Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests (very photo intensive) Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next 
Author Message
Joe Fults




Location: Midwest
Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,646

PostPosted: Fri 14 Sep, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for trying and sharing...to all involved.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 15 Sep, 2007 3:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Could someone please provide even a single piece of documentation proving that the bodkin typology was what the accounts meant when they referred to armour piercing arrowheads? I could build a convincing argument that the compact broadhead (type 16) was in intended for armour piercing and the bodkin was intended for flight arrows.
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sat 15 Sep, 2007 7:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Very interesting tests, Michael! I was surprised that the thrusting weapons had such an easy time with the mail, and being a big fan of mail it also makes me feel a bit sad.

I was also wondering how the poleaxe did against the jacks? That kind of edgeless point, it would seem from the arrow shots, doesn't do so well against textiles.

Now on to stage 2: Testing two layers of mail. Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Sat 15 Sep, 2007 9:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
Very interesting tests, Michael! I was surprised that the thrusting weapons had such an easy time with the mail, and being a big fan of mail it also makes me feel a bit sad.

I was also wondering how the poleaxe did against the jacks? That kind of edgeless point, it would seem from the arrow shots, doesn't do so well against textiles.

Now on to stage 2: Testing two layers of mail. Big Grin


Hi Alexander,

The thrusting sword did not have an easy time with the maille at all. Most of my thrusts didn't break a single link and would have done little more than harrass the guy underneath. The one that did break the link would not have been fatal....not enough steel got in. And all of them required great effort. I think this maille is too good for the period of the acutely pointed thrusting longsword. Most later period maille was lighter than this.

Don't be sad...I trust my life to this maille.

I did not bother with the poleaxe against the jack, it would not have penetrated. Maybe the 10 layer, but not the others. But then it doesn't have to, not to pulverize the man underneath.

To be thorough, however, I'll test the poleaxe against the jack once I've sharpened the Tritonia and give that sword a go as well on what's left.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sat 15 Sep, 2007 10:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
The thrusting sword did not have an easy time with the maille at all. Most of my thrusts didn't break a single link and would have done little more than harrass the guy underneath. The one that did break the link would not have been fatal....not enough steel got in. And all of them required great effort. I think this maille is too good for the period of the acutely pointed thrusting longsword. Most later period maille was lighter than this.


Ah, Michael, now there you may well be wrong--in fact, I'm reasonably certain you are. You don't necessarily need to break links to make a deadly sword thrust into mail when you use a halfsword thrust with a very pointy sword, such as a type XVa. The point of the sword will penetrate the links of mail by some amount--an inch, perhaps. The mail, however, isn't a rigid defence: The surface of the mail gives with the thrust so that the point of the sword can penetrate the wearer's body quite a bit without breaking a single link. This is the reason for the Fourth Halfsword Guard (not really a guard, more of a way of driving your point home with the strength of your body) as taught by Ringeck, von Danzig and others.

The mail you tested with is very heavy and dense--as I said previously, it seems more like what would be used in a hauberk. But in later periods, when halfswording was widely taught, mail was lighter and thinner and, I believe, more susceptible to this kind of attack. In fact, in Haubergeons there were often varying thicknesses of mail (we see a presage of this in St. Louis' extra thick mail in the chest of his Hauberk), with the lighter mail being used in the joints--e.g., the armpit, which is one of the prime halfsword targets.

We have done rough tests of this process in my Schule; not as careful as yours, and we didn't get a real sense of the whole penetration process because we didn't use mail over a doublet (unpadded, please!) on a compressible target (such as a body), which is why I've encouraged you to look at this in your next test. But while our test wasn't conclusive at all, it was certainly eye-opening by showing you can get a lot more penetration than any of us thought.

Don't take this as a condemnation of your test--far from it! But we always have to remember that the nature of combat and the equipment used in combat changed significantly over the course of the middle ages, and we have to allow for that when we try to understand the specifics of the combat we study in any given period and location.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Sun 16 Sep, 2007 7:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Hugh,

Regarding later period maille...I know it was not as dense or as thick as Julio's hauberk sample, but do you know how much less so it actually was? ID, gauge, etc? With a 9.5 or 9mm hauberk, the Talhoffer's point goes quiete a ways in without breaking a link, but I've always thought 9mm was a bit too big for a historically correct link, even for the 15th century.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Sun 16 Sep, 2007 7:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On the other hand some of the mail in the Renaissance was tempered, I've handled some in Prague once which seemed extremely strong. I was also at a HEMA event in 2004 where someone brought a sample of some tempered mail made to match some from the 16th century and it was nearly indestructible, they tried any number of weapons against it including roundel daggers and axes and nothing cut it, after dozens of attempts we only found some very small scratches on some of the links.

later period mail was also often made of smaller links... I wonder if that would have any difference in terms of points getting through or snapping links...

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sun 16 Sep, 2007 5:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Regarding later period maille...I know it was not as dense or as thick as Julio's hauberk sample, but do you know how much less so it actually was? ID, gauge, etc? With a 9.5 or 9mm hauberk, the Talhoffer's point goes quiete a ways in without breaking a link, but I've always thought 9mm was a bit too big for a historically correct link, even for the 15th century.


Hi Michael,

There you have me; I'm just not much of a "measure it by eye" kind of guy. All I can tell you is that many of the pieces I've seen are lighter and not as dense as what you showed. Do you have access to the Churburg Catalog? There are some haubergeons in there, but I don't remember if they give ring sizes. I'll have to see if I can dog out my photocopy of the mail section.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 6:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Regarding later period maille...I know it was not as dense or as thick as Julio's hauberk sample, but do you know how much less so it actually was? ID, gauge, etc? With a 9.5 or 9mm hauberk, the Talhoffer's point goes quiete a ways in without breaking a link, but I've always thought 9mm was a bit too big for a historically correct link, even for the 15th century.


While there are shirts with large link sections, which might be repairs, most maille finds in the middle ages are 8 or less mm; standards having 3mm collars in some cases. In the 16th century the links on capes, gussets, and shirt get even smaller than 8mm when you look at all the museum pieces.

I find the fact that Michael had a hard time with a inferior modern shirt (in comparison to historical shirts) good evidence of how good the protective qualities of real maille must have been.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 6:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Could someone please provide even a single piece of documentation proving that the bodkin typology was what the accounts meant when they referred to armour piercing arrowheads? I could build a convincing argument that the compact broadhead (type 16) was in intended for armour piercing and the bodkin was intended for flight arrows.


I don't know what they meant about armour piercing back in the day but broadhead (type 16) are far more commonly found on the battle field than bodkins; last I read they are more like 80% of the finds in the 14th century up.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 3:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Barker wrote:
[I don't know what they meant about armour piercing back in the day but broadhead (type 16) are far more commonly found on the battle field than bodkins; last I read they are more like 80% of the finds in the 14th century up.

They are also one of the few typologies that show any evidence of being made with hardened steel. The sources are clear that hardened arrowheads were preferred for armour piercing. There isn't a single bodkin that has anywhere near the hardness of some of the type 16s that have been found.

I also recently stumbled upon this test.
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf
It is virtually worthless as a scientific paper but the author does agree with my conclusion that the Type 16 is a very effective armour-piercing typology.

Maybe the mods could move this to a new thread. I don't want to clutter up Mike's thread.
View user's profile Send private message
Robin Smith




Location: Louisiana
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 17 books

Posts: 746

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Hi Hugh,

Regarding later period maille...I know it was not as dense or as thick as Julio's hauberk sample, but do you know how much less so it actually was? ID, gauge, etc? With a 9.5 or 9mm hauberk, the Talhoffer's point goes quiete a ways in without breaking a link, but I've always thought 9mm was a bit too big for a historically correct link, even for the 15th century.

I can't seem to find a bookmark I used to have. Anyway it was a collection of statistics of surviving maille samples from the viking and early medieval period. They ranged from 6mm-10mm with round section riveted rings and square section solid rings being the most common in the viking and early middle ages. So 9mm, while on the upper end, is certainly within the realm of historical possibility. However, the 14ga used in this test is as far to the end of the historical standard ranges as 9mm maille would be. Though it certainly existed, I think you would have better served using a lighter gauge in the 16-18 range as gauges as light as 20guage were commonly used.
I'm gonna keep looking for that link...

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 7:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
They are also one of the few typologies that show any evidence of being made with hardened steel. The sources are clear that hardened arrowheads were preferred for armour piercing. There isn't a single bodkin that has anywhere near the hardness of some of the type 16s that have been found.

I also recently stumbled upon this test.
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf
It is virtually worthless as a scientific paper but the author does agree with my conclusion that the Type 16 is a very effective armour-piercing typology.


Actually, if we go to the primary-source material we see over and over and over again--not as the exception, but as the *norm--that arrows *didn't* penetrate armor, hardened or otherwise. Why, then, make these slim broadheads hard? So they'd hold an edge, of course. And why do we care about holding an edge? So they penetrate flesh and slice up the innards better--that's how arrows kill. But if arrows didn't penetrate plate, why bother? Because arrows were also used on unarmored targets--especially horses. So broadheads were hardened for the same reason that swords were: To better hold an edge.

Bodkin-point arrows were used to penetrate mail, not plate; there's no possible other use for them. Think about it: Arrows don't kill with kinetic energy, they kill by slicing up internal organs. So why make an arrow without edges? So you can punch mail, of course. You get wounds that are less damaging, but that's just another way armor works--it forces your enemies to use less effective arrows.

Broadhead arrows were used for hunting and for killing unarmored troops and horses, not for penetrating armor. How do we know? Because the people who were at these battles consistantly reported that people in armor weren't killed or even wounded by arrows except when the arrows hit somewhere you didn't have any armor! If you read the reports of people actually at the battles rather than the opinions of armchair historians (not referring to anyone in this discussion necessarily, although if the shoe fits... <grin>) you discover that quite conclusively (e.g., see DeVries' account of the Battle of Dupplin Moor in his Infantry Warfare in the 14th Century).

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Robin Smith




Location: Louisiana
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 17 books

Posts: 746

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here are some good ones:
http://www.vikingsna.org/translations/ringweave.pdf
This shows the germundbu shirt had a weave that is obviously as dense as the shirt used in your test. However the shirt after the Germundbu, the Verdal shirt, has an average ID 7.5-8mm and OD of 11mm on the solid ring and riveted ring with 11mm ID 12mm OD with ~20ga wire used.
Here is the Cleveland Museum of Art analysis.
http://www.angelfire.com/il/swordplay/clevelandmail.html
Most of the samples in this average 5/16" with a 16ga or lighter wire used...
I'm gonna poke around some more. But anyway, I still think the maille you used, while within historical probability, is likely heavier than what would have commonly been encountered. This is not to say I disagree with you conclusions. Maille is extremely tough stuff....

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:
Actually, if we go to the primary-source material we see over and over and over again--not as the exception, but as the *norm--that arrows *didn't* penetrate armor, hardened or otherwise. Why, then, make these slim broadheads hard? So they'd hold an edge, of course. And why do we care about holding an edge? So they penetrate flesh and slice up the innards better--that's how arrows kill. But if arrows didn't penetrate plate, why bother? Because arrows were also used on unarmored targets--especially horses. So broadheads were hardened for the same reason that swords were: To better hold an edge.

Your sources don't help. I have cited plenty from both sides of the argument. Arrows certainly did penetrate mail armour on occasion. The question is how often (IMO rarely). There are docs that clearly state that hardened steel arrowheads were prefered for piercing armour. One that I could cite is Carpini who said that the Mongols specifically hardened their arrowheads to better punch through armour. There are also English sources dating to a later time period suggesting the same thing.

Quote:
Bodkin-point arrows were used to penetrate mail, not plate; there's no possible other use for them. Think about it: Arrows don't kill with kinetic energy, they kill by slicing up internal organs. So why make an arrow without edges? So you can punch mail, of course. You get wounds that are less damaging, but that's just another way armor works--it forces your enemies to use less effective arrows.

If you look at Turkish flight arrows the heads are of the bodkin typology, though somewhat lighter than English examples. If you fire two arrows of the same weight, one with a broadhead and one with an English bodkin of any type, the bodkin continually outranges it. There are clearly flight arrows being used by English archers "to gall the enemy at range". Which typology would you suggest was used on flight arrows? IMO the bodkin was a compromise between a true flight head like the turkish examples and an arrowhead that could inflict some damage at range.
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
There are docs that clearly state that hardened steel arrowheads were prefered for piercing armour. One that I could cite is Carpini who said that the Mongols specifically hardened their arrowhead to better punch through armour. There are also English sources dating to a later time period suggesting the same thing.


a. The primary-source material says that arrows didn't do much to plate.
b. What relevance do Mongol things have to do with this? Allowing the relevance for the sake of argument, what time period was this? Who were they fighting? What kind of armor did the Mongol's arrows penetrate?

Quote:
If you look at Turkish flight arrows the heads are of the bodkin typology, though somewhat lighter than English examples. If you fire two arrows of the same weight, one with a broadhead and one with a bodkin, the bodkin continually outranges it. There are clearly flight arrows being used by English archers. Which typology would you suggest was used on flight arrows? IMO the bodkin was a compromise between a true flight head like the turkish examples and an arrowhead that could inflict some damage at range.


What clear evidence for flight arrows do you have? Arrows didn't penetrate plate well--so it's a certainty that light flgith arrows didn't. If they did use them, were they used to harass horses at long range? What was the *intended* purpose? That's the thing, and it all has to be considered in light of the fact that arrows didn't penetrate plate. And if bodkins *were* used as flight arrows then they must have been good for something, right? Good for what?

Again and again: Arrows didn't reliably penetrate armor. Before the bodkin-point became widespread (in Europe) armor was mostly mail; after the bodkin became widespread plate was added. Broadheads didn't penetrate mail so bodkins were used to do so; bodkins didn't penetrate plate.

I really think these facts need to be used to understand the whole arrow issue.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 2:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:
a. The primary-source material says that arrows didn't do much to plate.

When have I ever said otherwise? Plate was hardly the dominant armour. Arrows can occasionally penetrate mail and composite armours.

Quote:
b. What relevance do Mongol things have to do with this? Allowing the relevance for the sake of argument, what time period was this? Who were they fighting? What kind of armor did the Mongol's arrows penetrate?
Mongols encountered both Middle Eastern and European armies. During the time period mail was the dominant armour in both areas. Carpini specifically advised European troops to wear "double mail" to help resist Mongolian armour piercing arrows.

Quote:
What clear evidence for flight arrows do you have?

They are in abundance in museums throughout the Middle East. Manouchehr's book has an entire chapter on archery equipment with plenty of photos and cites from primary sources. What I can't find is much about English flight arrows - those intended for the battlefield not archery competitions.

Quote:
Arrows didn't penetrate plate well--so it's a certainty that light flgith arrows didn't. If they did use them, were they used to harass horses at long range? What was the *intended* purpose? That's the thing, and it all has to be considered in light of the fact that arrows didn't penetrate plate. And if bodkins *were* used as flight arrows then they must have been good for something, right? Good for what?

This thread is about mail not plate. I have already said that the bodkin shape is best for flight arrows. A true flight arrow is too light to do any damage at the end of its arc but English arrows were heavier. They were designed to inflict damage at longer range than other typologies. As you said, flight arrows have no chance of penetrating armour. Ascham and Smyth both can tell you how flight arrows were used. Plenty of unarmoured targets would be vulnerable to these arrows.

Quote:
Again and again: Arrows didn't reliably penetrate armor. Before the bodkin-point became widespread (in Europe) armor was mostly mail; after the bodkin became widespread plate was added. Broadheads didn't penetrate mail so bodkins were used to do so; bodkins didn't penetrate plate.

You seem to be equating the word "armour" with the word "plate". This thread is about mail. Never have I ever said anywhere in the last eight years that arrows could penetrate plate except on the rarest of occasions. I'm not sure what you are arguing about. You have yet to say anything that disproves my hypothesis that the bodkin was intended for flight arrows, not armour piercers.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 7:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Perhaps we should avoid getting bogged down into the inevitable longbow vs. plate armor type arguments, we don't want to eclipse this interesting data do we?

Regarding the mail used in the test, and thicker vs. thinner links, what about tempered mail?



J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 8:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.

(Let this serve as encouragement to curb the bickering...)

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean,

I am not sure how common steel- mail would have been. In an inventory of Prince Edward of the 20 something suits he has of mail at this time (which he seems to be giving away). Only 2 are steel. The rest are simple mail. So my guess as it is about 10 times in soem cases the cost it was very uncommon for all but the very wealthy. It would be a good test but not sure if Michael was going to test super armour. Something of interest is I have been finding a number of accoutns recently which state the use of round mail. The interesting part is they are all in england and all more expensive than the average, flat mail.... weird. The very thick weave and less dense one he used seemed to show a good point though.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests (very photo intensive)
Page 5 of 11 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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