Today's update:

[ Linked Image ]
Mail: Unchained
An article Dan Howard

[ Linked Image ]
Albion Reeve Sword
A hands-on review by Michael Edelson

[ Linked Image ]
Albion Gaddhjalt Sword
Added to Chad's collection

As always, you can see our Complete History of Updates listed right from our home page.

Excelent updates today! Very good article on mail and, as always, well written reviews of the swords.

I second Artis' thoughts. Two of my favorite swords and an article on maile that provides a very enlightening and informative overview of maile as it appeared and was used over several centuries. Well done gentlemen. And thanks for all the effort and sacrifice you have committed and made. It's appreciated.

I also loved the article on "Mail Unchained"! Dan Howard (and Chad?) did a fantastic job on it.

I voted for a primary emphasis on historical authenticity as lowest cost modern substitutes may neither look authentic, nor represent effective defense, as some of the feature article comments on recent tests of mail versus arrows pointed out. Also, in historical context, where comparative costs of Carolingian mail, sword/ scabbard, horse, etc, have been estimated from comparison of inventories (Knight and the Blast Furnace repeats figures with reference to original study), maille was the most expensive single item.

I voted: Historical accuracy first, price is secondary

I must say that mail article was truely awesome.
Personally think it was best update this year (and my top5 of all time features). Think I have read it 3times already :eek:


*Bows down* for Dan and everyone else who helped with that article.

I have to say that Dan's article was excellent, a very clearly laid out argument and well reasoned, congratulations on what I think is one of the most valuable essays on myArmoury.

Dan,

Congratulations on a truly excellent article on mail, one if the best general overviews I've seen on the subject.

Yup, really liked Dan's article and it seems to have a good balance between what we know for sure, what we are fairly certain about and what are educated guesses where evidence is missing as with what double mail is supposed to be for example.

( My personal favourite "unproven " theories are:
1) Heavier wire and/or tighter weave.
2) Two maille shirts worn together.
3) Both theories being true as both solutions might have been called double maille independantly of each other at different time or place ??? )

His article is informative and based on the best currently available evidence.

Also, Dan must have put a great deal of work into this project and thanks for a very good read.

Good review on the Reeve and even more useful since Michael's experience in using swords in training and cutting makes his evaluation/opinion about handling very authoritative. ;) :cool:

As an ardent mailler (and now owner of a complete hauberk) I have enjoyed the article.

I'm considering to translate it for the sake of my fellows of the Compagnia (I'm the only one who can read english), they would truly benefit from some accurate news about maille: can I?

And about the last photo, the "Bishop's mantle", what weave was used for the neck part? It appear to be denser than the rest. Perhaps is only thicker rings...

Great updates, mail article is really quite an achievement. But, have anyone noticed that in Reeve's review there is a wrong overall length, it says 40'' and it should be 36''...

Great article, Dan
Thanks for the impressive work.
I attended a conference on the arc composite, I'll have to question some results, with the organizers of the conference. Here the arrows pierce the coat of mail, the arrows were launched while sitting on horseback. The tip was in leaf, riveted chainmail 8 mm. The wind was favorable. The angle of shot zero. 25-30 meters away, I do not remember to be honest.
On lamellar armor arrows haven't pierced.
But having read your article, perhaps the coat of mail must be questioned.
Again thanks for the important contribution.

Luka Borscak wrote:

Great updates, mail article is really quite an achievement. But, have anyone noticed that in Reeve's review there is a wrong overall length, it says 40'' and it should be 36''...

I may be wrong but...
Reeve for the sword I have found the right measures is written: Overall length 35 7 / 8 inches on the article by Michael Edelson and Overall Length: 35,875 "(91 cm) on the site of Albion.
Maybe a little imprecise find it on the sword Gaddhjalt Overall length: 41.75 "(106.04 cm) on my-Armory Overall length: 41,125" (104.45 cm) at Albion
But it's a small thing, for a better handling swords right that a precise length to the centimeter.

Thanks Dan,
once again your information are useful and valuable.
Perhaps it is appropriate to question the entire work.
One of the participants is Prof. Giovanni Amatuccio, one of the leading experts in composite bow, has written many books about it.
Prof. Giovanni Amatuccio: Hoplology scholar of ancient and medieval studies, has published numerous works on the arc and the eastern fighting techniques. Peri Toxeias wrote the training manual of the Byzantine troops of the sixth century, and the arrows of the arc bow hunting in the Middle Ages. Pulls with a composite bow with the strict technical eastern ring from the thumb. Works at superintendence BAPSAD of Salerno and is professor at the University Suor Orsola Benincasa di Salerno. He is Member of the Scientific Committee of the Association for Paleoworking experimental archeology.


Perhaps not too experienced in chainmail. :cool:
Ciao
Maurizio

I think that they chose the iron that was easiest to pull through a draw plate. Any additional protective benefit was purely coincidental.

Can these posts be split off and moved to a more suitable part of the forum?