posted 12-23-1999 12:04 AM            

Maile (chain):
Slashing: excellent protection, you will not likely seperate any links on a good suit of mail.

Piercing: terrible, this type of armor is extremely vulnerable to blades and poinds designed for piercing. sautering the rings will improve its ability to repel this type of attack, and a double mail pattern will further enhace its resistance.

Crushing: average to below average. The mesh-like structure of mail somewhat spreads the impact, but not very effectively.

Leather Armor:
Slashing: average, repeated slashes will decrease resistance. Boiling the armor (called corboulli (sp?) ) in parafin(wax) will improve resistance to slashing to above average.

Piercinng: below average, again boiling improves the armor's resistance to this type of attack

Crushing: below average to average. Depending on the weight of the leather, as well as other contributing factors such as boiling of the leather.

Adding studs (must be less than 3/4 of an inch apart for effectiveness) will seriously advance this armor type.

Scale and Brigandine:

Slashing: excellent, will not likely be penetrated by this type of attack

Piercing: above average to excellent, depending on quality of construction and (in some cultures status of the wearer) some scale may be more or less resistant to piercing attacks, but generally is effective

Crushing: average to above average. Again depending on construction, as well as other factors such as thickness of the plates and the leather/quilting to which it is affixed

Full Plate:

Slashing: Extremely effective, the combination of overlapping plates and the underdressing worn with plate, either leather or mail, you will not likely inflict anything other than a ringing headache (especially flat surfaced helms)

Piercing: extrememely effective, though occasional chinks may be found, depending on culture/era/etc. the main danger to from this type of attack is the armpit area which is generally mail (chain), so as to allow greater freedom of movement, and the neck if left unprotected (which wouldn't be very smart )

Crushing: Extremely effective, made more so when techniques such as fluting (providing glancing surfaces and reinforcing the armor with seams) are used.

***Side note, plate mail is not nearly as cumbersome as many sources make it out to be, custom fitted plate mail was heavy, but was designed for freedom of movement. A fully armored man wearing fitted plate could do a cartwheel in his armor, or a handspring if he were strong enough, while chain mail is not much lighter and considerably more restrictive. This is from practical experience, I have worn custom armor of both types, and plate is far superior in every way, except maybe its cost.

anyway, thats enough for now, if i missed anything i'm sure someone will point it out *grin*

--Shadowlore

[This message has been edited by Shadowlore (edited 12-23-1999).]

posted 12-23-1999 08:14 AM               

I find your explanation quite interesting, but I do have a couple of things to say on mail.

The slashing example is right on. I subjected a few of my pieces to tests of this type and we were hard pressed to find any damage at all.

The piercing I have to say depends on the type of mail a person is wearing. 16 gauge wire made into 1/4" rings is very effective at preventing piercing attacks. A piece of this type was also tested. It was pitted against an Arms & Armor dragon warhammer and it managed to barely rupture one ring when swung at full force. Now if you are wearing mail made of alternating rows of solid and riveted rings, the protection value against this type of attack increases.

The crushing is something that mail is really unable to defend against. Even if a person is wearing heavy padding underneath, they will still be damaged by the blunt trauma to some degree.

All in all it depends on the size of the rings used in the construction of the mail item. Thicker wire made into a ring with a small inside diameter will give very good protection because the weave will be very dense, but this also increases the weight.

posted 12-23-1999 09:02 AM               

Some intriguing observations... based on personal experimentation (as Erik D.'s obviously are) or speculation? *Nothing* takes the place of actual hands-on tests with swords, axes, arrows, et al. against the specific type of armour in question.

My main reason for posting to your thread, however, is that I want to clarify a couple of the terms you've used. First of all, *double mail* is made from thicker-gauge wire than "typical" mail, keeping the outside diameter of the links constant but reducing the inner diameter, thus making an overall tighter pattern (as Erik has observed).

"Plate mail" (Gak!) is a blatant contradiction in terms. Mail is mail, and plate is plate, and the twain meet only at the gussets -- i.e., those panels of mail usually affixed to the arming doublet to fill in the gaps in the plate.

Using arms & armour terminology in its correct technical sense will set you apart from the TSR gamesters.

posted 12-23-1999 11:28 AM               

About armor types and attack types: Here's a strange way to look at it (using only post-Roman examples)...

Mail was contemporary to heavy-duty cutting swords. Were the swords like that because they worked against that armor, or was the mail like that because IT did against those swords? The more plate there was in later centuries, the more thrusting-oriented the swords were. Was that because the swords changed in order to work against the given armor, or because the armor changed to protect effectively against the given swords?

posted 12-23-1999 01:31 PM               

Your explanation of the term "plate mail" makes sense. Perhaps it would be more clear if it were termed "plate & mail". I always thought it had something to do with D&D terminology myself.

Mail was contemporary with heavier cutting swords yes, but it stayed in constant use from at least 500 BC up to the present century. I personally feel that mail was one of the best armours ever developed, but then again I am a bit biased. In any event mail was very effective against almost all weapons except the mass weapons and small piercing ones like the stiletto. There were others, but against the main weapoons (sword, arrow, axe etc.) it held its own.

Granted, a good deal of how well it protected depended on the area of the body being struck, as well as the ring size used in the garments construction. The padding worn under it also figured prominently into the equation.

posted 12-23-1999 08:59 PM            

As to your question about practical experience, I have actually worn and tested virtually every type of armor (though very little scale), including both eastern and european forms, and my observations are based on that. Mail did offer resistance to crushing blows, though not very much, as it did spread the impact somewhat *as attested to by the bruises I had, we couldn't figure out any better way to test against crushing blows than to use sca weapons*. As for piercing, well made mail is effective but the one problem is that the openings in the rings, if not sautered/riveted offer a firm hold for the blade. I personally own a *heavy!!!* suit of 4:1 double mail made from 12 guage steel, with sautered links and a barbed war arrow from 50 yards only seperated two links, but a dagger with a person's full body force behind it can work a blade in, the links will seperate if sautered and occasionally if riveted. Riveting makes the mail considerably heavier however, and again, the better the chain, the more expensive it is.

As for the plate, each suit is different depending on the way in which way it was created... forged/cast, fluted, riveted, etc... but a well forged suit of plate or plate (&) mail, is considerably less cumbersome and again, you can honestly do a cartwheel in it, I've seen it done. If it were not wearable in the heat of battle it would never be used. The same thing can be said of armor as can be said of weapons, they are tools designed to suit a purpose, and the greater the care with which they are created, generally the better suited to the task they are.... mail's popularity can be primarily attributed to the relative ease with which it can be made (I've made my own, it's tedious but not hard) and the relatively low cost.

I do agree that riveted mail offers a far greater degree of protection than other types, it is exceedingly difficult to seperate links in a riveted suit... but boy are they heavy. Oh, and 16 gauge steel would not be difficult to cut through with a good blade, 14 is generally the highest guage i'd use for any armor construction (excluding airplane aluminum).

And yes, I work leather as well and can tell you that a studded tunic of 11 oz. leather with studs 3/4 of an inch or less from one another offers a higher level of protection than one might initially assume, so long as they are solid studs and not the cheap diamond spots that people typically use.

I must admit my experience with scale is limited at best and most of the observations are based on what I have read, though I have tested a few "quasi-accurate" forms of scale.

Anyhow, My info may not be totally accurate for all forms of these specific types of armor, but all are based on trial and error tests done by me and a few of my friends. I would never presume to make such observations unless I was sure of my source.

oh, and as for the double mail thing, i suppose what i should have said was a double mail configuration, instead of pattern, as Kart. is correct in that actual weave is the same, whatever weave that may be *and there area many*

one other thing, I somehow managed to put below average to average against crushing for leather armor... don't ask, i dunno... anyway, that should read terrible to below average.

my $0.02

--Shadowlore

[This message has been edited by Shadowlore (edited 12-23-1999).]

posted 12-28-1999 07:57 PM               

How do you test different types of armour effectively if you are only using SCA type weapons? If you want to test these armours I suggest using real weapons because if you don't then your tests will have virtually no merit at all.

The statements you made about riveted maille being being heavy are very strange. Where did you get your information from? By riveting the links one is able to use thinner wire thus reducing the weight while making the link stronger. I just finished a fully riveted shirt made of 18 gauge wire and the weight is maybe 12 pounds.

What type of sword are you talking about that can cut through 16 gauge steel with ease? Your idea of using nothing lighter than 14 gauge surely cannot be meant for maille can it?

