It’s interesting how the armour is being removed in the marginalia, pulled off over the head like you’d expect from a hauberk style garment that doesn’t have any fasteners on front or back. It makes me wonder if the legs were actually just long flaps that were laced tight around the limb.
I made the very same observation when watching the video. I went - Hold on! If they were wearing a form of mail overall then how would it be possible to strip people like that? 😄 was about to link a time code and write something about it too. But you beat me to it. 7:20
What’s more I feel is that the people creating the Bayeaux Tapestry went to the trouble of depicting different configurations of things like the front/collar closure which tells me that the armor was varied but also that the artists were trying particularly hard to show the greatest detail they could at the time. Very interesting stuff.
Yeah the Bayeux tapestry gets more impressive the more context you have for it. Sources just usually aren’t that explicit and detailed. It and the Morgan Bible are just exceptional in the amount of inferences that can be made about period tactics and practices.
I have heard the claim that the variations are just stylistic choice or laziness and incompetence by the embroiderers, but that doesn’t track. The embroiderers hired for the work would have been the class of their field, given the tapestry’s scale and obvious importance to its commissioner. I maintain that the variation shown are actual and intentional depictions of variation in armor types. The peasants are clearly wearing clothes and are detailed with variations in the types of clothing; placement and types of belts, buckles, and accessories. It would be surprising if the variations in armor were just random when the peasants’ gear seems so intentional.
Counter argument, considering that in the tapestry we see mail being stripped off over the head and we know mail shirts existed before and after this period, it really just makes more sense that they would bind the split skirt of a hauberk around their legs. Also this way there's less risk of someone cutting through the seam. The square could easily be either additional chest protection or a extension of the coif.
Yeah, that makes sense, the leather 'edge' was probably a belt that ties the flaps around the legs. I don't think the onesie theory makes much sense because it would be harder to fit to size, and it would be less likely to fit someone else afterwards
@@raics101 And a total mare to go to the bog in! and that's important. The tapestry defo shows the legs enclosed in mail "shorts", but they would be more convenient to lace up the inside once you pulled it on over your head. Which is what's suggested with the armour thieves in the margin.
Exactly. It fits perfectly with the type of shirts we see before and after, for which there is archaeological evidence. What’s more likely? That these are hauberks with their split crotch fastened around the thighs to form leggings, or that for this brief moment in history, fighters decided to slide into their mail from the top so that they could have a hood and two layers over their chest? There are variations on the theme, but I think what is shown is much more along the lines of a simple hauberk bound around the thighs than a mail onesie. How do they shit?
As you said, the tapestry does show several people having the mail pulled off them - with the head being 'last', which wouldn't be possible if you go in from the top. The images also show the mail being 'inverted' at that point - which would imply it's either inside-out, or that it separated down the back (say) and was flipped over.
The Bayeux Tapestry's depiction of armour has caused many misinterpretations over the years. It was from looking at the inconsistencies of the stitches sometimes showing ring shapes, squares, or lozenges, that lead Victorian enthusiasts like Samuel Rush Meyrick to come up with the idea of tegulated mail, rustred mail, mascled mail, banded mail, ring mail, etc. While some of those armors may have existed at some point in time (eyelet doublets were a European style of ring armor from the 16th century), it's unlikely that the artists of the tapestry meant to depict them.
If it was a flap to lace up to cover the lower face, then why isn't it laced up in all the depictions of Normans in combat? Just saying. It remains a mystery.
The thing i find the most strange is how they are shown not wearing belts... I mean belts surely were a thing and they are a very useful and practical item
Matt with the helm and Officer jacket is conjuring images in my mind of an excitable Hutton on a bender trying on old armor and trying to get in a knife fight.
I saw the Bayeux Tapestry last fall with my dad. We were in the area to explore Omaha Beach, which was a research topic of mine. But wow, that tapestry was an amazing experience. We went back to see it a second time before leaving Normandy.
As a reenactor I cannot agree to the trouser like hauberk. Especially makes no sense when looking at the tapestry, undressing fallen by pulling the armor over the head
As a long time maker and wearer of riveted mail, I think it most likely that the tapestry depicts traditional hauberks. The square on some chests is most likely a reinforcement or a ventail. As for the legs, I think it most likely that people often laced the legs closed after donning the hauberk. As someone already pointed out, the dead are being stripped in exactly the way you'd expect if they were "normal" hauberks.
Regardless of "right" or "wrong" assessments, these videos are always useful for sparking another round of conversation and thought about different armor systems from different eras. Great stuff 👍
For me, the fact that the tapestry was made by Nuns, with very limited military experience, blows a lot of the tapestries' utility as a primary source. Also, near-contemporary sources in continental manuscripts seem to show a more "traditional" mail shirt. I just can't see this very brief window where whole armies suddenly wore a unique type of mail defence that wasn't worn 30 years before and wasn't worn 30 years later. Just my 10 pence worth.
i didn't know "military experience" was required to copy what you see with you eyes, and touch with your hands. do you think those without military experience see an different reality where they can't tell if it's legging or not leggings, or how it looks?
I am inclined to agree. The fact that armour like that on the tapestry never appears before or after with a continuality of forms from before and after says to me it is just a poor representation.
However the customer wore the stuff so he is not going to allow inauthentic depictions. Embroidered in his city so he must have dropped by from time to time to check on it and show it off.
You know, I had known that the Japanese liked to sew their chainmail directly to the padded undergarment, but aside from Japanese chainmail weaves not naturally sitting flat, I had always wondered why the practice wasn't common in other parts of the world. I think your argument that the Normans may have done the same is compelling, as it might explain why the warriors being stripped of their chainmail appear to be naked underneath. This wouldn't make sense if their clothes were a separate article from the armor, as it would seem more efficient to take only the armor off and leave their clothes (after all, who qants a blood soaked shirt when it's the hawburk that you want to reuse?). I could just be misinterpreting the art, of course, given the limitations of needlework for depicting realistic art.
My long armed mail coat wasn't custom & its arms are very big, not just a bit longer. I don't have a surcoat or cloth on my mail leggings either & I get stuck in my own mail around once every 5 min of combat. So I'm in the process of making coverings. I wonder if the leg & arm wraps are just that, both coverings & in the case of arms, things which take the slack out of the coat.
Doesn’t the armor stripping give evidence to an over-the-top mail skirt? All depictions in the video show them pulling from the arm sleeves and raising it above the head, which wouldn’t be possible with the back/midsection entry. The best theory I can come up with for the legs is either artist choice to show the legs underneath the skirt, since there is no layering of colors shown, or perhaps a second piece for the legs, which seems odd. It could also be that the mail armor is not homogeneous, which would then be quite difficult to pinpoint any specifics
Yes it raises many questions. Maybe the artist saw these leggings, but only knew how a conventional mail shirt was put on and off. Or maybe the legs were secured in some other way, such as being flaps that were wrapped around the legs and laced at the inside or back.
could be noted that the artist was probably not seeing armor being pulled off of dead warriors, especially if it was a women, so there is space for imagination.
Many caveats are raised concerning the "artistic license" in Historical Art ... and rightly so. However it behooves us to consider that some of these artists could have beeen sort of "proto-technical" artists and may have actually researched their work like technical artists do today. They may have gone to the local garrison and made sketches. Even the middling artists likely would have seen the local militias girded for battle or training, seen them assembling in the square, seen armies marching to war down the main street. Any one of us could probably sketch a recognizable rendition of a Main Battle Tank or an AR-15 or a couple of different WW2 helmets. Most could likely sketch an automatic pistol and a revolver and show the differences adequately. And we are not most of us artists. Anyway, I guess that one reason why Art History exists. Thank you for another great discussion. Cheers!
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 as Matt said, the embroidery was done by Anglo labor at Norman order. We can quibble about whether the countries even existed as such at that time.
@@roberth721 how do you know it was Anglo-Saxons and not good old Norman ladies at work? It is pure speculation mostly based on stylistic similarities with English manuscript illuminations, but Normandy and England were in close contact much earlier than the Conquest, that's why William could claim the throne by the way. It is of course easier and convenient to claim to know what we actually don't.
Something else that I haven't seen mentioned; the mail appears to be formfitting. I theorize that the mail was designed to fit close on the body. It's advantageous to have the armor formfitting because it minimizes the amount of mail required to cover the body. Mail is heavy; you don't want to have any more than you need to cover you, as any extra is just dead weight. You also don't want the mail moving around loosely on your body as it will interfere with your balance and movement. They may have had sleeves that went all the way to the wrists, with the part on the forearms covered with fabric wrap. This would keep the mail secure on the arm, which is extremely advantageous. In battle, a soldier would often need to raise their arm over their head when using a sword or other weapon. If the sleeve wasn't secured, it would slide down the arm leaving the arm unprotected. And you wouldn't want the sleeve moving around on your arm as it might get in your way. There may have been open slits down the lower arms to allow donning the mail. The wraps would hold the slits closed and hide them so they can't be easily targeted. And again, this would minimize the amount of mail required to protect the arms. You especially don't want unnecessary dead weight on your arms. There may have also been mail down to the ankles that was also covered with fabric wrap. Of course, it's also possible that the mail only went just past the elbows and knees, but still had wraps or straps to hold it in place.
We had an old dictionary with color plates, one of which showed historic attire. A Norman warrior was depicted, with a riveted helmet with integral steel aventail, and with what appeared to be a coat-of-plates utilizing round plates. We have learned a lot since this old dictionary was published in the 1930s. I have seen other old illustrations of Normans supposedly wearing coats-of-plates. The embroidery on the Bayeaux tapestry is so crudely stylized it is easy to see how an early re-interpreter might have been deceived. Still, I thought I noticed a few possible coats-of-[square]plates, and even at least one example of scale armor in the tapestry. Additionally, I noticed that even William's helmet was a spangenhelm. We should have thought he would have been able to afford a one-piece helmet.
Cool vid. Interesting detail on the tapestry are the colored helmets which I take for a very early form of recognizing who is who in the heat of battle ( what later turned into heraldry ).
I think of the world war II German paratrooper smock. The first few patterns were step- in smocks. The later versions were more like a knee length coat. But, the hem of the skirt portion were a few press studs(snaps) that would give the trooper the option of closing off the end of the smock in the event they were to put on a parachute harness. It would then resemble the earlier "ready to jump" versions. I'm wondering if the Norman hauberk had ties at the bottom of the leg portion that would be tied up, therefore "out of the way " and it would have given them more room for maneuver, and give the appearance of the separate leg protection. This could also explain why, at the bottom of the tapestry, the dead are having the hauberks pulled over their heads. The looter could possibly untie the ends around the legs, and then begin pulling the hauberk over the dead man's chest, head and shoulders. If it was a step-in type of armour, they couldn't do it as shown in the tapestry. Just a thought.
Commissioned artworks are often embellished mightily. The king wants his enemies shined to the highest gleam, because it makes him look all the more heroic in victory. I cite all sorts of 13th-16th century battle panoramas in which thousands of besiegers and defenders are armored in what's essentially Maximilian plate. Impossible, but hella cool.
Very interesting! My first idea for the maille armour was that it could be just a regular knee length shirt with riding splits, but the lower „flaps“ would be secured around each leg with leather thongs or something like that. This would make sense to me, because I know from experience that if you wear a long, split maille shirt, the lower half is flopping about quite horribly, and this would stop that. I really want to try this out now, but I don’t own a long enough maille shirt anymore 😅
I don't buy this mail romper idea. If you look at Ottonian artwork, which is near contemporary, and Salian artwork, you don't see anything like a romper in regards to armour. You look at contemporary artwork of the Normans in Italy, and you don't see a mail romper. I think the Bayeux Tapestry is just us seeing the limitations of the artistic ability of nuns in depicting armour in the medium of embroidery (because the Bayeux Tapestry isn't actually a tapestry for the simple fact that it isn't woven).
Aren't the corpses stripped from the top half of the body (pulling on the shoulder area) on the tapestry ? That would contradict the "entering from the throat" idea...
shield protects an entire hand, just by holding it, and the shield can protect other parts of the body that are less armored, since having armor on the forearms and lower leg make it way harder to move, since the further the weight is from the core, the more unbearable it is
The chainmail onesie would seem to create difficulties going to the toilet. The bodies being stripped seem to have it pulled off their heads, implying an open bottom, maybe the tie up at the knees and thigh.. Some of the sleeves look longer it could be the wrist warps go over the tmail sleeves to secure them.
I would like a follow up video adressing feedback gotten in the comments, mainly: - nuancing the spangenhelm idea, as decorative bands were used on earlier frankish one piece helmets, and it's extremely rare to have riveted helmets this late in archeology. - making it clearer that the coif was attached to the byrnie early on. - nuancing the square chest opening theory: we got ample evidence from other european sources that this is a square ventail that was raised to protect the throat, you even see it in the tapestry raised up. - the fact that the legs are probably just laced shut as manu have pointed out, given that they seem to be removed like regular mail shirts in the tapestry. - Odo's weird overcoat, that while many claim it to be evidence for gambeson, is likely a fur pattern showing his status, as highlighted in the paper " 'Garments so Chequered': the Bible of Cîteaux, the Bayeux Tapestry and the Vair Pattern".
I’ve heard of the first point, but I’m unconvinced that it is so great a leap to assume the banded helmets in the Bayeux Tapestry and other artwork are more than just purely decorative. We do not have many extant Western European helmets to go by, and while most that we do have are of solid construction, I believe one or two are segmented (overlapping instead of banded, but segmented nonetheless). If we know helmets were sometimes made of multiple pieces, and we know they used bands of metal decoratively, and we know they had previously used bands of metal structurally and did so later on in great helms and kettle hats, is it really so difficult to consider that they may sometimes worn proper spangenhelms alongside segmented and solid construction helmets? Remember too that such helmets would have been of lesser quality relative to helmets raised from a single sheet, and as such are less likely to have been preserved in the archaeological record
@@spades9681 you raise a good point with the kettle helms, but I'm mainly asking for nuances, that such bands werent necessarily structural. I was somewhat let down by this video. I was hoping it would tackle these subjects more deeply but it somewhat went the other direction
@@theghosthero6173 I agree there and I have to admit I was wondering if he’d bring it up, if only for me to leave a similarly incredulous comment. I think there were a lot of odd choices made as far as what is and isn’t in the video.
@scholagladiatoria Matt, I'm wondering if, in your studies, you've done a similar examination of Scottish/Irish soldiery. Specifically, I've recently gotten into the Gallowglass, but can't find much on them. As far as writing, the general points I've found are: mail, iron helemets, fondness for the sparth ax and two-hand sword ("claymore" they call it), and the ring pommel sword (one or two handed). Visual reps pretty much stick with that, but I haven't found anything made even close to the time period.
Have always been curious about the mail shown on the baxyers tapestry. The individual legs are very interesting and would love to see an example of how it works.
Questions: What about the figures with the crosshatch pattern instead of the series of rings. Is this a leather gambeson (with diagonal stitching) worn over or instead of mail? Or could it be something else? Is there any notable difference between the depictions of Norman and Saxon armor or between the armore worn by mounted or dismounted combatants?
@@spades9681 I simply can't believe they are just coming up with different ways to represent the same thing. The attention to detail on the tapestry is very particular. If they are hauberks, they're significantly different somehow from the ones with rings on them.
@@magnuslauglo5356 I’m sorry, but this idea of yours has already been debated a century before either of us was born. There is no reason to believe the patterns present on the Tapestry’s hauberks are anything more than decorative. Manuscripts of much higher detail do the same thing. Heck, even the Morgan Bible is inconsistent with the way mail is patterned. It’s done simply because it looks aesthetically pleasing.
@@magnuslauglo5356 A similar phenomenon is mail colored in absurd hues like red, blue, green, etc. Some are quite foolish and interpret it as painted mail, or the color of the coat underneath the mail. What is infinitely more likely is that the illustrators who worked on the manuscript thought everyone being the same color would look too drab. That’s all it is.
@@spades9681 Heaven forbid we revisit historical assessments from a century ago! I find it hard to believe that all Normans at Hastings in armor were wearing identical kinds of maile based armor. What makes more sense to me is that there were different kinds of body armor represented at the battle. Maybe we don't know for sure what it is, but that cross hatch pattern probably represents something notably different from the armor with rings.
One of the things I wonder about, is whether it's a long "dress" of mail with a split front and back and edging as you suggest, but is then laced on the inside of the thigh to create the "longjohn/onsie" look instead of a single jumpsuit made of metal, my thought process on this is actually someone not even at Hastings but at Stamford bridge, Hardrada. It's a well known that Hardrada apparently had a shirt of mail known as "Emma" and is in Harald's Saga in the Heimskringla, admittedly it's a 12thC-13thC source but for it still lends potential credence, if you have a shirt that "goes to the middle of the leg", possibly meaning the knee, like Emma apparently did then the idea of having it laced to the inside of the thigh isn't so far fetched. This would still allow ease of manufacture and ease of application to the wearer which would explain on the Bayeux tapestry how the Saxon dead can be stripped overhead, and like you suggest having the padded armour stitched to the mail underneath. This could have evolved then to having separate garments in later centuries that we see in things like the Morgan bible with padded leg protection and mail chausses etc. or in the cases of separate knee length chausses could be used in conjunction with the lacing in the 11thC possibility. I feel like that possibility is a likely one as in later century art we see and even in another 11thC-12thC representation, The Silos Beatus. You can see in this source that the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse wear separate mail chausses to their hauberks. www.moleiro.com/en/beatus-of-liebana/silos-beatus/miniatura/4fbb79e95e049 I feel like you could probably commission Habibi armoury for this custom mail armour project, he tends to take commission work and is good at it from what I've seen.
My thoughts are either that the upper portion of the mailled legs were just easier to embroider that way instead of showing splits, or that there is edging and the splits were tied together along the inner thigh to add protection insted of the maille flapping about while on horsebsck or running. Kind of a precursor to maille chausses.
I lean towards a thick woolen undergarment stitched to the inside of the mail to be the "padding" and the bits poking out. The layered linen gambeson seems later, and wouldn't suit. For a "maille onesy" you really want something that is attached to the inside AND flexible.
@@spades9681 there's a lot about that party of the tapestry that doesn't line up with any of this. For a hooded onesie, you would have to pull it down the legs, not over the head for one. And the image implies zero undergarment however you think of it, which seems unlikely
@@dogmaticpyrrhonist543 Well for starters I don’t buy the onesie bit at all, lol. The second bit is fair but my explanation for it is that it’s just an artistic convention for showing the dead being stripped of their armor and clothing with little ambiguity
I'd suggest it's just a regular long hauberk with the lower split sections bound around the legs to secure them. If the ends were left free, a rider on horseback would have much less leg protection.
@scholagladiatoria : It could be that the mail shirt has long tails at the front and back that are fastened around the legs with a integrated coif. In the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, you can actually see the clear wealth distinction between Balian (Orlando Bloom) and one of his knights (or a man-at-arms) in terms of helmets. His knight has a cheaper helmet made out of riveted pieces. Balian has a helmet made out of a single piece of iron/steel.
I think it should be mentioned that some figures in the tapestry also show "full lenght arm armor", as shown in 15:00, around the forearms of both duke William and his buddy. Also, to those who have been up close to the tapestry, did you notice difference in the coloring of the helmets? I mean, in the decorations present in the surface of the different pieces.
As a hairy person with a beard, talk of chainmail always makes me twitch. I have to tell myself "It's over padding, so it can't pinch the absolute snot out of you, or snatch random hairs when you least expect it". I'll never be fully convinced though. Seriously though, I really do like the idea of a mail onesie. You could make them in bulk as a one size fits all, and when that size doesn't fit, wrap it up with other fabric. I keep picturing a modern padded firefighting suit, which had to be tightened up, at least the borrowed one I was using did. It's certainly not something the popular mind would imagine though, and probably wouldn't look sexy or badass in a film or game lol.
Doesn't even need padding, the long sleeved wool tunic worn at the time is enough to prevent most nipping and chafing as I can attest to personally from wearing a hauberk at jorvik festival. In combat of course you want padding. As someone who doesn't like obstruction near the neck, the built in coif would annoy me far more.
I aee the rings of mail on the shins of William and very few others. Is this because the earliest forms of a chausse was only for the highest rankong knights?
In my opinion they wore their hair as short as possible, just for a practical reason, not only must it be super hot down there but they had to wear a little canvas cap to prevent the hair from being pulled and getting tangled in the mesh .
my idea is that on the edges of the sleaves and knees, where there is cloth or leadth holding the underpadding to the maille there could be puttee bands attached to secure it to the legs, if not then the sleaves and legs can be lifted up and rattle around, new possible weakness and less of a snug fit which the knights and potentially the thegns would have
i'd say the binding is just to tidy up loose sleaves. But i'm wondering if the square peice on the chest is supposed flip up and protect the neck and lower partof the face either being tied to the coif or helm somewhere?
That was really interesting, glad I waited to watch it rather than late last night. I have often wondered about the Norman armour, I always thought a sort of split in the front and then tied around the legs.
Perhaps the mail was a shirt similar to what we know but a bit longer. The edging would be straps to secure it above the elbow and knee (at the end of a split). I can see the benefit to the cavalry where it would prevent the armor from bouncing as the horse galloped.
I remember looking at a reproduction of Norman armour in Colchester castle in 1989 as a 12 year old visiting from the continent, discussing with a friend what the square on the chest would be for and how one would get into the armour. I wonder, if that armour is still on display there.
In the book the medieval knight by Christopher Gravett he shows a mail coat with separate strips of mail or chausses to protect the legs. This would allow the mail coat to be removed from the top as shown on the tapestry. He also mentions breast plates of iron, steel or boiled leather added to the chest area. Could this be the square section shown on the tapestry?
Hmmm with some of the art in the tapestry shown being pulled off over the head I don't think the mail can be like a onesie with integral shorts, however it could be mail "tails", like on a tuxedo, tied around the thighs. This makes some sense as the buttocks and groin are protected by the horse on a mounted person and the skirt doesn't have to be spilt until just past the buttocks/groin area so is fighting dismounted there is still mail over the areas when standing, as opposed to sitting. I still think we don't know but your thoughts are very intriguing. Excellent video.
Feel the leg thing is basically them teing the split in the mail armor to their legs, considering I thought about doing it would make sense they would think of it too. Long mail like that when open just flops around and in battle or doing anything it becomes better to just tie them around your legs it also protects you better. Also this would be way easier to get on and off but who knows for sure.
I think a lot of the variations of armor in the tapestry are actual variations in armor being shown, and not, as some think, just stylistic choice or laziness by the embroiderers. I see some with an integrated coif and no front flap, which could be made with an open bottom that fastened between the legs. Some clearly have a bound seam at the neck, which look like either an independent coif or an edged aventail. The hauberks with the chest squares are likely the way Matt describes on the top half, but I imagine the bottom open, with the legs being formed by fastening the split edges around the thigh. This fits with the way the bodies are being stripped at the bottom of some scenes, and with the construction found in later hauberks of which there are surviving examples; that of a simple, long mail shirt, split at the crotch with a hole for the head. It looks to me like they were just worn differently than originally interpreted.
Really interesting interpretation. I've wondered about the way the mail legs are depicted a long time. Do you think it's possible for these to be split sections hanging from the hem that are pointed or buckled together on the insides of the thighs (without being depicted)? Having worn mail, I suspect it would be a weaker defense, but allow more ease of adjustment and movement. Would that be any easier to make? Thanks for the video!
Amazing video! I have a question for you which would help me greatly : I am a re-enactor building (and painstakingly sewing) a noble kit. As you mentionned, as for the norman, there wasn't any find either of Frankish armor OR helmet from earlier period (the late 700 and 800) but loads of blades of Frankish origin. Most iconography show a kind of scale armor for frankish soldiers, a theory that seem to be rejected by many. So should I go with a Byrnie? Moreover, I am at a complete loss about what type of helmet I should use. Spangenhelm type of helmet seems too early, Norman type seem too late...
they're taking off the mail from the corpses, or wounded, over the head, you can see a small strip of cloth or thread or leather sticking loose from the legparts at 7:31 image, that would suggest a seam in the groin area. Just for practicle reasons; taking a pee in mail would be too much having to remove it fully before releaving oneselve; so there has to be a relative easy access, also for taking a dump in haste, at Hastings, no pun intended. On some depictions on the tapestry, a slit in the groin area is shown vaguely, so I guess that there was a long splt between the legs up the groin, with easy peeing acces, a well made seam in mail doesn't have to show with a leather edge or other, just a lace will do.
I'm wondering if the edging wasn't elastic in some way to ensure a snug fit. Another possible reason for the ending on the legs, at least, would also be to ensure that a bare unedges hem of mail wouldn't easily snag on anything. How this may fit in with mail being pulled overhead from the dead I'm not yet sure, unless the mail was seamed in the back and perhaps the legs.
I was a stickjock for many years in the SCA. I always stayed away from wearing chain because the mail bernies were a necessarily loose fitting garment and they would swing and bind up around your elbows and knees. What if by this time in history they were just as fed up with that same thing happening and invented a belting system around the edges of the bernie to keep them from moving around. I think that could be what you were trying to explain here. It could be as simple as just taking a tried and true bernie and figuring a way to tidy up the ends for more protection and ease of movement.
I can't help but think of an experiment to try things out. If there's particular backing to the mail, it sounds like we need at least two, three sets of mail. One with backing, one without backing and more importantly, a set where the arms and legs can be tightened down, made to fit a particular user. Testing their ability to march, move, fight, mount and dismount a horse. Does any particular construction have any particular advantages. What were the tradeoffs in mobility, endurance of the combatant and even to a degree, protection. Would the fitted mail have less chance of being caught up in saddles, the like. As for the helmets themselves I'm reminded of a line read years ago. The first consumer durable made for a more durable consumer. In reference to iron helmets and the trade thereof.
Na, not convinced with regards to the mail-onesie theory. Are there any other sources to support the theory? Attached coifs, yeah no issue from me, i buy that. Integrated padding, i have seen done, and it works well, as does edging with leather, either thick or thin leather. Maybe using this edging as straps to secure the mail, but i don't see the point on the arms possibly for the legs, but why the need to protect the inside of the thigh on a cavalrymen? I think a lot of the issue is the artistic style, looking at scenes where people are shown riding not in armour then their tunics are also often shown as quite leg hugging.
That was very nice explanation but I dont agree... 😆sorry for that. You suggest a mail armor like depicted in the film "the warlord " with Charton heston from 1965. In this case he has a kind of mail armored padded coat that closes at the back while you suggest it coses at the front. maybe it is posible, but I would think more about a clasp that is attached to the armor to cover the face, which have a padding inside. This padding will explain the different depiction. The coif is to me more like a hood attached to the mail and the srips on the neck depict a strap the will tighten the neck so it is better fitted to the body. That will need a bigger opening at the neck of the shirt. Than the mail square can be hooked up to cover the face up to the noseguard. This will cover the neck as well as the face for fighting. The legs are far more difficult to explain- To me it seems- and I tryed it out some 20 years ago, that the two seperated sectons of the mail are straped to the upper leg so they move with the legs and the legs are not exposed while walking or riding. The inside of the legs is not covered by mail because it is highly inpractical and will damage the saddle severely. The fixture is done like with a modern oil skin coat for motorcicling. it has premounted straps at the inside to ty it to the legs.... This is supported by the depiction on the bottom of the tapestry were all looted soldirs get the mail stiped over the head. If there would be a opening on front or/and the mail would have trouser shape legs this would be imposible. The only mail shirt that I saw with opening in front was in topcapi museum from a far later period...... The attaching of the padded jacket on precousor of the gambeson, is not very practical as well. After some hours of movement the gambeson is soaked in sweat and is very hard to get rid of. For me even the shirt was glued to my back by sweat and I was not able to get it of by myself and if my camerades helped me we loughing a lot because we were allmost pulled over and fell. maybe you like this idea . How about more contend about the historical use of eary firearms that would be very interesting as well😁 It is of interest because I build historical firearms myself😁
I think your suggestions for the hood/coif/flap thing very valid and could be a good explanation. Regarding the legs, I completely disagree on the statement "The inside of the legs is not covered by mail because it is highly inpractical and will damage the saddle severely" - In fact full mail chausses were completely normal for a few hundred years from the Norman era until the 14th century, and shown clearly on numerous paintings, glass windows, manuscripts and tomb effigies and brasses. And full plate leg defences (inside and outside) completely common from the 14th to 17th centuries. We already see full mail chausses being common in art of the 1100s, so I don't see it as unlikely that something was developing in that direction in 1066 already. I agree that the images of the mail hauberks being pulled over the heads is problematic for our understanding of the leg defences.
@@scholagladiatoria oh that was the fastest answer I ever get on you tube 😁👍 if you say that the closed legs were a common practice I trust you . At the end I look down to my booksheft , there is a two metter well made replika of a segment of the tapistry ( the mounted attack scene ) and it is very hard to tell in some cases what they mean. And is rather unclear if the makers had the detail knowledge for the correct depiction. To my knowledge it was made by nuns ..... maybe we will never know but it is a nice thing to discuss. Thanks a lot for the fst answer😃
Thjanks for this, am a fan of this time period imagery sine: 1st NatGeo had an atricle (89 i think) about the 1st Crusade taking the route of Godfrey, and 2nd) got my hands on Steven Runciman's A Historyu of the Crusades, now, ios there any single bnook that is only wartime/knightly(or mostly) imagery? again, thanks!
it is possible that the lower leg tubular was a leather armor with steel plate inserts and the mail was under it, over the thick cotton padded socks to prevent the mail nipping the skin.
Please could you do a video on the composition of armies in England during the 15 century . Nobles , house retinues, nights , battles , foot soldiers , men at arms etc . I keep finding contradictory or minimal evidence .
@@Dolritto Perhaps i was not very clear, i meant in favor of other types of mail, like those open, not onesie types ? Ease of donning and different types of leg protectors ?
Absolutely fascinating, but I see a problem, in all the depiction of mail being removed from people/bodies it is done by the head, like a sweater. My personal hypotesis is of a single piece of mail, aventail included, open at the bottom with lacing to keep it tight to the body (the bands at the end of legs and arms, the square/collar).
About the legs. If one takes notice of the scenes where they're dressed in civilian clothes, one can see the same designs. And I'm hard pressed to believe normals wore shorts that matched their tunics below the belt, on top of the colored hosen. And considering they look pretty much like how maille is on the legs, I still believe it's a hauberk with a "rider slit". For refference, a clear example would be section 8 (ABDEL REM : ET IBI EUM : TENUIT) and 9 (UBI : HAROLD : [ ]UIDO : PARABOLANT) from the tapestry
What has somewhat puzzled me is the logical development/progression of separated/integrated coifs, hauberk-fitted bibs, and coif-fitted triangular ventails. From a modular-design point of view wearing an arming cap and separate coif underneath (emphasis underneath) the hauberk kind of makes sense to me. The floppy nature of separate coifs is always somewhat bothersome. The bib would then provide much desirable protection for the throat area, until the triangular ventails came into being much later.
Looks like a non split hauberk... the others are split at the legs. Interesting theory by Matt tho I tend to disagree with it. Hopefully one day soon we can find a full hauberk from this period
I would like to point out that a maille (mail?) onesie/romper would make it rather difficult to, well, "perform bodily functions" without having to strip the maille off & re-equip it. To me the hauberk split from the crutch down, that ties around the legs, makes more sense, possibly with a flap/flaps that fold under the crutch & tie off at the back/underneath. This would, as stated by others, also allow the maille to be stripped from the dead over their heads. Although the tapestry is a wonderful piece of artistic source material & shows some incredible detail, it may also assume that the audience it was made for knew certain facts & smaller details that they didn't bother showing.
I've seen the online version of the Bayeux Tapestry and the armor seem to be portrayed as circles, crisscross squares, and as triangles. Were these all portrayals of only chainmail and everything else are padded garments/gambesons? Or could it be portraying chainmail as well as other metal armors such as scale or even lamellar?
Could the chest squares be some form of early heraldic device? Cloth identification panels? It might explain its appearance on the more “important “ figures
Nothing on the Bayeux tapestry says anything about when, where and for whom it was made. It may be useful to note that "in the 1070s" and "in England" and "by William's brother" is not much more than scholarly speculation... There are of course other sources on the military costume of the period in manuscripts (which are also not that well dated either). It is a unique document because of its length and pictorial richness but it should not be taken as a reporter's video on the event of 1066.
I do go back a little further than Matt by the way. I clearly remember interpretations in authoritative books and responsible reenactors with some sort of leather coat with big copper plates riveted onto the leather in various patterns, trying to replicate exactly what is seen in tapestry. It looked as ridiculous as Egyptian reenactors trying to walk as they would have been portrayed in hieroglyphics! 😅
thank you for another interesting episode .... I sometimes wonder how "accurate" people were in the past , perhaps certain details are very much as we see them...
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"I personally go with the edging"
-Matt Easton
It’s interesting how the armour is being removed in the marginalia, pulled off over the head like you’d expect from a hauberk style garment that doesn’t have any fasteners on front or back. It makes me wonder if the legs were actually just long flaps that were laced tight around the limb.
Good call. This sort of design can probably be found here and there through history if we looked for it.
Yes that's certainly possible.
Could still have a larger neckhole you get in, and then a flap to cover it. like buttoning a polo
Good thought. Surely they couldn't be pulled off like that if they had actual tubular legs?
I made the very same observation when watching the video. I went - Hold on! If they were wearing a form of mail overall then how would it be possible to strip people like that? 😄 was about to link a time code and write something about it too. But you beat me to it. 7:20
So the Normans wore hooded mail onesies. That makes me smile.
Not just the Normans, notice that the English are depicted wearing the same thing.
That's what I sleep in every night!!!
Considering the short sleeves and legs, I'd say more of a mail romper.
@@dracodis
"Which was the style at the time..."
@@soupordave Which has always struck me as very suspicious. I doubt both armies were so identically equipped.
What’s more I feel is that the people creating the Bayeaux Tapestry went to the trouble of depicting different configurations of things like the front/collar closure which tells me that the armor was varied but also that the artists were trying particularly hard to show the greatest detail they could at the time. Very interesting stuff.
There would have been many women stitching it maybe some were just a bit more lazy about how many details they stitched in.
Yeah the Bayeux tapestry gets more impressive the more context you have for it. Sources just usually aren’t that explicit and detailed. It and the Morgan Bible are just exceptional in the amount of inferences that can be made about period tactics and practices.
I have heard the claim that the variations are just stylistic choice or laziness and incompetence by the embroiderers, but that doesn’t track. The embroiderers hired for the work would have been the class of their field, given the tapestry’s scale and obvious importance to its commissioner.
I maintain that the variation shown are actual and intentional depictions of variation in armor types. The peasants are clearly wearing clothes and are detailed with variations in the types of clothing; placement and types of belts, buckles, and accessories. It would be surprising if the variations in armor were just random when the peasants’ gear seems so intentional.
Counter argument, considering that in the tapestry we see mail being stripped off over the head and we know mail shirts existed before and after this period, it really just makes more sense that they would bind the split skirt of a hauberk around their legs. Also this way there's less risk of someone cutting through the seam. The square could easily be either additional chest protection or a extension of the coif.
Other sources (see the Spanish Rodes and Ripoll BIbles in particular) seem to suggest that the square was simply an undone ventail.
Yeah, that makes sense, the leather 'edge' was probably a belt that ties the flaps around the legs. I don't think the onesie theory makes much sense because it would be harder to fit to size, and it would be less likely to fit someone else afterwards
@@raics101 And a total mare to go to the bog in! and that's important. The tapestry defo shows the legs enclosed in mail "shorts", but they would be more convenient to lace up the inside once you pulled it on over your head. Which is what's suggested with the armour thieves in the margin.
