Help selecting a maille hauberk. -- myArmoury.com

Jeremy V. Krause · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 7:45 am Post subject:

My advice is, as usual, to go for fabric armour given that modern mallile is simply far too inaccurate even if on the expensive side.

Jojo Zerach · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 10:13 am Post subject:

Randall Moffett · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 11:20 am Post subject:

Jojo,

I agree, makes no sense to me as I am sure most people make textile incorrect in some way, shape or form as well.

Since we are not living in the medieval period there has to be some allowances made.

RPM

Jeremy V. Krause · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject:

Randall Moffett · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject:

I still strongly disagree with that assumption Jeremy. Riveted mail of modern make is fine for LH and recreation and to me would be more egregious to no represent it at all than exclude slightly off mail as it was one of the more common armours of the period. Truth is my guess is unless one has handled a large amount of medieval riveted mail most people only have a very limited understanding of what original mail should look like. Even handling a dozen pieces will not give a good idea as mail has lots and lots of variation in it, even in one piece at times. I have handled many mail bits over the years, likely well into the hundreds and have seen links, rivets, and other aspects that are near identical to some modern riveted mail. Some even have interesting imperfections in them such as torn our rivet heads. I have seen people disqualify mail stating it is historically wrong to dredge up some Hi Res photos of contemporary mail that is very similar.

But the main point is this. Dropping mail outside of LH would be far worse than some one wearing a riveted shirt that has a more flattened ring or slightly larger dome head than the average period mail to me. It was one of the most common armours in use for thousands of years. Of course there are little issues and things are imperfect but if we adopt this stance for living history none but those who gather their own wool, flax, iron ore, etc. could do historic portrayals.

Now every one will have to decide how close to the original they can do for what ever limitations they have but if we set the standard too high we all better toss all our gear in the bin and hope we can figure out time travel or get good at iron ore gathering and processing, and a thousand other skills few now practice if any.

My only reservation for riveted mail is testing on riveted mail. And I even have issues with high quality riveted mail as material make is very different between medieval iron/steel and modern ones.

I am happy to see riveted mail is getting better all the time and that butted mail is not as common in LH events as it was ten years ago. Not that I had a disdain for butted mail but I see most riveted mail as looking heads and shoulders above it.

Now that said I think the light to no armoured gents in medieval warfare are under portrayed as well but especially if fighting in some form of sport, etc. might be less desirable unless one likes bruises and or pain.

RPM

Roderick Stacey · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject:

Jojo Zerach · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject:

So you're basically saying any living history person who's impression calls for mail can not do a historically accurate impression?
I think disqualifying reproduction mail on such small details is similar to saying reproduction plate armour isn't worth wearing, because it's thickness is to consistent throughout.
A Randall mentioned, many types of kits require mail to look accurate, and foregoing the mail only harms the look and accuracy of the kit.
I've seen plenty of good kits that used butted mail, and they were much more historical looking than if the owner had skipped the mail because it was not historically accurate in its construction.

Jeremy V. Krause · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject:

Dan Howard · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 4:16 am Post subject:

It all comes back to what you want to use it for. Movies, theatre, ren-faire, LARP, educational presentations, wooden stick fighting, live metal fighting, historical research, weapons testing, etc. I had no problem with the PVC mail made for the Lord of the Rings movie. It looked great and didn't burden the actors. They had metal mail for the close-ups. Even that wasn't historically accurate, but it was perfectly fine for that context. I'd have a problem if someone brought the costumes to a school and tried to tell the kids that it was worn historically, or if they shot it with arrows and tried to claim that historical mail would have performed the same way.

Jeremy V. Krause · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 6:37 am Post subject:

Jojo Zerach · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 10:01 am Post subject:

Not using mail would prevent one from recreating almost any kit from the 11th-14th centuries, other than peasant conscripts.
I'm sure there are different levels of living history, but most of the LH armour I've seen has a lot of the same anachronisms common in SCA armour. Like independent 14th century spaulders that come halfway down the arm, lack of cohesion between pieces, and just way to much "Churburg armour" all around.
To me, it seems like there are many, much more obvious and easily correctable things that can be improved before criticizing small details in mail rings.

Dan Howard · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject:

Matthew P. Adams · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject:

If its not to far off topic, what mail would you recommend as the most protective and durable? This would be for rebated steel sparring. It seems like that welded stainless ring mesh stuff would be, but it looks terrible, and I wonder if the lack of weight prevent it from stopping a blade?

I would be thrilled just to find some mail that has thick enough rings and a small enough diameter that you can't see through it. It kills me to be able to look through mail.

Corey Skriletz · Posted: Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:39 pm Post subject:

Sander Marechal · Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:13 am Post subject:

Randall Moffett · Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject:

I do not know if we should use seeing through mail as an issue. I can think of a dozen mail hauberks off my head that you can see through. Mail ranged in diameter and ring thickness which is what largely affects the density and if one can see through it.

You cannot see it so well, but enough for what I am saying, in this picture.

http://www.arador.com/gallery/maille.jpg

You can see the head through it and the red body inside, under the hauberk itself.

If you buy any where, but especially ebay, you need to know what you are looking for.

If you want something you can get over time you will likely need to be more selective as some of these ebay places might be less helpful and harder to match.

Chausses are hard to find, places that sell them tend to be a bit mroe expensive, my guess as they are not in as high demand.

RPM

Bartek Strojek · Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 1:45 pm Post subject:

Randall Moffett · Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject:

Bartek,

Are you then assuming that mail was made differently when worn with coat of plates in the 14th century? I have never seen any evidence to support this but would be interested if you know of some.

RPM

Bartek Strojek · Posted: Thu 14 Jun, 2012 2:08 am Post subject:

I'm afraid that right now it would be only (un)educated guess...

With all mail variety as far as dimensions of the rings go, it would make perfect sense for supplement mail to be not as bulky, after all everyone liked his spine cause he only had one.

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMus...detailView

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMus...detailView

Randall Moffett · Posted: Thu 14 Jun, 2012 6:10 am Post subject:

It might make sense but as far as I know we have no evidence for specialty mail except for hidden mail for day to day protection. I honestly do not know. From what I have seen there is no evidence.

That said there is the double mail question which may be less about lighter rings but more such as the British Museum neck/collar part which is 6 in 1. This might be an example of mail made for a specific function.

It seems the only shift to get rid of weight I know of that can be proven is the move to mail skirts and voiders from a mail hauberk.

Aside from these examples I do not know of any evidence for what you are saying. It looks like mail shirts were more or less the same excluding the possible exceptions I mention above.

There might be people wearing mail in layers but seems to be a middle east thing, though I'd like to be able to read the original to make sure it is not speaking of 6 in 1 but as it stands looks like they practices layering there, at least on the torso.

RPM