Talk:Ring armour

Vandalism

I notice that this article has been vandalized repeatedly by a "contributor" that only leaves an IP address and replaces the article by a disclaimer claiming that "ringmail" is a historical mistake founded on the low standards of Victorian era archeology and misinterpretation of period representations. The only source cited is an article in .pdf format by one Dan Howard of unknown credentials. While the article is superficially convincing, it does not prove anything and completely passes by a lot of evidence that ringmail was indeed used from the early middle ages. I had a forum talk with this Howard, that left me utterly dissatisfied as it showed him to be of poor character, and more interested in winning arguments and affirming his own opinion than in serious scholarship ; he resorted to fallacious rhetoric tricks when he failed to convince me, prove his point, and disprove my sources.

I suspect the anonymous "contributor" to be him or a friend of his, as all such "contributions" have come from a 211.27.13.xx IP and officially move for the article to be protected. I suspect that the low frequency of the vandalism happening is due to the fact that the article was left unwatched and the spurious contribution left to stand for long periods. This is twice in one day, it may come to more, and it's not the first time. Standing watch to reverse this vandalism everytime it is committed is no solution. --Svartalf 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the talk

Sethwoodworth, I wish to revert your most recent edit because it removes too much from the article - including the actual description of what ringmail actually looks like! Toby Douglass 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid someone might do that. The thing is that this article is terrible, even with my edits. I'm currently speaking with armor historian Dan Howard to correct this, but he hasn't done so yet. None of the sources at the bottom of the page are based off of research less than 50 years old, and most are referring to 'studded leather' which is now verifiably a non-item. The article stands better with *no* information than the bad information that was there before. Sethwoodworth 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's tantamount to deletion, which should not be unilaterially implemented in this way. Toby Douglass 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

211.27.13.86 is actually armour scholar Dan Howard. Can we find a way to get both the old, suspect information and the new info the same article, rather than just reverting? Megalophias 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That information is not suspect. It is quite well attested from continental history and armour vocabulary... also, his discounting the Bayeux tapestry as a source does not look very scholarly to me, since we know from records that the warriors depicted there wore ringmail brognes, not chainmail haubergeons . Sure, early archaeology from the victorian era may not have been able to distinguish between broigne and chainmail, but the former was a very real (and common in its time) type of protection, and should not be discounted. Actually, I suspect that a number of cases where modern scholarship (or perhaps popular archaeology) ascribe use of chainmail to our ancestors, they might actually have used the simpler ringmail. I don't edit articles about that because I don't have proof, and that would be new research.--Svartalf 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree on the source. Many of the older sources are highly suspect if only due to poor interpretations. While we have to make due with iconographical evidence in a lot of cases, armor tends to leave behind remains. The Battle of Wisby, for example, left behind a tremendous amount of very viable remains, many of which outwardly appeared to be "studded leather" in iconographical evidence but were actually composed of plates riveted to the inside of a leather garment. While there were garments with studs without plates to back them up, they were usually meant to deter highwaymen as you appeared to be armored even when you were not. Without physical evidence, only shaky iconographical evidence, and the fact that smithing a ring would be overly time consuming for the amount of protection it would provide. A wire small enough to make a link (like the Japanese kusazuri) that was sewn to fabric used the fabric to support the weight, but the links were still interconnected. A self-supporting link that would take a blow from a weapon would be a very thick piece of metal and would defeat any weight gains. Sorry to be verbose, but for lack of evidence or even benefit of the design, I'd put my money on the design never existing. A source is good, but if there is no evidence, it's a guess. Michael F 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The current version of the article is using sources that are misapplied to ringmail.

"it being a leather suit studded with metal."

That would refer to what the victorians called 'studded leather' which is now known as a brigadine or a coat of plates.

"name derivating from Latin "brugnja" and designates a type of torso armor studded with metal scales or nail heads."

Nail heads would be referring to the rivets in Brigadine plates, not rings.

There are no archeological finds of ringmail, nor any sucessful reproductions.

Your sources say one thing, Dan Howard's say another. Howard is a well known and respected armor historian and scholar. I've talked with him many times, and I trust his opinion with his credentials or without. But this doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia, so we must look at his sources.

Francis Grose, A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons, London, 1786.

3

Samuel R. Meyrick, A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour, as it Existed in Europe, but Particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the Reign of King Charles II: with a Glossary of Military Terms of the Middle Ages, (London, 1824).

4

Charles Henry Ashdown, British and Foreign Arms and Armour, (London, 1909). (Reprinted as European Arms & Armour).

5

Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-duc wrote in the 19th century. Two of his books were Encyclopédie Médiévale and Dictionnairé Raisonné du Mobilier Francais de l'Epoque Carolingienne a la Renaissance.

Unlike Meyrick’s work, Viollet-le-duc’s work continues to be reprinted today and so new generations of armour students are exposed to Victorian inaccuracies in regards to medieval armour scholarship.

6

Claude Blaire, European Armour, (London: Batsford, 1958). 35-36.

8

John Smythe, Observations and Orders Militarie, (1591). 185.

9

Charles Ffoulkes, The Armourer and his Craft: From the 11th to the 16th Century, (London: Methuen, 1912). 91. (It seems that the two doublets in question, along with many other items, went missing from the Paris museums during the German occupation in WWII.)

10

J. G. Waller. “The Hauberk of Mail and its Conventional Representations,” Archaeologia LIX, (1908).

12

Claude Blair, European Armour. 35.

I don't want to be offensive about this, but Dan is right. But I don't know what other ways to show this in the Wikipedia format. So what is to be done? Sethwoodworth 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You Forget MY reference, namely Contamine. He worked in the 70's and still is a highly respected authority in the field (his works being classic textbooks for medieval history students). I don't think he could have perpetuated "mistakes from the Victorian era" and be as respected as he is. Granted, broigne can refer to a variety of armour whose common point is being reinforcement in several forms over a soft (leather or cloth) backing, only the broigne maclée corresponding precisely with ringmail. I'll check Dan's debunking closely and tell you if I'm convinced. --Svartalf 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've ever read indicates that this a victorian misinterpretation of pictorial evidence, so I'd be in favor of modifying the article to reflect this. Wilhelm Ritter

I counterchecked Contamine. His analysis of existing sources and material was as completely up to date as could be in 1980. Unless some definitive and recent proof (as opposed to merely saying "old archeology had low standards") exists. the article stands, as it was when the SfD was defeated. --Svartalf 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I have labeled two statements in the article with {{fact}} that would benefit from attribution:

1. References to it do not point to ringmail being older than chainmail (though scale mail was)
2. there is considerable indication that a different form was used in Carolingian France and Germany

I also moved the three book references at the end of the article to a section called "References". However, there is some information that is presented along with the book titles that needs to be moved back into the body of the article (preferably with a footnote). ×Meegs 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Sources point to scale armour being used in Mesopotamia in Assyrian times, if not earlier during the Babylonian or Sumerian period, and is also attested in the Mycenian period (before 1200BC), while chainmail is generally acknowledged to have been invented during the first millenium BC. If needed, I'll check and quote my sources in the relevant article. the broigne, however, seems to be a purely dark age development, so coming later than chainmail
2. Sorry there... my sources can't be quoted, if only because I've not had them at hand for years, and so don't remember the relevant titles, author, etc. while the statement and explanation do seem logical enough to me, I have no more quotable sources than already given. I notice though, that the broigne was the classic term for the armor used in Carolingian times, but my sources on early Merovingian armament mention that the common warrior defended himself with a shield, and did not wear body armor as such.--Svartalf 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Refutation

Dan Howard

This article is so full of inaccuracies that it is worthless. There is no point making minor changes as it needs to be completely rewritten which I attempted to do.

"Chainmail is a composed entirely of a mesh of interlocked metal rings, and is extremely heavy, 7 to 15 kg for a typical jacket"

This is false as can be easily determined by even a cursory examiniation of any museum catelog. A more typical weight for a mail shirt was between 5 and 8 kgs.

"In contrast, Ringmail is essentially a leather item of clothing (a jacket, or trousers) that has a large number of small metal rings sewn directly into the foundation garment, or alternately, with a small tab of leather sewn over a small part of the top of each ring."

There is absolutely no evidence that this type of armour was ever used in Medieval Europe. The only suggestion for this comes from a misinterpretation of contemporary illustrations such as the Bayeux Tapestry.

"Unlike chainmail, the rings are not physically interlocked with each other, but they are so close and numerous they effectively form a contigious physical barrier"

Modern attempts to reconstruct this armour has revealed that it provides absolutely no protection against the most common threats on a medieval battlefield - namely spears and arrows. The addition of metal rings to a leather foundation adds considerable weight with minimal benefit.

"It was used in Western Europe in the Dark Ages when skilled armourers became rare and the large scale interruption of trade routes cut the flow of iron to the traditional manufacture centers, as it uses less metal and is less labor intensive to produce than full chainmail. Its use continued until the end of the 11th century, when chainmail made a definitive comeback as the armour of the medieval knight."

More empty speculation. There is nothing to suggest that Charlemagne had troubles finding skilled armourers. Same with the Byzantine Empire and in the Middle East. Chainmail continued to be produced during the so called Dark Ages in all these regions and the alleged "comeback" of chainmail in the 11th century is fanciful.

The sources all rely on outated Victorian scholarship.

"Philippe Contamine : La Guerre au moyen âge (War in the Middle Ages), Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1980."

Contamine cribbed extensively from Violet le Duc who has been discredited for decades.

"Dictionnaire de l'Ancien Français jusqu'au milieu du XIVème siècle, (dictionary of Old French until the mid 1300's), (1980, page 84), a "brugna, broine, ou broigne", was still used in 1180, name derivating from Latin "brugnja" and designates a type of torso armor studded with metal scales or nail heads."

While the terms "brugna, broine, ou broigne" were used during the time the most likely types of armour being referred to are either chainmail or scale armour. The so-called "studded armour" never existed.

"Louis Réau's Dictionary of Art and Archaeology (Larousse, 1930) also mentions a brogne or broigne, it being a leather suit studded with metal."

Again a source relying on outdated Victorian scholarship.

A far better source to use for the study of medieval armour is Claude Blair's "European Armour"

as previously stated this essay covers the main points. http://www.knightsofveritas.org/materials/chainmailandringmail.pdf

For a discussion on this subject go here. http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62072