Maille's popularity probably came from it's ease of manufacture? Where did you come up with that? Simple plate armour is by far faster and easier to produce than maille by a long shot IMO. What did you mean by there are many different weaves of maille? Are you talking authentic or modern styles? I know of only two authentic styles. This doesn't include the Japanese pattern, only the standard 4 in 1.

posted 12-29-1999 03:10 AM            

and the comment about 18 guage mail is silly,
I have blades that will go through 18 guage riveted mail like butter, through the wire, not the rivets.... NEVER use below 16, and I never recommend never using below 14 personally.... I don't know who taught you to make mail with such small wire but its supposed to be armor... not butcher's mail (butcher's mail wouldn't be bad, but if you can make that by hand i congradulate you... thousands of tiny links and all)....

that being said mail is heavier with rivets because it has more metal, it has more mass, its called physics, and the reason for using rivets is not so you can use smaller wire, its so that the links will not seperate as easily....

and as for plate being easy to manufacture, thats just foolish, plate requires fittings, measurements, exacting standards to be worn effectively, not to mention an excellent smith if you want it to hold up to an attack, while mail can be worn effectively by any number of people of any number of sizes and shapes(I know because I loan mine out regularly) as well as the fact that anyone, blacksmith or no, can make chain... I'm no blacksmith, and I make mail all the time....

and I have several weapons that will seperate 16 guage steel effectively(piercing, not slashing), do you want a list, or would you rather just go to museum replicas ltd. and look at them for yourself.

as for the multiple weaves, there are several, including double 4:1 weaves among others, though 4:1 is the standard and most common(for instance the hexagonal weave).And they are not modern weaves.

You should not assume you know everything.. few of us ever do. For instance, ask me a question about weapons, I will only answer in conjecture....

--Shadowlore

posted 12-29-1999 07:58 AM               

I have made various suit of 14 ga mail and have stab them full force with the shirt on the ground. The Germam catgutter replica did not seperate any links. The rondel dagger pop one and nearly stuck in the ground. The Italian stilleo (sp) did not touch the mail. It went straight through the links. Ouch.

Anyone can make butted mail. But it only requires two more tools to make rivet. Basically a wire cutter with an overlap of one wire dia. And a hammer and punch or hand punch for the rivet.

Plate not plate mail since most people who study and discussion armor use the more accurate word. I can sometimes get away with chainmail but will be corrected back to mail.

Plate just needs hammer, chisel and a stump. And a higher learning curve than mail. And having to stay in one place and pound metal. I can take my mail to office and work.

Crushing blows using sca weapons.Considering most sca weapons are 1 and 1/4 inch sticks this is not a test. Grab someone's flanged mace or battle axe.

Leather armour may suck but remember if you win the battle you kill a cow or two in celebration and now you have materials for a new suit.

Crushing plate. I can't quote the source but one book I read had maces shatter the brittle plate. Of course the book research may have be outdated . I have books which were written in the 1890's.

Work time.
I takes me on the average 400 hours to do a shirt of mail.
The armouers who do plate have stated 400 hours would get gothic fluted plate. But I was going to pay for the 400 hours.

Museum replicas ltd blades recently are crap. I hope none of your blades have broke.

Just my thoughts.

------------------
Enjoy life because there are no refunds.

posted 12-29-1999 08:57 AM               

I don't know who you are or who you think you are, but you wanted to know who showed me how to make maille, well here are just a few: David edge, Simon Metcalf, Dr. Alan Williams and Chris Poor. I think they know a bit more than you do on this subject. I may not know everything about maille, but I sure as hell know more than you.

I also said *simple* plate armour not complex. In addition I have examined authentic maille and also own some. I would also like to see the fantastic swords you own that can go through steel like butter. If they are from MRL I won't waste my time looking at them. I personally prefer quality weapons.

What are all of these authentic weaves you mentioned? I am talking documented ones from Europe not the Orient.

Jasper,

Are you doing butted or riveted maille when you talk about work time?

posted 12-29-1999 09:26 AM               

I'm afraid that before you post, you should actually study some legitimate arms and armour texts, rather than D&D source manuals.

Historical mail comes in a variety of gauges and ring-sizes, but 18 and 20 gauge is amongst the most common. And the shirts are MUCH lighter than butted mail, usually by a factor of one-half. The only reason 14 gauge wire is used in butted shirts is to add strength, to prevent the links from falling apart. I own an 18 gauge, riveted shirt, and I personally feel it's too light, because the inner diameter is 3/8". Even so I've taken a good, single-handed, sharp Del Tin to it, and it does not "cut like butter." I managed to crack a few rings after multiple hits, and that's it. You're sadly mistaken.

Finally, re: "plate mail." No, this is NOT an accepted term for a whole class of armours, as you suggest. That term was loosely used as "plate and mail" in the late Victorian era, and dropped by the middle of this century. If you mean composite armour, then call it that, or call it "transitional armour" which are the two accepted terms.

posted 12-29-1999 10:41 AM               

------------------
Enjoy life because there are no refunds.

posted 12-29-1999 07:24 PM            

Eric:
a hexagonal weave is a historical weave.

As to the people who taught you to make mail eric, ask them if they'll let me try and stab them with one of my blades, while wearing 18 guage mail. I doubt they'll agree.. cut maybe, but I have my doubts about the stabbing.

And as to an earlier question "what type of sword are you using that can cut through...."
Not cut, pierce, there is a reason most blades under 3' or so in length had blades that went from narrow at the point to wide at the hilt.. that reason is their ability to use the leverage created to drive a wedge into armor and split the mail. There are any number of ancient and modern day tools which serve the same purpose, based on the same principle, all the way from wedges used to seperate links in a chain, to those little plastic ties that have a pointed end and several balls, which you can slide through an opening one way by spreading the opening but not back through the other direction (because its flat on that side)

Jasper:
As to stabbing mail on the ground.... duh! its on the ground... mail is a mesh, anybody with any understanding of physics and engineering knows you test weapons or anything else for that matter on a substance similar to that which is its practical environment (i.e. on surface/substance similar to the human body)... as the ground offers little to no resistance and allows the mesh of the mail to give and absorb the impact, whereas a human ribcage, for instance, resists the impact, thereby enabling a piercing blow to achieve more direct pressure to the contact point. Also, I have reread my posts just to make sure, and find nowhere did I say that plate and mail were near the same weight. I said that plate was heavier but far less cumbersome, which is true. Also, I never said mail was fast, I said it was easy, and cheap, which is true, if you'll look a little closer at what I said, you'll see that I said it was tedious, but it requires little skill (sorry but its true).

Jasper again:
As to your comment about plate only requiring a Hammer, Chisel, and stump, don't you think you forgot something important to effective plate? Like a forge? Any idiot can bend metal around a form so that it LOOKS like plate, but the same that is true with a cast metal katana versus a real, forged katana, the forged katana will be far superior. Forged plate is just that, and if well made will be fitted to the person who purchases it. As I said, you can do a cartwheel in it. Oh, and the type of plate you propose could be easily punctured by a bec or any weapon with similar torque and striking points. And yes, that type of plate is quite brittle. But properly forged and reinforced plate can withstand several blows before its integrity is compromised.

Jasper again:
Leather armor is better than no armor, and curboulli and studded better than the other and effective against many slashing weapons. It is however, fairly innefective against other types of attack (especially stabbing.. you have to pierce it to work it, with an awl, so it can't be too resistant to it now can it?). As to the comment about new materials... well I suppose thats true.. assuming you have a tanner nearby so it doesn't rot, and a little parafin to boil it in to strengthen it and protect it against water, etc.... but then again, what good is new armor if you have a hole in your chest.

Jasper yet again:
Maces will DAMAGE plate, but it should not shatter it, this was the reason for reinforcing plate with seams, their only real vulnerabilities prior to this technology were to arrows such as those fired from a longbow (which is what tore the french to shreds though their armor was superior) and crushing blows from weapons with small striking surfaces (such as flanged maces and warhammers/ bec de corbii).
They were still vulnerable after this innovation but not nearly as much so.

Jasper one final time:
As to your comment about the way I tested crushing blows (SCA weapons).... I agree, it was not a very good way to test. That is why I even mentioned it as the method I used, because I, myself, did not lend full creedance to the test. As I said, we could not figure out a better way to do it without the risk of hospitalization... I don't have any animal sized armor, nor animals to spare for beating experiments... heh
---Shadowlore

p.s. Gregory, I have studied, but unlike many people I am personally above namedropping... Also, show me references that say 18 and 20 guage are the most common, I'd like to see them. As to your comment about "plate mail" see above regarding somantic arguments.

