10 Things to Consider When Buying lamellars

Hello and welcome to my tutorial!!

LIONSHELL are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.

I am a huge fan of historical arms and armors (armours?) and have been wanting to build a suit of armor for a very long time now. But if you are like me (live in an apartment...restricted to a very slim budget...limited access to tools) you find yourself with a whole lot of desire and information but not a lot of armor.

This can be frustrating beyond belief!! However during my research I discovered a way for someone to make a piece of armor for under $200 depending upon their particular size and weight!!

That's when I discovered LAMELLAR!!

Tools (poor guy version):

*A drill

*Phillips Head Drill Bit

*Metal cutting drill bits

* A piece of wood

*A marking device(pen, marker colored pencil)

*Clamps

*Screws

Rich Guy Tools(if ya got em):

*Drill Press

*Vice

Materials:

3.5 x 1.5 in Mending Braces (mine came from my local Lowe's Home Improvement store)

Paracord

Lighter

Scissors or Knife

How many plates do i need?:

I don't know. that's something you will have to figure out on you own.

What I did to figure out the number of plates i needed was the following:

1) Buy ten packages of Mending Braces

2) Measure from nipple to nipple on the chest you will be making the armor for

3) Lay enough plates down in a row to equal or exceed the measurement...depending on your desired area of protection

= Write down that number and don't lose it=

Additional resources:
5 Must-Have Features in a Dye Sublimation Consumables
The Ultimate Buyer's Guide for Purchasing Hot Oil Boiler

The company is the world’s best vertical bellow cover supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.

4) Measure from nipple to waistline on the torso you will be making the armor for

5) Lay enough plates down in a vertically overlapping column to equal or exceed the measurement...depending on your desired area of protection

= Write down that number and don't lose it=

Multiply your two numbers and that will give you your base line

Multiply that number by 2 and you have your front and back plate count

Do the same thing for your sides then add them all together and you have your plate count

Mine came out to 168 plates

At this point you will have purchased your plates and congrats for getting this far

==BUT WAIT!!!===

The plates you bought have holes in them.... but they don't tie together!!

WHAT??!!

In order to have them tie together properly you will have to add some holes...hence the drill and bits

Now feel free to add your holes where ever you want, however you want...my way is not the only way

Also feel free to modify your plates

round tops, fluted tops, d shaped sides, fish scales....whatever you want it to look like

WAIT!!! STOP!!! HOLD UP!!

Just do ONE PLATE the way you want your holes, that one will become your MASTER PLATE

1) Place your plate on the wood... bumps up

2)Using your marking tool, color in the holes

3) Remove plate

4) Drill small hole in each spot you colored

5) Mark plate for new holes

6)Clamp wood to stable surface

7) Place marked plates back onto the wood

8) Drill screws into holes, securing plate into place

9) Drill new holes through marked area on plate

by mentioning norman miles can i assume before and maybe around the time of hastings?

if that is the case
the normans used almost exclusively maile like everyone else in italy and western europe.
http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/norman.htm at the bottom is a section of one guy recreating the norman knight
but if you wanna be a norman heavy infantry, or a dismounted norman knight,
its the usual stuff, maile hauberk, kite shield, conical helmet, and type Xa or type XI sword plus a spear of some description
the klibanion was the word for lamellar used by the bzantines.
and lamellar was almost exclusively confined to the east, such as the byzantines, rus, saracens and the various steppe tribes like the khazars.
and as far as i know theres no evidence the normans in italy adopted lamellar.
even the birka lamellar in sweden has indications that the people occupying that area were easterners so it doesnt suggest the scandinavians had it either.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/...ellar.html
this is one source on lamellar finds for the byzantines

some might say tim dawsons reconstruction isnt as accurate, one critique is he overuses artwork sources, which have major flaws since many are religous artworks and not neccesarily showing stuff they actually wore at the time.
so its tenuous...

there were western knights in bzantine employ called the latinkon as a merc force similar to the varangian guard. although not as important. these were MAYBE issued byzantine gear but i have almost no evidence they adopted byzantine gear, they probably just kept their own gear. especially in those early centuries. Dan Howard wrote: Agreed with William. I can't think of anything to suggest that Normans wore lamellar in Italy or anywhere else.
the only time wed see 'norman' italians with any sort of platelike armour is when people started using coat of plates style armour in the late 13th century when plate armour was slowly being adopted again.

and, as far as i know, the klibanion may have just been a breastplate of sorts, and lamellar 'spaulders' of a sort, a version of which was used by heavy mamlukes during the 11th C. lamellar, if very rigidly laced can act sort of like a solid breastplate but coverage is alot less than a hauberk.

compare that with a hauberk that goes to the knees and at least down to the elbows if not the wrists. (but the hauberk hadnt yet become the all in one suit that it became with the maile coif and mittens being a part of the hauberk)

Last edited by William P on Thu 19 Apr, 4:18 am; edited 1 time in total As I'm currently working on a 12th c. siculo-norman kit (sadly, only have a phrygian nasal helm at the moment) I'd like to join this discussion . Personally, I think I will stay with just a mail hauberk, but I am interested in lamellar as well, possibly as a future addition some day, if it can be historically supported.

I'd like to add some more images to the discussion, especially the chess figure at the bottom right of the page, which to me looks quite a bit like the armour is made of scales as opposed to rings (the chess figure on the left is a bit more dubious in my eyes, could be either). http://www.fiefetchevalerie.com/fief/?siculo-norman-miles-c-

If anyone could give any insight on these pictures and/or the authenticity of this kit in general it would be much appreciated. Sebastian Pachmayr wrote: As I'm currently working on a 12th c. siculo-norman kit (sadly, only have a phrygian nasal helm at the moment) I'd like to join this discussion . Personally, I think I will stay with just a mail hauberk, but I am interested in lamellar as well, possibly as a future addition some day, if it can be historically supported.

I'd like to add some more images to the discussion, especially the chess figure at the bottom right of the page, which to me looks quite a bit like the armour is made of scales as opposed to rings (the chess figure on the left is a bit more dubious in my eyes, could be either). http://www.fiefetchevalerie.com/fief/?siculo-norman-miles-c-

If anyone could give any insight on these pictures and/or the authenticity of this kit in general it would be much appreciated.

The illustration that Alexander has shown is by the artist Angus McBride and was commissioned by Osprey books for their Men at Arms series. While I love McBrides illustrations for what they are, he did have a habit of taking a lot of creative liberties. Consequently, they can't be used as proof of anything really.

The problem with the evidence shown in your link is none of it is siculo-norman based. The statuary and the chess pieces are byzantine, not norman. I'd say the chess pieces are illustrating Byzantine heavy cavalry, whereas the stone carvings are obviously od Byzantine troops, not normans. The phrygian helmet with the face plate absolutely rocks though. Reenactors have literally tried for decades to show proof of lamellar being used among normans as well as the scandinavian cultures. To date there is simply no strong evidence, or even slight evidence that it was used by these cultures.

The argument can be made that lamellar would make a good additional defense over mail and it would, much like a later coat of plates. However, like the endless argument of padded garments worn under mail (gambeson, aketon, etc.), no matter how logical it may seem to us all we can firmly state is there is no evidence of its use. "In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus Patrick Kelly wrote:

The problem with the evidence shown in your link is none of it is siculo-norman based. The statuary and the chess pieces are byzantine, not norman. I'd say the chess pieces are illustrating Byzantine heavy cavalry, whereas the stone carvings are obviously od Byzantine troops, not normans. The phrygian helmet with the face plate absolutely rocks though. Reenactors have literally tried for decades to show proof of lamellar being used among normans as well as the scandinavian cultures. To date there is simply no strong evidence, or even slight evidence that it was used by these cultures.

The argument can be made that lamellar would make a good additional defense over mail and it would, much like a later coat of plates. However, like the endless argument of padded garments worn under mail (gambeson, aketon, etc.), no matter how logical it may seem to us all we can firmly state is there is no evidence of its use.

Thanks for clearing the confusion in regards to the evidence, that it is byzantine actually makes a lot of sense. I agree that logically it would make a lot of sense to wear the extra armour but since there is no evidence, we definitely can't assume that they did it just because it would make sense to us with our modern set of thinking. Who knows, perhaps at that time the extra armour would have been looked upon as unmanly or unchivalrous?

I can definitely understand why people would try to find any way possible to support lamellar though... I think it looks totally badass Nope, no evidence of scale armor either. Scale and lamellar look cool and would seem to be a logical progression. Like the foundation garment controversy I think it's a perfectly plausible idea. Unfortunately that doesn't serve as real evidence of use. Dan is right about the Bayeaux Tapestry. There are figures present that seem to be wearing something other than mail. However, there are also blue, green and red horses and a plethora of other strylistic choices, so it's impossible to know if the makers were trying to denote different types of armor or simply trying to add visual variety. There is a real parsity of evidence when it comes to the normans. We have far more concrete evidence of both earlier and later periods and it can be frustrating when the 11th century is a period of interest. "In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus Actually many armors did not survive. There was scale armor in Roman empire. There was scale armor in the later medieval period (quite a lot of illustrations of scale aventails, sabatons and faulds). Also when peoples using different types of equipment meet they tend to borrow from each other to some extent. So it is pretty safe to assume that some normans at some point wore lamellar or scale or whatever other Bysantian armor.

However the problem with such assumption is that nowerdays most reenactors think the same way. We don't fight for real, we want to come home from our events not only alive but also unscathed. And if we get too tired we just fall to the ground and say we are "dead". Also we use blunt weapons, often don't use thrusting weapons and so our priorities are quite different from those of real medieval warriors. Also reenactors often lack knowledge about availability, quality and prices of different materials during the period they reenact. And so we end up seeing "vikings" all wearing leather lamellars in my country because they are cheap and easy to make, light and offer enough protection from cuts with blunt swords. The fact that a sharp spear/sword/knife/arrow would thrust through such "armor" almost as if it was not there usually doesn't even come to their mind.

If there was a large event (let's say at least 100 people reenacting norman warriors) and one or two wore lamellars it would probably be OK. But if out of 10 people 5 are wearing them it's way too much. Patrick Kelly wrote: There's no evidence of Norman Miles using lamellar armor. As hard as many reenactors have tried, a solid connection can't be found. To assume that Italo-Normans used it due to their exposure to the Byzantine Empire is just that, supposition. I'm not saying it isn't a logical train of thought, there's just no evidence of it.
that said one could make a plausible case for being a later period latinkon. im not too sure how true this is but i keep hearing among byzantine reenactors that the varangians and other semi permanent merc forces were slowly 'hellenized' i.e issued with byzantine kit. for example as they became less of a mercenary force and were more and more integrated into the byzantine army.


most people assume the kievan rus of the viking age used lamellar in fact we think thats probably untrue, that maybe a noble here or there adopted khazar arms and armour (the khazars had quite advanced armour for their time) but the evidnce (and the assertions of my fellow reenactors as well) suggests that a majority of the varangian guard and rus, like most 'vikings' prior to hastings would have worn maile mostly
the use of lamellar as a major and widespread form of armour among the rus being a more 12th-13th century development.

interestingly the byzantines are one of the few peoples where wehave CONFIRMED use of padded armour during the viking age.. IIRC almost all of the army wore at least a bambakion i.e a typical padded gambeson made using vertical stuffed tubes. the pikemen sometimes wore two gambesons, but nothing else aside from a simple helmet. and i think the kataphracts had a quilted garment OVER their lorikon and klibanion, called an epilorikion.
the prescence of some form of padded armour is confirmed by the records in the military manuals around that time.

also as for ittalian churches one should remember that the byzantines had a fair presence in italy during the 11th century.. after that the normans under robert guiscard and other leaders chased them out alittle prior to hastings..

that said dan as to tim dawsons partilly rivetted lamellar, peter betson and a few of his collegues reckoned when i asked them about tims stuff, was that its still called lamellar and itsnt just upside down scale, to them the presence or absence of a backing makes no difference instead its the fact the plates are attatched to each other both horizontally and vertically, if its just horizontally attatched then its scale.
(im not being conforntational, its just merely i wished to voice that contrary opinion)