Cuirboilli Cuirass

[French Desperate WindChild]

I said that for all languages including the most understandable one (at least for me ) 😁

[Brootse]

13 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

The point was that if you start calling (chain) mail ”ring armour”, this is what people will believe you’re talking about.

Yeah, it was a big mistake.

[Loïc]

19 hours ago, Brootse said:

18th century European historians started to use the word mail incorrectly to refer to any armor. And "ring mail" was invented by a Victorian antiquarian who thought that art pieces like eg. the Bayeaux tapestry where the warriors had large rings on them were accurate representations of real armors, and not just the artist's way of depicting mail (ie. "chain mail").

Just a point about Bayeux tapestry: what is represented is chain mail, but more precisely "broigne". Here the rings are directly stitched on a leather clothing, but not intertwined. I remember having studying this at university. Intertwined chain mail is known as soon as the roman Republic, after Rome sacking towards 390 BC (the rings were riveted). Next (merovingian and carolingian periods, Norman conquest), was the broigne with stitched rings. The intertwined chain mail were discovered again by the Occident when the crusades began, but the old broigne was cheaper and easier to craft. The broigne was finally gave up towards the XIIIth century, and the intertwined rings chain mail adopted.

I also wonder about this panel from Bayeux tapestry: broigne, at this time could be made of stitched rings ("chain mail") but also of stitched metal scales ("scale mail" ?). The picture figures two kinds of patterns: the rings of course stand for stitched rings broigne, but maybe the crossed-lines could figure scale mails?

Of course, RPG don't necessarily have to be so detailed. Phew... 😅

[Bill the barbarian]

47 minutes ago, Loïc said:

Just a point about Bayeux tapestry: what is represented is chain mail, but more precisely "broigne". Here the rings are directly stitched on a leather clothing, but not intertwined. I remember having studying this at university. Intertwined chain mail is known as soon as the roman Republic, after Rome sacking towards 390 BC (the rings were riveted). Next (merovingian and carolingian periods, Norman conquest), was the broigne with stitched rings. The intertwined chain mail were discovered again by the Occident when the crusades began, but the old broigne was cheaper and easier to craft. The broigne was finally gave up towards the XIIIth century, and the intertwined rings chain mail adopted.

 

Yes, yes sir Loic, very erudite, very learned, but let me ask. Why do the ones on the ground with arrows sticking of them not wear red shirts?

[Loïc]

16 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Yes, yes sir Loic, very erudite, very learned, but let me ask. Why do the ones on the ground with arrows sticking of them not wear red shirts?

Certainly a fail from Bayeux' script team! Or maybe a lack of red yarns... 😉

[Bill the barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Loïc said:

Certainly a fail from Bayeux' script team! Or maybe a lack of red yarns... 😉

Alas, well thank you for your sagacious response M. Professor!

 

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, Loïc said:

Just a point about Bayeux tapestry: what is represented is chain mail, but more precisely "broigne". Here the rings are directly stitched on a leather clothing, but not intertwined. I remember having studying this at university.

Do you have a (modern) source for this? Wikipedia, for instance, directly contradicts this and claims that it's regular (chain) mail: 'The Bayeux Tapestry has been misinterpreted as depicting several different types of armour. It is generally acknowledged today that virtually all the armour on the tapestry is standard mail armour and not "ring mail", "trellised mail" or "mascled mail" or any other Victorian misinterpretation.'

Edited September 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Brootse]

10 hours ago, Loïc said:

Just a point about Bayeux tapestry: what is represented is chain mail, but more precisely "broigne". Here the rings are directly stitched on a leather clothing, but not intertwined. I remember having studying this at university. Intertwined chain mail is known as soon as the roman Republic, after Rome sacking towards 390 BC (the rings were riveted). Next (merovingian and carolingian periods, Norman conquest), was the broigne with stitched rings. The intertwined chain mail were discovered again by the Occident when the crusades began, but the old broigne was cheaper and easier to craft. The broigne was finally gave up towards the XIIIth century, and the intertwined rings chain mail adopted.

I also wonder about this panel from Bayeux tapestry: broigne, at this time could be made of stitched rings ("chain mail") but also of stitched metal scales ("scale mail" ?). The picture figures two kinds of patterns: the rings of course stand for stitched rings broigne, but maybe the crossed-lines could figure scale mails?

