[William P]

[Kai Lawson]

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

[Kai Lawson]

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

[Kai Lawson]

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

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

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.

[Michael Edelson]

[William P]

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.

[Kai Lawson]

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.

[Dan Howard]

[William P]

[Dan Howard]

[William P]

[Dan Howard]

[Michael Curl]

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.

[Gary Teuscher]

I

[Dan Howard]

[Benjamin Floyd II]

[William P]

[T. Arndt]