[DanHoward]

Sounds like we have a viking re-enactor who is a bit upset at being told he shouldn't be wearing lamellar. It was my belief that a re-enactor should be portraying the "typical" not the exception.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

As I understand lameller is a type of scale armor.

The difference between scale and lamellar is the backing. Scale consists of overlapping plates attached to a cloth or leather foundation. The direction of the overlap is irrelevant, the shape of the scales is irrelevant. Lamellar consists of small plates laced or wired together such that there is no need for a backing. There is some overlap such as scale armour in which the scales are laced to each other as well as the backing. Generally this is called "locking scale" but if the structure remains intact without the need for a foundation then it could technically be called lamellar. Using this definition, the earliest occurrence of lamellar is during the Warring States period in China. Everything used before this time has turned out to be scale.

It is lighter and meant primarily to deflect arrows and was therefore popular among Eastern and Central Asian Warriors who lived in country where the bow was more used.

Often lamellar was heavier than scale. Generally this was because thicker plates were used and there was more overlap between them. Though there is too much variation to make a general claim about weight. Lamellar has a few advantages over scale. It is less likely to shed scales in battle. More overlap provides better resistance against thrusting attacks (including arrows). IMO lamellar is an advanced form of scale. I don't really mind if scholars eliminate the term "scale armour" entirely and subsume it into the category of lamellar. It might be called something like "backed lamellar" or "reinforced lamellar".

Metal scale armor was more used in the Meditteranean. Apparently it was not as hot as regular mail.

What is your definition of "regular mail"? How do you account for the fact that the Romans made far greater use of mail than they ever did of scale or lamellar?

There would have been no reason that could not have been used by Vikings though, as a number of Vikings travelled into the Med. For that matter "Rus" vikings probably used Central Asian style lameller at times.

There is no evidence to suggest that even a single Scandinavian wore this armour during the so called "Viking period" outside of the Byzantine Empire. If we get into supposition you may as well equip a group of vikings in samurai armour based on the premise that they might have traded with Japan at some time. The only lamellar find so far uncovered during the viking period was at Birka and it has been clearly demonstrated not to have been of Scandinavian construction and was not worn by a Scandinavian. The only documentary evidence is the mention of a "spangabrnja" in one of the sagas. This could have been anything from scale to lamellar to an early coat of plates. And the sagas were written down a century or two after the viking period. Yes the Varangian Guard were issued lamellar if they couldn't afford a decent coat of mail. There is nothing to suggest that they were allowed to keep their state-owned equipment after they finished service and I can't think of a reason why they would want to. Their native mail byrnies offered superior protection and comfort. The main advantage of lamellar is that it is cheaper and faster to construct.

By the way chain-mail is a recent word. The word mail simply means net-armor, because the rings fitting into each other looked like a net.

Yep. The word is derived through the Italian "maglia" from the Latin "macula" meaning the mesh of a net. The confusion arises from the Victorian tendency to use the word "mail" to describe all metal armour. Because of that, they needed a term to distinguish true mail from other types of armour (e.g. "scale mail", "plate mail", etc) hence the word "chain mail." It is covered in more detail here. http://www.knightsofveritas.org/mate...ndringmail.pdf