Posts: 1,303 Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 2:38 pm
| Mike Ruhala wrote: |
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | Although we're still waiting for detailed information from the museum (Museum of Polimlje, Berane, Montenegro), there is the reported 18.5kg of the hauberk from Donja Rzanica, Montenegro. If it's an accurate wieght on a genuine find, it will be the heaviest of which I'm aware. |
Wow! What's the story on that piece? It looks like it could have came from the 11th-13th c. |
Zimke Zlovoljni posted three hooded hauberks from the Balkans on the Facebook group XIII century European Armour. This Montenegrin example was one of the better looking ones. He's written to the museum to obtain more information, so we'll wait and see if he gets a response.
Posts: 1,303 Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 2:55 pm
Matthew Sugarbaker reports the Ashland mail shirt is 47 lbs. / 21.32 kg.
http://thesugarbakers.net/Ashland-Shirt.pdf
Posts: 1,303 Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 3:02 pm
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: |
| Oh, yes, that's the one I had through my hands. I advised the owner to hold onto it till we could find out more about it, but unfortunately he didn't. I've been meaning to post a lot more data about it, as I think it could be very important. |
It certainly looks to be of high quality. Perhaps you or Eric can chime in on why it's thought to be European?
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 4:24 pm
| Dan Howard wrote: |
I purchased some Turko-Persian and Indian pieces from antique dealers. Still looking for a European piece at a decent price. I also have some pieces that I've made myself and a patch of the Roman scaled mail that Erik included with the 2nd vol of his MRS Journal.
FWIW I can't stab a knife through my butted-solid mail no matter how hard I hit it. |
European mail scrapes show up on Ebay quite frequently, most that I have seen do not sell for much.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 4:25 pm
| Mart Shearer wrote: |
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Oh, yes, that's the one I had through my hands. I advised the owner to hold onto it till we could find out more about it, but unfortunately he didn't. I've been meaning to post a lot more data about it, as I think it could be very important. |
It certainly looks to be of high quality. Perhaps you or Eric can chime in on why it's thought to be European? |
But Mart, it is wedge riveted, it must be European right?
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Fri 24 Jun, 2016 4:27 pm
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: |
| Oh, yes, that's the one I had through my hands. I advised the owner to hold onto it till we could find out more about it, but unfortunately he didn't. I've been meaning to post a lot more data about it, as I think it could be very important. |
James, do you have any additional images, if so can you post any, I would be "important" as you say.
Posts: 587 Location: upstate NY
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 9:17 am
The 'Ashland shirt' is the heaviest I have ever heard of, and almost makes me wonder if it is a typo. The shirt I looked at was so massive I have a hard time imagining how one could be that much heavier; I suppose the relative thickness of the rings could be greater. I wish the photos were better. Perhaps someone in the area could wrangle another examination. I really don't see how it could have such a long cut in it, either, if someone was actually wearing it.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 10:44 am
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: |
| The 'Ashland shirt' is the heaviest I have ever heard of, and almost makes me wonder if it is a typo. The shirt I looked at was so massive I have a hard time imagining how one could be that much heavier; I suppose the relative thickness of the rings could be greater. I wish the photos were better. Perhaps someone in the area could wrangle another examination. I really don't see how it could have such a long cut in it, either, if someone was actually wearing it. |
I do not believe that the weight is correct, unless he weighed it himself and can verify the weight you just have to assume it is not correct, especially when compared t0 other similar hauberks that have been weighed.
Posts: 587 Location: upstate NY
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 1:04 pm
I put the photos and info on my shirt in the real mail examples thread, in case anyone didn't spot it.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 3:06 pm
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: |
| I put the photos and info on my shirt in the real mail examples thread, in case anyone didn't spot it. |
Thanks James, i will be adding my thoughts on it shortly.
Posts: 122 Location: Missouri
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 3:48 pm
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: |
| The 'Ashland shirt' is the heaviest I have ever heard of, and almost makes me wonder if it is a typo. The shirt I looked at was so massive I have a hard time imagining how one could be that much heavier; I suppose the relative thickness of the rings could be greater. I wish the photos were better. Perhaps someone in the area could wrangle another examination. I really don't see how it could have such a long cut in it, either, if someone was actually wearing it. |
I'd believe that if the links are even only slightly thicker than the average mail, then it would drastically increase the weight. For example, looking at plain steel sheet metal weights:
14 gauge (0.0747 inches thick) is 3.125 lbs. (1.42kg) per square foot.
15 gauge (0.0673 inches thick) is 2.813 lbs. (1.28kg) per square foot.
16 gauge (0.0598 inches thick) is only 2.50 lbs. (1.13kg) per square foot.
Thusly, even a very minor difference in the thickness of the links could cause a massive change in the weight of the armor. Most modern mail is made using links that are in about the 16 gauge range. If you go up to 14 gauge you're increasing the weight of the armor by 25%; and that's not a huge leap in metal thickness.
Besides, if you look at the thickness of some of the heaviest bands of links on the Ashland shirt, they're coming in at 14 and 15 gauge links. Also, those same bands (bands 1 and 2) are the overwhelming majority of the shirt. Due to that concept alone, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the 47lb. weight of the shirt is accurate.
Posts: 1,303 Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 5:21 pm
| Eric S wrote: |
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Oh, yes, that's the one I had through my hands. I advised the owner to hold onto it till we could find out more about it, but unfortunately he didn't. I've been meaning to post a lot more data about it, as I think it could be very important. |
It certainly looks to be of high quality. Perhaps you or Eric can chime in on why it's thought to be European? |
But Mart, it is wedge riveted, it must be European right? |
Now that James has placed the photos on the photos thread (Thanks, again!), it certainly is wedge riveting of all riveted construction and likely European. The use of a collar would point to a likely date of c. 1350, if the collar hasn't been added later.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Sat 25 Jun, 2016 9:07 pm
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | The 'Ashland shirt' is the heaviest I have ever heard of, and almost makes me wonder if it is a typo. The shirt I looked at was so massive I have a hard time imagining how one could be that much heavier; I suppose the relative thickness of the rings could be greater. I wish the photos were better. Perhaps someone in the area could wrangle another examination. I really don't see how it could have such a long cut in it, either, if someone was actually wearing it. |
I'd believe that if the links are even only slightly thicker than the average mail, then it would drastically increase the weight. For example, looking at plain steel sheet metal weights:
if you look at the thickness of some of the heaviest bands of links on the Ashland shirt, they're coming in at 14 and 15 gauge links. Also, those same bands (bands 1 and 2) are the overwhelming majority of the shirt. Due to that concept alone, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the 47lb. weight of the shirt is accurate. |
I find it extremely hard to believe, if you look at other examples with heavy links the weights are not anywere near that.
Here are some Indo-Persian examples.
29lbs, thick riveted and solid links with heavy steel plates.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
23lbs, flat links with heavy steel plates.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
25lbs, thick riveted and solid links and heavy steel plates.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
21lbs flat steel links.
[ Linked Image ]
25lbs, European all riveted.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Posts: 122 Location: Missouri
Sun 26 Jun, 2016 9:42 am
| Eric S wrote: |
I find it extremely hard to believe, if you look at other examples with heavy links the weights are not anywere near that.
Here are some Indo-Persian examples.
29lbs, thick riveted and solid links with heavy steel plates.
23lbs, flat links with heavy steel plates.
25lbs, thick riveted and solid links and heavy steel plates.
21lbs flat steel links.
25lbs, European all riveted.
|
The images are great and all, but without the same kind of breakdown that the Ashland shirt has, there's no comparable sense of scale and true link sizes. For all I know I'm looking at shirts that are made for people my height, smaller builds, with 16-18 gauge links. Do you happen to have the stats on all of those suits?
The fact that they're all Indo-Persian doesn't help much for the "huge heavy suit" debate, unless they're documented Indo-Persian suits made for North-Western European peoples. Bringing biology into the matter, the peoples of Northern and Western Europe (namely, since the OP is talking about them, Vikings) were known as MASSIVE people compared to the rest of the known world at the time. This size disparity persists all the way into the more modern era. Just take a look at the difference in soldier sizes around WWI (as a note, while there are no "Viking" peoples listed in that image, the Anglo-Saxon conquering of Britannia ensured a lot of that bloodline in the US and British bloodlines; and the Russians are closely linked to them).
[ Linked Image ]
Thusly, what's "big" to the Indian (since there's already about a 6" gap between the Indian and the Russian in height) is actually kind of tiny to the bigger nationalities (Russian, American, British).
So, lets compare the armor with dimensions we have, the Ashland suit, to something else we've got very detailed specs on, the Battle Merchant suit that the OP is interested in.
The dimensions of that Ashland suit are pretty big, with a 10" wide flat (so about 20" neck opening), the chest sits flat at 24" under the armpit (so made for about a 48-50" chest), and with the mail laid out with the links pulled "wide" we've still got 15" sleeves with a 9" opening and it's still coming in at 30" long . . . which isn't extended at all.
The suit listed by the OP from Battle Merchant is 22.5kg (so we can at least link this back towards the OP topic more). That suit is a full Hauberk, and it's made for a US/Canadian XL size . . . so one massive person. It's got a 150cm (59") chest circumference at fully extended width, 110cm (43.3") length extended, 18cm flat neck slit diameter (7" diameter * Pi = about 20" neck circumference), and 56cm (22") sleeves.
Granted, those are the extended measurements for the Battle Merchant suit, while the Ashland suit gives us the uniform compacted or "wide" measurements. Regardless, we can at least discern from the relative dimensions (which can change length/width by a third or more, depending on the links) that these were made for similarly sized people. Thusly, when you compare these two suits they're not that far apart from each other in dimensions so they shouldn't be that far apart in weight. Therefore, the 47lbs (21.32kg) of the Ashland suit is not out of line when compared to the 49.6lbs (22.5kg) of the Battle Merchant hauberk. In addition, the slight disparity of weight can come from the fact that the Ashland Suit uses a wide variety of gauge sizes, with much lighter gauges for the extremities, while the Battle Merchant suit uses one uniform gauge size of about 15-16 gauge across the whole suit.
Again, I fully believe that the weight of the Ashland suit is entirely accurate.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Sun 26 Jun, 2016 11:21 am
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| The fact that they're all Indo-Persian doesn't help much for the "huge heavy suit" debate, unless they're documented Indo-Persian suits made for North-Western European peoples. |
There is a European hauberk listed if you looked, and I can list many European hauberks as well, no other hauberk in the world that I am aware of even comes close to 47lbs.
Sugarbaker did a horrible job writing up the Ashland hauberk, look at the tiny blurred images, no images comparing the outside of the links and the inside, anyone who is interested in mail armor knows that good LARGE, CLEAR images are essential. Some of what he writes is just pure fantasy and has no place in a legitimate research paper, they are about presenting facts not guess work and speculation.
| Quote: |
| The shirt is made up of alternating rows of riveted and punched links. |
I do not see any punched links???
| Quote: |
| The origin of this shirt can be de- termined by the style of the rivet. The use of the wedge shape rivet (figure 7), instead of the round rivet, places the creation of this shirt in western Europe. |
Wrong..wedge riveting has been found in Eastern mail and in Ottoman armor, it was not exclusive to Western Europe.
| Quote: |
| With the little evidence that I have, my conclusion is that this shirt belonged to a 15 century crusader that traveled to the middle East. There he met his demise by having his sword arm disabled and then being run through. The shirt was then salvaged and repaired in the field (because of the low quality and consistency of the rings) and reused until it was found in the abandoned fortification. |
This belongs in a game of thrones script, not in a research paper!!!!
Here is something else for you to look at, the Ashland hauberk compared to three similar hauberks, all with alternating wedge riveting and solid links, all found outside of Europe, how could the Ashland shirt be 10lbs heaver than the heaviest other similar hauberks, and over 20lbs heaver than the rest???
47lbs (questionable), believed to have been found outside of Kuwait. Demi riveted.
[ Linked Image ]
20+lbs, said to have been found in Saudi Arabia. Demi riveted.
[ Linked Image ]
28lb, located in Israel. Demi riveted.
[ Linked Image ]
37lbs, said to be found in North Africa. Demi riveted.
[ Linked Image ]
Posts: 122 Location: Missouri
Sun 26 Jun, 2016 3:01 pm
| Eric S wrote: |
| Ben Joy wrote: | | The fact that they're all Indo-Persian doesn't help much for the "huge heavy suit" debate, unless they're documented Indo-Persian suits made for North-Western European peoples. |
There is a European hauberk listed if you looked, and I can list many European hauberks as well, no other hauberk in the world that I am aware of even comes close to 47lbs.
Sugarbaker did a horrible job writing up the Ashland hauberk, look at the tiny blurred images, no images comparing the outside of the links and the inside, anyone who is interested in mail armor knows that good LARGE, CLEAR images are essential. Some of what he writes is just pure fantasy and has no place in a legitimate research paper, they are about presenting facts not guess work and speculation.
|
So instead of actually providing other documented armors that actually list dimensions and compare sizes, you merely attack the author of the Ashland analysis and say he took crappy pictures. Really?!? I even broke down the armors with one that's produced and sold NOW, and has a comparable weight to the previously analyzed piece, and state why it could be an accurate weight. Instead you also just ducked and dodged all of that material. If you want to have an honest debate over it then have an honest debate. Otherwise you're not worth debating with, if that's how you're going to act over it, because that's not even approaching the situation honestly.
Oh, and as to the other European piece you have, you make no mention of when it was made, and who it was made for, or the size of the piece in question. Thusly, again, you've failed to prove any points here.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Sun 26 Jun, 2016 4:33 pm
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| So instead of actually providing other documented armors that actually list dimensions and compare sizes, you merely attack the author of the Ashland analysis and say he took crappy pictures |
Besides taking crappy, small pictures with no clear details he makes statements that are not factual and he makes up some fantasy statements, if something is not written and presented well I am NOT going to pretend it is good, there are many very good research papers on riveted mail, they are available for anyone to read, in my opinion there is a big difference between a well researched writeup and what was written about the Ashland hauberk.
Here is one for you. THE MAIL SHIRT FROM SINIGAGLIA By E. MARTIN BURGESS, 1957, If someone can not write a better research paper then was written in 1957 they have no business predending that they are doing legitimate research.
http://www.erikds.com/pdf/tmrs_pdf_3.pdf
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| I even broke down the armors with one that's produced and sold NOW, |
What is made NOW has NOTHING to do with an authentic riveted mail hauberk, find me a comparable antique riveted mail hauberk that is around the same weight. Just because someone who's research is highly questionable makes another questionable statement about the weight does not mean he is right, the evidence based on all of the known antique riveted mail hauberks that have stated weights goes against the Ashland shirt weighing 47lbs.
Last edited by Eric S on Mon 27 Jun, 2016 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Mon 27 Jun, 2016 1:45 am
To be clear, this post is a moderator notice. I will make it short and simple.
You all need to calm the hell down. Eric, I want to see no more personal attacks. You are all welcome and invited to feel free to professionally discuss or debate the topic at hand, but do not cross over into the territory of attacking each other. It's far out of bounds and will not result in anything positive for anyone.
If that wasn't clear, I've got a few things up my sleeve that can make it more clear.