Anyone who gripes because of the use of "improper terminology" is just exhibiting signs of an elitist jerk who thinks they are "superior". The truth of the matter is I like the term plate mail, and the term chain mail, they are jargon, and present a standard image which is all I was trying to convey. When you've tested the armor yourselves come talk to me, its my opinion that you're all a little too compulsive about terminology, there are only two questions that need to be asked when arguing somantics 1. was it clear to what I was referring, and 2. did you read the text surrounding it, and understand the reference. As for your b.s. comment about "ad&d", get over it, I am active in several reinactment groups and have had practical experience with the things you are commenting on. If you people would quit being so pompous long enough to read what I have to say you'd realize that I said my observations were based on real world tests, on historical pattern armor (save for the scale) using real weapons(except the Crushing tests) on surfaces similar to the human body (these varied widely). Its what's referred to as a controlled experiment, and its the only source of true knowledge. I'd be happy to hear anything people might have to say, so long as they present it as such. I know I am not always right and there might be valid rebutals to what I have said, but I'm interested in people who can discuss without attacking.

I suggest you guys get over yourselves just a little bit and accept that you don't know everything...

posted 12-30-1999 12:56 AM               

First of all, I feel compelled to let you know who you are debating mail armour with. When I was at the Arms and Armour Study Day at the Wallace Collection Museum in London last November, Erik was the guy that the curator of the museum (David Edge) had this to say about:

"Of the commercial stuff out there his [Erik's] is about the best there is"

If that's not a direct quote it's damn close (it's from memory).

Erik's research and experimentation are probably amongst the foremost in the world. To my knowlege, there are only four people in the world that even seriously work with authentic, riveted mail. Myself, Simon Metcalf (Albert and Victoria Museum), Master Knutt (I don't know his real name, that is his SCA name), and Erik Schmid. (And so you don't think I'm tooting my own horn, I'd put myself at the bottom of that totem pole). My point is that Eric's credentials are not to be taken lightly, and this is a fellow who knows a little bit about what he's talking about when it comes to mail. At least the curator of the Wallace Collection thinks so.

Having said that, I'd like to address a few points. I agree with you that we shouldn't get too hung up in semantics. But you should realize that when you say things like "plate mail" you are immediately setting off the "D&Dism alarms" that many of us in the amateur armourer field deal with almost daily. And when you use such blatant D&D type terms (whether you realize they are such or not) you are instantly putting your credibility at risk. So while you are right that we may be talking about semantics, if you want your arguements to carry weight you need to speak as someone skilled in the art. You may choose to do otherwise, of course, but then don't be suprised when noone takes you seriously.

To address another point. You said:
"I have actually worn and tested virtually every type of armor (though very little scale), including both eastern and european forms, and my observations are based on that. Mail did offer resistance to crushing blows, though not very much, as it did spread the impact somewhat *as attested to by the bruises I had, we couldn't figure out any better way to test against crushing blows than to use sca weapons*. As for piercing, well made mail is effective but the one problem is that the openings in the rings, if not sautered/riveted offer a firm hold for the blade. I personally own a *heavy!!!* suit of 4:1 double mail made from 12 guage steel, with sautered links and a barbed war arrow from 50 yards only seperated two links, but a dagger with a person's full body force behind it can work a blade in, the links will seperate if sautered and occasionally if riveted. Riveting makes the mail considerably heavier however, and again, the better the chain, the more expensive it is."

First of all, any testing you did against a mail garment made of 12 gauge wire, "sautered" (I assume you mean soldered?) or otherwise is misleading. No combat-intentioned (as opposed to parade) medieval mail garment was likely made of such thick wire. I have seen and handled at least 5 authentic medieval garments myself (in person), and none of them were that thick. Some of them may have been 16GA at the thickest. Most are more like 18GA. And incidently, barbed "war arrows" (the ones similar in style to today's broadhead) were not the projectile weapon of choice against mail - in fact mail (with requisite gambeson) was quite effective at turning such projectiles (as attested by the slow-motion footage in the Arms in Action show on the History Channel). The bodkin was the mail-piercer, and would be much more appropriate for any testing.

Secondly, riveted mail is generally not heavier than butted mail. Why? Because butted mail must be made out of thick wire (probably where you get your 14 and 12 gauge perceptions from) in order to not pull apart under its own weight. Riveted mail, because of the strength imparted by the rivet, can be made of much thinner wire (and in fact it was, as surviving examples show) and still be just as strong if not stronger. I can twist my riveted links through 360 degrees before the rivet will fail.

You said:
"I do agree that riveted mail offers a far greater degree of protection than other types, it is exceedingly difficult to seperate links in a riveted suit... but boy are they heavy. Oh, and 16 gauge steel would not be difficult to cut through with a good blade, 14 is generally the highest guage i'd use for any armor construction (excluding airplane aluminum)."

Once again, authentic, riveted mail is exceptionally light when compared to modern, butted reproductions. It can be nearly half as heavy. While I have not done any testing, I would be extremly doubtful that you could slice through 16 or even 18 gauge wire when woven into mail and placed on a padded human body. Again, I haven't done any testing (though it is some friends of mine and my idea to actually pad and arm (with riveted mail) a deer leg, suspended from something and weighted on the bottom, and hack it with a sword to see) but as Erik pointed out - the fact that such "lightweight" mail was in fact used as a primary defense for likely a thousand or so years and a secondary for a thousand or more after that tells you something about what the blade-wielding warrior thought about its protective value.

You said:
"whatever weave that may be *and there area many*"

So far as I have been able to document, and so far as I have heard others that I consider knowledgeable in the field say they have been able to document, there were no other weaves of mail in the European arena other than 4-in-1. I have heard of a butted supposedly Celtic find in rather poor condition that may have been 6-in-1. That is the only reference to a non-4-in-1 archeological find that I have ever heard of. Now Oriental forms of chain armour were quite different. But they are not "woven" in the sense that European mail is woven; they are more like criss-crossed chains than anything else. I do not consider them different weaves of mail.

You said:
"a hexagonal weave is a historical weave."

I would very much be interested in a citation for this statement. As well as a definition of what you mean by a "hexagonal weave".

You said:
"As to the people who taught you to make mail eric, ask them if they'll let me try and stab them with one of my blades, while wearing 18 guage mail. I doubt they'll agree.. cut maybe, but I have my doubts about the stabbing."

I doubt very much that you will find anyone today that will let you beat on them with a real sword in any kind of mail armour, regardless if you are slashing at them or stabbing at them. But the unrefutable fact is (as evidenced by surviving garments) that people did allow themselves to be exposed to such abuse while wearing such "thin" mail.

You said:
"and the comment about 18 guage mail is silly,
I have blades that will go through 18 guage riveted mail like butter, through the wire, not the rivets.... NEVER use below 16, and I never recommend never using below 14 personally.... I don't know who taught you to make mail with such small wire but its supposed to be armor... not butcher's mail (butcher's mail wouldn't be bad, but if you can make that by hand i congradulate you... thousands of tiny links and all)...."

I was so intrigued by your "like butter" comments that I went and conducted a test. A somewhat costly test, given the effort I put into making my riveted mail, but I figured what the hell. I'm not proposing that this test would be an accurate representation of how mail would act on a human body (in fact I think a human body would be much more resiliant) but it should suffice for demonstration purposes. For the test I took a log, and placed it round (bark) side up. I then placed a washcloth, folded in half, on top of the log. I figured this would somewhat represent a padded gambeson. I then layed a patch of my riveted mail on top of it. This mail is constructed of 18GA riveted links, alternating with solid punched links of the same ID and OD (3/8" and 1/2" respectively) and 1/32" thick. I then gave what I would consider a stout blow to the mail/cloth/log target with my 14th century "Swedish Battlesword". I'm not a sword person, so I can't verify how good this sword is nor if it is a "Swedish Battlesword" nor if it is even a good medieval approximation of any sword (sorry, I was rushing this test as I was in the middle of this post. I forgot to take a picture of the sword). Regardless it has somewhat of an edge to it and I certainly wouldn't hit myself as hard as I hit this target - regardless of what kind of armour I was wearing.

