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 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next 
Author Message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,443

PostPosted: Tue 06 Sep, 2011 11:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Barker wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
It's interesting that the broadheads didn't do anything...were they sharp? How sharp?

Also, do you know how heavy your arrows were? I'd like to figure out which of the two bows produced more power.


We used Historic Enterprises arrow heads; they are about the same weight as their historical counterparts. The broadheads were not sharpened they were just like the historical ones forged to an edge. A recurve or pully bow generates more power than a longbow (ours are ash); I think the big difference in the tests are the arrows being graphite or wood.

Might be time to try a few stab and cut tests myself. While the ordnances say they protect a man from cuts from a sword they say nothing about thrusts. Though we do have a passage from the Paston Letters about a doublet of fence. John Paston is wearing one in court and a guy from the other side tried to stab him in the back and the doublet turned the blade; I don't recall how many layers it was.


im going to check and get my hands on the picture.
and while its been said before with fairly good reason that religous icons/ reliefs arnt photos .

but there is a byzantine.. either a fresco or an icon. on the walls of some church that shows the contents of the guys quiver, since all the arrows are stored point up. what we apparently see is a veritable golfers bag of a quiver, we see broadheads, bodkins, swallowtails of different shapes and sizes,

which leads me to think an archer, like a golfer sitting in front of his ball, would be scanning the battlefield and sees people coming at him and would be thinking ". hmm hes wearing maille, better get a bodkin, hes got a jack better use a broadhead

some more interesting arrowheads are apparently a winged bodkin, ill need to confirm it further but its suggested there are examples of bodkins with a pair of broadhead like 'wings' that, if hitting maile would snap off, and the bodkin keep going, if the person is unarmoured, it would behave like a normal broadhead.. i THINk

the other wierd type is a mongolian arrowhead that is shaped like a syringe tip or a bamboo spear i.e a sloped tube with sharpened edges, it was tested against leather armour, and lo and behold apparently behaved exactly like a leather punch.
the last is scythian, and looks abit like the fletched end of an arrow, i.e a three bladed arrowhead.
theyre something like this http://www.manningimperial.com/item.php?item_...mp;c_id=48
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kai Lawson




Location: Madison, WI
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 514

PostPosted: Sat 03 Dec, 2011 9:19 pm    Post subject: Another test...         Reply with quote

Hi. This is my second post, so we'll see if I can bring home the bacon, as it were.

I have seen this thread expand to more than double what it was, and wondered why no one was bringing in outside tests, unverifiable as they might be. I found this online a while back (it pops up among the first google listings for 'longbow mail tests'), and thought the very clear citing and examples used to calculate the test models were at least a good starting point for another series of test that can be beaten back and forth:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf

It has some interesting conclusions, and uses some simulacrum of multiple plates (brigandine, COP, gambeson w/plate insets), cheap mail--which would have conceivable been employed--and solid plate, albeit of homologous thickness.

Dunno if this helps or hinders anything, and am personally more interested in the sword vs. mail bit. Off of that, would there be any advantage to wearing a jack/sleeveless or sleeved gambeson over mail for the purposes of maintaining the integrity of mail against the elements and deformation from impact, especially if it were a short- or no-sleeved setup, that could be schucked and patched after a fight and would keep the mail free from water, branches and brambles and mud? I imagine repairing a rent or bent rings in mail while with a host of other men could raise the cost of the job at an armorer, unless you have the tools to do it yourself.

Does that make any sense?

--Kai

"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Kai Lawson




Location: Madison, WI
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 514

PostPosted: Sat 03 Dec, 2011 10:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi again. Few more things:

A professor at the UW Green Bay was doing a study on the grecian Linothorax--how it may have been compiled, what worked best against cuts and penetration, what didn't--and found that rotating the thread grain of the cloth much improved the protective qualities (45° per layer, CW or CCW). Additionally, one of the bigger monastic knight orders (Templar, Hospitaller) made mention of a protective felt shirt, as there was no weave to penetrate or push apart easily, and all the lines were tangled, and difficult to cut through.

Would someone be willing to try another cut test with rotated linen layers or properly beaten felt, either layered or padded and sewn, like a blanket? (Not the shoddy craft store felt, mind). The felt also tends to be fairly weather and water-proof, if I remember correctly.


--Kai

"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Kai Lawson




Location: Madison, WI
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 514

PostPosted: Sat 03 Dec, 2011 10:36 pm    Post subject: Material         Reply with quote

Hi for the third time tonight.

Would there be a risk of steel links (if equal final heat treatment and tempering is difficult to maintain for all the links involved, but still attempted, resulting in 'hardened mail') bursting, or being more prone to bursting, than the iron links, which may be more likely to simply stretch and deform, but hold together? Or is the (possibly) wrought iron, being somewhat brittle, just as likely to break?

