| 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) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Sam T.
|
 Posted: Wed 10 Jan, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: Weapon Technology Questions |
 |
|
I want to make a thread for my questions on medieval weapons so that I don't have to start a lot of them.
What do you think the difference between Mail, Scale and Lamellae is? When one is designed for what?
My impression is that mail provides the least protection at any point but has greater coverage and flexibility.
Lamellae is the hardest to penetrate but offers the least coverage.
Scale is somewhere in the middle.
Is that right?
Most of the scientific testing I have seen are on plate and I haven't seen any scientific analysis on lamellae and scale yet.
Thanks.
|
|
  |
 |
Richard Fay
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Jan, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The shortest answer to your question is this thread on the exact same question.
Mail was used before, during and after every form of plate and with every form of plate at some time or another. And yet was the most time consuming to make. Clearly, mail was considered a good form of armour. Almost all forms of mail cover more than most forms of plate/scale/lamellar/segmented amour. Mail is vastly more effective when worn with proper padding underneath, as was done by both the Romans and Medieval Europeans, so much more effective that many assume it was done even in those periods where we cannot determine if padding was worn with mail.
Plate is good, but not because mail wasn't.
To more generally address your topic. Instead of starting a bunch of threads start with the search function. Everytime you want to start a thread, search for info on it first. It is what I do, and it's faster and gives more comprehensive answers many times (like answering questions you hadn't thought of). The wealth of information on this site (and others) is enormous and should be well used.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
 |
|
|
Sam T.
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Jan, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: |
To more generally address your topic. Instead of starting a bunch of threads start with the search function. Everytime you want to start a thread, search for info on it first. It is what I do, and it's faster and gives more comprehensive answers many times (like answering questions you hadn't thought of). The wealth of information on this site (and others) is enormous and should be well used. |
That's why I started this inductive thread.
The discussions seem inconclusive, not all of the answers are consistent.
So basically I'm under the impression that mail is the easiest to penetrate because the rings have holes in them. Lamellae and scale all have minimized the spaces between the pieces of metal. And Lamellae seems to be made with metals with higher masses than the rings of the mail. But when I looked at the pictures stuff like lamellae have serious problems with coverage area. And it was very heavy, a suit with small coverage is at least 10 pounds heavier than a full mail haulberk.
And another problem is, for armor made in tiny pieces, is it better to have a lot of smaller pieces (more labour intensive to make) or a suit with fewer, larger plates? In terms of protection for the covered parts, the ability to resist cuts and piercing.
Last edited by Sam T. on Sat 13 Jan, 2007 8:15 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Jan, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mail is nearly cut proof. While polearms, and occasionally smaller weapon can cut mail, it's protection is impressive. During the Crusades the Arabs recorded that the mail worn by the Crusaders was arrow proof. Knights would have many arrows sticking out of them and be entirely unfazed.
Mail clearly has it's limitations but, especially when combined with padding, it is quite effective. It should not be underestimated.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Hitchens
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Jan, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Sam,
You could also try going over some of the articles right here on myArmoury. Click on 'Features' and look for the first few articles under 'Historical Background & Research.' There have been entire essays written exclusively about the development of the different kinds of armor. -Ted
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris M.
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Jan, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: where were you |
|
|
during the crusades europeans did go to the mid east in chain when they didnt know anybetter and were quit effective.
normally armor is chosen with climate. my scale mail over cloth is much cooler than chain over padding. most southern armies choose scale and speed while most northern armies choose heavy protection.
chain also was good more because it could be worn under any plate to fill in the gaps morso instead of by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Jan, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam T. wrote: |
That's why I started this inductive thread. All of my questions go in here.
The discussions seem inconclusive, not all of the answers are consistent.
|
Sam,
There is no need to open new threads to re-hash old topics. If things have been discussed before, please reopen those discussions. If the discussions were inconclusive, that's a great reason to re-open them. If answers are inconsistent, why not ask the posters in the original threads for clarification? In addition, people who took the time to post in the old threads may not feel like re-typing their old answers.