Here is the test setup:

Here is the mail, seen through my camcorder, after being hit with the sword:

Here is the same patch of mail, under my scanner (for better detail and resolution). Note my sketched in arrows pointing to the ring damage. While I didn't expect any rings to shear, even I was surprised at how little damage there was. I was so surprised that I was tempted to strike it again, even harder. I didn't because 1) It's past 1am in the morning and I didn't want my neighbors under me to think they were under attack and 2) I'm working to construct my first riveted shirt not destroy it. None of the rings were sheared. No rivets failed. Some rings did "fold" where struck, as evidenced by the picture:

Now, we can argue the procedure of my very quick and crude test. We can aruge the validity of my sword, or of my blow. But, if you like, I can quote you a passage from a book Natural Magick dating to 1558 or thereabouts that indicates that this is the kind of performance that men of that time would expect from mail.

You said:
"that being said mail is heavier with rivets because it has more metal, it has more mass, its called physics, and the reason for using rivets is not so you can use smaller wire, its so that the links will not seperate as easily...."

The reason for using rivets is indeed to prevent the rings from separating as easily as a non-riveted ring. Nonetheless authentic riveted mail is/was much thinner than the butted mail you find today - usually half as thick. That is why authentic riveted mail or authentic reproductions weigh as much as half of what equivalently sized (ID) heavier gauged reproductions do. It's not so much that riveted mail can use thinner wire because it's riveted, but much more the case that when you make non-riveted (butted) mail, you have to use much thicker wire, or else it will pull apart under its own weight.

You said:
"and as for plate being easy to manufacture, thats just foolish, plate requires fittings, measurements, exacting standards to be worn effectively, not to mention an excellent smith if you want it to hold up to an attack, while mail can be worn effectively by any number of people of any number of sizes and shapes(I know because I loan mine out regularly) as well as the fact that anyone, blacksmith or no, can make chain... I'm no blacksmith, and I make mail all the time...."

There is merit to what you are saying here, but you're stumbling on it. First of all, noone is suggesting that plate armour is easy to manufacture, either in its own right or compared to mail. It's just that making mail is much more labor intensive. Once someone hands a plate armourer plate steel he can produce an entire munitions grade, off-the-peg suit of armour in a day.

Once you hand a mailsmith wire, you're looking at considerably more time to make a garment. The best I have been able to do (and this is with buying my rings pre-wound, and pre-cut, and pre-overlapped, and using modern tools like an electric kiln to mass-anneal my rings) is 30 seconds per ring. A 20,000 ring shirt works out to around 167 hours of time. If you estimate the weaving portion of that (weaving/riveting) to be a quarter of that time you're still looking at over 40 hours.

I'd like to point out something, too, before I let you slide with the "anyone can do it" comment about riveted mail. Yes, once the processes are known anyone can, probably, make riveted mail. It is a very simple task, and the tools need not be complicated. Nonetheless, it took me over a year of experimentation to get to the quality of the riveted mail I have today - and it's still not "right" (to me) when compared to authentic specimens I have seen. You may make mail all the time but are you making authentic riveted mail all the time? If not, sorry, but frankly you don't know what we are even talking about.

You said:
"Gregory, I have studied, but unlike many people I am personally above namedropping... Also, show me references that say 18 and 20 guage are the most common, I'd like to see them."

While it may sound like "namedropping" (and perhaps it is in fact) what Erik was doing was lending credibility to his expertise and opinion. I don't think he was dropping names with the intention of patting himself on the back. Rather he was defending his credibility and the quality and accuracy of his work. I don't know about you but I'm more likely to give attention to someone who has been given kudos by the curator of a major museum than someone who just says they, "make mail all the time".

For your references on gauges of authentic mail, you need go no further than your nearest museum and you can see for yourself. I would recommend the Philladelphia Museum of Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (I think they have armour) and the Higgins Armoury Museum (Worcester, Mass.), to name three in the U.S. Or you can visit many of the fine museums in England or Europe. Failing actual visits, you can purchase detailed catalogs of many of these museums. I own the latest catalog (such that it is) put out by the Wallace Collection. It has detailed descriptions of much of their armour, including mail, with such details as ring size, wire thickness, material, assumed methods of construction, and unique markings.

Good luck on your quest to learn more about medieval armour! Your postings are not at all without merit, and in fact contain much good information that I wish were more commonly known, such as the fact that armour was not an all-burdensome thing that many would make it out to be. Have a good New Year!

