There are some historical descriptions of alternating inside and outside splints on greaves. I think so few examples survived because the backing/covering is organic and decomposes in most of Europe. There was a find a few years ago in one of the Baltic states of some splinted vambraces. They had been dumped into an outhouse pit which is a low oxygen environment, so the leather survived.
One important thing to note may be that lamellar armour could relate to the lack of surviving splint armour in a couple ways, such as: 1. The splint was regularly recycled into the (generally smaller, but largely similar) lamellar scales. 2. Splint armour may have not been manufactured much in the first place if lamellar was preferred for whatever reason (maybe ease of assembly, familiarity by the armourer, or some other benefit of lamellar over splint). I would still largely agree that splint was probably used more often than expected, but if we were to somehow find it wasn't favoured over lamellar (or other scale armours) I wouldn't be shocked.
I agree about it being recycled into lamellar. That is very plausible. But your argument isn't going to convince the naysayers, as the people who scoff at splint armor tend to be even more critical of lamellar. Re, lamellar vs splint. I don't really think they are in competition. In my experience, Splint works best on limbs, less well on torsos (too flexible on flat surfaces). Lamellar works best on torsos, less well on limbs. (Inconveniently bulky on limbs.) Why not simply use both?
@@MalcolmPLI think maybe one of the reasons you don't see it as often is because limb armor in general is rare relative to the already uncommon torso armor, which makes sense, prioritize organs over limbs. It's also just more inconvenient/tiring to wear for an extended period, and I personally find leg armor interferes with my mobility not a lot, but a noticable amount. Also Many cultures that favor lamellar are quite archery-centric, and as far as I've seen prefer minimal encumbrance on their arms. And other cultures I know of that adopt it from steppe peoples they encounter, such as the eastern Romans or Varangians, used it combination with large shield coverage and close infantry tactics, which in theory also provides the additional coverage of your fellow infantryman's weapons. These observations may not hold up nearly as well in south/east/southeast Asian cultures, I can't think of any limb armor from any of those places that isn't from ultra-elite heavy calvary, but I simply don't know as much.
I get antsy if I've gone too long without making something. I'd go insane if I didn't have my little workshop. I feel a constant need to make things. It's everything to me.
On the topic of recycling, I feel it's also worth noting that flat strips of metal are perfect for stacking and forge welding into new billets and forging into something new. I'm willing to bet this happened to at least some splint armor.
I can think of another advantage. Being embedded in leather, it would be lower maintenance as the leather could be impregnated with oil to prevent rust.
Also, I love your point about recycling of plates. I don’t know why that isn’t mentioned more when talking about metal artifacts or why we don’t have more examples of one thing.
First and only time I ever saw that kind of armor was in a comic from the 70s in the form of torso armor Always liked the simplicity of it and it looks tough and practical Ebic video man
I know this is an older video, but I want to mention another factor that may lead to less surviving examples of splinted armor which is, along with what you mentioned, the plates being smaller and full of holes means a lot of surface area for rust to eat away the metal especially after the outer layers rot away
We have some surviving examples of similar armour types from the Kanem-Bornu Empire and the Sokoto Caliphate in Africa, consisting of strips of wrought iron on a leather or fabric backing. Some of the artefacts use imported European iron, but others have been identified as locally forged, and regardless of the origin of the metal, the resulting cuirasses were all assembled in Africa, and worn either as independent armours, or in conjunction with chainmail and/or quilted cotton. RUclips hates it when I try to post links, but you can see the Kanem-Bornu example on the Met's website, and the Sokoto examples in the Musee de Quai Branly's Fulani collection.
nicely summed it up! Lately i have the strange urge to build me an armour... well i guess i go for the "leather on the outside plus some thin metal too" :) PS: please put a magnet on your anvil and prevent it killing your hearing! :)
Metal was valuable and was usually recycled. It still is today- it's possible to make a living collecting scrap metal in many places. Most surviving European armour is from the 16th and 17th centuries, just before it fell out of widespread use, and the surviving examples have a bias towards high-status pieces that would have been seen as family heirlooms. They were sometimes used as costumes in formal portraits even after they'd stopped being worn in war. It'd actually be more surprising if there were lots of examples of splinted armour from Europe, even if it was widely used, as it would be a cheaper alternative to plate, and the rich wouldn't have bothered with it. Full suits of armour continued to be used in some parts of Asia well into the 19th century, and there are comparatively more surviving examples comprised of smaller plates. It's an especially common thing in Japanese armour. The plates were fitted together in various ways, with varying degrees of complexity, but some are quite similar to the classic idea of splinted armour, particularly those for the lower legs and forearms.
Like you am sure that splint armor was much more common than generally thought. As others have pointed out, the metal is easily recycled and the organic material gradually rots away. In surviving plate armor there is a massive bias towards the fancy decorated armor of princes and lords as opposed to the plain armor of the common soldier.
I have a hot take on historical accuracy. I'm working on making a suit of armor that'd be suitable for a mercenary who put it together over time. If you're making armor, and you think its a good idea, and it ends up working, then the chances are that someone, somewhere, sometime, also thought of the same thing.
One could state that a brigandine is related to splint. The wooden armor you made is splint to right? (Just like cricket greaves) Note fore next time: if you want to forge a square bar into a flat strip, put the bar under 45°.
What would one do if the outside got really damaged after use? I expect that wouldn't be entirely uncommon for career soldiers or mercenaries. and if the plates were on the outside could a smaller strip or multiple strips of iron be riveted to the outside to provide more rigidity?
Many cuts can simply be sewn shut, it won't look nice, but it will still be almost as strong. If there are multiple cuts in the same area you might have to sew on a patch. That would be a pain, but still doable. Re, extra rigidity. You could theoretically rivet the vertical splints to a series of horizontal iron bands instead of a leather backing. These horizontal bands would be shaped to the leg. I've only ever seen something like this done in helmets however.
Here's a link to pictures of a brigandine from the royal Ontario museum. There are a number of repairs that have been made to it. collections.rom.on.ca/objects/269611/brigandine?ctx=41d4858d-ecfc-41dd-b64a-4fce13546acf&idx=0
so i found your channel a few months ago and have watched a lot of the videos. the experiments you do are really interesting and unique. i have been wondering if making a version of your wooden armour with these splints would be cheaper / easier than using leather with rivets and could thus have been a posibility had iron working been more common. sort of like an iroquois analoque to lamellar. would love to hear your opinion or maybe even see a test
The construction method of the wooden armor, where the boards are woven together, is designed to prevent the boards from splitting when struck by a point. It would be redundant with metal as iron is less prone to splitting as is. It would require a lot of cord with little to no benefit over another style of lacing. If you were to try a different method of lacing it together, more like the one used for the wooden shin guards, it would end up being pretty similar to historical lamellar armor, as you mention, but with longer plates. Which I suppose would work fairly well.
@@MalcolmPL thank you for the quick response. my thinking was that twine is cheaper than the leather or cord normally used for lamellar while also being thin enough to not leave much of a gap. it would also remove the need for drilling or punching holes thus potentially further reducing costs. the only trouble im seeing is that metal might prove too slippery for the wrap around style of lacing. also have you spoken or written about repairing your wood armour? replacing slats or twine without redoing the whole thing
On the subject of repairs, if a slat is damaged and needs to be replaced, you can use a punch to pound it out from the armor and then pound in a new one. Not the easiest fix, it takes a bit of care so as not to mess things up. If the cords are damaged, the way to repair is to trim the loose edges and then to reweave the damaged section with a needle. Sort of like darning socks.
Tod from Tod's Workshop ( ruclips.net/video/8z1V8fgfP30/видео.html ) did a test with mail under and mail over padding, and he found that mail over provided better protection than under, even with the same materials. This may be a reason why even though there are gaps, the actual strength of the splint may be stronger with the steel or iron on the outside. It would be cool to do a test of either side being shot at, but consistency is key (which is why he is shooting from a fixed power crossbow).
I'll agree that the steel overtop would be harder to puncture, (setting aside gaps.) However, I don't see the point in testing my example, as the steel here is good quality and double layered, no bow is going to be able to puncture it. The only way it could be penetrated is through the gaps. Anyway, I think plate armor tests are largely irrelevant until someone makes a reproduction out of historical bloomery iron. Modern iron is just too different structurally to give more than a general impression.
It works for mail because first, mail can be penetrated anywhere and second mail bunches up over top of a fabric restricting the penetration zone available but opens up behind a fabric increasing the penetration zone available. Splints do neither they just prevent penetration everywhere aside from the gaps.
wouldn’t you call a coat of plates or brigandine “splint mail”, since they are both smaller slabs of metal attached to a textile piece? and werent both relitively common to boot in the middle and late medieval period (like 100 years war, battle of visby, etc). especially in visual references. Also, another advantage besides cheapness, might be relative comfort/flexibility as opposed to plate while given a decent amount of protection. especially if not well fit to a persons measurements.
They’re the same sort of thing but for different parts of the body. Splint armor is not flexible in any useful way, it opens and closes but that’s about it, hence why torso protection tended to use smaller less protective plates rather than long splints.
this looks a lot like brigandine armour,most of the surviving brigandines have plates that were tin plated or painted.It is not certain if this was normal or just surviver bias after all if plated or painted plates were rare the stuff in museums may just be the the stuff that didn`t rust away.
The arguments make a lot of sense, considering how leather decomposes one can't expect to find intact pieces, the metal splints would just be spreaded around. Ease of fabrication and consequent cheapness also make a lot of sense but I wonder, this type of armor can be applied only for arm and leg protection, something that a poor soldier wouldn't really focus on, as they would prioritize hand and head protection, and subsequently torso and all the rest, at that point the soldier wouldn't be really that poor. Does that make sense?
Personally I would refer to this type of armour as brigandine (which was very popular in England and Italy as an inexpensive alternative to plate armour) being small segments of over lapping plates riveted to or between an underlying garment usually leather.
Hey all! Just passing thorugh on my way to proving my DM that Splint Armour is ridiculously easier to make than chain mail and should therefore take less time. I dont care if Chain Mail is 75 gold and Splint is 200, this is literally a bunch of door hinges stapled to a leather armour, FIGHT ME!
Just about everything is quicker to produce than chainmail. My coat of mail took about five hundred hours, and I had the luxury of starting with prefabricated wire.
the examples you use here look SO MUCH like common portrayals of "leather armor", I've got to wonder how many examples of THAT are really THIS. And something else to consider regarding the lack of survivals: Plate was always as much a sign of one's wealth as a defensive item, so those who could afford it, or who inherited it, had added reasons to preserve it. Splint mail, as something easily made from scrap, might not have carried the same cachet.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
There are some historical descriptions of alternating inside and outside splints on greaves. I think so few examples survived because the backing/covering is organic and decomposes in most of Europe. There was a find a few years ago in one of the Baltic states of some splinted vambraces. They had been dumped into an outhouse pit which is a low oxygen environment, so the leather survived.
Makes sense to me. The backing rots or falls apart, then the splints get recycled or misidentified.
One important thing to note may be that lamellar armour could relate to the lack of surviving splint armour in a couple ways, such as:
1. The splint was regularly recycled into the (generally smaller, but largely similar) lamellar scales.
2. Splint armour may have not been manufactured much in the first place if lamellar was preferred for whatever reason (maybe ease of assembly, familiarity by the armourer, or some other benefit of lamellar over splint).
I would still largely agree that splint was probably used more often than expected, but if we were to somehow find it wasn't favoured over lamellar (or other scale armours) I wouldn't be shocked.
I agree about it being recycled into lamellar. That is very plausible. But your argument isn't going to convince the naysayers, as the people who scoff at splint armor tend to be even more critical of lamellar.
Re, lamellar vs splint. I don't really think they are in competition. In my experience, Splint works best on limbs, less well on torsos (too flexible on flat surfaces). Lamellar works best on torsos, less well on limbs. (Inconveniently bulky on limbs.) Why not simply use both?
@@MalcolmPL Interesting. I had a theory of that kind. Good to know someone tried it out.
@@MalcolmPLI think maybe one of the reasons you don't see it as often is because limb armor in general is rare relative to the already uncommon torso armor, which makes sense, prioritize organs over limbs. It's also just more inconvenient/tiring to wear for an extended period, and I personally find leg armor interferes with my mobility not a lot, but a noticable amount. Also Many cultures that favor lamellar are quite archery-centric, and as far as I've seen prefer minimal encumbrance on their arms. And other cultures I know of that adopt it from steppe peoples they encounter, such as the eastern Romans or Varangians, used it combination with large shield coverage and close infantry tactics, which in theory also provides the additional coverage of your fellow infantryman's weapons.
These observations may not hold up nearly as well in south/east/southeast Asian cultures, I can't think of any limb armor from any of those places that isn't from ultra-elite heavy calvary, but I simply don't know as much.
It's pretty cool watching you just make stuff, I wish I had somewhere and the tools to just experiment and create as I wanted
I get antsy if I've gone too long without making something.
I'd go insane if I didn't have my little workshop. I feel a constant need to make things. It's everything to me.
@@MalcolmPL I know that feeling, college has been closed and I can't use their workshop, feels bad man
if you consider brigadine and lamellar armour as splint armor, then they are very common from Europe to Asia.
On the topic of recycling, I feel it's also worth noting that flat strips of metal are perfect for stacking and forge welding into new billets and forging into something new. I'm willing to bet this happened to at least some splint armor.
Not perfect, the holes are going to make the weld a little trickier than otherwise.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah, perhaps perfect isn't quite the right word. Certainly doable though.
I can think of another advantage. Being embedded in leather, it would be lower maintenance as the leather could be impregnated with oil to prevent rust.
New to your channel. Really enjoy your well reasoned takes. I especially enjoyed your series on Iroquois armor. Keep up the good work.
Also, I love your point about recycling of plates. I don’t know why that isn’t mentioned more when talking about metal artifacts or why we don’t have more examples of one thing.
First and only time I ever saw that kind of armor was in a comic from the 70s in the form of torso armor
Always liked the simplicity of it and it looks tough and practical
Ebic video man
It's a simple and intuitive method of construction.
I know this is an older video, but I want to mention another factor that may lead to less surviving examples of splinted armor which is, along with what you mentioned, the plates being smaller and full of holes means a lot of surface area for rust to eat away the metal especially after the outer layers rot away
I'm so glad I found this Channel your so good at what you do cousin
Good stuff. Thanks!
We have some surviving examples of similar armour types from the Kanem-Bornu Empire and the Sokoto Caliphate in Africa, consisting of strips of wrought iron on a leather or fabric backing. Some of the artefacts use imported European iron, but others have been identified as locally forged, and regardless of the origin of the metal, the resulting cuirasses were all assembled in Africa, and worn either as independent armours, or in conjunction with chainmail and/or quilted cotton.
RUclips hates it when I try to post links, but you can see the Kanem-Bornu example on the Met's website, and the Sokoto examples in the Musee de Quai Branly's Fulani collection.
I’ll look into it, thanks.
nicely summed it up! Lately i have the strange urge to build me an armour... well i guess i go for the "leather on the outside plus some thin metal too" :)
PS: please put a magnet on your anvil and prevent it killing your hearing! :)
Really cool!
Metal was valuable and was usually recycled. It still is today- it's possible to make a living collecting scrap metal in many places. Most surviving European armour is from the 16th and 17th centuries, just before it fell out of widespread use, and the surviving examples have a bias towards high-status pieces that would have been seen as family heirlooms. They were sometimes used as costumes in formal portraits even after they'd stopped being worn in war. It'd actually be more surprising if there were lots of examples of splinted armour from Europe, even if it was widely used, as it would be a cheaper alternative to plate, and the rich wouldn't have bothered with it. Full suits of armour continued to be used in some parts of Asia well into the 19th century, and there are comparatively more surviving examples comprised of smaller plates. It's an especially common thing in Japanese armour. The plates were fitted together in various ways, with varying degrees of complexity, but some are quite similar to the classic idea of splinted armour, particularly those for the lower legs and forearms.
Like you am sure that splint armor was much more common than generally thought. As others have pointed out, the metal is easily recycled and the organic material gradually rots away. In surviving plate armor there is a massive bias towards the fancy decorated armor of princes and lords as opposed to the plain armor of the common soldier.
Exactly.
I've seen plenty of examples where it's both inside and out maybe to make a compromise of both?
I have a hot take on historical accuracy. I'm working on making a suit of armor that'd be suitable for a mercenary who put it together over time. If you're making armor, and you think its a good idea, and it ends up working, then the chances are that someone, somewhere, sometime, also thought of the same thing.
Good video, like
Cheers.
One could state that a brigandine is related to splint. The wooden armor you made is splint to right? (Just like cricket greaves)
Note fore next time: if you want to forge a square bar into a flat strip, put the bar under 45°.
Re, brigandine. Agreed.
Re, wooden armor. Pretty much.
Re, forging. Good Idea.
What would one do if the outside got really damaged after use? I expect that wouldn't be entirely uncommon for career soldiers or mercenaries.
and if the plates were on the outside could a smaller strip or multiple strips of iron be riveted to the outside to provide more rigidity?
Many cuts can simply be sewn shut, it won't look nice, but it will still be almost as strong. If there are multiple cuts in the same area you might have to sew on a patch. That would be a pain, but still doable.
Re, extra rigidity. You could theoretically rivet the vertical splints to a series of horizontal iron bands instead of a leather backing. These horizontal bands would be shaped to the leg. I've only ever seen something like this done in helmets however.
Here's a link to pictures of a brigandine from the royal Ontario museum.
There are a number of repairs that have been made to it.
collections.rom.on.ca/objects/269611/brigandine?ctx=41d4858d-ecfc-41dd-b64a-4fce13546acf&idx=0
so i found your channel a few months ago and have watched a lot of the videos. the experiments you do are really interesting and unique. i have been wondering if making a version of your wooden armour with these splints would be cheaper / easier than using leather with rivets and could thus have been a posibility had iron working been more common. sort of like an iroquois analoque to lamellar. would love to hear your opinion or maybe even see a test
The construction method of the wooden armor, where the boards are woven together, is designed to prevent the boards from splitting when struck by a point. It would be redundant with metal as iron is less prone to splitting as is. It would require a lot of cord with little to no benefit over another style of lacing.
If you were to try a different method of lacing it together, more like the one used for the wooden shin guards, it would end up being pretty similar to historical lamellar armor, as you mention, but with longer plates. Which I suppose would work fairly well.
@@MalcolmPL thank you for the quick response. my thinking was that twine is cheaper than the leather or cord normally used for lamellar while also being thin enough to not leave much of a gap. it would also remove the need for drilling or punching holes thus potentially further reducing costs. the only trouble im seeing is that metal might prove too slippery for the wrap around style of lacing. also have you spoken or written about repairing your wood armour? replacing slats or twine without redoing the whole thing
On the subject of repairs, if a slat is damaged and needs to be replaced, you can use a punch to pound it out from the armor and then pound in a new one. Not the easiest fix, it takes a bit of care so as not to mess things up.
If the cords are damaged, the way to repair is to trim the loose edges and then to reweave the damaged section with a needle. Sort of like darning socks.
Tod from Tod's Workshop ( ruclips.net/video/8z1V8fgfP30/видео.html ) did a test with mail under and mail over padding, and he found that mail over provided better protection than under, even with the same materials. This may be a reason why even though there are gaps, the actual strength of the splint may be stronger with the steel or iron on the outside. It would be cool to do a test of either side being shot at, but consistency is key (which is why he is shooting from a fixed power crossbow).
I'll agree that the steel overtop would be harder to puncture, (setting aside gaps.) However, I don't see the point in testing my example, as the steel here is good quality and double layered, no bow is going to be able to puncture it. The only way it could be penetrated is through the gaps.
Anyway, I think plate armor tests are largely irrelevant until someone makes a reproduction out of historical bloomery iron. Modern iron is just too different structurally to give more than a general impression.
It works for mail because first, mail can be penetrated anywhere and second mail bunches up over top of a fabric restricting the penetration zone available but opens up behind a fabric increasing the penetration zone available. Splints do neither they just prevent penetration everywhere aside from the gaps.
wouldn’t you call a coat of plates or brigandine “splint mail”, since they are both smaller slabs of metal attached to a textile piece? and werent both relitively common to boot in the middle and late medieval period (like 100 years war, battle of visby, etc). especially in visual references.
Also, another advantage besides cheapness, might be relative comfort/flexibility as opposed to plate while given a decent amount of protection. especially if not well fit to a persons measurements.
They’re the same sort of thing but for different parts of the body.
Splint armor is not flexible in any useful way, it opens and closes but that’s about it, hence why torso protection tended to use smaller less protective plates rather than long splints.
this looks a lot like brigandine armour,most of the surviving brigandines have plates that were tin plated or painted.It is not certain if this was normal or just surviver bias after all if plated or painted plates were rare the stuff in museums may just be the the stuff that didn`t rust away.
Exactly. Anything that’s been rust proofed is more likely to survive.
The arguments make a lot of sense, considering how leather decomposes one can't expect to find intact pieces, the metal splints would just be spreaded around. Ease of fabrication and consequent cheapness also make a lot of sense but I wonder, this type of armor can be applied only for arm and leg protection, something that a poor soldier wouldn't really focus on, as they would prioritize hand and head protection, and subsequently torso and all the rest, at that point the soldier wouldn't be really that poor. Does that make sense?
Personally I would refer to this type of armour as brigandine (which was very popular in England and Italy as an inexpensive alternative to plate armour) being small segments of over lapping plates riveted to or between an underlying garment usually leather.
Was there splint armour in the Bronze Age? Or was it purely an Iron Age armour?
I have seen two bronze examples.
Hey all!
Just passing thorugh on my way to proving my DM that Splint Armour is ridiculously easier to make than chain mail and should therefore take less time. I dont care if Chain Mail is 75 gold and Splint is 200, this is literally a bunch of door hinges stapled to a leather armour, FIGHT ME!
Just about everything is quicker to produce than chainmail. My coat of mail took about five hundred hours, and I had the luxury of starting with prefabricated wire.
the examples you use here look SO MUCH like common portrayals of "leather armor", I've got to wonder how many examples of THAT are really THIS.
And something else to consider regarding the lack of survivals: Plate was always as much a sign of one's wealth as a defensive item, so those who could afford it, or who inherited it, had added reasons to preserve it. Splint mail, as something easily made from scrap, might not have carried the same cachet.