Exactly. It fits perfectly with the type of shirts we see before and after, for which there is archaeological evidence.
What’s more likely? That these are hauberks with their split crotch fastened around the thighs to form leggings, or that for this brief moment in history, fighters decided to slide into their mail from the top so that they could have a hood and two layers over their chest?
There are variations on the theme, but I think what is shown is much more along the lines of a simple hauberk bound around the thighs than a mail onesie. How do they shit?
"I think they were EDGING"
Enraged before the battle
Do you think Matt doesn't know, or do you think he's not doing the bit anymore?
As you said, the tapestry does show several people having the mail pulled off them - with the head being 'last', which wouldn't be possible if you go in from the top. The images also show the mail being 'inverted' at that point - which would imply it's either inside-out, or that it separated down the back (say) and was flipped over.
You might be wondering why Matt wore Knickerbockers in the 80's, but you have to remember he graduated highschool in 1889.
The Bayeux Tapestry's depiction of armour has caused many misinterpretations over the years. It was from looking at the inconsistencies of the stitches sometimes showing ring shapes, squares, or lozenges, that lead Victorian enthusiasts like Samuel Rush Meyrick to come up with the idea of tegulated mail, rustred mail, mascled mail, banded mail, ring mail, etc. While some of those armors may have existed at some point in time (eyelet doublets were a European style of ring armor from the 16th century), it's unlikely that the artists of the tapestry meant to depict them.
I always thought the chest square was a chain maille bevor that flipped up and was fastened to the helmet chin strap over the throat.
As far as im aware a lot of people would agree with you
Definitly is
If it was a flap to lace up to cover the lower face, then why isn't it laced up in all the depictions of Normans in combat? Just saying. It remains a mystery.
@@2bingtim for the same reason a lot of late medieval painting have people with their visor up
@@2bingtim RUclips keeps nuking my reply. I have no idea why.
I find the Raven Banner or Hrafnsmerki used by the Normans in the Tapestry to be interesting. Seems a reflection of the Normans Scandinavian heritage.
The thing i find the most strange is how they are shown not wearing belts... I mean belts surely were a thing and they are a very useful and practical item
After the first few seconds my mind was made up: Normans wore Spes-Officer jackets.
Matt with the helm and Officer jacket is conjuring images in my mind of an excitable Hutton on a bender trying on old armor and trying to get in a knife fight.
I saw the Bayeux Tapestry last fall with my dad. We were in the area to explore Omaha Beach, which was a research topic of mine. But wow, that tapestry was an amazing experience. We went back to see it a second time before leaving Normandy.
So many unanswered questions and yet such a fascinating video. Thank you very much Matt.
As a reenactor I cannot agree to the trouser like hauberk. Especially makes no sense when looking at the tapestry, undressing fallen by pulling the armor over the head
As a long time maker and wearer of riveted mail, I think it most likely that the tapestry depicts traditional hauberks. The square on some chests is most likely a reinforcement or a ventail. As for the legs, I think it most likely that people often laced the legs closed after donning the hauberk.
As someone already pointed out, the dead are being stripped in exactly the way you'd expect if they were "normal" hauberks.
Regardless of "right" or "wrong" assessments, these videos are always useful for sparking another round of conversation and thought about different armor systems from different eras. Great stuff 👍
For me, the fact that the tapestry was made by Nuns, with very limited military experience, blows a lot of the tapestries' utility as a primary source. Also, near-contemporary sources in continental manuscripts seem to show a more "traditional" mail shirt. I just can't see this very brief window where whole armies suddenly wore a unique type of mail defence that wasn't worn 30 years before and wasn't worn 30 years later.
Just my 10 pence worth.
i didn't know "military experience" was required to copy what you see with you eyes, and touch with your hands. do you think those without military experience see an different reality where they can't tell if it's legging or not leggings, or how it looks?
I am inclined to agree. The fact that armour like that on the tapestry never appears before or after with a continuality of forms from before and after says to me it is just a poor representation.
@@stefthorman8548Yes. If you're not intimately familiar with something and how it's used, you may miss or misinterpret important details.
However the customer wore the stuff so he is not going to allow inauthentic depictions. Embroidered in his city so he must have dropped by from time to time to check on it and show it off.
@@iapetusmccoolYou don’t need to be intimately familiar with something in order to depict in accurately, that’s a stupid thing to think🤦🏻♂️
You know, I had known that the Japanese liked to sew their chainmail directly to the padded undergarment, but aside from Japanese chainmail weaves not naturally sitting flat, I had always wondered why the practice wasn't common in other parts of the world. I think your argument that the Normans may have done the same is compelling, as it might explain why the warriors being stripped of their chainmail appear to be naked underneath. This wouldn't make sense if their clothes were a separate article from the armor, as it would seem more efficient to take only the armor off and leave their clothes (after all, who qants a blood soaked shirt when it's the hawburk that you want to reuse?). I could just be misinterpreting the art, of course, given the limitations of needlework for depicting realistic art.
My long armed mail coat wasn't custom & its arms are very big, not just a bit longer. I don't have a surcoat or cloth on my mail leggings either & I get stuck in my own mail around once every 5 min of combat. So I'm in the process of making coverings. I wonder if the leg & arm wraps are just that, both coverings & in the case of arms, things which take the slack out of the coat.
Doesn’t the armor stripping give evidence to an over-the-top mail skirt? All depictions in the video show them pulling from the arm sleeves and raising it above the head, which wouldn’t be possible with the back/midsection entry.
The best theory I can come up with for the legs is either artist choice to show the legs underneath the skirt, since there is no layering of colors shown, or perhaps a second piece for the legs, which seems odd.
It could also be that the mail armor is not homogeneous, which would then be quite difficult to pinpoint any specifics
Yes it raises many questions. Maybe the artist saw these leggings, but only knew how a conventional mail shirt was put on and off. Or maybe the legs were secured in some other way, such as being flaps that were wrapped around the legs and laced at the inside or back.
I would think laced legging. It would help with weight distribution.
could be noted that the artist was probably not seeing armor being pulled off of dead warriors, especially if it was a women, so there is space for imagination.
Many caveats are raised concerning the "artistic license" in Historical Art ... and rightly so. However it behooves us to consider that some of these artists could have beeen sort of "proto-technical" artists and may have actually researched their work like technical artists do today. They may have gone to the local garrison and made sketches.
Even the middling artists likely would have seen the local militias girded for battle or training, seen them assembling in the square, seen armies marching to war down the main street.
Any one of us could probably sketch a recognizable rendition of a Main Battle Tank or an AR-15 or a couple of different WW2 helmets. Most could likely sketch an automatic pistol and a revolver and show the differences adequately. And we are not most of us artists.
Anyway, I guess that one reason why Art History exists.
Thank you for another great discussion. Cheers!
I like the fact that the French tapestry is actually an English embroidery.
It became an English embroidery through the wishfull speculation of some English scholars - where it actually was made is a different question.
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 as Matt said, the embroidery was done by Anglo labor at Norman order. We can quibble about whether the countries even existed as such at that time.
@@roberth721 how do you know it was Anglo-Saxons and not good old Norman ladies at work? It is pure speculation mostly based on stylistic similarities with English manuscript illuminations, but Normandy and England were in close contact much earlier than the Conquest, that's why William could claim the throne by the way. It is of course easier and convenient to claim to know what we actually don't.
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 I read it in a book on the history of the kings and queens of England, the book, of course, could be wrong.
@@roberth721 It is written everywhere as a fact, but it's just a hypothesis actually.
Something else that I haven't seen mentioned; the mail appears to be formfitting. I theorize that the mail was designed to fit close on the body. It's advantageous to have the armor formfitting because it minimizes the amount of mail required to cover the body. Mail is heavy; you don't want to have any more than you need to cover you, as any extra is just dead weight. You also don't want the mail moving around loosely on your body as it will interfere with your balance and movement.
They may have had sleeves that went all the way to the wrists, with the part on the forearms covered with fabric wrap. This would keep the mail secure on the arm, which is extremely advantageous. In battle, a soldier would often need to raise their arm over their head when using a sword or other weapon. If the sleeve wasn't secured, it would slide down the arm leaving the arm unprotected. And you wouldn't want the sleeve moving around on your arm as it might get in your way.
There may have been open slits down the lower arms to allow donning the mail. The wraps would hold the slits closed and hide them so they can't be easily targeted. And again, this would minimize the amount of mail required to protect the arms. You especially don't want unnecessary dead weight on your arms.
There may have also been mail down to the ankles that was also covered with fabric wrap. Of course, it's also possible that the mail only went just past the elbows and knees, but still had wraps or straps to hold it in place.
We had an old dictionary with color plates, one of which showed historic attire. A Norman warrior was depicted, with a riveted helmet with integral steel aventail, and with what appeared to be a coat-of-plates utilizing round plates. We have learned a lot since this old dictionary was published in the 1930s. I have seen other old illustrations of Normans supposedly wearing coats-of-plates. The embroidery on the Bayeaux tapestry is so crudely stylized it is easy to see how an early re-interpreter might have been deceived. Still, I thought I noticed a few possible coats-of-[square]plates, and even at least one example of scale armor in the tapestry. Additionally, I noticed that even William's helmet was a spangenhelm. We should have thought he would have been able to afford a one-piece helmet.
Cool vid. Interesting detail on the tapestry are the colored helmets which I take for a very early form of recognizing who is who in the heat of battle ( what later turned into heraldry ).
I think of the world war II German paratrooper smock. The first few patterns were step- in smocks. The later versions were more like a knee length coat. But, the hem of the skirt portion were a few press studs(snaps) that would give the trooper the option of closing off the end of the smock in the event they were to put on a parachute harness. It would then resemble the earlier "ready to jump" versions. I'm wondering if the Norman hauberk had ties at the bottom of the leg portion that would be tied up, therefore "out of the way " and it would have given them more room for maneuver, and give the appearance of the separate leg protection. This could also explain why, at the bottom of the tapestry, the dead are having the hauberks pulled over their heads. The looter could possibly untie the ends around the legs, and then begin pulling the hauberk over the dead man's chest, head and shoulders. If it was a step-in type of armour, they couldn't do it as shown in the tapestry.
Just a thought.
Commissioned artworks are often embellished mightily. The king wants his enemies shined to the highest gleam, because it makes him look all the more heroic in victory.
I cite all sorts of 13th-16th century battle panoramas in which thousands of besiegers and defenders are armored in what's essentially Maximilian plate. Impossible, but hella cool.
Very interesting! My first idea for the maille armour was that it could be just a regular knee length shirt with riding splits, but the lower „flaps“ would be secured around each leg with leather thongs or something like that. This would make sense to me, because I know from experience that if you wear a long, split maille shirt, the lower half is flopping about quite horribly, and this would stop that. I really want to try this out now, but I don’t own a long enough maille shirt anymore 😅
I was literally just thinking about this yesterday. Thank you!
I don't buy this mail romper idea. If you look at Ottonian artwork, which is near contemporary, and Salian artwork, you don't see anything like a romper in regards to armour. You look at contemporary artwork of the Normans in Italy, and you don't see a mail romper. I think the Bayeux Tapestry is just us seeing the limitations of the artistic ability of nuns in depicting armour in the medium of embroidery (because the Bayeux Tapestry isn't actually a tapestry for the simple fact that it isn't woven).
Aren't the corpses stripped from the top half of the body (pulling on the shoulder area) on the tapestry ?
That would contradict the "entering from the throat" idea...
Yep they are. So we have to wonder is the artist inconsistent, or lacking knowledge, or are the legs secured in some other way. Lots of questions.
@@scholagladiatoria It could be a slit that is laced, this would make it more comfortable for riding and simpler to make.
Matt the hands and legs are very vulnerable why were not mittens and chausses developed earlier ?
shield protects an entire hand, just by holding it, and the shield can protect other parts of the body that are less armored, since having armor on the forearms and lower leg make it way harder to move, since the further the weight is from the core, the more unbearable it is
The chainmail onesie would seem to create difficulties going to the toilet. The bodies being stripped seem to have it pulled off their heads, implying an open bottom, maybe the tie up at the knees and thigh.. Some of the sleeves look longer it could be the wrist warps go over the tmail sleeves to secure them.
The idea that coifs were a later development is new to me. I think you're spot on, Matt, I always thought I saw coifs in the Bayeux Tapestry.
I would like a follow up video adressing feedback gotten in the comments, mainly:
- nuancing the spangenhelm idea, as decorative bands were used on earlier frankish one piece helmets, and it's extremely rare to have riveted helmets this late in archeology.
- making it clearer that the coif was attached to the byrnie early on.
- nuancing the square chest opening theory: we got ample evidence from other european sources that this is a square ventail that was raised to protect the throat, you even see it in the tapestry raised up.
- the fact that the legs are probably just laced shut as manu have pointed out, given that they seem to be removed like regular mail shirts in the tapestry.
- Odo's weird overcoat, that while many claim it to be evidence for gambeson, is likely a fur pattern showing his status, as highlighted in the paper " 'Garments so Chequered': the Bible of Cîteaux, the Bayeux Tapestry and the Vair Pattern".
I’ve heard of the first point, but I’m unconvinced that it is so great a leap to assume the banded helmets in the Bayeux Tapestry and other artwork are more than just purely decorative. We do not have many extant Western European helmets to go by, and while most that we do have are of solid construction, I believe one or two are segmented (overlapping instead of banded, but segmented nonetheless). If we know helmets were sometimes made of multiple pieces, and we know they used bands of metal decoratively, and we know they had previously used bands of metal structurally and did so later on in great helms and kettle hats, is it really so difficult to consider that they may sometimes worn proper spangenhelms alongside segmented and solid construction helmets? Remember too that such helmets would have been of lesser quality relative to helmets raised from a single sheet, and as such are less likely to have been preserved in the archaeological record
@@spades9681 you raise a good point with the kettle helms, but I'm mainly asking for nuances, that such bands werent necessarily structural. I was somewhat let down by this video. I was hoping it would tackle these subjects more deeply but it somewhat went the other direction
@@theghosthero6173 I agree there and I have to admit I was wondering if he’d bring it up, if only for me to leave a similarly incredulous comment. I think there were a lot of odd choices made as far as what is and isn’t in the video.
@scholagladiatoria Matt,
I'm wondering if, in your studies, you've done a similar examination of Scottish/Irish soldiery. Specifically, I've recently gotten into the Gallowglass, but can't find much on them. As far as writing, the general points I've found are: mail, iron helemets, fondness for the sparth ax and two-hand sword ("claymore" they call it), and the ring pommel sword (one or two handed). Visual reps pretty much stick with that, but I haven't found anything made even close to the time period.
there are a few surviving axeheads, multiple swords, and at least one helmet.
There are three surviving irish helmets and one mail shirt. The helmets have no aventail and would be used with a mail collar or sgabal (not a coif).
There’s a great little book published by Osprey called Galloglass 1250-1600. It’s available on Amazon.
Have always been curious about the mail shown on the baxyers tapestry. The individual legs are very interesting and would love to see an example of how it works.
Questions:
What about the figures with the crosshatch pattern instead of the series of rings. Is this a leather gambeson (with diagonal stitching) worn over or instead of mail? Or could it be something else?
Is there any notable difference between the depictions of Norman and Saxon armor or between the armore worn by mounted or dismounted combatants?
It's simply a bit of variation for the eye to feast on, nothing more. Later manuscripts do the same thing. Bottom line is they're just hauberks.
@@spades9681 I simply can't believe they are just coming up with different ways to represent the same thing. The attention to detail on the tapestry is very particular.
If they are hauberks, they're significantly different somehow from the ones with rings on them.
@@magnuslauglo5356 I’m sorry, but this idea of yours has already been debated a century before either of us was born. There is no reason to believe the patterns present on the Tapestry’s hauberks are anything more than decorative. Manuscripts of much higher detail do the same thing. Heck, even the Morgan Bible is inconsistent with the way mail is patterned. It’s done simply because it looks aesthetically pleasing.
@@magnuslauglo5356 A similar phenomenon is mail colored in absurd hues like red, blue, green, etc. Some are quite foolish and interpret it as painted mail, or the color of the coat underneath the mail. What is infinitely more likely is that the illustrators who worked on the manuscript thought everyone being the same color would look too drab. That’s all it is.
@@spades9681 Heaven forbid we revisit historical assessments from a century ago!
I find it hard to believe that all Normans at Hastings in armor were wearing identical kinds of maile based armor.
What makes more sense to me is that there were different kinds of body armor represented at the battle. Maybe we don't know for sure what it is, but that cross hatch pattern probably represents something notably different from the armor with rings.
One of the things I wonder about, is whether it's a long "dress" of mail with a split front and back and edging as you suggest, but is then laced on the inside of the thigh to create the "longjohn/onsie" look instead of a single jumpsuit made of metal, my thought process on this is actually someone not even at Hastings but at Stamford bridge, Hardrada.
It's a well known that Hardrada apparently had a shirt of mail known as "Emma" and is in Harald's Saga in the Heimskringla, admittedly it's a 12thC-13thC source but for it still lends potential credence, if you have a shirt that "goes to the middle of the leg", possibly meaning the knee, like Emma apparently did then the idea of having it laced to the inside of the thigh isn't so far fetched. This would still allow ease of manufacture and ease of application to the wearer which would explain on the Bayeux tapestry how the Saxon dead can be stripped overhead, and like you suggest having the padded armour stitched to the mail underneath.
