| 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) |
| What considerations are most important to you when purchasing modern-made mail armour? |
| Absolute historical accuracy, price is not a consideration |
|
5% |
[ 16 ] |
| Historical accuracy first, price is secondary |
|
27% |
[ 81 ] |
| Affordability balanced with compromises to historical accuracy |
|
45% |
[ 132 ] |
| Affordability first, historical accuracy is secondary |
|
1% |
[ 5 ] |
| I will not be in the market for mail armour any time soon |
|
19% |
[ 58 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 292 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
    |
 |
Artis Aboltins
|
 Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 5:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Excelent updates today! Very good article on mail and, as always, well written reviews of the swords.
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation" ...Gen. Douglas Macarthur
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | I also loved the article on "Mail Unchained"! Dan Howard (and Chad?) did a fantastic job on it.
|
Nope, not me. Just Dan.  I did a light editing pass as always and helped find images, but the heavy lifting was all Dan (and Nathan on the images and production).
While we're at it, hats off to Dan as we welcome him to our little group of authors.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Larking
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 
*Bows down* for Dan and everyone else who helped with that article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Daub
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
'I saw young Harry, -with his bevor on,
His cuisses on his thighs, gallantly arm'd,-
Rise from the ground like feather'd Mercury,
And vaulted with such ease into his seat,
As if an angel dropp'd down from the clouds,
To turn and wind a fiery Pegasus,
And witch the world with noble horsemanship.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan,
Congratulations on a truly excellent article on mail, one if the best general overviews I've seen on the subject.
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 9:24 pm Post 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.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele A. Pini
Location: Olgiate Comasco, Como Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 239
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Oct, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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''...
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio D'Angelo
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maurizio D'Angelo wrote: | 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. |
I think it must have been edited because I'm quite sure that the review said that the Reeve was 40" long when I first read the review yesterday... Well, doesn't matter now. All is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maurizio D'Angelo wrote: | 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. . |
"Riveted" does not equal "historical". There is very little about Indian mail that resembles mail that was actually worn at the time.
Here are some discrepancies.
* The size of the links are usually on the upper end of the historical scale - making it cheaper and quicker to produce but far less capable of withstanding an attack from an edge or point.
* The thickness of the wire is generally too light for the diameter of the link, making it lighter but less capable of resisting a weapon.
* Rivet holes are either too large or not centred. Both will leave too little material on one or both sides and the link will tear too easily.
* Rivets are incorrectly set. If a rivet is not peened tightly, the link will pull apart too easily
* There isn't enough overlap in the lapped section of the link to create a decent join
* Wrong shape rivet hole. Indian mail has rectangular holes. Historical wedge-riveted mail has ovoid holes. Rectangular holes tear very easily at the corners. Circular or ovoid holes are much stronger
* Incorrect metallurgy. Mild steel is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending
|
|
|
|
|
Maurizio D'Angelo
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
Ciao
Maurizio
Last edited by Maurizio D'Angelo on Tue 27 Oct, 2009 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Oct, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Mild steel is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending |
Enthusiastically agreed!
In particular, several metallurgical examples of rings from artifacts have indicated had very high purity iron with elevated phosphorus (on the order of 0.1 %.) This is particularly ductile in cold working, and hardens through the cold forging if done properly. The chemistry seems like too much of a perfect material choice to just be a coincidence. (Some annealing steps done with current reproduction mild steel and scale losses may have been less of a problem with the period material. There is not a good modern alloy substitute. I have been looking. E1NI low carbon steel with moderate phosphorus might approximate it, but is not really close. Also, it is not readily available as wire.) My personal theory is that not only were the period geometry and construction methods required to achieve good protection well refined , but, geographical sources of ideal ores that worked most easily and functioned best when completed were recognized from B.C. period history as well. Modern mild steel reproductions may be very good, but they may be behind the curve technologically in terms of ease of fabrication.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Oct, 2009 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Oct, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maurizio D'Angelo wrote: | | Perhaps not too experienced in chainmail. |
The test is complete rubbish. The most authentic bow and arrow in the world is useless if the same attention is not paid to the armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic
