More interesting Amour

Probably.

>Thank you, I wouldn't have found that one again without you.
Your welcome.

Nice find.

Turns out the Ospreys based their Song cavalry on an anachronistic depiction of Imperial guards. metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/40055

Southern Song cavalry slightly differed from the Jurchens.

Tight

...

>Nice find.

Google was helpful for once. I also managed to find a complete version of the scroll, but it's too huge for Veeky Forums.

view-source:image87.360doc.com/DownloadImg/2015/08/0809/56887415_2.jpg

Stupidly sexy chevalier.

...

This is inaccurate, there should be thicker clothing underneath, "thin" maille is likely just an artifact of art. We know that maille clad knights were able to survive lance strikes or storms of arrows (even using their bodies as a shield for unarmored troops), which wouldn't be the case if it was just maille with thin clothing underneath.

>We know that
do we?

Interesting armor you say

What the fuck do you think historical accounts are?

I unironically love nipple plate

Gawtchoo senpai

Those are some pretty big assumptions.

Let's leave aside the fact that maille was used for centuries with no evidence for, and fairly compelling evidence for the absence of any padding beyond normal clothing (usually 2 layers of wool over linen).

By the mid-13thC, which is the period our fine model is recreating, aketons have been in use for several decades at the least although possibly not yet universal.

You have no way of knowing how thick the aketon should be. There have been no remotely scientific tests using accurate mail to have any basis for the statement that a thick aketon is the only way for a knight to survive arrows or lances, or even that an aketon is necessary in the first place considering that people managed without them for hundreds of years (yes aketons help, but that does not make them required for mail to function). All you are going on are your feels.

Further you are asking us to completely discount our primary source for how armour looked in this period, writing the artwork off because it conflicts with your baseless assertions that ultra-thick aketons were used. Anyone who is familar with medieval artwork would know that there is a consistent attention to detail when it comes to arms and armour, and is usually an accurate representation of contemporary wargear. It is far more reasonable to view the consistent depiction of tight fitting mail as literal than an out-of-place expression of artistic license with no clear purpose. The ability for the consumer (from predominantly noble and knightly class backgrounds) to relate to the image was the entire reason Biblical or historical scenes were depicted in contemporary terms and to have all of the knightly figures wear noticeably inaccurate armour defeats the entire purpose.

So no, it's not inaccurate to have tight mail, and the man is a champion for going to all the hard work altering it in order to get away from the ahistorical baggy look perpetuated by lazy reenactors

>usually 2 layers of wool over linen

That should read "usually 2 layers of clothing, a wool tunic over a linen shirt". There is an argument that prior to aketons being widespread warriors might have worn an extra layer or two clothing as extra padding but that is conjecture.

The closest I've ever seen is someone noticing mid lecture that most depictions of men in mail they have enormous circular heads. Perhaps it wasn't just the 'style' to show them that way, perhaps it's because they had a crap ton of padding.

Of course this falls apart when you see an example of a period helmet but hey, it was an interesting observation.

This image from the Macieowski Bible shows us what is going on there.

Something to note is that the secret under the coif (optional great helm on top) is an alternative to coif then nasal helm.

...

>Those are some pretty big assumptions.
It's pretty easy considering maille isn't sufficient defense without thick padding against penetrative weapons like lances and arrows. Yet we know from historical accounts and battles that it was supremely effective, hence the Turks calling the Crusaders in the First Crusade "men of iron" after they stood for hours soaking up fire from their archers to protect the people standing behind them, with minimal casualties. However, just maille itself isn't going to protect against attacks like that with a couple layers of linen underneath. Arrows will poke through and lances will leave horrendous bruising that will likely take you out of the fight (or joust).

I'm not disputing mail worked fantastically well and that there are countless examples across history testifying it's effectiveness against lances, arrows or anything else you care to throw at it. Usually I am the loudest mailfag in these threads.

What you seem to be fundamentally misunderstaning is the role padding plays in mails effectiveness.

