Hi. This is my second post, so we'll see if I can bring home the bacon, as it were.

I have seen this thread expand to more than double what it was, and wondered why no one was bringing in outside tests, unverifiable as they might be. I found this online a while back (it pops up among the first google listings for 'longbow mail tests'), and thought the very clear citing and examples used to calculate the test models were at least a good starting point for another series of test that can be beaten back and forth:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf

It has some interesting conclusions, and uses some simulacrum of multiple plates (brigandine, COP, gambeson w/plate insets), cheap mail--which would have conceivable been employed--and solid plate, albeit of homologous thickness.

Dunno if this helps or hinders anything, and am personally more interested in the sword vs. mail bit. Off of that, would there be any advantage to wearing a jack/sleeveless or sleeved gambeson over mail for the purposes of maintaining the integrity of mail against the elements and deformation from impact, especially if it were a short- or no-sleeved setup, that could be schucked and patched after a fight and would keep the mail free from water, branches and brambles and mud? I imagine repairing a rent or bent rings in mail while with a host of other men could raise the cost of the job at an armorer, unless you have the tools to do it yourself.

Does that make any sense?

--Kai

Hi again. Few more things:

A professor at the UW Green Bay was doing a study on the grecian Linothorax--how it may have been compiled, what worked best against cuts and penetration, what didn't--and found that rotating the thread grain of the cloth much improved the protective qualities (45° per layer, CW or CCW). Additionally, one of the bigger monastic knight orders (Templar, Hospitaller) made mention of a protective felt shirt, as there was no weave to penetrate or push apart easily, and all the lines were tangled, and difficult to cut through.

Would someone be willing to try another cut test with rotated linen layers or properly beaten felt, either layered or padded and sewn, like a blanket? (Not the shoddy craft store felt, mind). The felt also tends to be fairly weather and water-proof, if I remember correctly.


--Kai

Hi for the third time tonight.

Would there be a risk of steel links (if equal final heat treatment and tempering is difficult to maintain for all the links involved, but still attempted, resulting in 'hardened mail') bursting, or being more prone to bursting, than the iron links, which may be more likely to simply stretch and deform, but hold together? Or is the (possibly) wrought iron, being somewhat brittle, just as likely to break?

The thinking being that deformed or crooked rings following an impact would be preferable to rings popping apart upon impact with a thrust and allowing the incoming object to continue through.

I could very well be way off too.

--Kai

I've been talking about rotating the weave of various layers for at least 10 years. This is the earliest instance that I can find in this forum
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...p;start=20
It talks about felt and quilting also.

That Green Bay linothorax experiment was a wasted opportunity. He squanders his resources experimenting with glue, which has never been used to make textile armour, rather than devoting more resources to how padded defenses have really been constructed - quilting.

Quote:

Additionally, one of the bigger monastic knight orders (Templar, Hospitaller) made mention of a protective felt shirt, as there was no weave to penetrate or push apart easily, and all the lines were tangled, and difficult to cut through.

Do you have a cite for this?

recently i was talking to a guy called bede dwyer, who as i understand is a bit of an expert in ancient eastern archery, he gave a lecture at the recent reenactment of the battle of marathon, done in sydney, on persian archery and factors they would have contributed to why the persians lost the battle of marathon,

but i mentioned the results shown here and echoed the general conclusion that padding over maile would foul needlepoint, anti maile arrows, and he said that he has had no problems getting a needlepoint bodkin all the way through through a quilted gambeson of sorts,, apparently experuienced close to no bunching up of material, i dont remember if i asked him whether this was over maile, or even what quality the gambeson was, but i said whether it was y'know, quilted and close stitch, apparently it was. i didnt say the first test was a layered jack of 30 layers so

and i dont think the bow was at 100 years war level poundages either. but i dont remember all the details of what he said or what he asked him.

but essentially needle bodkins in particlar seem to experience less resistance to padded armour than we think,
so a gambeson may not have saved you against a norman bodkin which in itself is interesting data.

dan, as for the linothorax, i.e the linen version, the sydney ancients, when i mentioned the test by the university in recreating the linothorax, modern glues ok, but they echoed the result with their own tests they said as well that linen layered and glued is very tough and resists all sorts of things,

that same day of the marathon reenactment event, for anyone whoes interested, the guys tested the leather apron that might have been hung from the aspis, by having people shoot at it with all sorts of arrows, and bows, historical or not, from a range of about 20 metres i think... or was it 40.. or maybe as little as 10, and we found that with 30-50 pound bows, broadheads slice through decently well, often up to the fletchings. even modern field points from a 30 pound bow i.e my arrows, penetrated up 3/4 of the length of the shaft.

though the guys determined the field points that went helfway or so would have had alot of power removed trying to slip their way through so how they would have injured the hoplite or how badly, .. well, we think that while better than nothing that apron isnt as good a defense as some might think, the leather was vegetable tanned, about 4-5mm thick i think, maybe more maybe less.

Right--I wasn't able to find the site that had listed the vestments for the crusader orders mentioning felt shirts, and the few books I was able to find simply listed 'shirts' with no descriptors.

Secondly, you are absolutely right about the mail used in the testing--it is literally homemade jewelry-class garbage, and I was unfortunately unclear about my intentions toward the test. If I had taken the time to review the photos involved instead of just throwing up the link, I might have saved myself some embarrassment. As it stands, I would still like to echo the thoughts of a few others on this thread, and would like to see a test or series of tests done with acceptable (by forum consensus or by reputation of the maker) mail, padding and a textile outer garment (i.e. gambeson, padded jack, surcoat) with cut or arrow tests, looking at tissue deformation. This was what I thought was neat about the test posted--the use of a specifically designed-for-impact (bullets, but should might work for arrows?) medium to test for blunt trauma deformation. This would, I think, be a clean way to look at the blade vs. hammer poleax argument, or to see if there is any appreciable difference in impact to more fleshed vs. less fleshed areas under mail, of if they are all effectively the same (thigh vs. wrist or hip.) In other words, does the body area targeted under mail really matter in terms of damage done per blow (aside from more delicate things like shins, crotch, etc.), or should (if the opponent is fully covered in mail/no un-covered areas are readily exposed) the attacker just go for what they are able to hit best? Would anyone with actual combat (mock or real) mind weighing in on this? I haven't the time or money to make the mail and try out this stuff, but it seems like there should be some folks who might have a thing or two to say about this.

Hey Dan, I have been wondering about the whole glued linen debate as well. What does RAT stand for, because I would dearly love to read the article.

I

Quote:

have seen this thread expand to more than double what it was, and wondered why no one was bringing in outside tests, unverifiable as they might be. I found this online a while back (it pops up among the first google listings for 'longbow mail tests'), and thought the very clear citing and examples used to calculate the test models were at least a good starting point for another series of test that can be beaten back and forth:

I've read those tests before. I don't know of the quality of the mail used, but there were some issues with it I thought that were biased against the armour (the testing by Bane you mention)

One was the bowstring - modern bowstrings can add a good 5-10% energy to impact over period construction strings. The author does not specify whether the string was modern or period.

The bow itself - it appears to be composite in structure, and by this I mean layers of different wood. The bow is described as yew, but I do not know (the author does not give the info) if it was backed by another wood, fiberglass, etc., Anything like this makes the bow more efficient, which would result in a higher amount of energy transferred to the arrow, i.e. a 70 pound bow like this would propel an arrow faster than a 70 pound non-backed bow. Again, it's unclear, I have not seen that bow on the market and am unsure as to it''s exact construction method, even though it does say a "yew" longbow, but there are other yew longbows that have other materials used in backing the bow.

While both of these seem relatively minor, both combined could add 15% to the energy imparted, and thereby adding 15% to the velocity. As kinetic energy, not momentum is usually thought of as the measurement, and velocity is squared, this makes a major difference.

Another thing - Banes estimates of velocity at distance seem to vary from the results Hardy came up with. Hardy was measuring the velocity, and Bane was using an equation, and the results differed a bit, what Bane estimates as the velocity at 250 is similar to what Hardy estimated at 180 yards.

With regards to the armour used, Bane admittedley often used the thinnest of any "average". The Jack he mentions that 15-30 layers of linen were commonly used, he went with the 15 layers. For the Plate, another example, he states plate for helemts and breastplates was between 1.2 and 4.57 mm, he of course use the 1.2mm. And of course, a perfectly flat piece of plate.

Another thing as to the linen - we don't know the oz. weight of linen used, another issue, or the type used. If there would have been an attempt to document the weight of linen, the tightness of the weave, and whether or not the weave was different in different layers (best results are obtained with linen where the weaves are not the same layer to layer, but if you alternate the weaves). I guess we really don't know if period jacks used alternating weaves, but it would have been nice to see both tested.

Another thing - this is to have been C. 1400 AD. The padded underlying armour from this period I have actually read about seems to be commonly 5-8 layers of linen, with padding, sometimes felt. The gampeson tested was 2 layers of linen with cotton batting.

What would have been more accurate IMO if testing "period" armour would be a gambseson of 5-7 layers of linen, mail, then a padded jack of 20-24 layers of linen, more the midrangefor a jack.

As it is, all this test showed to me is that at about 180 yards (not 250 yards) a bow which was perhaps more efficient than period bows could pierce the minimum types of period amrour, i.e. thin jacks by themselves, thin flat plate, thin gambesons.

As to the quality of the mail, I do not know, but Dan seems to think it was very low quality.