Statements like "All of my questions go in here" come across as bossy. You also stated you didn't want to have to start a lot of threads to have your questions answered. I humbly submit that if you want answers to your questions, you may have to expend some effort to get them. Don't be a lazy poster. 
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Jan, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: Re: where were you |
|
|
| Chris M. wrote: | | during the crusades europeans did go to the mid east in chain when they didnt know anybetter and were quit effective. |
"Didn't know any better?" What sort of armour do you think was the most commonly used type of metal armour in the middle east at the time? There was very little difference between the arms and armour used by both sides.
| Quote: | | normally armor is chosen with climate. my scale mail over cloth is much cooler than chain over padding. most southern armies choose scale and speed while most northern armies choose heavy protection. |
So why was mail the dominant type of metal armour in the middle east at the time?
Please don't refer to this armour as "chain". It is a Victorian misnomer. So is "scale mail".
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: Re: where were you |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Didn't know any better?" What sort of armour do you think was the most commonly used type of metal armour in the middle east at the time? There was very little difference between the arms and armour used by both sides.
So why was mail the dominant type of metal armour in the middle east at the time? |
Let me echo what Dan said (in perhaps a bit less blunt a manner  - I know the passions this stuff can fire up), and also add that the mail in the Middle East might be worn beneath a robe or other clothing. The "Saracens" might have sometimes appeared unarmoured when they really weren't. Also, there were some types of mail armours called kazaghsand, padded and cloth-covered mail armour. The wearers would have appeared to the untrained observer to be clad in padded garments at best, when in reality they wore covered mail.
Additionally, it's usually thought that the Crusaders that marched along with so many arrows stuck in their hauberks that they looked like porcupines were subjected to long-range harrassment archery, not direct attack by horse-archers. King Richard took the threat from Muslim horse archers seriously during his march down the coast during the Third Crusade. And, surely there would have been no additions made to Crusader armour if Muslim archery had no effect. Padded garments both beneath and above (like on some of the warriors depicted in the Maciejowski Bible) and eventually plated garments (reinforced surcoats and early coats-of-plates) were added as reinforcements to the hauberk. Archery may have played a role in this development, among other factors (it's a debatable point - but the point is that mail was gradually reinforced).
Mail must have worked for the warrior for quite a while - it was in use as the main defense for about 1000 years or more - but it also didn't work alone. Let's not forget that the shield was the soldier's first defense. And the addition of a padded garment beneath the mail, perhaps influenced by the Muslim practice, helped make mail even more effective. The early development of the aketon and gambeson are murky, but they were certainly in general use by the 13th century at the latest.
Another point, mail remained the most prevelant defense, sometimes with reinforcing plates worked into the mail garment itself, in India, Persia, and surrounding areas up until fairly recent times. If mail was a poor armour to wear in warm climates, why was it so popular in these areas? It's thought that it was actually better in these warmer climates than a stuffy plate harness. Medieval knights in full plate could run the risk of heat exhaustion, and even death by heat stroke, when they wore their harness during warmer weather.
Again, a lot of this has been discussed before. You really should search the forums, look at the articles, and see what you can find to answer your questions.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris M.
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Jan, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: lets all calm down |
|
|
i guess i should have been clearer. yes i know that chain mail was effective and worn on both sides. didnt know what they were doing refers to the thousands of northerners that died enroute and at the seige from heat exaustion alone during the first crusades. by the time richard the lionhearts crusade came about they had a better handle on the situation.
my point about scale was that mongolians and chinese horse archers used it more because they relied on speed more than sheer might.
according to what ive read (i wasnt there so im just talking out my arse) during the crusades chain mail was the most prevelent armor to be worn by both sides. what wasnt was the thick padding during the summer months. it is suggested that the padding was thinned down or not worn in high heat.
[/u][/b]
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nomadic cultures didn't use mail or plate armour because they didn't have the infratructure to make it. Scale and lamellar is far easier to produce with less overheads. It has nothing to do with scale/lamellar being lighter. Often these types of armour were heavier than mail and plate.
We have very little idea of what was actually worn under mail in the west - especially during the time of the Crusades. Anyone who claims that they know how thick it was is speculating.
Please please stop calling it "chain mail".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam T.
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
Statements like "All of my questions go in here" come across as bossy. |
I took it out.
| Quote: | | Additionally, it's usually thought that the Crusaders that marched along with so many arrows stuck in their hauberks that they looked like porcupines were subjected to long-range harrassment archery, not direct attack by horse-archers. King Richard took the threat from Muslim horse archers seriously during his march down the coast during the Third Crusade. |
I don't think that the Middle Eastern horse archers could shoot through the Crusader mail. The horse bows were significantly weaker compared to the footbows that even the foot bows can barely penetrate mail with padding underneath. Alan Williams said that you need at least 120J to have an arrow penetrate mail with underpadding.
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz/turkish_bow_tests.htm
According to this a 136lb turkish footbow can only put out just over 150J with the heaviest arrow. But archers don't shoot at point blank range. So it's hard to see how a horsebow could have penetrated the Europeans' armor in a realistic scenario
| Quote: | Mail is nearly cut proof. While polearms, and occasionally smaller weapon can cut mail, it's protection is impressive. During the Crusades the Arabs recorded that the mail worn by the Crusaders was arrow proof. Knights would have many arrows sticking out of them and be entirely unfazed.
|
I think that the Asian lamellae armour would have offered even better resistance than mail. The lamellae used in Asia didn't have as many gaps as did the rings of the mail had. And they were concentrated onto important areas of the body. So that means that they had more mass in the areas that they covered. It's when the coverage area and flexibility has been taken into play that mail comes out to be the better armour. When Richard had a multitude of arrows hitting him, if he was wearing lamellae the arrows won't just convienently all hit where the armor covered. He would have gotten arrows in his arms, lower legs and most importantly his face.
| Quote: | | Nomadic cultures didn't use mail or plate armour because they didn't have the infratructure to make it. Scale and lamellar is far easier to produce with less overheads. It has nothing to do with scale/lamellar being lighter. Often these types of armour were heavier than mail and plate. |
A suit of Chinese infantry lamellae at the time of the Crusades in the West was around 82lb. A full hauberk with helm was like what? 70lb as I remember.
Does anyone have any information on the quality of steel around the world at various times? Like where did Europe rank in the world?
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Nomadic cultures didn't use mail or plate armour because they didn't have the infratructure to make it. Scale and lamellar is far easier to produce with less overheads. It has nothing to do with scale/lamellar being lighter. Often these types of armour were heavier than mail and plate.
We have very little idea of what was actually worn under mail in the west - especially during the time of the Crusades. Anyone who claims that they know how thick it was is speculating. |
Again, Dan has a valid point about infrastructure and armour production. You need an established centre to make mail; it's not something that can be made easily on the move from encampment to encampment. It's very labour and time intensive.
There are hints of padded garments worn under mail around the time of the Crusades (for instance: the hem of the under tunic on one figure in the Beatus Commentaries on the Apocalypse written for the Monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos, 1091-1109, may be that of a padded aketon; and the garment beneath a hauberk cut-away at the sides on the figure of Goliath from The Great Canterbury Psalter, 1180-90, may also be a padded garment) but any guess on padding thickness or other details are pure speculation.
Hey Dan, I agree that iron scale or lamellar armour would often be heavier than mail (and perhaps not over as much coverage - you can't effectively cover the armpits or joints with scale or lamellar), but what about scale or lamellar made of leather or rawhide? Leather or rawhide might not have been effective as metal, but they were used for lamellar and scale. Would leather lamellar or scale be lighter than mail? I made a hardened-leather scale cuirass (wax-hardened - it was before I knew better), and it's a dream to wear. I know it wouldn't offer as much protection as a mail hauberk or an iron scale or lamellar cuirass, but it might be a "lighter" option (like for fighting in the Welsh Marches, for instance).
Psst....Dan....at least he's not calling it "ring mail"!  (I've actually seen mail called "ring mail" in some books! Now that annoys me; it gives conscientious authors a bad name!)
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam T. wrote: |
I don't think that the Middle Eastern horse archers could shoot through the Crusader mail.
A suit of Chinese infantry lamellae at the time of the Crusades in the West was around 82lb. A full hauberk with helm was like what? 70lb as I remember. |
There has been a thread about armour weights, with actual weights. There are no lamellar armours on the list; perhaps we should rectify that.
Check out this thread:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ght=weight
And here's just one example from that list:
From Osprey Publishing's Warrior 1: Norman Knight 950-1204 AD by Christopher Gravett: later medieval mail shirts weighed approximately 30 lbs.
I think a helm would add 5 or 10 pounds at most. Mail chausses and coif a bit more.
As for the comments about the effectiveness of arrows; I was repeating what I read. This has actually been a heated debate. Again, much of this has already been discussed. Do a search and see what you can find about bows versus armour. My own personal view is that mail is a good general defense, but not proof against every weapon in every situation. If it were, it would have never been added to.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam T.
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | How large is a halberk? I was talking about a full suit with leggings. Covers from the neck to the dips of the fingers to the feet. Plus the helm. How heavy would that be?
Anyways it seems that I over estimated the weight of mail. Then I guess a haulberk is about 50lb with helm? That's even more superior to scale or lamellae.
I have searched the forum. They don't offer satisfactory information. I'm looking for technical data. Or can you show me a thread that talks about that in depth? |
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam T. wrote: | How large is a halberk? I was talking about a full suit with leggings. Covers from the neck to the dips of the fingers to the feet. Plus the helm. How heavy would that be?
Anyways it seems that I over estimated the weight of mail. Then I guess a haulberk is about 50lb with helm? That's even more superior to scale or lamellae.
I have searched the forum. They don't offer satisfactory information. I'm looking for technical data. Or can you show me a thread that talks about that in depth? |
Sam,
To compare the weight of mail to that of lamellar and scale, you have to compare like garments. A full mail "harness", consisting of a full-sleeved hauberk, chausses and coif, may weigh more than a scale or lamellar cuirass, but a full protection of mail protects far more of the body than a scale or lamellar cuirass.
Would you include some sort of limb protection with the lamellar in order to compare it to mail? If so, the lamellar would more than likely be heavier. Remember, too, the lacing of the lamellar would add a little extra weight, weight that the mail doesn't have. Scales must be attached to a backing of either heavy cloth or leather. Again, mail has no need for a backing. Padded garments would probably be worn with all types of body armour.
I'm trying to understand the technical data you are seeking. Can you elaborate on just what information you're looking for? Some of that information might not really be available; some of the details of armour are still debated.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "gaps" in mail; well-made mail shouldn't have gaps. Yes, there is space inside the links, but it's small. It's an armour "full of holes", but not "full of gaps". Mail actually provides a fairly good overall protection because of it's flexibility; it can be worn over the joints. It's really a metal fabric. Some mail was made very fine, and there is little space in the links.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam T.
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: |
Sam,
To compare the weight of mail to that of lamellar and scale, you have to compare like garments. A full mail "harness", consisting of a full-sleeved hauberk, chausses and coif, may weigh more than a scale or lamellar cuirass, but a full protection of mail protects far more of the body than a scale or lamellar cuirass.
Would you include some sort of limb protection with the lamellar in order to compare it to mail? If so, the lamellar would more than likely be heavier. Remember, too, the lacing of the lamellar would add a little extra weight, weight that the mail doesn't have. Scales must be attached to a backing of either heavy cloth or leather. Again, mail has no need for a backing. Padded garments would probably be worn with all types of body armour.
I'm trying to understand the technical data you are seeking. Can you elaborate on just what information you're looking for? Some of that information might not really be available; some of the details of armour are still debated.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "gaps" in mail; well-made mail shouldn't have gaps. Yes, there is space inside the links, but it's small. It's an armour "full of holes", but not "full of gaps". Mail actually provides a fairly good overall protection because of it's flexibility; it can be worn over the joints. It's really a metal fabric. Some mail was made very fine, and there is little space in the links.
Stay safe! |
According to the Chinese records, the lamellae didn't include limb protections. It's just cuirass, shoulder pads, helmet. That is already over 80lbs. So with the limb protections (like the wrist straps I see) would that be 90 pounds? Even then I would say up to 30% of the body is still exposed (according to the pictures).
By gaps I meant holes. So my impression is that armor made with tiny links shouldn't be as tough as with lamellae. A mail shirt is 30 pounds, a Chinese lamellae Cuirass is around 50lb. It's not as "solid". Since they both cover a similar area the one that uses more metal should be tougher.
But when you factor in the weight and flexibility that's a different story.
The technical data that I'm looking for is the physics of medieval weapons and armour. Like the stuff that Alan Williams or Bob Kooi gave.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Jan, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think that the Middle Eastern horse archers could shoot through the Crusader mail. |
I can't agree with this. Western accounts give examples of men dying because of arrows piercing their mail. Not many accounts, but it happened.
| Quote: | | The horse bows were significantly weaker compared to the footbows that even the foot bows can barely penetrate mail with padding underneath. |
An eleventh-century Muslim source from Spain said the elite archers (foot, I think) could pierce mail.
| Quote: | | According to this a 136lb turkish footbow can only put out just over 150J with the heaviest arrow. |
And some men could handle such a bow on horseback, which you can see has more than enough power to penetrate mail and padding.
| Quote: | | But archers don't shoot at point blank range. |
Horse archers often shoot at very close range, and arrow energy doesn't decrease that rapidly. A horse archer with a 120lb bow and a heavy arrow would be able to at least wound a mailed foe.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Jan, 2007 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam T. wrote: |
By gaps I meant holes. So my impression is that armor made with tiny links shouldn't be as tough as with lamellae. A mail shirt is 30 pounds, a Chinese lamellae Cuirass is around 50lb. It's not as "solid". Since they both cover a similar area the one that uses more metal should be tougher.
The technical data that I'm looking for is the physics of medieval weapons and armour. Like the stuff that Alan Williams or Bob Kooi gave. |
Sam,
I don't quite understand why you feel that lamellar is more "solid" than mail. The weave of mail keeps out most weapons quite efficiently. Arrows can pierce it, but it's not an easy proposition. Pretty much all historic mail from Europe was rivetted; the rings didn't easily pop open. True, mail was susceptible to bludgeoning weapons. It's so flexible that the blow is pretty well transmitted directly to the wearer. Lamellar and scale might be a little "stiffer" than mail; they might protect a little better against crushing blows than mail. Still, this depends on the size of the scales; scale armour made with very small scales is almost as flexible as mail.
Lamellar also has "holes"; the laces must go through the small plates. Yes, the holes are filled with the laces (rawhide or silk), but these are places with no metal. And, even though the plates may be overlapped, a weapon might always find a way between the plates on lamellar or scale. It might not happen often, but it might happen. Scale especially may be vulnerable to an upward thrust, depending upon the details of its construction. In this respect, mail is more "solid"; it's a continuous cover, not one made of individual plates laced together.
Below I've posted a couple pictures so you can compare mail and lamellar. One is a 15th century mail shirt, the other is Tibetan lamellar. Both are from the Metropolitan Museum of art. Here's the information regarding the pieces:
| Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote: |
Mail shirt, 15th century
Southern German (?)
Steel, brass; L. overall 36 in. (99.5 cm), W. approx. 33 in. (83.9 cm)
Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913 (14.25.1540)
Lamellar Armor and Helmet, possibly 16th17th century
Tibetan
Iron and leather; H. approx. 59 in. (149.9 cm)
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Bequest of George C. Stone, 1935 (36.25.53a, b) |
 Attachment: 53.41 KB
Copyright © 20002006 The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Attachment: 41.09 KB
Copyright © 20002006 The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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