As I said, mail was used for hundreds of years with no evidence for, and compelling against the use of padding beyond clothing. The primary weapon of Anglo-Saxon and Viking warfare was the spear and mail seemed to be working just fine for them with no padding. If arrows were so effective against mail without padding, then they would have played a far greater role than they did in this period. Whether it is spears, arrows or lances penetrative weapons were the main battlefield threat during the Early/High Middle Ages and the notion that mail was unable to function without padding (as it did for a large chunk of that period) against these weapons if frankly absurd.

When Anna Komnena talks about Norman mail she describes the construction and the fact it was arrowproof in detail but conspicuously fails to mention any padding at all. This is quite the oversight if you take the view that padding is essential but not an issue if you accept that aketons were not yet in widespread use in the 11thC.

For the record, it is not until the mid 12thC that we get the first actual mention of padding in conjuction with mail for medieval Europe. How common it was at that point is unkown but it does seem to be the norm by the early 13thC based on period documents.

>It's pretty easy considering maille isn't sufficient defense without thick padding against penetrative weapons like lances and arrows

This is just wrong, considering what you believe to constitute thick padding.

However even if we were to accept that mail requires an aketon (which it doesn't) to defend against spears, arrows, lances and the like we return to the central issue of your claim that said padding had to be so thick that close-fitting mail as is almost universally seen in the period artwork is impossible. There is no evidence at all that aketons thin enough to produce the tight fit of mail that we see in 12-13thC art do not afford the wearer sufficient protection. Until such time that rigorous testing using accurate reproductions in a way that simulates medieval combat conditions proves that aketons too thick to allow tight mail are the only way to allow mail to resist these weapons the assertion that thinner aketons are not sufficient is groundless.

You've taken the arbitary view that the art and reconstruction above are "not thick enough" and worked backwards to justify everyone secretly wearing thick padding. An aketon can be more than a couple of layers of linen and still leave you not looking like the Michelin Man. Medieval mail also tended to be made of smaller rings than most reproduction mail so the issue of speartips or arrows poking through is of lesser concern.

The sources tell us that 13thC knights wore aketons and that they looked a certain way. The only sensible conclusion is that aketons were light enough to allow close-fitted mail and this was considered ample protection by the people who wore the armour into battle.

...

>LEG
>XXX
Some raider sure is proud of his leg count

...

Not everyone is clear on what they mean by don't skip leg day.

Tobias Capwell's armour gives me such a fucking boner goddamn

Except art isn't a source at all. The creators are completely questionable and typically not even warriors themselves, and frequently fuck up other aspects all the time (such as depicting jousting helms being used in melee in later periods). Especially when you're judging the thickness of limbs in a heavily stylized medium.

>Except art isn't a source at all
Correction: it's a secondary source, not a primary source. Yes a lot of things have to be taken into account, but it absolutely not without value as a source.

And in this case it is also pretty damn consistent about the depiction of people in mail without significant padding being detectable in the shaping of the mail until, unsurprisingly, it gets to the point in time where we know that the various heavily layered cloth armours were a thing from other sources as well.

...

Well I guess that knight had no trouble Staying Alive

...

Is it wrong to prefer maille over plate?

I think I'm beginning to like it more than even anime armour...

Nah, it's just viral marketing for the latest fetish movie.

then time to post some sources

Not at all, user

...

Though, I will admit I find it harder to gussy up in my head than I do when trying to imagine a bitchin' plate harness.

...

...

...

...

...

...

According to all the standards of modern historiography, medieval art is a primary source of the medieval period.

As someone who fights with live steel, in handmade accurately recreated Armour, i can attest that it really depends on the way the maille is made.

Good ring placement, good rivet placement, and good support placements are all important in providing a not injury.

Properly fitted, it'll be maneuverable, and have only a few catching edges.

Padding is mostly for comfort, heavier armour requiring more to not be unbearable.

This Guy
would be able to handle glancing arrows and sword blows pretty easily. A direct strike with a lance would knock him over, possibly break a rib or two if hit in the right place, and may rip the maille. But that's true of most direct attacks, arrows only have a small chance to break the rings.

Any padding would be fore absorbing impact and force, so a good fighter will be fine.

Also depends on the lance, arrow and sword, and the skill of the user. Where they hit... HOW they hit...

I've used a way to light blade as a can opener before, and broke a guys arm by crushing it accidentally even though he had probably the heaviest plate i've had a chance to whack.

But yes, in my experience, fitted Maille, with minimal padding is perfectly viable as a fighting standard.

(for the record we do this VERY dangerous thing mostly for shits and giggles, but also SCIENCE. No one has diedyet, and there are only 3 instances of maiming proper on record at this time)

>Padding is mostly for comfort, heavier armour requiring more to not be unbearable.
unly for transitional or early versions. Maybe for buhurt fags.
But properly fitted armour from the late 15th and on doesn't need heavy padding. Your standard (medieval) civilian cloths are enough under it.

Something is very wrong with that.
Perhaps the fact that the 'knight' is on a pony instead of a proper warhorse.

Dark Age horses were glorified ponys for the most part, with time they breeded them bigger and stronger until you got the behemoths you think as cavalry today.
Also a Reminder than the heavy cavalry traditions is Iranian (counting Alans, Scythians etc in there) with they Nisean horse.
Herodotus: In front of the king went first a thousand horsemen, picked men of the Persian nation - then spearmen a thousand, likewise chosen troops, with their spearheads pointing towards the ground - next ten of the sacred horses called Nisaean, all daintily caparisoned. (Now these horses are called Nisaean, because they come from the Nisaean plain, a vast flat in Media, producing horses of unusual size.)
They were Known as the heavenly horses be the chinese, and were the most priced animal of the times. The Scythians traded Gelded horses and maintained very few Studs (than were the most priced posesion for the tribe/horde).

>next ten of the sacred horses called Nisaean

>The Nisean became extinct with the conquest of Constantinople in 1204.

sad

For being horse nomads, Turks (not ottomans) were/are shitty horse breeders in general, stud books or something like that weren't popular with them. That said they have some good horses, but things like purebreeds aren't they style.

I'm curious, what drove the entire breed to extinction? Diluted bloodlines?

I don't know, I didn't read enough to answer that I'm afraid, but it seems the most likely, the area it was mainly breed fell to Turk/mongols tribes and they breeded them with anything seems a good hipotesis as any.

Also posting some Central Asian armors for making up about derailing the thread a bit.

This one is pretty cool too, dang.

I really like that kind of Nasal, In Yurop one like that was used in the 11-12th century.

That horse looks inbred as fuck

And some knights.

Most Show animals are, specially if you want an specific trait like color. That golden coat is beautifull tough.

The illustration's awful though.

that cutey on the right
pls ride me and whip me

This one ain't a knigth btw, it's an Akinci, a kind of raider/light cavalry very used be the ottomans.
It isn't easy to find good Islamic art or even from the ERE desu.

>Amour
A love affair with armor? Sounds about right.

>complains about good historical islamic illustrations being hard to find

Get back to me when you try to get a collection of pre-Colonial non-North-African non-South-African historical African illustrations.

It's all Moors, Egyptians, Zulus and East-Africans for fucks sake. Fuck offfffff.

>Norman knight
>The label in the picture says "Croatian warrior, XI c"

I think the first big influx of african art only started when we got serious about plundering the existing kingdoms and empires up and down the continent, so that's the cut-off point of what we got available in the west.

Snce we are going all autistic over mail, let's talk about the coifs in these images. Quite simply they are utterly anachronistic for the period portayed. Coifs with that distinctive large circular bib covering the shoulders only begin to appear in the late 1200s, getting really popular in the first half of the 1400s. Even then the size of the bibs are closer to the aventails on bascinets (which were large enough to cover the shoulders) than early seperate coifs.

Prior to this, mail coifs were not seperate garments but attached to the hauberk (as were any mailed mittens). It's one of the biggest reenactorisms in portrayals of 11-13th century warriors, and exists largely because it is far easier to buy an off-the-shelf seperate coif and wear that since you are not too fussed about authenticity than adding an integral coif to your hauberk.

>Did you just bonk me on the head
>I told you he was a wimp!

Such is half-brotherly love.

...

Playing Battle Brothers has definitely given me an enhanced appreciation for mail and mail&plate armours.

...

...

...