The thinking being that deformed or crooked rings following an impact would be preferable to rings popping apart upon impact with a thrust and allowing the incoming object to continue through.

I could very well be way off too.

--Kai

"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 12:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Another test...         Reply with quote

Kai Lawson wrote:
I have seen this thread expand to more than double what it was, and wondered why no one was bringing in outside tests, unverifiable as they might be. I found this online a while back (it pops up among the first google listings for 'longbow mail tests'), and thought the very clear citing and examples used to calculate the test models were at least a good starting point for another series of test that can be beaten back and forth:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf

Because the mail he tested was not "butted", "average" and "high" quality but "crap", "really crap" and "really really crap".

Quote:
It has some interesting conclusions

None of his conclusions are relevant because nothing he tested was anywhere remotely similar to what was worn in period for either the metal or textile. A properly quilted defense will be rigid and provide far far better protection than anything he tested.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 04 Dec, 2011 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've been talking about rotating the weave of various layers for at least 10 years. This is the earliest instance that I can find in this forum
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...p;start=20
It talks about felt and quilting also.

That Green Bay linothorax experiment was a wasted opportunity. He squanders his resources experimenting with glue, which has never been used to make textile armour, rather than devoting more resources to how padded defenses have really been constructed - quilting.

Quote:
Additionally, one of the bigger monastic knight orders (Templar, Hospitaller) made mention of a protective felt shirt, as there was no weave to penetrate or push apart easily, and all the lines were tangled, and difficult to cut through.

Do you have a cite for this?
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 5:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kai Lawson wrote:

Would someone be willing to try another cut test with rotated linen layers or properly beaten felt, either layered or padded and sewn, like a blanket? (Not the shoddy craft store felt, mind). The felt also tends to be fairly weather and water-proof, if I remember correctly.


Not this thread again. Happy

Hi Kai,

Sure, I'd be willing to try to cut it. Someone would have to provide a sample.

Fair warning...many years have passed, and I have learned much. Not only am I a much better cutter, but my swords are sharper. I'd be willing to bet that I would have no problem blasting through that 30 layer jack with a longsword.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

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




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,443

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

recently i was talking to a guy called bede dwyer, who as i understand is a bit of an expert in ancient eastern archery, he gave a lecture at the recent reenactment of the battle of marathon, done in sydney, on persian archery and factors they would have contributed to why the persians lost the battle of marathon,

but i mentioned the results shown here and echoed the general conclusion that padding over maile would foul needlepoint, anti maile arrows, and he said that he has had no problems getting a needlepoint bodkin all the way through through a quilted gambeson of sorts,, apparently experuienced close to no bunching up of material, i dont remember if i asked him whether this was over maile, or even what quality the gambeson was, but i said whether it was y'know, quilted and close stitch, apparently it was. i didnt say the first test was a layered jack of 30 layers so

and i dont think the bow was at 100 years war level poundages either. but i dont remember all the details of what he said or what he asked him.

but essentially needle bodkins in particlar seem to experience less resistance to padded armour than we think,
so a gambeson may not have saved you against a norman bodkin which in itself is interesting data.

dan, as for the linothorax, i.e the linen version, the sydney ancients, when i mentioned the test by the university in recreating the linothorax, modern glues ok, but they echoed the result with their own tests they said as well that linen layered and glued is very tough and resists all sorts of things,

that same day of the marathon reenactment event, for anyone whoes interested, the guys tested the leather apron that might have been hung from the aspis, by having people shoot at it with all sorts of arrows, and bows, historical or not, from a range of about 20 metres i think... or was it 40.. or maybe as little as 10, and we found that with 30-50 pound bows, broadheads slice through decently well, often up to the fletchings. even modern field points from a 30 pound bow i.e my arrows, penetrated up 3/4 of the length of the shaft.

though the guys determined the field points that went helfway or so would have had alot of power removed trying to slip their way through so how they would have injured the hoplite or how badly, .. well, we think that while better than nothing that apron isnt as good a defense as some might think, the leather was vegetable tanned, about 4-5mm thick i think, maybe more maybe less.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kai Lawson




Location: Madison, WI
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 514

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 8:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Right--I wasn't able to find the site that had listed the vestments for the crusader orders mentioning felt shirts, and the few books I was able to find simply listed 'shirts' with no descriptors.

Secondly, you are absolutely right about the mail used in the testing--it is literally homemade jewelry-class garbage, and I was unfortunately unclear about my intentions toward the test. If I had taken the time to review the photos involved instead of just throwing up the link, I might have saved myself some embarrassment. As it stands, I would still like to echo the thoughts of a few others on this thread, and would like to see a test or series of tests done with acceptable (by forum consensus or by reputation of the maker) mail, padding and a textile outer garment (i.e. gambeson, padded jack, surcoat) with cut or arrow tests, looking at tissue deformation. This was what I thought was neat about the test posted--the use of a specifically designed-for-impact (bullets, but should might work for arrows?) medium to test for blunt trauma deformation. This would, I think, be a clean way to look at the blade vs. hammer poleax argument, or to see if there is any appreciable difference in impact to more fleshed vs. less fleshed areas under mail, of if they are all effectively the same (thigh vs. wrist or hip.) In other words, does the body area targeted under mail really matter in terms of damage done per blow (aside from more delicate things like shins, crotch, etc.), or should (if the opponent is fully covered in mail/no un-covered areas are readily exposed) the attacker just go for what they are able to hit best? Would anyone with actual combat (mock or real) mind weighing in on this? I haven't the time or money to make the mail and try out this stuff, but it seems like there should be some folks who might have a thing or two to say about this.

"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Sun 04 Dec, 2011 11:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
dan, as for the linothorax, i.e the linen version, the sydney ancients, when i mentioned the test by the university in recreating the linothorax, modern glues ok, but they echoed the result with their own tests they said as well that linen layered and glued is very tough and resists all sorts of things

I know glued linen is tough. It works like fibreglass. It doesn't tell us anything about historical armour. There isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest that it was ever historically used to make armour in any culture in any time period. In Greece during the time in question there isn't evidence for any kind of linen armour. The little evidence we do have suggests that they used leather.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,443

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 1:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
dan, as for the linothorax, i.e the linen version, the sydney ancients, when i mentioned the test by the university in recreating the linothorax, modern glues ok, but they echoed the result with their own tests they said as well that linen layered and glued is very tough and resists all sorts of things

I know glued linen is tough. It works like fibreglass. It doesn't tell us anything about historical armour. There isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest that it was ever historically used to make armour in any culture in any time period. In Greece during the time in question there isn't evidence for any kind of linen armour. The little evidence we do have suggests that they used leather.


there was the fragment of thatn mycenean greave which was a very thick piece of linen, although very small.
i was just point out that the green bay linothorax project echos tests on linothorax's by other groups,

considering it was a linothorax project by name, wouldnt one assume they are trying to replicate the greek linothorax, ok, we know they didnt use it, but for those who dont, and there are still alot of books out there still trumpeting the linen idea,

so i wouldnt be surprised if he went straight for glued linen as opposed to quilting etc,

http://www.faganarms.com/extremelyrarevikings...000ad.aspx by the way, heres that winged bodkin i mentioned earlier, turns out its a spear not an arrow, though i heard it described as an arrow, in anycase heres an interesting weapon...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 3:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
there was the fragment of thatn mycenean greave which was a very thick piece of linen, although very small.
We don't know it was from a greave. It could just have been a fragment of folded cloth. There was a more intact example found at Patras which almost certainly is body armour. Neither sample shows any indication of being glued together and both date to the Mycenaean period, which is a thousand years too early to be relevant to the classical or hellenistic periods.

Quote:
considering it was a linothorax project by name, wouldnt one assume they are trying to replicate the greek linothorax, ok, we know they didnt use it, but for those who dont, and there are still alot of books out there still trumpeting the linen idea

The Green Bay project was specifically trying to replicate the armour worn by Alexander the Great, not a Mycenaean warrior a thousand years earler.

Quote:
so i wouldnt be surprised if he went straight for glued linen as opposed to quilting etc

The glued linothorax theory is outdated and has been shown to have no substance. Scholarship has moved on. One of the armours worn by Alexander was indeed made of linen (it was Persian booty, not Greek armour), but it was quilted, not glued. Just like every other textile armour from every time period and every culture throughout the entire world from the Americas to India, Africa to Europe.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,443

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 3:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
there was the fragment of thatn mycenean greave which was a very thick piece of linen, although very small.
There was also a more intact example found at Patras. Neither show any indication of being glued together and both date to the Mycenaean period, which is a thousand years too early to be relevant to the classical or hellenistic periods.

Quote:
considering it was a linothorax project by name, wouldnt one assume they are trying to replicate the greek linothorax, ok, we know they didnt use it, but for those who dont, and there are still alot of books out there still trumpeting the linen idea

The Green Bay project was specifically trying to replicate the armour worn by Alexander the Great, not a Mycenaean warrior a thousand years earler.

