Dan Howard wrote: |
This test is just as useless as all the others. He never even attempted to get a decent replica of mail. Trying to perform any kind of comparison is a waste of time. He erroneously concludes that mail is inferior and tries to find justification as to why it was worn by the more wealthy soldiers. Officers could wear any armour they wanted. The most logical reason why they chose mail is simply because they considered it superior to the available alternatives.
He also repeats the bollocks about Alexois being pushed out of his saddle and back on again by lance attacks. I've already shown that the account says no such thing. Nor does Comnena or any other Byzantine text ever say that lamellar was worn over mail. On top of that I don't think his lamellar reconstruction is particularly sensible. IMO this one is far more reasonable http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/...ellar.html |
forgive me, since im no expert, what was the main problem with levantias lacing of the 'klibanion' ? or the useof acombination of lacing and rivets on a backing,? compared to pete beatsons?
and what ofhis notions that HIS klibanon also worked quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMWRwNrRnvE now since its done by regia anglorum imgoing to email them for more detail on the tests done in this segment,
though as has been pointed out by you a number of times, the quality of manufacture of the maille can make a huge difference in the test, but its still fairly eye opening,
alot of this discussion seems to have been relegated to why you wouldnt wear leather lamellar over maille, and the problems with leather, the question i also put to people is why not metallic lamellar? aside from the issues of repairing all those lacings. and them getting infested?