Of course, RPG don't necessarily have to be so detailed. Phew... 😅

No, that type of armor wasn't used, it's a widely spread myth.

[Loïc]

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Do you have a (modern) source for this? Wikipedia, for instance, directly contradicts this and claims that it's regular (chain) mail: 'The Bayeux Tapestry has been misinterpreted as depicting several different types of armour. It is generally acknowledged today that virtually all the armour on the tapestry is standard mail armour and not "ring mail", "trellised mail" or "mascled mail" or any other Victorian misinterpretation.'

Sorry, I later specialized in roman archaeology and landscape archaeology. I do remember this was L3 courses, and "war in the Middle Ages" was the theme of the year. The professor was Mrs Beriac-Lainé, a specialist of violence and catastrophees in the Middle Ages, very well renown in France at this time. Maybe wikipedia is more recently updated, but I would tend to trust more my former professor. 😉 And maybe, also, there are several schools of thought in this matter? As I said, I'm not a specialist of medieval weaponry. This said, as an archaeologist, I excavated many warrior tombs. Each time I found "mails", until the XIIth or XIIIrd centuries, they were mainly (when we could reconstitute them) "broignes". Promess: one of my colleagues is an archaeologist specialized in weaponry in the Middle Ages. As soon as I see him, I ask him for precisions and references!

44 minutes ago, Brootse said:

No, that type of armor wasn't used, it's a widely spread myth.

I'll trust you for Bayeux and the Norman Conquest, don't know about it. But "scale armors" did exist in the roman Empire (lorica squamata), so the myth (as many myths...) as a real real origin. And some "scale armors" were found in viking graves...

[Mugen]

On 9/11/2020 at 11:09 AM, Akhôrahil said:

We also say ”mail” (from ”maille”) and not ”ring armor”. It’s just how language works - technical terms get imported.

But if you speak of "maille" and not "cotte de maille" to a French, it's most likely they'll think you mean a sweatshirt, or money (Maille was the name of a medieval gold coin, but is a now a slang for money).

[Brootse]

2 hours ago, Loïc said:

Sorry, I later specialized in roman archaeology and landscape archaeology. I do remember this was L3 courses, and "war in the Middle Ages" was the theme of the year. The professor was Mrs Beriac-Lainé, a specialist of violence and catastrophees in the Middle Ages, very well renown in France at this time. Maybe wikipedia is more recently updated, but I would tend to trust more my former professor. 😉 And maybe, also, there are several schools of thought in this matter? As I said, I'm not a specialist of medieval weaponry. This said, as an archaeologist, I excavated many warrior tombs. Each time I found "mails", until the XIIth or XIIIrd centuries, they were mainly (when we could reconstitute them) "broignes". Promess: one of my colleagues is an archaeologist specialized in weaponry in the Middle Ages. As soon as I see him, I ask him for precisions and references!

I'll trust you for Bayeux and the Norman Conquest, don't know about it. But "scale armors" did exist in the roman Empire (lorica squamata), so the myth (as many myths...) as a real real origin. And some "scale armors" were found in viking graves...

Yeah, I meant that the "ring mails" weren't used. Scale armors were definitely real.

[Loïc]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

But if you speak of "maille" and not "cotte de maille" to a French, it's most likely they'll think you mean a sweatshirt, or money (Maille was the name of a medieval gold coin, but is a now a slang for money).

No. The average French will think about mustard. "Maille" is one of the major brands of mustard here. 😁

1 hour ago, Brootse said:

Yeah, I meant that the "ring mails" weren't used. Scale armors were definitely real.

Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, what are you talking about with "ring mails" ? The broigne (the rings are stitched on a leather hauberk)? Or the "real" cotte de maille (with intertwined rings)? Both did exist at different times in different areas, we have archaeological evidences of that (not only litterary sources). Or did you just mean they weren't used during the Norman Conquest?

[Loïc]

Okay, took no long time of research. The museum of Bayeux itself (and its associated specialists) says there are both the broigne and the cotte de maille (or hauberk) represented on the tapestry, usually the broigne for footmen, the cotte de maille for riders. Here's a reference (sorry, it's in french): the educational guidebook for teachers edited by the museum : https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GUIDE-PRATIQUE-ENSEIGNANTS-TAPISSERIE-2018-19-.pdf

So both the broigne and the cotte de mailles coexist in the XIth century. The broigne, cheaper and easier to craft, for poor footmen (😪), the cotte de mailles for wealthy knights (😎). Less efficient, the first seems to be abandoned towards the XIIth/XIIIth century.

About the scale armor, there is no evidence for Bayeux, but archaeological evidences for the same period suggest that there probably were present at the battle of Hastings : https://journals.openedition.org/archeomed/15911

Hope these references will help (go-go Google translate !!!!).

 

[Roko Joko]

I think ring mail in the specific sense of armor with non-interlocking rings probably did not exist (except in Renaissance Italy and rarely in Asia) after reading this forum thread and a few things cited there.  I don't see any good evidence that it did.  The museum guide mentions broigne but not rings, and it's not a academic piece; there are no sources.

I'm suspicious about the historicity of cuirboilli too.  It existed, but I don't think the details of how much and how it was used are very well understood.  But it doesn't bother me much because I think it's good for Glorantha, where breastplates and greaves are a good look, as is any kind of ancient material or technology.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Roko Joko

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

I'm suspicious about the historicity of cuirboilli too.  It existed, but I don't think the details of how much and how it was used are very well understood.  But it doesn't bother me much because I think it's good for Glorantha, where breastplates and greaves are a good look, as is any kind of primitive materials or technology.

I like the suggestion that the Anglo-Saxons used courboullie helmets, as this would explain why we find so few helmets while it seems like a no-brainer to wear them, especially in a shield wall.

[Brootse]

On 9/13/2020 at 10:50 PM, Loïc said:

Okay, took no long time of research. The museum of Bayeux itself (and its associated specialists) says there are both the broigne and the cotte de maille (or hauberk) represented on the tapestry, usually the broigne for footmen, the cotte de maille for riders. Here's a reference (sorry, it's in french): the educational guidebook for teachers edited by the museum : https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GUIDE-PRATIQUE-ENSEIGNANTS-TAPISSERIE-2018-19-.pdf

So both the broigne and the cotte de mailles coexist in the XIth century. The broigne, cheaper and easier to craft, for poor footmen (😪), the cotte de mailles for wealthy knights (😎). Less efficient, the first seems to be abandoned towards the XIIth/XIIIth century.

About the scale armor, there is no evidence for Bayeux, but archaeological evidences for the same period suggest that there probably were present at the battle of Hastings : https://journals.openedition.org/archeomed/15911

Hope these references will help (go-go Google translate !!!!).

 

 

9 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

I think ring mail in the specific sense of armor with non-interlocking rings probably did not exist (except in Renaissance Italy and rarely in Asia) after reading this forum thread and a few things cited there.  I don't see any good evidence that it did.  The museum guide mentions broigne but not rings, and it's not a academic piece; there are no sources.

I'm suspicious about the historicity of cuirboilli too.  It existed, but I don't think the details of how much and how it was used are very well understood.  But it doesn't bother me much because I think it's good for Glorantha, where breastplates and greaves are a good look, as is any kind of ancient material or technology.

Yeah, the "ring mail" is unfortunately a really widespread myth, and I'm not surprised that even museums still spread it. The cuirboulli armor did exist, but it was never as common historically as it is in rpgs. Different sorts of cloth armors were historically what leather armors are in most rpgs, ie. a cheaper alternative for those who can't afford metal armors.

[Borygon]

On 9/13/2020 at 5:49 PM, Loïc said:

And maybe, also, there are several schools of thought in this matter?

History is an art, not science. It even has its own muse- Clio. We can only guess how things were in the past without ever having a chance of being correct or objective. Very Gloranthan if you think about it.

Also, ring mail makes more sense in the context of a bronze age, when people only begun to obsess over killing other humans and nobody knew yet how to git gud at it.

I think everyone can agree that its existance at least is a possibility, it fits into setting and is catch-all category for leather with stuff on it that looks like something from Conan movies.

[Nozbat]

These illustrations might be helpful... definitely no sign of cuirboilli chest armour that I can find...

[Loïc]

4 hours ago, Borygon said:

History is an art, not science. It even has its own muse- Clio. We can only guess how things were in the past without ever having a chance of being correct or objective. Very Gloranthan if you think about it.

Totally wrong, sorry. As an archaeologist, I can tell you there are several schools of thought in history as in anthropology and archaeology. About many and many topics. The great migrations of Neolithic in Occident, social status of roman villae, apparition of mass violences, alimentation during the Mesolithic, etc. And (I found that) the controversy about broigne with stitched rings: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38999913.pdf See p21 (J.M. Kelly's PhD dissertation was published as soon as 1931!). So there is a controversy about the broigne made of stitched rings. Some english authors (after J.M. Kelly) maintain it never existed (only the plate broigne did exist according to them). Other english authors (after Samuel Meyrick), the french historians and most of archaeologists maintain it did. Apparently, the main bone of contention are the sources, mainly french (...). If the Bayeux tapestry can be easily criticized, the problem of the texts remains. Charlemagne's capitularia mention the broigne, but with no details. The Chanson de Roland (XIIth century) speaks many times about the broigne, and even says it is made of mails (verse 3387 for example), as the Chronique des Ducs de Normandie. There are too many occurrences to think the broigne with stitched mails is just a fiction. And too many times the broigne is well-distinguished from the hauberk made of interlaced mails. Now, anyone can make his own opinion about this, but there is indeed a controversy, and an old one! 😁

And sorry, you're especially wrong about history as a science. It is now, like archaeology and anthropology. These three (interlaced 😁) disciplines have scientific procedures (observations, experiments, recurrence, confrontation, arguments...) and since many decades they all call upon many and many physico-chemical analysis (14C, radiography, thermoluminescence, micromorphology...) and biological analysis (parasitology, DNA, biometry...). In my own specialty (landscape archaeology), I regularly call on environmental impact reports, and always on taphonomy and stratigraphy analysis. Yes, we're trying to restitute past societies, but with scientific arguments. Maybe TV historians don't really argue, but TV, you know... 🙄

[Loïc]

8 hours ago, Brootse said:

Yeah, the "ring mail" is unfortunately a really widespread myth, and I'm not surprised that even museums still spread it.

Before Schliemann, the city of Troy was considered as a myth, a fiction created by Homer. Schliemann was quiet a fraud and a cheater, but later diggings proved he was right. "Myth" is a notion that should be really really qualified...

[Manimati]

6 hours ago, Nozbat said:

These illustrations might be helpful...

From which book do these illustrations come from ?

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Manimati said:

From which book do these illustrations come from ?

Seems to be the 'Palladium book of weapons and Armors'.

[metcalph]

2 hours ago, Loïc said:

Before Schliemann, the city of Troy was considered as a myth, a fiction created by Homer. Schliemann was quiet a fraud and a cheater, but later diggings proved he was right. 

Not quite. 

http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2020/06/truth-in-myth.html

[Nozbat]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Seems to be the 'Palladium book of weapons and Armors'.

Yes..it is... was trying to find an older soft back book I had on weapons and armour ...but seem to have mislaid it

[Loïc]

58 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Not quite. 

http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2020/06/truth-in-myth.html

Agree here. But before Schliemann, there was still a debate, and many people considered Troy as a myth, side to side with Atlantis... This is very common in archaeology: even when you have evidences (archaeological and/or contemporary texts), some reserchears still do want to contradict, sometimes for ideologic reasons (the Neolithic migrations in Occident for example), sometimes just because they can't admit they are wrong, or just to get themselves talked about...

We have here in France a very good example with the oppidum (and later roman settlement) of Alesia. There was a debate since a long time, so Napoléon III ordered some diggings on the site of the best candidate (Alise Sainte-Reine, Côte-d'Or). Many evidences were found (the gaulish fortifications, epigraphic mentions...). So case solved. Over. No, some serious researchers (and the Asterix comics) are still contesting the evidences... Yet, as for Troy, Alesia "was never lost", and evidences were excavated later. That's also why I don't like much the notion of "myth" when we're talking about history and archaeology... Incidentally, most of the serious authors (actual researchers in history and archaeology) avoid to use this word (except those who are working on religious and spiritual matters, of course).

By the bye, other myths about Alesia: Vercingetorix had a roman haircut and no mustache (he was already romanised!), as proves a stater (coin) figuring him. And he never surrendered to Caesar: besieged in Alesia, and after many defeats, his own men gave him up to Caesar (Comentarii de Bello Gallico, Book VII, 7, 89).

Edited September 15, 2020 by Loïc