| Author |
Message |
|
Jeton Osmani
|
 Posted: Tue 26 Jun, 2018 4:48 am Post subject: long sleeve maille vs short sleeve maille |
 |
|
Hello to all of you's.
just asking a few trivial questions about Maille.
1. what is the difference between short sleeved and long sleeved maille shirts/haubarks for e.g(effectiveness)?
2. why did some cultures (Western Europe) prefer long sleeved maille shirts while other cultures(middle east, rus, central asia, byzantines)prefer shorter sleeves?
3. what is the cost difference between the two?
Sorry for such trivial questions.
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jun, 2018 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm very much speculating here that when shields were the main defense lets say in the Viking era short sleeves would still give adequate protection.
Also less heat, less weight, less costs, but also maybe a case of fashion and armour tending to cover more and more of the body in the Knightly era.
Less weight on the forearms can be an issue as one gets tired and agility being more prized than complete armour coverage ?
Other protection for the forearms like bracers or splinted armour making long maille sleeves less essential. ( Note speculative ).
Legs where also not generally protected by maille in the Viking era, but in the earlier Vendel period I think that splinted armour protection for forearms and lower legs where used by the best equipped and richer warriors ?
http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2011/12/splinted-armour.html
I'm mostly posting to encourage more discussion and not saying that the above is proof of anything.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Moore
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jun, 2018 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're pretty much right, Jean. My haubergeon is sized so that it has 3/4 sleeves and hangs at mid-thigh. With bracers and greaves, I feel well protected but not over-weighted. The good protection of Roman-era shields made up for their shorter sleeves. ..........McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jun, 2018 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try making full-length mail sleeves that fit properly and don't restrict movement. It is more difficult than many think. The contractions have to be done in precisely the right places and the elbow needs some extra room to allow full motion but not too much to place drag on the arm. Shorter sleeves will fit a range of body sizes but wrist-length sleeves need to be custom-tailored to the wearer.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
Last edited by Dan Howard on Thu 28 Jun, 2018 3:07 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeton Osmani
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jun, 2018 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't it be cheaper for for e.g a 11th/13th century knight to wear shorter sleeves and vambraces instead of going through the trouble and cost of having tailor made long sleeved coats of maille,
What advantage does tailor made long sleeved coats of mail have compared to shorter sleeved coats of maille with possibly vambraces. Or is there really no difference in combat effectiveness at all.
again sorry for such trivial questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2018 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rigid forearm armour is very hard to keep in place when the arm is swinging around in battle. Historically it was very rare. The best way to keep it in place is to attach it to armour that covers the rest of the arm.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jun, 2018 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeton Osmani wrote: | Wouldn't it be cheaper for for e.g a 11th/13th century knight to wear shorter sleeves and vambraces instead of going through the trouble and cost of having tailor made long sleeved coats of maille,
What advantage does tailor made long sleeved coats of mail have compared to shorter sleeved coats of maille with possibly vambraces. Or is there really no difference in combat effectiveness at all.
again sorry for such trivial questions. |
Why would a knight be concerned about something being cheaper? How many modern billionaires look for a cheap Maserati? By the time you've paid for a shirt of mail, a little tailoring is a drop in the bucket anyway.
The effectiveness of any armor will vary dramatically depending on subtle variations in thickness, alloys, etc. It's impossible to say that any one type of armor was better than another just in general terms. There were also a lot of other factors besides just stopping a weapon--flexibility, weight, ventillation, fashion, etc.
It's interesting to note that in the high middle ages when pieces of plate start being added over mail, the arms are always a step behind the legs. First knee cops, then elbows, then schynbalds/greaves, THEN vambraces. So the forearms were just not their main priority. This may not make sense to us, for whatever modern preconceived idea, but it made sense to them.
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Jul, 2018 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Matthew Amt"] | Jeton Osmani wrote: |
It's interesting to note that in the high middle ages when pieces of plate start being added over mail, the arms are always a step behind the legs. First knee cops, then elbows, then schynbalds/greaves, THEN vambraces. So the forearms were just not their main priority. This may not make sense to us, for whatever modern preconceived idea, but it made sense to them.
Matthew |
In a lot of stances a leg is forwards with your weight on it, but the arms are party covered by your weapon and don't bare your weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Jul, 2018 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Graham Shearlaw wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: |
It's interesting to note that in the high middle ages when pieces of plate start being added over mail, the arms are always a step behind the legs. First knee cops, then elbows, then schynbalds/greaves, THEN vambraces. So the forearms were just not their main priority. This may not make sense to us, for whatever modern preconceived idea, but it made sense to them.
Matthew |
In a lot of stances a leg is forwards with your weight on it, but the arms are party covered by your weapon and don't bare your weight. |
Well, remember that armor was for the *mounted* elite--legs are more vulnerable on horseback.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2018 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I was thinking more of Roman centurions and Hoplites, iconic elite infantry but with shin armour and little to no arm armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Thu 12 Jul, 2018 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: long sleeve maille vs short sleeve maille |
|
|
| Jeton Osmani wrote: | | 1. what is the difference between short sleeved and long sleeved maille shirts/haubarks for e.g(effectiveness)? |
Obviously the difference is in the protection afforded to the forearm. The additional weight on the forearm may also factor in, as it may slow the ability to through repeated strikes, while adding weight to the blow.
| Quote: | | 2. why did some cultures (Western Europe) prefer long sleeved maille shirts while other cultures(middle east, rus, central asia, byzantines)prefer shorter sleeves? |
I suspect the answer is because archery was still a primary function of more Eastern armored elites. The effect of mail on the forearms in regards to a bowstring might have been considered detrimental. Climate might also have been a factor.
| Quote: | | 3. what is the cost difference between the two? |
Cost is a function of additional labor and materials. Certainly, long sleeves can cost more because they cover more area and take longer to assemble. But a short sleeve haubergeon made of higher quality steel rings with smaller diameter might still cost more than a larger hauberk made of iron with large rings due to the additional cost of materials and labor.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic