| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term. Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
Author |
Message |
Michael Edelson
|
Posted: Thu 09 Aug, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan Howard wrote: | Actually there is one. The mail tests in the Knight and the Blast Furnace are pretty good. Erik reckons that the mail he supplied for the test was substandard however, and Dr Williams seems to have underestimated the amount of energy a longbow can deliver.
I'm impressed by Julio's mail too. I would be interested in Mr Edelson's results. I fear however, that unless an English warbow is used (c.150 lbs), the results won't tell us much we don't already know. |
Hi Dan,
Don't forget I also tested a sword(Del Tin) and a Poleax (A&A) against this mail, so some pretty good data can be had regardless of the absence of the 150lb bow. I've been pretty busy at work so I haven't had much time to write up the test, but I'm hoping to get around to it in a couple of weeks.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd love to hear how the pollaxe did.
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steven H wrote: | Dan Howard, Benjamin Abbott and Daniel Hawley-
In the interest of understanding can you elaborate on the tests Stretton performed?
What was his source of mail?
How was it mounted?
How did he simulate the movement of the knight?
How was range handled? (I ask because the medium range result is quite incongruous to my basic understanding of the laws of physics)
Specifics on the heads he used, especially hardness?
Daniel Hawley-
My greatest difficulty in believing that Mark Strettons test are well set-up is that his results are overwhelmingly contradicted by the historical record of the time. Simply put: why are there so many accounts of large numbers of soldiers surviving large numbers of arrows? |
Hi Steven,
I didn't bother keeping a copy of Stretton's test. Perhaps others could elaborate on the details. I do seem to recall that he used Victorian puddled iron for the brig, which is worse than the crappiest munitions plate available at the time. The RA test at least used charcoal rolled iron which, according to Williams, is a closer approximation to low grade munitions plate.
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't find anything about what the brigandine was made out of it. It was made by Roy King.
The breastplate he tested was reenactment quality, whatever that means. Later on he said it was mild steel.
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | I'd love to hear how the pollaxe did. |
The poleaxe could not cut completely through the mail, but it devastated it, breaking several links with each strike (if there was a person under there he would be in a sad shape) and the top spike punched through far enough to kiss that ficticious person's mailed @ss goodbye without much effort.
There will be pics with the post.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
Alessio J. Orlandi
Location: Bologna, Italy Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 33
|
Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi, this is my first post.
First, sorry for my poor english, but i'm Italian.
Second, sorry but i don't visit this forum very often, so probably i will never read your answers.
Well, for what is concerning the subject mail vs. brigandine, I'd just like to state that if mail had been used for more than 1000 years, there will be a reason... As others said befor me, mail is good against cuts but by itself can't do much against thrusts. In fact, it was always used with an aketon/subarmalia/gambeson etc...
Now, let's take the brigandine. Is it such an innovation? I think no. Well, technologically speaking, it's a nice step forward, but conceptually it's not all that different from a roman lorica segmentata.
So the question (for me) is not whether brigandine is better than mail, but "why hadn't it being used before?".
My answer is: because it is expensive.
In XIII cent. Italian "comuni" (cities) based their military strength on common citizens averagely trained for war; most of them used to wear a simple gambeson and some hardened leather protection. Only knights and rich men could wear mail protections. In XIV century, we have the rise of a new kind of warrior, the mercenary, a very skilled and dedicated figure. War is now fought between well-paied men, that wanted the best for themselves. This, combined with the introduction of fireweapons, longer swords and many new kind of thrust weapons (warhammers and so on) made the chain mail not very usefull. So, if you are a well paied warrior, why not buying a better armour?
In the previous century (we go back to XIII cent.) cities couldn't afford to pay an heavy iron armouring for all the militia. The strength was more based on number and battlefield tactiques, not on technology or the skill of the single man, as it is in XIV cent.
Well, this is just my opinion.
All corrections welcome.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Alessio, welcome to myArmoury. Your English is very good. You write far better than many native speakers
You make some interesting points. IMO the lorica segmentata was peasant armour. It was mass produced for those legionaries who could not afford anything better such as scale or mail. There is no evidence that any roman soldier of any means - not even a centurio - ever wore segmented plate. Brigs, as you say, are far better tailored and meant for a better class of soldier. Mail saw continuous use on the battlefield for closer to 2000 years. Not 1000. As you said, it must have ben for a reason. It was very good against cuts. But so was anything ever used for armour. Testing armour against cuts is a waste of time. The greatest threat by far on any battlefield during the so-called Ageof Mail was from spears and arrows. i.e. thrusts. If an armour offered poor protection against these weapons then nobody would have bothered to wear it. Modern tests against good historical recontructions suggest that mail and its associated padding provided far better protection against thrusts than many previously thought.
For reasons why mail armour was superceded by plate this is a decent summary.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|