This could have evolved then to having separate garments in later centuries that we see in things like the Morgan bible with padded leg protection and mail chausses etc. or in the cases of separate knee length chausses could be used in conjunction with the lacing in the 11thC possibility. I feel like that possibility is a likely one as in later century art we see and even in another 11thC-12thC representation, The Silos Beatus. You can see in this source that the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse wear separate mail chausses to their hauberks.
www.moleiro.com/en/beatus-of-liebana/silos-beatus/miniatura/4fbb79e95e049
I feel like you could probably commission Habibi armoury for this custom mail armour project, he tends to take commission work and is good at it from what I've seen.
My thoughts are either that the upper portion of the mailled legs were just easier to embroider that way instead of showing splits, or that there is edging and the splits were tied together along the inner thigh to add protection insted of the maille flapping about while on horsebsck or running. Kind of a precursor to maille chausses.
Yes they could be laced. There is good evidence in the net two centuries for mail being laced at various points and in various ways.
I lean towards a thick woolen undergarment stitched to the inside of the mail to be the "padding" and the bits poking out. The layered linen gambeson seems later, and wouldn't suit. For a "maille onesy" you really want something that is attached to the inside AND flexible.
If this were the case you wouldn't be able to see the mail rings when the hauberk is pulled over the head.
@@spades9681 there's a lot about that party of the tapestry that doesn't line up with any of this. For a hooded onesie, you would have to pull it down the legs, not over the head for one. And the image implies zero undergarment however you think of it, which seems unlikely
@@dogmaticpyrrhonist543 Well for starters I don’t buy the onesie bit at all, lol. The second bit is fair but my explanation for it is that it’s just an artistic convention for showing the dead being stripped of their armor and clothing with little ambiguity
I'd suggest it's just a regular long hauberk with the lower split sections bound around the legs to secure them. If the ends were left free, a rider on horseback would have much less leg protection.
This is very new to me. I've never heard of this style of mail. I would also be very interested to learn more about the shields
@scholagladiatoria : It could be that the mail shirt has long tails at the front and back that are fastened around the legs with a integrated coif.
In the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, you can actually see the clear wealth distinction between Balian (Orlando Bloom) and one of his knights (or a man-at-arms) in terms of helmets. His knight has a cheaper helmet made out of riveted pieces. Balian has a helmet made out of a single piece of iron/steel.
I think it should be mentioned that some figures in the tapestry also show "full lenght arm armor", as shown in 15:00, around the forearms of both duke William and his buddy. Also, to those who have been up close to the tapestry, did you notice difference in the coloring of the helmets? I mean, in the decorations present in the surface of the different pieces.
As a hairy person with a beard, talk of chainmail always makes me twitch. I have to tell myself "It's over padding, so it can't pinch the absolute snot out of you, or snatch random hairs when you least expect it". I'll never be fully convinced though.
Seriously though, I really do like the idea of a mail onesie. You could make them in bulk as a one size fits all, and when that size doesn't fit, wrap it up with other fabric. I keep picturing a modern padded firefighting suit, which had to be tightened up, at least the borrowed one I was using did. It's certainly not something the popular mind would imagine though, and probably wouldn't look sexy or badass in a film or game lol.
Interesting, I never thought about it in that context.
Doesn't even need padding, the long sleeved wool tunic worn at the time is enough to prevent most nipping and chafing as I can attest to personally from wearing a hauberk at jorvik festival. In combat of course you want padding. As someone who doesn't like obstruction near the neck, the built in coif would annoy me far more.
I aee the rings of mail on the shins of William and very few others. Is this because the earliest forms of a chausse was only for the highest rankong knights?
This has long been my interpretation of what is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. Very interesting video.
"I'm just wearing the norman kind of armour, dude."
the haircuts they wore were way more fascinating to me 😏
if they didn´t wear any cloth hood under the chainmail hood. they would look like Mat Easton kind of soon.
In my opinion they wore their hair as short as possible, just for a practical reason, not only must it be super hot down there but they had to wear a little canvas cap to prevent the hair from being pulled and getting tangled in the mesh .
@@CROM-on1bz bayeux tapestry shows some ~~dorky hipster~~ erm some very interesting hair styles 😚
Great video mang! Lots of new info for me!
my idea is that on the edges of the sleaves and knees, where there is cloth or leadth holding the underpadding to the maille there could be puttee bands attached to secure it to the legs, if not then the sleaves and legs can be lifted up and rattle around, new possible weakness and less of a snug fit which the knights and potentially the thegns would have
i'd say the binding is just to tidy up loose sleaves. But i'm wondering if the square peice on the chest is supposed flip up and protect the neck and lower partof the face either being tied to the coif or helm somewhere?
A mail hooded onesie seems like a good amount of protection.
I strongly recommend also Schwerpunkt's video on the Italo-Norman panoply
That was really interesting, glad I waited to watch it rather than late last night.
I have often wondered about the Norman armour, I always thought a sort of split in the front and then
tied around the legs.
Perhaps the mail was a shirt similar to what we know but a bit longer. The edging would be straps to secure it above the elbow and knee (at the end of a split). I can see the benefit to the cavalry where it would prevent the armor from bouncing as the horse galloped.
I remember looking at a reproduction of Norman armour in Colchester castle in 1989 as a 12 year old visiting from the continent, discussing with a friend what the square on the chest would be for and how one would get into the armour. I wonder, if that armour is still on display there.
Thanks for the information in this video ⚔️
THe Edging theory is something i am greatly invested in.
In the book the medieval knight by Christopher Gravett he shows a mail coat with separate strips of mail or chausses to protect the legs. This would allow the mail coat to be removed from the top as shown on the tapestry.
He also mentions breast plates of iron, steel or boiled leather added to the chest area. Could this be the square section shown on the tapestry?
No. To both counts.
Hmmm with some of the art in the tapestry shown being pulled off over the head I don't think the mail can be like a onesie with integral shorts, however it could be mail "tails", like on a tuxedo, tied around the thighs. This makes some sense as the buttocks and groin are protected by the horse on a mounted person and the skirt doesn't have to be spilt until just past the buttocks/groin area so is fighting dismounted there is still mail over the areas when standing, as opposed to sitting.
I still think we don't know but your thoughts are very intriguing. Excellent video.
Feel the leg thing is basically them teing the split in the mail armor to their legs, considering I thought about doing it would make sense they would think of it too. Long mail like that when open just flops around and in battle or doing anything it becomes better to just tie them around your legs it also protects you better. Also this would be way easier to get on and off but who knows for sure.
I think a lot of the variations of armor in the tapestry are actual variations in armor being shown, and not, as some think, just stylistic choice or laziness by the embroiderers.
I see some with an integrated coif and no front flap, which could be made with an open bottom that fastened between the legs.
Some clearly have a bound seam at the neck, which look like either an independent coif or an edged aventail.
The hauberks with the chest squares are likely the way Matt describes on the top half, but I imagine the bottom open, with the legs being formed by fastening the split edges around the thigh.
This fits with the way the bodies are being stripped at the bottom of some scenes, and with the construction found in later hauberks of which there are surviving examples; that of a simple, long mail shirt, split at the crotch with a hole for the head. It looks to me like they were just worn differently than originally interpreted.
Really interesting interpretation. I've wondered about the way the mail legs are depicted a long time.
Do you think it's possible for these to be split sections hanging from the hem that are pointed or buckled together on the insides of the thighs (without being depicted)? Having worn mail, I suspect it would be a weaker defense, but allow more ease of adjustment and movement. Would that be any easier to make?
Thanks for the video!
Amazing video! I have a question for you which would help me greatly : I am a re-enactor building (and painstakingly sewing) a noble kit. As you mentionned, as for the norman, there wasn't any find either of Frankish armor OR helmet from earlier period (the late 700 and 800) but loads of blades of Frankish origin. Most iconography show a kind of scale armor for frankish soldiers, a theory that seem to be rejected by many. So should I go with a Byrnie? Moreover, I am at a complete loss about what type of helmet I should use. Spangenhelm type of helmet seems too early, Norman type seem too late...
they're taking off the mail from the corpses, or wounded, over the head, you can see a small strip of cloth or thread or leather sticking loose from the legparts at 7:31 image, that would suggest a seam in the groin area.
Just for practicle reasons; taking a pee in mail would be too much having to remove it fully before releaving oneselve; so there has to be a relative easy access, also for taking a dump in haste, at Hastings, no pun intended. On some depictions on the tapestry, a slit in the groin area is shown vaguely, so I guess that there was a long splt between the legs up the groin, with easy peeing acces, a well made seam in mail doesn't have to show with a leather edge or other, just a lace will do.
O.K. That works.
I'd like to hear more about this connicla shield please.
I'm wondering if the edging wasn't elastic in some way to ensure a snug fit. Another possible reason for the ending on the legs, at least, would also be to ensure that a bare unedges hem of mail wouldn't easily snag on anything. How this may fit in with mail being pulled overhead from the dead I'm not yet sure, unless the mail was seamed in the back and perhaps the legs.
I was a stickjock for many years in the SCA. I always stayed away from wearing chain because the mail bernies were a necessarily loose fitting garment and they would swing and bind up around your elbows and knees. What if by this time in history they were just as fed up with that same thing happening and invented a belting system around the edges of the bernie to keep them from moving around. I think that could be what you were trying to explain here. It could be as simple as just taking a tried and true bernie and figuring a way to tidy up the ends for more protection and ease of movement.
