also no proof of scabbards. And no proof of spears. spearheads were actually just daggers with a hole for a string, so they would not get lost on the battlefield. But we didn't find any string, so its just a wild guess.
There might just not be any evidence of padded armour in writings/stories because maybe the Vikings of the time just considered "padded armour" as "normal winter clothes". I go out in thick clothing in winter, too, and nobody would think to tell me that I wear any kind of armour.
Well a thick woll tunic is defenitly different from gambeson though. Gambeson also has a though outside layer in most cases and the material is kind of hard in a weird way. They would defenitly differentiat between the 2 cause the only thing winter clothing and gambeson really have in common is that it is warm. I do how ever believe that vikings defenitly also simply wore there winter clothing in to war since a thick wollen tunic would defenitly give you some decent padding, but gambeson would a top of that also give you a lot more protection against cut's and trusts, sow there really not the same.
Cool, but have you worn it for long periods of time and done a lot activities to simulate being in battle? Even if it doesn't pinch your skin I'd assume it would rub against it and wear it down after a while. :)
I have wore maille for 11+ hours without a gambesson. That was back then when reenactment wasn't a thing yet where I live and I was young and (more) stupid and was fixed on making myself a maille armour. It's not that uncomfortable at all to wear, but yeah, someone hits you with anything and you're gonna feel it as if you were wearing nothing at all for protection.
But why is their no reference for dedicated textile armor from the literate Carolingian and Anglo Saxon writings, both of whom were contemporaries of the Vikings? The Carolingians during Charlamegne's rulership for example wrote detailed description on what equipment certain soldiers should posses, such as foot soldiers being equipped with 12 arrows, a spare bow string, a bow, a spear and a shield and vassals who own 12 or more mansi (a land measurement unit similar to the English hide maybe) were required to own metal armor. Yet I dont believe their is any mention of textile body armor at all, instead we get examples like the saga of Magnus the good were at least 2 tunics were worn under the mail in order to support it.
@@roryross3878 Notker the Stammerer, who was a 9th- early 10th century monk mentions of greaves made of iron worn by Carolingian soldiers. A Carolingian law code I believe put its worth at about 6 solidi, which is 3 times the cost of a spear and a shield or around 3 times the worth of a single cow, we can just imagine how valuable a cow is for the average peasant, especially during the early middle ages, so iron greaves were likely reserved for the elite. Also, Gauntlets were so valuable that Charlamegne actually prohibited the sale of arm guards as well as body armor (whether the carolingians mainly wore scale, mail or some other type of metal armor is still a subject of hot debate) outside of the Frankish realm in 803 AD.
Sorry shad, I think you're completely off base with this one. through hours of research, watching Vikings, The Last Kingdom, and looking at fan art, I have came to the TOTALY ACCURATE conclusion the Vikings would ware lots of random leather straps sometimes on the wrists and sometimes they'd even have fully leather pants (sexy right?). Glad I could inform you a bit on this subject XD
So at what point does 'thick clothing' become 'padded armor?' For example, my very historical (in terms of thickness and weave) woolen cloak is actually thicker than my purpose-built arming doublet. If Early Medieval Scandinavian culture was no stranger to thick weaves of wool, simply for protection from the elements, why is it far-fetched to believe that similar clothing could have been worn under mail to great effect? Is that padded armor? My point is that really, in the absence of archaeological, documentary and artistic evidence for purpose-built 'under armor' the culture was already wearing something suitable for that purpose that maybe required no distinguishing as a 'gambeson' equivalent. We also need to divorce ourselves from the idea that mail is somehow dead-weight if not coupled with outrageous amounts of padding. This is usually coming from a modern attempt to force mail to an equivalent level of protection of plate armor, and the only way to do so is to turn oneself into the stay puft marshmallow man, which should tell people the idea is erroneous, but people do it anyway...
I don't think chain mail does a very good job protecting from brute force all by itself. Also, even if you could just gain A LITTLE more protection by adding padding - why not do it? It is cheap and easy to make. But I agree with your first point, that they could've used their regular, thick clothing - but I think it should still count as padded armor when it was used for this purpose. I mean if you take a pot and put it on your head and it actually saves you from an arrow - does it not count as armor in this exact circumstance?
"I don't think chain mail does a very good job protecting from brute force all by itself." So? Does it need to? It does a great job of protecting against cuts, slashes, and incidental contact. It will also protect against thrusts with spatulate tipped viking style swords, and your shield is the primary protection against the axe and spear. People weren't standing still expecting to receive full-power blows on their person without trying to defend themselves. The majority of impacts on the body should be incidental, and that's where mail shines. A thick woolen tunic _does_ provide some of that little bit of added protection. I don't think anyone is arguing that Vikings wore mail directly over their bare chests, but we have this warped tendency to discount the protective value of mail just because it doesn't absorb impact like plate. You're still far better off with it, than without it. We have the benefit of being aware of all the developments in armor _after_ the viking age, so we have a very skewed idea of what makes _good_ armor when stripped of the context of a specific time period.
So far this would make much more reasonable sense, to fit with the evidence that we do have, rather than trying to fill in the blanks with known advances made later. To do so would really obscure and mis-attribute the technological advancements in armour to the wrong culture. Furthermore when we do look at those viking and migration-era warriors wearing no mail their tunics seem smooth, and depict none of the lines associated with quilting or stuffing in purpose-made padded armour. And personally I would take this as evidence that they did not know of quilted or stuffed gambesons to use for armour, if they did why is no-one wearing them without mail? Certainly padding is effective without mail, and cheaper: therefore why aren't those without the means for mail wearing padded gambesons? With this being said I'd suggest reading through this page that assesses written and pictorial evidence to see what kind of proto-padding was used in the absence of purpose-made quilted or stuffed gambesons. sagy.vikingove.cz/introduction-to-norse-padding-for-mail-armor/
Knyght Errant - mail without padding may be useful, but was it commonly done that way? Just a little padding seems to make such a big difference, and it's such a small increase in expense and weight. Like wearing a plate carrier without kevlar - possible, but why?
I think that the Vikings did have padded armor or gambesons because mail armor while it does protect you from sword cuts and flying projectiles ... being struck by a weapon hurts the blunt impact can leave bruises wearing a gambeson would help soften the blow
Well you had to wearing just chain would be a bit uncomfortable a thick type of cloth was needed for cushioning, heck even the romans used a kind of gambeson of their own called the subarmalis which btw is never portroyed in popular media. They just wear their chainmail or lorica segmentata directly over their tunic which doesn't sound practical.
hazzmati if you are meant to fight to die as a warrior on the battlefield your survivability depends on you doing what you do best being uncomfortable doesn't help
But it's so easy to conquer castles in Mount and Blade. All you need is some armor and you run up and keep swinging until the enemy lay dead beneath you. Oh and don't forget 2~3 shields.
I am very quickly getting the idea that if Shad ever met a historical warrior wearing full gambeson, armed with a bow/arrows and a longsword, his sexuality would suddenly become rather questionable. >_>
While we have no physical evidence or historical accounts on the vikings using padded armor, there are some other variants than mail hauberks mentioned in historical accounts. Most famously the warrior Tore Hund had on him at the battle of Stiklestad in 1030 AD a leather armor made up of 5 layers of raindeer hide. And it was effective, as king Olav Haraldsson tried to cut him down but the king's sword would not bite through the thick leather and Tore thrust his spear up under the kings mail shirt, killing him. Do note that this was a garment made specifically as armor. It was different with the berserks and wolfpelts that wore the pelts of bear and wolf respecively in order to take on those animals traits. These warriors were Odin's holy warriors and when they went into full battle frenzy they were blessed by Odin and it was believed no weapon could harm them, even when they were next to naked. There were no set rules for how these warriors dressed, as accounts of them tells us of berserks going into battle almost naked, wearing animal hide or mail shirts.
I always thought that the armor in Skyrim was realistic until I started watching RU-vid videos about Vikings and their history and now I can’t play Skyrim without a realistic armor mod
It's often quite cold in Scandinavia. Padded gambesons make for great winter clothing. OF COURSE they had such and wore it. It is also relatively inexpensive, and frankly far better armor than most D&D players understand.
Chances are also quite high that Norsemen already wore thick clothing made of wool that made excellent gambeson replacements already. So I have no doubt they understood the purpose of it. And that getting through their layers of clothing to begin with was tough enough.
We have to be wary of these "Of course they did it" moments. Remember we know about the full development of armour so something might be obvious for us while at this period it wouldn't be invented until centuries later.
True, up north, layered cloth is a big deal. 1-3 layers during summer depending on how much "summer" occur, a harsh winter? People here will happily put on 5+ layers...NO woolen caps tho, those are for weak milk drinkers! >:3 Real norsemen grow their hair long enough that the hair IS the woolen cap!
There's also the fact that Vikings would usually reuse their old armor, rather than burying it with the wearer. A padded gambeson or mail shirt would be passed from father to son until it wore out, and would then be cannibalized for parts or thrown away.
Would you rather: thick clothing, or no clothing? Hmm.... that's a tough decision, but I like clothes. I like living too, so make it THICKER. MAKE IT AS THICK AS THE WALLS OF A CASTLE! It might just stop a Balista. In all seriousness, I see no reason, given that the technology already existed, why anyone, in any country, who could afford gambesons (did I spell that right?) wouldn't get them, if they were expecting combat, but couldn't afford mail.
TR-219 I've got this image of a Norseman waddling around in layers and layers of sheepskins, looking kind of like a small Stay Puft Marshmallow Man with an axe and shield.
Great video shad, as usual! My problem with the thesis "You can't disprove the use of gambeson" is this: If one assumes they would be wearing padded armor even without mail, then there should have been a lot more of these things around than mail. Even with it being organic, there should be some archeological evidence left, let alone iconoghrapic evidence. It's simply unbelievable to me that all traces of these early gambesons would have been erased from history, whereas other organic materiels survived (even if in little numbers)... I guess, the most logical conclusion might be that they used to wear their normal clothing, possibly even layers of it. As you stated correctly, it would likely be thicker than usual, so it would function as some sort of padding as well.
Corvos De Odin I'm in the absolute same boat this stubborn idiot (hope u see this hex) believes Vikings only wore leather armor because it's so easy to get! Just kill an animal and you have armor! What a buffoon (I really hope you see this). So yeah very smart cookie
As a combat veteran you quickly learn what works in combat and what doesn't..Since the vikings did know alot about combat I concur that they wouldve used some kond of padded armor
Especially for having padding under mail--yeah even if they didn't use it at first (though I still expect they would have), undoubtedly someone learned the hard way and everyone else had the luxury of learning the lesson without the pain. Also I have to consider helmets--surely they used some sort of padding inside helmets. So they probably would have understood that metal directly against skin, or with only thin covering (hair) = bad time.
we had armies that where filled with farmers, then above that experienced soldiers, doubt farmers ran around in mail. but thick clothes and fur.to take a hit you need padded armour including mail.(if you could afford one)you risk breaking bones before getting cut if you do not have thick clothing under mail.have a cousin that tried it. his ribbs did hurt several days after fighting with a thin shirt under.lol
The most surprising part of this video is its length =p Now I could watch it as soon as it came out, instead of having to wait for a moment where I had 20 spare minutes. Thanks for the succinctness, Shad
Dear Shad, Could you do a video series on fantasy races and what kind of armor (any time period, you could base it on real-world civilizations), cavalry (horse, elephant, etc.), and fighting tactics they would use? I know you did one on weapons, but the full package would be even more awesome. Also, what real-life civilizations would correlate the most accurately with each fantasy race? You wouldn't have to pick one over the other, just pick a few that would apply.
I prefaced that in my comment. I'm talking about in-depth armor, cavalry types, and tactics. Also, perhaps inserting them into the real world to see which civilization they have the most in common with.
Exactly. A full-on, in-depth analysis of fantasy race military. And for this, Shad could look at any time period prior to the introduction of gunpowder, as well as any culture (European, Asian, African, Native American, etc.). Also, I want to picture dwarves riding elephants whilst wielding halberds/sarissa and crossbows from above. An ancient tank, of sorts.
Shad seems like the kind of bloke who is really easy going, nice to have a conversation with, a few laughs, and a nice guy, properly because hes a Mormon and Mormons are really nice blokes.
Easy gambeson for a family having one go a viking: wears his wool tunic, his old wool tunic, his brother's wool tunic, grandpa's old wool tunic and so on. It is a simple thought someone would tailor all those layers together for better movement creating a gambeson.
I'd only use your old tunics, I'd assume that you and your brother would like your tunics nice and dry and clean. But otherwise that makes a lot of sense.
As always, I love what you've done here. Great arguments. I look forward to all of your videos, and this was well worth my time; I have Norwegian and Swedish ancestry, so anything good about Scandinavia is welcome to me. Thank you, as always.
At the battle of stamford bridge the viking forces left their armour as they weren't expecting the Saxon army. As not every viking could afford mail this is proof to me that you are correct
I think that the same argument you once used, to describe how lower knights and soldiers would first use padded armor until they could afford their metal places or mail, applies here.
A good woolen tunic, or even one made of felt is enough padding for mail, in that time period's warfare. Tried it myself pretty thoroughly. Gambeson is armor made of sewn-through layers, of which there is no sign among vikings (as opposed to some depictions of frankish riders for example). So yes, they OF COURSE had padding under their mail. But it almost definetly wasn't a gambeson similar to what Normans started to use a century later. Reason for more padding under mail is simple - Norman knights started to use heavy cavalry charge as their main tactic. Frontal charge on horseback was almost unheard of before that (at least in Europe), so they needed more protection, which is what kicked off this whole armour evolution. The viking tactic was to sail up a river by boat with as minimal equipment as they could, get out, pillage, go back. Early mail armour, once you get used to it is not less convenient than wearing a shirt. Any amount of padding will always limit your movement to an extent. Look at modern spec ops - they don't wear thick foam jackets under their bulletproof vests, even though a shot from a rifle shatters your ribs, but the mobility is much more essential, and bulletproof vests are there to save your life, not make getting hit comfortable. And I think vikings went with the same attitude, that shirt would save them from all those low power nasty cuts to the body. So yeah, bottom line, they're more likely to have worn a thick wool tunic than a gambeson.
LOL I know what you mean about the video length, there's at least ten minutes missing here! Some might say you're on the wordy side but I love the depth that you go into with most of your videos; you're very passionate and emotive in your delivery and you try to include every single detail that you feel necessary (you know how we like to pick over the nitty-gritty in the comments)! I think most of us appreciate that you want to be as informative as possible, so it's worthwhile to sit through the longer videos and get the full picture. Keep up the good work!
This is Thrand! Great Video Shad and I agreed. I believe textile armor properties are what made cloth so valued in early cultures like Sumeria. The average person in that climate had no problem with nudity if it had no properties but fashion I doubt it would be worth the trouble nor caught on in that early society.
Your channel is great. Simply great. I already bought your brother's book "How to draw with Jazza" and I really consider buying some of your t-shirts. But seriously, your videos helped me a great deal with my medieval fantasy stories. Thank you very much Shad. :)
There are some Norwegian texts from the 1200's that mentioned vapntroya in a fashion similar to a gambeson. Norwegian warfare in the 1200's were pretty similar to warfare during the Viking age thus it is fair to say that Vikings used gambeson.
Norwegian warfare is not even remotely similar to Norwegian warfare from 500 years earlier. That is like saying a Norman knight is comparable to a french jouster in the 16th century in arms and armor.
A few notes on padded armor and vikings. (Do not that i am no expert, in fact im probably not very knowledgeable about armor or weapons from the "viking era", im more for the household and carpentry related things in my knowlege...) A good reason why padded armor is not found, is because its cloth, if i had a gambeson and lived in the viking era.. it would probobaly go the whole cycle of a scavenger in my houshold. First if would (if possible, otherwise skip this step) be picked to pieces and made in to shirts/pants and the like. Then it would likely become rags, followed by a crude "floor brush" or a rag to apply oils to wood. When it was little more than a pile of worn out string, it would go in to a pillow case or in to the fire. A good reason why it has not been found in graves (war or burial) is also that it rots (as mentioned) It may well be that they had no dedicated padded armor, but may as well have used nothing (other than the clothing they wore), or even have worn several layers of clothing (effectively becoming more or less padded armor) If i lived in the "viking era" and had to chose between a padded armor and mail for a fight during summer... i would most likely have gone for the mail and put on my winter clothing and (if i had) spare clothing underneath the mail to act as padding. Then again, if i lived during this time, i would most likely be fortunate if beyond my spear/axe and shield owned a helmet...
IggyTthunders Amon Amarth sing about Norse Mythological Thor, who is so much cooler and better... ^ Yes that's an opinion and I don't mean to say it's 100% undeniably true.
If you read the Heimskringla, there is the pagan Tore Hund, which kills Saint Olav. He wears a "magic" armour made of 20 layers of reindeer skin, being impossible to penetrate by swords and spears.
Short, but great video! A couple points from a Norseman (I live in Finland, around middle-ish in terms of north - south length): 1) The summers can get hot. Even as high as over 30 Celcius. That might not sound much to you, but when the average temperature during summer is roughly... I don't know, maybe 20 Celsius, 30 is really hot. 2) Winters can get quite cold. When I was in FDF, we had a couple of days when the temperature was something like -41 Celcius. True, it was only for a couple of days, but the average temperature was something like -30 Celcius during the winter months. 3) There is a difference to where you live in Scandinavia. If you live in (current) Denmark, the temperatures are quite nice, close to central Europe (no great peaks, but nice temperate climate). You go to Norway, and even if it's warm, it'll be cold. Because of northern Atlantic. If you go to Sweden (well, mainly the southern parts of Sweden are populated), it's close to Denmark. So it really depends on the area you're referring to. This is a common thing I've seen, where whole Scandinavia is clumped together and thought of as a unified area in terms of people, customs, language and climate / surroundings. This is not true, and never has been true. Similar (well, Finnish language differs from everything else spoken, and I do mean from everything else), but different. In terms of wearing gambeson or other cloth armor, I'm certain it was worn. It's quite cold going in the north Atlantic, and a good gambeson would protect you nicely, both from the splashing (cold) water as well as from the wind, etc. So it would certainly make sense for Norwegians and Danes to wear gambeson, but also ie. Finnish people to wear gambeson or something similar, especially in the spring, autumn and winter. But yeah. There is little evidence, so we'll just have to use logic. People weren't stupid 1000 years ago.
Hey, Shad! Would you be willing to do a series on the best armor each race could wear? I think it'd be really cool if you discussed how elvish armor might differ from dwarven armor, or maybe how each could be changed to be more realistic. Great video as always. I thrive off of your historical knowledge, especially about castles. You're fantastic!
I would simply point to the fact that, as you say, the Vikings lived in a cold climate so would more often wear thicker clothing especially during the winters. And secondly... they weren't stupid. The ones you could make an argument for intentionally not wearing armor would be the berserkers, or those intentionally seeking access to Valhalla.
plus you would normally wear a gambeson under mail, the rings can open up and actually leave bad cuts all over your body. my older brother and me made that mistake before and regretted it.
Duplicate Yeti More than likely some kind of cloth armor. I'd look at historical Hebrew, Muslim, Egyptian, and nomadic armor(I can't think of the tribes name).
Duplicate Yeti AFAIK mail and scale armor were used in hot, arid zones. I guess that they were covered by something like a surcoat as crusaders developped. In India and other tropical places mail and brigandines were in use.
if you want heavy dessert armor i would go with scale like armor protecting chest arms and and an armored skirt also a helmet lined with cloth to protect head from hot metal also cloth coming down from helmet to protect the face and neck from the sun, i based this mostly from arabs in crusader times. you know what shad should really make a video about this!
You could look for evidence in the old sagas, like Beowulf. They are one of the few things that were writing down by the Scandinavians of the migration era. They tend to be really long though, Beowulf has about 30.000 verses. As a side note, Beowulf was translated to English by Tolkien.
From the original older english. Beowulf really not a good source for anything Scandinavian as it was never written down in or translated from Scandinavian, it's an old English tale that just happens to be set in Scandinavia.
I agree Shad. Vikings/ Norse / Danes were famous not only for raiding, but trading as well. They would have been exposed to other cultures technology that they would have incorporated into their own. Well done. Love the videos.
i'm glad to see you again, welcome back :) Yeah i think vikings would have pretty much anything they could steal lol so i think they would have padded armor that way... but i don't know if they make that kind of stuff...i imagine they sew clothes so it wouldn't so difficult how to figure it out having one and when they were not raiding i can see them sharpening stuff and making padding armors as well ... so... it makes sense from logic
I'd like to contribute some information. Your arguments were that padded armor already existed, Vikings already had an idea of armor, and Gambesons would help in the colder (but not frigid) climate of Scandinavia. Well, let's think about how you make Gambeson. You can make it out of linen, wool, or cotton. I don't know about Scandinavians during the Viking Age using cotton, but I would wager they used linen. 1. *_Linen:_* You can get linen from a plant called Flax Plant, which grows best in colder climates. Seeing as Scandinavia is a colder climate, Flax Plant would be perfect for the region! Something else to back this up is the fact that many Scandinavians were farmers during the Viking Age. If you're a farmer as well as a Viking, and you need armor, and you've done trade with people from many places in Europe and you've seen what they wear, make, and sell, what are you going to grow in your farm? Most probably flax plant. 2. *_Wool:_* Wool was one of the main exports in Iceland during the Viking Age, so it clearly was very abundant there. Does this mean they used wool for armor? Quite possibly, as they already had a form of homespun cloth, vaðmál (VAWTH-mole). Vaðmál was a strong and durable form of woolen cloth. One of the things made with vaðmál was a homespun cloak, vararfeldur (VAWR-awr-veld-oor). So they already had clothes made from tough, durable wool.
Okay, the Vikings/Scandinavians traveled all the way from Miklegard (Istanbul today) too North America, and had trade with the rest of europe. So, most likely and I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't have any type of padded armor. It's quite logical, like people seriously you don't think someone would realize that this might be a trade opportunity if they didn't have it? And if we go to after the Viking period and towards the high medieval period for the Norse (Norwegian) definelty had it.
I'm crying cuz I know the guy in the frame at 0:38, he's from Ukraine and this picture has been taken in Kiev. Didn't expect to find a Ukrainian dude in an Australian dude's video lmao. He's also a killer bass player.
Shad, I would also suggest that padded armor/gambeson would seem rather sensible when traveling by sea. I believe you mentioned in another video that a gambeson wouldn't do well if it was completely soaked, but against light weather it wouldn't be a detriment. At sea, where no only do you have the windchill factor, but also the temperatures at sea tend to be cooler than those on land (especially when you lack any chance of the wind coming from inland). So I would think that a gambeson would provide a much needed layer of (probably extra) insolation to keep warm.
You have to keep in mind from the "evidence" that vikings may not have made certain kinds of armor and weapons, they still wore and used them. They'll take yours to use on the next guy. Still, they aren't going to get buried in lifted gear, they will get buried in traditional home culture stuff, so you won't find the foreign finds in the graves. Also, joking aside, they were expert long-range traders, so they could also buy useful stuff from foreign markets. No reason to make at home what you can just trade for at a good vendor. Vikings had great range and speed for their day compared to other people. Longship ftw!
Shadiversity - Another fact in support of your theory regarding the Nordic peoples knowing of more affordable padded armors, is the fact that the Nordic peoples were actually prodigious traders. For instance, Ulfberht swords aren't really all that 'Nordic' at all, possibly even including the Spatha-like shape - the crucible forging technique thought to be used to make the mild steel was most common in what we known as the Middle East (not to say that they couldn't figure it out, of course). The point is, they had contact with other civilizations and doubtless picked up a few tips and tricks along the way. I don't see how they'd fail to come across the concept of padded armor, especially used in conjunction with lamellar, scaled, and mail armor systems.
I'm studying Archaeology and one of the first concepts brought up in one of the textbooks is this, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because we haven't found anything, doesn't mean that our ancestors didn't have it.
Two points to make about the Vikings and Gambesons. First, the Romans used Gambesons of a sort, and the Viking Sword was very similar to the Roman Spatha, so it would seem to me that if they adopted one (the Spatha) in a modified form, it would make sense that they would adopt the other as well. Secondly of all, while Scandinavia is not the frozen wasteland many people make it out to be, is DOES get cold up there, and so having some warm heavy clothing under their armor (if they had any armor in the first place) would have been very nice under certain conditions.
Tl;dr version: 1.: Norsemen had mail 2.: Mail has to be worn over padding for it to actually work 3. Therefore : Norsemen had padded garments. (I.e. gambesons) There you go.
Also don't forget that Germanic peoples were highly desired as mercenaries the world over as they were larger and stronger than most, and were worth their weight in gold in Miklagard. To think that Germanic warriors didn't eyeball any foreigners kit, or see something neat and think "I want something like that, but less foreign looking." and kept that in mind when ordering armour is absurd.
It makes sense to wear some heavy padding underneath maille to not only prevent chafing but to gain added protection from percussive trauma. And it does get cold especially in winter and early-mid spring when raids would be more common. For some odd reason I think giving a featured shirt to the anti-armor tools like war hammer, mace and poleaxe (among others) might also be a future shirt for you to design. "Knightly can openers?"
It seems to me Vikings definitely had padded armor of some form, because if you put on 2 or 3 thick-ish tunics at once and then sew em together you've got a form of 1 piece padded armor. This practice may have been not prevalent at all, as this form is roughly equivalent in functionality to 2 or 3 thick-ish tunics not sewn together, but it's something to consider. As for whether they had gambeson, as in padded armor constructed similarly to styles that we know of later, unfortunately it seems like a historian's dead end. The only evidence I've seen brought up in favor *or* on the contrary is a few old art examples.
Hey shad good video. Just because we havent discovered something doesnt necessarily mean it didnt exist, within reason of course. i still think a gambeson would not have been as common in scandinavia though because the wool tunics and wool trousers were already very thick. a linen tunic was also worn under the wool tunic. if a norseman owned a mail shirt, his every day wool tunic would be great to wear under it, and if he didnt own a mail shirt, than his wool tunic would still provide a very similar level of defense to that of a gambeson. so basically every day most people up north were already wearing shirts that were as tough as gambesons. perhaps someone who was wealthy, like a jarl or a king, would have a specific battle tunic that they only wore when putting their armor on
As someone who re-enacts this period in a group that really cares about historical accuracy, we tend to allow gambesons as it's more likely that they did exist in the period than not. However, they're generally worn with mail and it's also worth noting quite a few people wear mail just over a thick woollen tunic, although it is recognised as being a less effective armour. I think that personally if you would have had the money to buy a mail hauberk, then you would probably invest in a padded jacket of some kind underneath it to make it far more effective...
There is gambeson and there is thick layered clothing. They are functioning the same but they are not the same. Vikings may or may not wear gambeson. But what they did wear was layers of thick knitted (or rather nålebinding ) wool underwear, knitted felt-like coat and leather overcoat. They didn't necessarily wear this for protection against swords but as protection against the weather when they were on the sea. However it does function just as well as gambeson. There is also mention of felt clothing used as protective armor in the sagas.
they wouldn't use armour much because of their tactics. They're raiders, they hit and run. Attack something like a church, that isn't protected at all. The people they're attacking are monks and peasants. There's no need for armour. Their goal was to leave before the armed garrison could get their padding on, than their armour, than get their horse ready, and finally get into formation before marching over to the monastery. Less armour meant greater speed. And in and out is the name of the game. That's my hypothesis.
The most basic gambeson you can make is take 10 tunics, put them all on top of each other and quilt them together. That way you have a heavier shirt with 10 layers. It's very basic and very cheap, but it will already protect you against a lot of battlefield action. It's still most vulnerable to thrusts, but by using linen and additional padding in between the layers you can at least reduce the severity of a thrust and sometimes even stop it, especially when you use horse hair and crude linen for the inside layers. Most of the gambesons were made of linen, because cotton-based materials were not common and expensive up until the modern age. So a pretty cheap gambeson is already a very good protection for a common soldier and the best part is, that you don't need to mine and refine any metal to make this kind of armour and the same person, who makes clothes for civilians can also make a gambeson and much faster than a shirt of mail. You don't need anyone with special skills to make it and you might even be able to repair it yourself. All of this is the reason, why padded armour was the most common one and it's also why we hear almost nothing about it, because it rots away, but I would be shocked if the Vikings didn't use gambesons. Padded armour is the first kind of armour any culture comes up with, because it's the easiest to make, it follows a very basic concept and you don't need special skills or materials to make it, plus it can take a hell of a beating if done right. Only problem with a gambeson: it soaks up water like a bitch and if you fall off a boat wearing it, you might drown, so I'm assuming the Vikings only put them on before a fight and off the boat.
with the fact that they wore mail, yoy could say they wore a gabbison. because if they didn't the would take a heavy punch with their axes ( could also be a sword or maybe a spear). thrue that the axe wouldn't cut your body but there would still be a lot of force behind the axe head that would break your ribs
Part of the problem asking such questions is what period and what region of the Viking period are we talking about. Even in the early days Viking nobility appear to have worn mail, but the rank and file of any raiding part had just a helmet and shield and no body armour. But as the age of raiding moved onto the age of invasion and colonization the Viking armies appear to have worn the same equipment as their Saxon and Frankish foes. However the Rus may not have had much armour as their western counterparts with the exception of those who had served the Byzantines and brought armour back with them. The Vikings (we really should call them Norse) were experts at making wool textile (they had woolen sails for example) so it is likely that the rank and file initially wore their woolen shirts or parkas and later adapted proper padding as mail became more widespread
I've been reading King's Mirror, a Norse educational text from 1250. The author referred multiple times to wearing a thick gambeson of soft linen, thoroughly blackened. Yes, this is from after the viking age itself, but they don't go into the details of its construction or much explanation as to what it actually is, which suggests that they already knew in that cultural context. Whether or not they were wearing them throughout the Viking age or not is debatable, but some of the earliest Norse texts after the introduction of the latin alphabet and writing instruments that came with the church don't try to explain the alienness of this thing you're supposed to wear, despite going into chapters of descriptions of the wonders of other islands they'd explored, including Ireland, Iceland, and Greenland. While not itself solid proof of gambesons in the Viking age, this fact does suggest that it's certainly a very reasonable possibility.
Shad! Check out the Vendel/Björnhovda/Valsgärde/Sutton Hoo helmet plates, as well as the findings from. There you can see both mail, gambesons and some form of tunic. In Valsgärde 8 you even have arm and leg armor. So if the warlord and chieftain great grandparents of the 'vikings' had it, it is very likely that the middle and upper class vikings themselves also had them, and that something like a warcoat or gambeson was a common form of protection. The problem however is, as you mention, the lack of archaeological evidence from the viking age. And sagas and picture stones don's show us the common, faceless raiders and peasant warriors, but only the high status warriors and chieftains... So yeah... We know little about what the common man would wear into battle...
also if they had mail armor they would probably want to ware some sort of padding under it because it would make the mail more comfortable to ware and mail just by itself directly on skin doesn't offer as much protection. so that would probably lead them to use some sort of padded armor.
Also, it was fairly common in other periods to wear padding under mail, since you'd need some 'squish-factor' to absorb a strong blow. The fact that they had mail would at least imply padded gambesons.
hey shad, just a note, vikings did a lot of recreational hunting. And farmers did a lot of wolf killing to defend their livestock. so maybe it wasn't a padded armor like a Gambeson maybe it was more of an outer layer of wolf hides and furs. also, this does present the idea that they could lay down and act like a pack of wolves to scare people or some sort of camouflage. And, they wouldn't need anything extra to keep themselves warm in the winter in there own land or in the saxon controlled britian [ it was pretty cold on the northern areas like in northumbria ] so it kinda makes more sense to me
I think that because of the fact, that vikings were discovering new lands and pillaging them, they needed to be prepared for anything the new opponents would have (both their weapons and tactics/fighting style) , that's why armor was very important for vikings, and they would get anything they could afford.
... totally agree. Padded armor was around before, it was around after, Vikings produced and used linen, and it really is highly unlikely they just sorta had a stroke or cultural localized memory loss and forgot about it. ... I was wondering, about the Bayeux tapestry (later, I know), seems rather improbable they depicted one and the same armor type in two different ways... so stylized rings for maille, sure makes sense, but the lozenges? I think that just screams gambeson quilting. I defo going to make my viking proto-gambeson modelled on that.
IIRC there is evidence based on artwork and such of them having padded armor under mail. One description of the Varangian Mercenary's armor from around the late 700s I have seen was a thinner padded wool with leather over it then a Mail Hauberk over that and a pelt over their shoulders as a for of shoulder guard and rank signifier. Also it is believed a lot of vikings had armor only they valued heirlooms so much that typically the only thing that would change about the armor was the lower layers with the mail, weapons, and helmet being an heirloom of their elders. And I hate when people say Vikings = Pirates and the like. Viking when used as a noun meant Wanderer, Traveller, or Voyager and when used as a verb meant to wander, travel or voyage. They were a trading culture and raiding was a militant action against enemies or as a mercenary action. The British Isle raids were unique in that it was more of a conquest goal rather than a normal raid. The raids were to soften the opposition for easier conquest. And now I really wanna try and set up a collab that would discuss Viking society and such...
Easy to make and maintain while offering more chance to survive. Less trouble with rusting armor may be a factor as well, especially as searfearing raiders.
Another overlooked argument for padded armor is the particular mentions of Berserkers, Ulvhedin and shieldbiters in the sagas. Yes the sagas were written 50-300 years after in a very romanticized period, but they build on oral hand over, so some things might be valid. But the sheer fact, that you'd have to point out any one going into battle wearing nothing but a shield and his weapon, in my opinion, points towards a general use of some sort of armor in battle. I don't think they would have painted such a vivid picture of berserkers going without shirts or clothes if the average viking just had a shirt as well. A woolen shirt doesn't really give any protection against spears, axes or swords. Also, the Norse were known for their skills in "tailoring" and using wool to the fullest. So why wouldn't they have padded armor. Their enemies had. And vikings excelled at copying the best from their neighbors. On a side note. Mail armor does not require a padded armor underneath. any woolen long sleeved shirt would suffice. Padded armor under mail wasn't to protect the skin from the mail. It was to protect you from blunt weapons. And the most common weapon of the enemy of the vikings was the spear, axe and sword. The war-hammer wasn't common till later. Not saying they didn't use it, just it's not an argument to use for if they did or if they didn't use padded armor.
There isn't much strict archeological evidence for a lot of what we know vikings to have had from sagas and historical accounts. For instance the Helmet from the Gjermundbu mound burial is the only known viking era spangenhelm that we have. Even though they are depicted and described all the time. Iron simply doesn't preserve well. *But clothing (remarkably) does.* We do actually have a lot of their clothing from many different digs. We've found shoes, shirts, leg bindings, mitts, caps, scarves, hoods, felt face masks, trousers etc. Pretty much all of it is made of wool, linen, or leather. Everything from scraps which we can tell what it was from it's placement in burials, to damn near ideally preserved full garments. The linen stuff preserves especially well given that linen is very strong, has a natural residue that protects it, doesn't soil or dye easily, and actually gets stronger when wet. But the lanolin in wool and the tannin in leather preserves that stuff pretty decently as well. We have so much of their clothing. So well preserved. That we have been able to back engineer it and pattern it out for accurate reproduction. If anything can be said about viking equipment it is that we know pretty much the full extant of what they wore where it regards textiles. Had they worn padded armour we'd have found some by now. There is no reason we wouldn't have found any considering we have found plenty of garments that reasonably should be less preservable. It's not described by them, depicted, or found where we should reasonably expect to find it.
Vikings were minimalist with their armour. They didn't have the best protection the times had to offer. It's hard to reconcile that with the fact that they were by definition raiders. Until you consider what they did most of the time. Their boats were broad bottomed and could be shored just about anywhere (as apposed to having to come into a designated port). And these ships were fast as well and hard if not impossible to catch. Because they could land anywhere at anytime they were hard to account for. You couldn't really prepare for a viking attack. There was rarely an army or even a contingent of trained militia there to meet them when they struck. They were armored to defend themselves against near helpless peasantry and monastery. They struck and were gone before any resistance or counter attack could be mustered. And they had a lot of shit to take back with them. Goods, precious items, slaves. You have to travel light if you expect to return heavy. They did get into battles. But not nearly as often as they acted out the part of boogieman.
+Possumlove It wasn't really all that thick. A shirt would have been linen or wool and equivalent to 1-3 ounce fabric (about the same as today). It may have protected a good amount against slicing action. But not so much penetrative action (such as from a sword tip, a spear thrust, or an arrow). They didn't live in a land of eternal winter either. They actually had a pretty good agrarian society at home. And even though it was a cooler climate. Fabric didn't need to be very thick to be protective against the sort of colder weather they would have had (remember this is before the little ice age when weather was warmer globally in general). What we know about them is that they were relatively lightly armored. This is a fact. It's not something we can fairly argue away. The evidence is overwhelming. But they didn't really need to be heavily armored most of the time. They had big shields, decent length spears, and were mostly up against untrained fighters of necessity, that were poorly equipped, and absolutely terrified of them (with good cause given that rape, mass murder, and enslavement was well within the realm of possible outcomes for the people they attacked). Another thing to consider is that one did not take up the role of viking because they were well off and bored. These were likely for the most part men who couldn't afford good armor. Becoming a viking in their culture was the fastest path to peer recognition and wealth.
If not a gambeson as we know in the medieval period, then certainly a proto-gambeson.One thing I'm surprised you didn't point out about the gambeson-maille conclusion: If they had maille, wouldn't they want some kind of padding underneath it for comfort and effectiveness? It is my understanding that maille by itself is a miserable armour because it can't absorb shock very well. The last thing you want is little metal rings being forced into your flesh by an axe hit!
I'm no historian here, but I am/was a sailor. As Vikings were seafaring folk, it would seem to me that gambeson armor would add some amount of flotation (until it got waterlogged of course) whereas mail and other metal armor would weigh them down should they fall over the side.
"Vikings" indeed is the term for the sea-raiders they're commonly known for. This is because of the few people who could write were mostly monks, and they'd already call one a barbarian just because one's a pagan. Furthermore, the Viking culture ISN'T all about raiding. Long story short, two volcanic eruptions in the tropical regions between the year 536 and 540 in the south caused a cold-wave at the northern hemisphere (some estimations point out a drop of 3,5°C in average temperature). This obviously hits the already fairly cold regions with additional force which leads to farming becoming (nearly) impossible. This eventually led to half of the population starving, and forcing them to raid in order to get resources. (Some other factors were important too like the fall of the Western Roman Empire causing mass-migration which in turn led to losing a lot of trading opportunities). Anyway, I deem it very likely for the Scandinavians to wear padded armor. As explained in another video of yours, a mail, or any form of metal armor for that matter, is really uncomfortable without some undercoating. Just because of the fact that the Normen had mail is already a strong indication for the use of gambesons (or something similar). Furthermore, the Normen (as I'd already subtly been referring to) weren't as barbarous, and primitive as the stereotypes make us believe which makes it likely for them to at least have the means to make padded armor.
In texts like "Kongespeilet" and "Hirdskråa" it is mentioned textile-armors very much similar to gambesons. The textile-armor as "panser" may have been made up by 30 layers of textiles like linen and wool. A large part of the strength comes from the pararell seams through all the layers. It seems that this is a pretty good description of gambesons. Keep in mind that this is someone else's opinion/research, I just read it in a book written by some Norwegian historians. However, the fact that textile armors are mentioned, should be a hint that they had some type of padding.
I typically wear a light gambeson under the maille on a hot day and it's quite comfortable and on a cold day it's pretty warm. The reason i think it was light is because I think a big heavy layered jacket would have survived. and who is to say it won't be discovered one day, but a light jacket would surely not survive, and buried on the person it certainly wouldn't. Vikings were around along time, I think it goes without saying they wore some sort of padded jacket to guard agianst blunt force and so the maille has a proper fit over the form as anyone knows wearing maille, you need that jacket for it to fit well; but a proper aketon? I doubt it. I agree, a shirt is the first form of armor, so I think it's common sense they had a form of arming jacket under the maille.