Posts: 805 Location: new orleans
Mon 27 Jun, 2016 3:54 am
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
To be clear, this post is a moderator notice. I will make it short and simple.
You all need to calm the hell down. Eric, I want to see no more personal attacks. You are all welcome and invited to feel free to professionally discuss or debate the topic at hand, but do not cross over into the territory of attacking each other. It's far out of bounds and will not result in anything positive for anyone.
If that wasn't clear, I've got a few things up my sleeve that can make it more clear. |
Nathan...did some "rewording"
Posts: 122 Location: Missouri
Mon 27 Jun, 2016 8:09 am
| Eric S wrote: |
Besides taking crappy, small pictures with no clear details he makes statements that are not factual and he makes up some fantasy statements, if something is not written and presented well I am NOT going to pretend it is good, there are many very good research papers on riveted mail, they are available for anyone to read, in my opinion there is a big difference between a well researched writeup and what was written about the Ashland hauberk.
Here is one for you. THE MAIL SHIRT FROM SINIGAGLIA By E. MARTIN BURGESS, 1957, If someone can not write a better research paper then was written in 1957 they have no business predending that they are doing legitimate research.
http://www.erikds.com/pdf/tmrs_pdf_3.pdf
What is made NOW has NOTHING to do with an authentic riveted mail hauberk, find me a comparable antique riveted mail hauberk that is around the same weight. Just because someone who's research is highly questionable makes another questionable statement about the weight does not mean he is right, the evidence based on all of the known antique riveted mail hauberks that have stated weights goes against the Ashland shirt weighing 47lbs. |
First off, please go back and look at the analysis that I'm making . . . not that Sugarbaker made. I am caring about one thing in the analysis that I'm breaking down. I don't care if he did a horrible write-up, he still took solid measurements that we can use to compare it to other armors that we have the measurements to. I care about steel. Steel doesn't care if it's new, or antique . . . it's still going to pretty much weight the same (as long as it's not too full of rust . . . at which point rust actually makes steel heavier as long as the rust hasn't flaked away). I'm taking the size and dimensions of a modern piece, which still matters here because it's still made of steel and constructed in a similar fashion; and I'm comparing it to the raw dimensions of the Ashland shirt that were given. Both come in at similar weights. Both also have very similar dimensions.
One of the antique suits you even put up had a listed weight of 47lbs, which is still in the same realm as the other two shirts in question. Whether you think it's questionable or not, it's still the recorded weight, and needs to be taken at face value. That 47lb. shirt from Kuwait actually puts it around the same weight as the Ashland shirt and the new one from Battle Merchant. However, you cannot just put up pictures of other suits of armor and say they're "big" or "huge" . . . that means literally nothing, because those words are entirely relative and vague . . . there's no real dimensions listed with anything you've put up, yet. Even that 1957 analysis doesn't go into much of anything about the weight or detailed dimensions of the suit itself. It analyzes the construction techniques and flaws/damage more than anything else.
Also to reference it again, biological peoples, across the spectrum, come in drastically different sizes. This was even more apparent going back even just 100 years in history (again, see my WWI reference photo). We cannot assume that all mail pieces are going to be made in a "one size fits all" policy. Just because the "average" shirt weighs in at 30ish lbs. doesn't mean that there aren't going to be outlier shirts made that are exceptionally bigger and heavier. I don't see a massive Viking who weighs in at close to 280+lbs. and 6+ ft. wearing a tiny little 25-30 lb. mail shirt . . . it just wouldn't fit. It might fit the average Indo-Persian person, but not the average Viking.
Now, again, if you put up some shirts with all of their dimensions listed (like what's listed for the Battle Merchant shirt or the Ashland shirt) and those are coming in the same dimensions, but are exceptionally lighter, then it'd be worth looking into. Otherwise, I find it completely plausible that the Ashland shirt, and other mail shirts, could come in at 45+lbs or the 20+kg range.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum