| Author |
Message |
|
Mart Shearer
|
 Posted: Sat 16 Nov, 2013 10:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Using existing ring type material or punching rings and sewing them to a backing would have been a cheap, fast way of making armor. Not everyone could afford mail and not all fighting involved arrows and spears. |
The fact of the matter is that Europeans were manufacturing lots of small punched rings in the mid-13th century (contemporary with the Westminster Psalter image). These were used in making mail of demi-riveted construction (half riveted, half solid rings). It seems dubious that sewing 20,000 rings to a fabric base would be any faster than connecting them with wire rings. Admittedly, you might cut the weight in half along with the protective ability against spears and bows, the most common weapons of the early European Middle Ages. Yet we have no written evidence of such counterfeit mail, nor any reason to believe someone who could afford half a hauberk would not have equipped himself with documented armor like a gambeson instead. We're almost back to hypothesizing the 19th century theories of "banded mail" with sewn, overlapped rings on leather which were simply ludicrous based on the evidence. Perhaps we should revive Meyrick's trellised and mascled mail as well?!?
While mail was expensive, every English knight, as well as free laymen with property valued at 16 marks, were expected to have a mail hauberk (loricam) according to the 1181 Assize of Arms, with haubergeons (aubergel) being required at 10 marks. Burgesses were to have a gambeson (wambais) and iron hat. While we can't absolutely prove that these visual examples aren't discs with a central rivet or rings sewn to a backing, neither can we absolutely prove that they aren't regular old mail. The preponderance of the evidence indicates mail is most likely what is intended in this miniature.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
  |
 |
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sat 16 Nov, 2013 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | It seems dubious that sewing 20,000 rings to a fabric base would be any faster than connecting them with wire rings. |
Except that the type of ring armor pictured would not require any were near "20,000 rings", look at the difference in ring size, you could easily count the rings used in the pictured examples. Any person requiring some cheap easy to make armor could have made this type in a short period of time with minimal tools and experience.
| Quote: | | We're almost back to hypothesizing the 19th century theories of "banded mail" with sewn, overlapped rings on leather which were simply ludicrous based on the evidence. |
Not really, I do not known of any proven examples of "banded mail" but here you do have examples of ring armor in use by several cultures.
| Quote: | | While mail was expensive, every English knight, as well as free laymen with property valued at 16 marks, were expected to have a mail hauberk (loricam) according to the 1181 Assize of Arms, with haubergeons (aubergel) being required at 10 marks. Burgesses were to have a gambeson (wambais) and iron hat. While we can't absolutely prove that these visual examples aren't discs with a central rivet or rings sewn to a backing, neither can we absolutely prove that they aren't regular old mail. The preponderance of the evidence indicates mail is most likely what is intended in this miniature. |
Europe is a large land mass, not everyone was English, and not everyone was knight or even a land owner. I am not saying that ring armor was used in Europe, only that it can not be ruled out entirely, there is a difference between saying that there are no known proven examples and saying that it absolutely never existed.
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Mart Shearer wrote: | | It seems dubious that sewing 20,000 rings to a fabric base would be any faster than connecting them with wire rings. |
Except that the type of ring armor pictured would not require any were near "20,000 rings", look at the difference in ring size, you could easily count the rings used in the pictured examples. Any person requiring some cheap easy to make armor could have made this type in a short period of time with minimal tools and experience. |
Now we get back to this silly thing called "evidence". If you think that Europeans used rings this large to manufacture armour then produce one archaeological site where even a single one of these rings have been unearthed in a military context.
Museums literally have hundreds of drawers and boxes full of riveted mail: thousands and thousands of examples sitting in reserve collections that will never see public display. Why do they not have a single example of your elusive ring armour?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Now we get back to this silly thing called "evidence". If you think that Europeans used rings this large to manufacture armour then produce one archaeological site where even a single one of these rings have been unearthed in a military context.
Museums literally have hundreds of drawers and boxes full of riveted mail: thousands and thousands of examples sitting in reserve collections that will never see public display. Why do they not have a single example of your elusive ring armour? |
" your elusive ring armour", when did it become my elusive ring armor? I did not start this thread and I did not say that ring armor was used in Europe, I am only stating the obvious, that you can not say absolutely that it was not used. Take Japanese riveted mail as an example, only one or two mentions in all of the information in English published since the 1800s and only in the last couple of years has an actual Japanese armor with riveted mail been identified, despite the fact that museums and collectors have thousands and thousands of examples sitting in reserve collections that will never see public display and the thousands that have been available for the public to see since the 1800s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's also significant that not one description of armor through the middle ages mentions anything like sewing rings to a backing. There are numerous detailed regulations for what everyone is supposed to have for military service, and for anyone not wealthy enough to afford mail, the only option mentioned is a quilted gambeson. Heck, later on there are mentions of sewing chains to sleeves and such things, but rings are still not mentioned. Even what seem to be a few fanciful descriptions of people cobbling armor and shields together in some emergency never mention sewing rings to a backing.
Mind you, I would not say that there is "not a shred of evidence" for ringmail, simply because of the depictions we keep seeing and arguing about. I can't make my mind up about them! BUT again, it is significant that we keep seeing that stuff on KNIGHTS, not on peasants who are desperate for some makeshift cheap protection.
We can't say for certain that medieval warriors NEVER wore swim fins or tutus, eh? Sorry, that's a little extreme! But we need a little more for ringmail.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan v Bischhoffshausen
Location: Chile Joined: 14 Nov 2013
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
After carefully reading your answers, I'll make a list of the conclusions I've made so far:
Evidence
- Pictorial: rare appearances in manuscripts and frescos (not sure about the time frame)
- Archaeological: none for that time period and area
- Written: none
From the artist's point of view
Reasons to paint armor this way:
- Just an easier way of depicting mail. Although I find it more time consuming than the rows of commas. And the manuscript is very detailed in general.
- To provide contrast between different pieces of armor or different characters, like the colored horses in the bayeux tapestry. But it's not really necessary in this case.
- Actually a different kind of armor. But there is no strong evidence of this kind of armor.
- Artistic license. Maybe the knight pictured didn't even use armor. But then why bother?
From the knight's point of view
Reasons to wear this kind of armor if real:
As a replacement for mail:
- Cheaper/easier to make (arguably) and can be made by anyone, not only proffessional mailmakers. Does not seem like a good reason for a Knight. Weak spots and weight would make it not worth wearing.
As a reinforcement over mail:
- Better blunt force protection, like lamellar over mail used in the Bizantine Empire. But again it's too much weight for an area that is often neglected.
I still can't make my mind about this, but the discussion has been very informative. Thank you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan v Bischhoffshausen wrote: | Evidence
- Pictorial: rare appearances in manuscripts and frescos (not sure about the time frame) |
The Westminster Psalter miniature of the kneeling knight is believed to date to c.1250.
The wall painting of Becket's Martyrdom in Spoleto is variously dated from 1180-1210.
The Verdun Altar panel is from 1181.
Most of the miniatures showing back-laced chausses occur between c. 1175-1250.
| Quote: | From the artist's point of view
Reasons to paint armor this way:
.....
- Actually a different kind of armor. But there is no strong evidence of this kind of armor. |
Perhaps this should be included?
- A different appearing form of mail (larger vs. smaller rings)
This famous example is sometimes used to show "banded mail" as a separate armor construction, but likely shows mail coifs, hauberks, and chausses drawn differently by the same artist in the same miniature.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Corey Skriletz
Location: United States Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Mart: That's a very interesting miniature. Do you know when and where it originates from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
British Library Additional MS 17687 B is currently assigned a date of c. 1240 and is believed to be of German origin, perhaps from Würzburg. The subject is the Massacre of the Holy Innocents by King Herod's soldiers.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Corey Skriletz
Location: United States Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Sun 17 Nov, 2013 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Fantastic! Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sebok
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I personally believe it's an artistic depiction of a different sized rings of maille. My own maille isn't all the same sized rings and if it's on separate pieces it's probably for the same reason. They also may be depicting maille of all riveted links differently than maille with the solid links. My personal theory is all riveted maille is "secondary" protection and with the solid links it's primary. It just makes more sense to have the solid links to be stronger and more of a primary protection.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | Stefan v Bischhoffshausen wrote: | Evidence
- Pictorial: rare appearances in manuscripts and frescos (not sure about the time frame) |
The Westminster Psalter miniature of the kneeling knight is believed to date to c.1250.
The wall painting of Becket's Martyrdom in Spoleto is variously dated from 1180-1210.
The Verdun Altar panel is from 1181.
Most of the miniatures showing back-laced chausses occur between c. 1175-1250.
| Quote: | From the artist's point of view
Reasons to paint armor this way:
.....
- Actually a different kind of armor. But there is no strong evidence of this kind of armor. |
Perhaps this should be included?
- A different appearing form of mail (larger vs. smaller rings)
This famous example is sometimes used to show "banded mail" as a separate armor construction, but likely shows mail coifs, hauberks, and chausses drawn differently by the same artist in the same miniature.
|
Interesting picture! The third from the left soldier has splinted legs? Were they around that early?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| S. Sebok wrote: | | My personal theory is all riveted maille is "secondary" protection and with the solid links it's primary. It just makes more sense to have the solid links to be stronger and more of a primary protection. |
That is a false bias caused by the inferior riveting of most of the mail on the market today. A properly-riveted link will rarely fail at the riveted join - it fails elsewhere along the wire. This means that there is no difference in the protective capacity of a riveted link and a solid link.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Schontzler
Location: WA, USA Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | S. Sebok wrote: | | My personal theory is all riveted maille is "secondary" protection and with the solid links it's primary. It just makes more sense to have the solid links to be stronger and more of a primary protection. |
That is a false bias caused by the inferior riveting of most of the mail on the market today. A properly-riveted link will rarely fail at the riveted join - it fails elsewhere along the wire. This means that there is no difference in the protective capacity of a riveted link and a solid link. |
Is it safe to assume that solid/riveted links is just to save time, riveting every other ring instead of every ring?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | Interesting picture! The third from the left soldier has splinted legs? Were they around that early? |
I interpret them as part of the gamboissed cuisses, like these long examples in the slightly-earlier Elisabethpsalter.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Schontzler wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | S. Sebok wrote: | | My personal theory is all riveted maille is "secondary" protection and with the solid links it's primary. It just makes more sense to have the solid links to be stronger and more of a primary protection. |
That is a false bias caused by the inferior riveting of most of the mail on the market today. A properly-riveted link will rarely fail at the riveted join - it fails elsewhere along the wire. This means that there is no difference in the protective capacity of a riveted link and a solid link. |
Is it safe to assume that solid/riveted links is just to save time, riveting every other ring instead of every ring? |
Umm, I wouldn't agrue for the quality of rivetted maille but the arrow test disproves disproves the assumption that the rivet point on quality mail is stronger than the the rest of the link http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Schontzler wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | S. Sebok wrote: | | My personal theory is all riveted maille is "secondary" protection and with the solid links it's primary. It just makes more sense to have the solid links to be stronger and more of a primary protection. |
That is a false bias caused by the inferior riveting of most of the mail on the market today. A properly-riveted link will rarely fail at the riveted join - it fails elsewhere along the wire. This means that there is no difference in the protective capacity of a riveted link and a solid link. |
Is it safe to assume that solid/riveted links is just to save time, riveting every other ring instead of every ring? |
I don't know if we can safely make that assertion. There seems to have been a shift favoring all-riveted construction around the mid-14th century in Europe. It would seem that labor costs underwent an inflationary period after the Black Death, so why use a method which takes longer if labor is the deciding factor? Erik Schmid has noted that solid rings saved some time, but nothing like 50%. Then again, he punches his own rings from what I understand, which might not have been the division of labor in the Middle Ages.
The price of mail started dropping earlier however, in the late 13th century, and continued to decline relatively through the 14th century. Perhaps greater levels of specialization lowered costs. There may have been a greater economic component in material costs than labor. It could be that material costs of wire were greater than punched rings until water-powered mills began drawing wire, but so far all we seem to have is evidence that demi-riveted construction fell out of favor in Europe during the Renaissance, but continued in the Middle East and India.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Julio's mail was pretty good. Those links usually seem to have failed beside the rivet where the metal was stressed during flattening, not the rivet itself. That flattening process may introduce a weak point on either side of the flattened section which may not be evident on a link that was flattened all the way around.
The only way we can get a decent set of mail tests is to take a selection of museum examples and reproduce each one as accurately as possible. Just testing one piece from one time period and then analysing the results out of context, doesn't tell us much.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 18 Nov, 2013 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Julio's mail was pretty good. Those links usually seem to have failed beside the rivet where the metal was stressed during flattening, not the rivet itself. That flattening process may introduce a weak point on either side of the flattened section which may not be evident on a link that was flattened all the way around.
The only way we can get a decent set of mail tests is to take a selection of museum examples and reproduce each one as accurately as possible. Just testing one piece from one time period and then analysing the results out of context, doesn't tell us much. |
Yes, if that's analysis standard then I or yourself can't make any certain statement about the strength of riveted versus solid or rare cases (not near as rare today ) welded links. Also, could you post pic with any arrow to what you are talking about?
I'm just going by what the guy says in his commentary because my eyes aren't that well calibrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic