required, and the warriors simply bought whichever armor was available locally, so if the smiths of an entire region for some reason start specializing at crafting one type of stuff, you are basically limited to that type of stuff, as importing armor in large quantities across continents through trade is unheard of to my knowledge.

Well, that is at least my 2 cents.

I read that one of the items that Venice exported to the Ottomans was metal wire. That could have been used to make mail.

[Common Soldier]

Nope, my post already deal that question; scale was really popular in West Europe during Early Middle Age, declined during 11th to 12th Century (perhaps due to chaotic political situation after collapse of Carolingian Empire that made higher cost scale armor less popular), and completely disappear when partial plate show up. Consider the Medieval habit of recycling materials, the lack of scale armor from that period might well because everyone "upgraded" their armor to partial plate by recycling their scale armor. Nevertheless it still existed in West Europe even up to 16th Century (my source is an academic source discussing scale armor fragements which were discovered in New Mexico).

Then where are the archaeological remains of this scale or lamellar armor? Mail was recycled too, yet we have still found plenty of mail armour.

And we found plenty of examples of Roman scale/lamellar armour, which further undermines the "recylcing" theory. F;uthermore, we have brigidine/jack plate armor, and they plqtes do not have the holes in them that should be there is it was all recycled scale or lamellar plates. All of which undermines your thorry that the reason we don't find the metal plates for scale or lamellar armor is that they have all been recycled.

There is no evidence, in Western Europe, that scale or lamellar metal armour was common as you claim, nor have you presented evidence to back up that claim. You prensented one source thqt stated it existed, but provided no solid evidence it was common. A few artist renditions, that might, or mignt not have been scale or lamellar armour, does not show it was common - for every one picture or statue that might, I repeat might, show scale or lamellar armor in medieval western Europe, there are dozens that show maille armour, including dozens of actual samplew lacking for scale and lamellar.

Note, we have been able to find evidence of lamellar armour in medieval Russian sites, just a lot less than mail, so the complete lack in Western Europe indicates inf lamellar did exist there, it was very rare,

[sumskilz]

Studies have shown that riveted mail armor, with a gambeson, was pretty effective against arrows. Not perfect, but not much worse, if any, than scale or lamellar. Iff mail were significantly worse than lamellar against arrows, you would think at least the leaders of the Crusaders would have adopted it, but they didn't.

Their Muslim enemies mostly wore mail anyway, specifically kazaghands which were mail sewed between two layers of quilted armor, often with a top layer of silk. Some had two layers of mail. I would not be surprised if the crusaders imitated that, doubled layers in addition to padding as a defense against arrows.

[hellheaven1987]

That an example of possible scale/lamellar armor was found in New Mexico at a time when even the writer of the article admitted lamellar had ceased to be used just means the most likely explanation was that a poor Spanish soldier had acquired some lamellar armor overseas, in North Africa or other place overseas, even China, that the Spanish were known to have visited. There is no evidence that the armour in question was European in manufacture. A free armor, even if inferior, is better than no armor at all.

Nope, it is clear you did not read the article, but I would kindly post its conclusion for you.

After reviewing these questions, the most reasonable, and the most significant, conclusion remaining to be derived from the existence of the New Mexico scales is that the complete coat of scales, as a form of body armor, did not disappear in western Europe during the 14th century as previously supposed, but continued to be made and worn to some extent, perhaps in isolated areas, into the 15th and possibly the 16th century. In this way it would have been possible for a coat of scales, perhaps outdated by only two or three generations, to have been brought to the region, most probably during one of the Spanish expeditions to New Mexico during the late 16th or early 17th century. Being slightly antiquated, the scale armor was probably worn a soldier of relatively modest means who could not afford more up to date equipment. In addition, a study of the New Mexico scales offers us detailed and otherwise unavailable insights into the physical nature of at least one type of scale armor as it existed in late medieval or Renaissance Europe.

The same article even mentions scale armor did remain in West Europe after 16th Century.

Print sources offer some evidence of a limited but continued use of scale armor in the early 16th century, especially of scale skull caps worn by infantry26.T he 17th century Polish karacena is the most well known type of extant scale armor. A scale skirt also occurs occasionally as a rump defense (culet) on Italian cuirassier armors of the early 17th century. Both the karacena and the scale culet, however, are examples of revival styles and bear no relation to the New Mexico scale armor.

It is also kindly weird you use the archaeological finding of Scandinavia - a poor, non-West Europe region to define that every other place of West Europe would be same. In fact it seems even sculpturally only the continental West Europe, specially the Carolingian Empire, that had such sculptures, as I did not recall it appears in the art of British Isles. In fact, even sculpture examples suggest that by the time of 14th Century scale armor were reduced to reinforcement of certain body part instead a full armor set.

[conon394]

OK its early and I skimmed the thread, but..

I see that it has been noted the Romans did not use chain mail exclusively, but they did produce a lot of quality chain mail than is was sort of laying about. It is comparatively easy to alter chain mail or add a piece too it verses say a coat of plate (which I did not see mentioned). I have seen various historians suggest that at least for the earliest period under discussion the apparent bias to chain main was simply a lot of being about, it's mutability and existing relevant craft tradition.

Did anyone cite this yet? For coat of plate -W(V)isby, 1361,

http://virtuabis.free.fr/Armour%20fr...1%20t%20II.pdf

[Common Soldier]

Nope, it is clear you did not read the article, but I would kindly post its conclusion for you.



The same article even mentions scale armor did remain in West Europe after 16th Century.



It is also kindly weird you use the archaeological finding of Scandinavia - a poor, non-West Europe region to define that every other place of West Europe would be same. In fact it seems even sculpturally only the continental West Europe, specially the Carolingian Empire, that had such sculptures, as I did not recall it appears in the art of British Isles. In fact, even sculpture examples suggest that by the time of 14th Century scale armor were reduced to reinforcement of certain body part instead a full armor set.

I have already dealt with the claims of you one article, which even it admitted a lack of physical evidence. Illustructions and sculptures said to represent scale/lamellar might not, as in the Bayeux Tapestry. And compared to the hundreds of illustructions and sculptures clearly showing mail, a few showing scale doesn't establish scale was common. In the early Middle Ages, most of our illustrations would have from Gospels and such, and it was known the Carolingian copied works Byzantine examples, so they merely have been showing scale and lamellar becauses that is what the sources they were using at templates showed.

As for the Scandinavian example, it tied in to showing that if the Viking ancestors of the Norman were not using scale or lamellar, than the Normans were not either, and so you and your sources were wrong to claim the Bayeux Tapestry depicted scale armor as you claimed. Also, medieval Scandinavia, unlike ancient Rome, or Poland, or Russia, was part of Medieval western Europe. The armor and weapons of western Europe were often derived from Viking models, the Viking sword of the Medieval arming sword. In addition, the archaeological evidence shows the Viking were

And for not reading, you didn't even read what I clearly wrote, talking about Roman armor which is NOT medieval. And you still do that, since Polad is generally considered part of Eastern Europe, and its arms are often a transition to east and west. The fact you could give a half dozen eexamples of Roman scale and lamellar but not a single WESTERN MEDIEVAL close up picture of scale and lamellar. Even the article you provided did not show close up pictures of the medieval examples of western Europe scale armor, but only at such distance we had to rely on the writer's judgment. If you can provide other examples of Spanish scale armor in the Americas, then produce it. A single example does not demonstrate that scale or lamellar was common, and compared to the hundreds of Conquistador sites where no scale and lamellar was found, proves rather the opposite. Your argument is like saying that because we found a skeleton of a single East Asian man in a Roman grave, ancient Rome had a large Chinese population.

[sumskilz]

The fact you could give a half dozen eexamples of Roman scale and lamellar but not a single WESTERN MEDIEVAL close up picture of scale and lamellar.

Check out the PDF Conon posted. There's an actual lamellar find as well as one that's sort of a hybrid between lamellar and riveted coat of plates.