I can't help but think of an experiment to try things out.
If there's particular backing to the mail, it sounds like we need at least two, three sets of mail. One with backing, one without backing and more importantly, a set where the arms and legs can be tightened down, made to fit a particular user.
Testing their ability to march, move, fight, mount and dismount a horse. Does any particular construction have any particular advantages. What were the tradeoffs in mobility, endurance of the combatant and even to a degree, protection. Would the fitted mail have less chance of being caught up in saddles, the like.
As for the helmets themselves I'm reminded of a line read years ago.
The first consumer durable made for a more durable consumer.
In reference to iron helmets and the trade thereof.
Na, not convinced with regards to the mail-onesie theory. Are there any other sources to support the theory? Attached coifs, yeah no issue from me, i buy that. Integrated padding, i have seen done, and it works well, as does edging with leather, either thick or thin leather. Maybe using this edging as straps to secure the mail, but i don't see the point on the arms possibly for the legs, but why the need to protect the inside of the thigh on a cavalrymen? I think a lot of the issue is the artistic style, looking at scenes where people are shown riding not in armour then their tunics are also often shown as quite leg hugging.
Perhaps some sort of binding laced thru the rings to keep it from flapping aboot(assuming not everyone had made to measure mail)
That was very nice explanation but I dont agree... 😆sorry for that. You suggest a mail armor like depicted in the film "the warlord " with Charton heston from 1965. In this case he has a kind of mail armored padded coat that closes at the back while you suggest it coses at the front. maybe it is posible, but I would think more about a clasp that is attached to the armor to cover the face, which have a padding inside. This padding will explain the different depiction. The coif is to me more like a hood attached to the mail and the srips on the neck depict a strap the will tighten the neck so it is better fitted to the body. That will need a bigger opening at the neck of the shirt. Than the mail square can be hooked up to cover the face up to the noseguard. This will cover the neck as well as the face for fighting.
The legs are far more difficult to explain- To me it seems- and I tryed it out some 20 years ago, that the two seperated sectons of the mail are straped to the upper leg so they move with the legs and the legs are not exposed while walking or riding. The inside of the legs is not covered by mail because it is highly inpractical and will damage the saddle severely. The fixture is done like with a modern oil skin coat for motorcicling. it has premounted straps at the inside to ty it to the legs.... This is supported by the depiction on the bottom of the tapestry were all looted soldirs get the mail stiped over the head. If there would be a opening on front or/and the mail would have trouser shape legs this would be imposible. The only mail shirt that I saw with opening in front was in topcapi museum from a far later period...... The attaching of the padded jacket on precousor of the gambeson, is not very practical as well. After some hours of movement the gambeson is soaked in sweat and is very hard to get rid of. For me even the shirt was glued to my back by sweat and I was not able to get it of by myself and if my camerades helped me we loughing a lot because we were allmost pulled over and fell.
maybe you like this idea .
How about more contend about the historical use of eary firearms that would be very interesting as well😁
It is of interest because I build historical firearms myself😁
I think your suggestions for the hood/coif/flap thing very valid and could be a good explanation.
Regarding the legs, I completely disagree on the statement "The inside of the legs is not covered by mail because it is highly inpractical and will damage the saddle severely" - In fact full mail chausses were completely normal for a few hundred years from the Norman era until the 14th century, and shown clearly on numerous paintings, glass windows, manuscripts and tomb effigies and brasses. And full plate leg defences (inside and outside) completely common from the 14th to 17th centuries. We already see full mail chausses being common in art of the 1100s, so I don't see it as unlikely that something was developing in that direction in 1066 already.
I agree that the images of the mail hauberks being pulled over the heads is problematic for our understanding of the leg defences.
@@scholagladiatoria oh that was the fastest answer I ever get on you tube 😁👍 if you say that the closed legs were a common practice I trust you . At the end I look down to my booksheft , there is a two metter well made replika of a segment of the tapistry ( the mounted attack scene ) and it is very hard to tell in some cases what they mean. And is rather unclear if the makers had the detail knowledge for the correct depiction. To my knowledge it was made by nuns ..... maybe we will never know but it is a nice thing to discuss. Thanks a lot for the fst answer😃
Having only wrapped bindings with air gaps under ones armor might aid with cooling.
Thjanks for this, am a fan of this time period imagery sine: 1st NatGeo had an atricle (89 i think) about the 1st Crusade taking the route of Godfrey, and 2nd) got my hands on Steven Runciman's A Historyu of the Crusades, now, ios there any single bnook that is only wartime/knightly(or mostly) imagery? again, thanks!
it is possible that the lower leg tubular was a leather armor with steel plate inserts and the mail was under it, over the thick cotton padded socks to prevent the mail nipping the skin.
Please could you do a video on the composition of armies in England during the 15 century . Nobles , house retinues, nights , battles , foot soldiers , men at arms etc . I keep finding contradictory or minimal evidence .
One benefit that comes to mind with that style.. COMFORTABLE GROIN PROTECTION!
Why were these types of mail apparently abandoned later down the line ?
Plate became cheaper with advancement in metalurgy.
@@Dolritto Perhaps i was not very clear, i meant in favor of other types of mail, like those open, not onesie types ? Ease of donning and different types of leg protectors ?
Absolutely fascinating, but I see a problem, in all the depiction of mail being removed from people/bodies it is done by the head, like a sweater.
My personal hypotesis is of a single piece of mail, aventail included, open at the bottom with lacing to keep it tight to the body (the bands at the end of legs and arms, the square/collar).
About the legs. If one takes notice of the scenes where they're dressed in civilian clothes, one can see the same designs.
And I'm hard pressed to believe normals wore shorts that matched their tunics below the belt, on top of the colored hosen. And considering they look pretty much like how maille is on the legs, I still believe it's a hauberk with a "rider slit".
For refference, a clear example would be section 8 (ABDEL REM : ET IBI EUM : TENUIT) and 9 (UBI : HAROLD : [ ]UIDO : PARABOLANT) from the tapestry
Just a thought, maybe the chest panels were embroidered panels identifying who it was?
Mail Onesies.
What has somewhat puzzled me is the logical development/progression of separated/integrated coifs, hauberk-fitted bibs, and coif-fitted triangular ventails. From a modular-design point of view wearing an arming cap and separate coif underneath (emphasis underneath) the hauberk kind of makes sense to me. The floppy nature of separate coifs is always somewhat bothersome. The bib would then provide much desirable protection for the throat area, until the triangular ventails came into being much later.
I have observed before in the Bayeux Tapestry one warrior holding an axe overhead with the blade facing backwards; do you have any idea why?
Using the backside of the axe socket as a mace.
In the tapestry it almost looks like scale instead of chain. Was scale known at this time?
at 4.38 you got one soldier not wearing a onesiese. The guy with the head in the word Dinantes.
Looks like a non split hauberk... the others are split at the legs. Interesting theory by Matt tho I tend to disagree with it. Hopefully one day soon we can find a full hauberk from this period
Love this!
Do Byzantine dudes next.
I would like to point out that a maille (mail?) onesie/romper would make it rather difficult to, well, "perform bodily functions" without having to strip the maille off & re-equip it.
To me the hauberk split from the crutch down, that ties around the legs, makes more sense, possibly with a flap/flaps that fold under the crutch & tie off at the back/underneath.
This would, as stated by others, also allow the maille to be stripped from the dead over their heads.
Although the tapestry is a wonderful piece of artistic source material & shows some incredible detail, it may also assume that the audience it was made for knew certain facts & smaller details that they didn't bother showing.
Matt! I'm literally finishing the sleeves on my riveted mail byrnie while watching this. Where was this video before I started months ago?!?
I've seen the online version of the Bayeux Tapestry and the armor seem to be portrayed as circles, crisscross squares, and as triangles. Were these all portrayals of only chainmail and everything else are padded garments/gambesons? Or could it be portraying chainmail as well as other metal armors such as scale or even lamellar?
Could the chest squares be some form of early heraldic device? Cloth identification panels? It might explain its appearance on the more “important “ figures
Nothing on the Bayeux tapestry says anything about when, where and for whom it was made. It may be useful to note that "in the 1070s" and "in England" and "by William's brother" is not much more than scholarly speculation... There are of course other sources on the military costume of the period in manuscripts (which are also not that well dated either). It is a unique document because of its length and pictorial richness but it should not be taken as a reporter's video on the event of 1066.
I have a theory to run by you could the riding split be somehow be connected on the inside of the leg as seen in the art
I do go back a little further than Matt by the way. I clearly remember interpretations in authoritative books and responsible reenactors with some sort of leather coat with big copper plates riveted onto the leather in various patterns, trying to replicate exactly what is seen in tapestry. It looked as ridiculous as Egyptian reenactors trying to walk as they would have been portrayed in hieroglyphics! 😅
thank you for another interesting episode .... I sometimes wonder how "accurate" people were in the past , perhaps certain details are very much as we see them...
They wore spacesuits given them by ancient astronauts.