Steve

------------------
The Riveted Mail Man

[This message has been edited by Steve -SoFC- (edited 12-30-1999).]

posted 12-30-1999 03:18 AM            

we tried various materials including a wooden dressform, logs and other items, and we were able to seperate and even cut through riveted mail with good shortbladed weapons; however, as I mentioned, I have not had my hands on historical mail which may well be considerably stronger. As I said in my ferst message I am interested in what people have to say, but I suppose I get defensive when people assume I'm basing my info on conjecture, which is far from the truth. I was truly interested in how the items would perform in action, which was my motivation for testing. This includes riveted mail. And yes, I have made such mail.

When I asked for a reference that mentioned the higher guage steel as a standard I was not being sarcastic, I truthfully wouldn't mind having the information for personal use.

As to the question of hexagonal mail. I will find the reference which it is from, I'll have to ask the guy who made the mail we tested. I have seen it and read a bit about it, but don't own it myself.

I haven't found it difficult to make mail, though it seems the mail I've made may be of subquality comparatively. The heavier gauges stood against our tests better, which accounts for the conclusions I reached.

Anyway, on certain points, I stand corrected. Though I still would like to do a bit more testing. I do know that I would personally prefer 12 guage riveted double mail for my own protection, but hey, I might get killed too... heh

anyway, its a lot easier for me to acquiesce when I am a bit more calm.

Than you for your post, this, in particular is the kind of constructive criticism that I can appreciate.

And Erik, My apologies on responding int the manner in which I did, I was a bit miffed at a few of the comments I read (all of them at once so my ire only grew). Instead of making point and counterpoint, it seemed people were bent on the assumption that I hadn't done any testing at all. Anyway, there are still areas that I have doubts about, though if you read the above, you'll note that I have conceded the possibility(and in retrospect, the likelyhood) that the mail we worked with was inferior in make.

---Shadowlore

posted 12-30-1999 08:19 AM               

When I mentioned certain individuals I was not namedropping for my own benefit. It was to show that the people who taught me knew what they were talking about. It just happens that they are people of very high status in the armouring community. I apologize for the confusion.

If you want to find out more about authentic maille then I would first recommend the book by Edge and Paddock, Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight. You also seem to like the heavier style of maille, so I would recommend the museum in St.Louis. They have a shirt made with somewhat heavier style rings than one normally sees. They greatly resemble washers. I am working on a coif at the moment made in much the same way. I hope this helps you out.

Steve, I cannot begin to say how flattered I am at your remarks. I am not the best at taking compliments. It has been said to me many times that I am my own worst critic. Basically I am constantly trying to improve my process so that the end result looks better. At the moment *some* of my work is lterally identical to *some* original maille, but I want to go further and be able to reproduce almost all of it in some way, shape or form using the basic tools and conditions. Yes this sounds like complete lunacy, but what the hell. When I go so far as to start drawing my own wire someone better give me a reality check.

I thrive on conflict, but it is also fun when we all get along to some degree. I hope we can keep this thread or start a new one on maille because I feel that there is not enough said about it, but then again I am a bit biased.

posted 12-30-1999 10:18 AM               

No point in going back and forth, I think SoFC handled it for all of us.

posted 12-30-1999 07:34 PM            

Question, how would one go about acquiring the catalogs from the museums?

Also, what type of metal, specifically, do you work with Erik?

posted 12-31-1999 07:57 AM               

I work with low-carbon steel wire in gauges ranging from 16 down to 20 soon to be down to 22. The solid rings I am making are also of low carbon steel. I will be doing a little bit of wire drawing, smelting and forge welding for research and other things sometime next year. This will give me the chance to work with metal nearly identical to what period craftsmen used. As one gets later in time towards the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance the metal used in the manufacture of maille became better due to better smelting techniques. Basically maille seemed to be made of the same type of metal that was being used for plate. Of course this varied from place to place. This will also give me a chance to do some hardening and tempering as well. So many irons in the fire *pun* and so little time.

There are so many different aspects to maille that it would be impossible to describe them all adequately on a forum like this. If I had the webspace I would have many of the papers that have been published on it available online. There will be some new information on Roman maille published hopefully next year, as well as some new info on the strength of maille.

The museum catalogs are usually available in their respective bookstores. Just contact each one and ask them. Be warned that some of them are quite spendy.