Quote:
so i wouldnt be surprised if he went straight for glued linen as opposed to quilting etc

The glued linothorax theory is outdated and has been shown to have no substance. Scholarship has moved on.


clearly if your making a linothorax, despite the fact linen armour has been shown to not been used by them it still refers to the classical and hellinistic period.
gluing is the method alot of people seem to use (or used to) to replicate the linen linothorax, so i assumed gluing as a method had some substance to it i had no idea it had been declared obsolete.

i wasnt saying the mycenean armour replicated the hellinistic or classical greek armour, i dont even believe the armour was made of linen quite honestly im with the new research saying its leather
i was just countering your claim that that kind linen wasnt used anywhere or at any time period.. i was pointing ot that there WAS an example of layered linen in a time period.

i didnt know the patras find wasnt glued and i didnt know the idea was outdated

for how long has the glued armour idea been outdated for out of curiosity? i say that because as you likely know, such knowledge seems to take a decently long time to disseminate into wider societynot excusing the green bay researcher if this scolarship thats disproved gluing iis in the more wider literature thats bad research on his part.

if the patras wasnt glued, how was it attatched?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 3:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
i was just countering your claim that that kind linen wasnt used anywhere or at any time period

I specifically said that glued linen armour never existed. Nobody has come up with a credible argument to counter this.

Quote:
for how long has the glued armour idea been outdated for out of curiosity? i say that because as you likely know, such knowledge seems to take a decently long time to disseminate into wider societynot excusing the green bay researcher if this scolarship thats disproved gluing is in the more wider literature thats bad research on his part.

There was a long thread over on RAT a few years ago that demolished both the concept of glued linen armour and the existence of Greek linen armour in the classical or Hellenistic periods.

Quote:
if the patras wasnt glued, how was it attatched?

Preliminary examination suggests quilting but we'll have to wait for the final report
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Curl




Location: Northern California, US
Joined: 06 Jan 2008

Posts: 486

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 11:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey Dan, I have been wondering about the whole glued linen debate as well. What does RAT stand for, because I would dearly love to read the article.
E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I
Quote:
have seen this thread expand to more than double what it was, and wondered why no one was bringing in outside tests, unverifiable as they might be. I found this online a while back (it pops up among the first google listings for 'longbow mail tests'), and thought the very clear citing and examples used to calculate the test models were at least a good starting point for another series of test that can be beaten back and forth:


I've read those tests before. I don't know of the quality of the mail used, but there were some issues with it I thought that were biased against the armour (the testing by Bane you mention)

One was the bowstring - modern bowstrings can add a good 5-10% energy to impact over period construction strings. The author does not specify whether the string was modern or period.

The bow itself - it appears to be composite in structure, and by this I mean layers of different wood. The bow is described as yew, but I do not know (the author does not give the info) if it was backed by another wood, fiberglass, etc., Anything like this makes the bow more efficient, which would result in a higher amount of energy transferred to the arrow, i.e. a 70 pound bow like this would propel an arrow faster than a 70 pound non-backed bow. Again, it's unclear, I have not seen that bow on the market and am unsure as to it''s exact construction method, even though it does say a "yew" longbow, but there are other yew longbows that have other materials used in backing the bow.

While both of these seem relatively minor, both combined could add 15% to the energy imparted, and thereby adding 15% to the velocity. As kinetic energy, not momentum is usually thought of as the measurement, and velocity is squared, this makes a major difference.

Another thing - Banes estimates of velocity at distance seem to vary from the results Hardy came up with. Hardy was measuring the velocity, and Bane was using an equation, and the results differed a bit, what Bane estimates as the velocity at 250 is similar to what Hardy estimated at 180 yards.

With regards to the armour used, Bane admittedley often used the thinnest of any "average". The Jack he mentions that 15-30 layers of linen were commonly used, he went with the 15 layers. For the Plate, another example, he states plate for helemts and breastplates was between 1.2 and 4.57 mm, he of course use the 1.2mm. And of course, a perfectly flat piece of plate.

Another thing as to the linen - we don't know the oz. weight of linen used, another issue, or the type used. If there would have been an attempt to document the weight of linen, the tightness of the weave, and whether or not the weave was different in different layers (best results are obtained with linen where the weaves are not the same layer to layer, but if you alternate the weaves). I guess we really don't know if period jacks used alternating weaves, but it would have been nice to see both tested.

Another thing - this is to have been C. 1400 AD. The padded underlying armour from this period I have actually read about seems to be commonly 5-8 layers of linen, with padding, sometimes felt. The gampeson tested was 2 layers of linen with cotton batting.

What would have been more accurate IMO if testing "period" armour would be a gambseson of 5-7 layers of linen, mail, then a padded jack of 20-24 layers of linen, more the midrangefor a jack.

As it is, all this test showed to me is that at about 180 yards (not 250 yards) a bow which was perhaps more efficient than period bows could pierce the minimum types of period amrour, i.e. thin jacks by themselves, thin flat plate, thin gambesons.

As to the quality of the mail, I do not know, but Dan seems to think it was very low quality.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,302

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 12:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Curl wrote:
Hey Dan, I have been wondering about the whole glued linen debate as well. What does RAT stand for, because I would dearly love to read the article.


http://www.ancient-warfare.org/rat.html?func=...;id=231412

I start out by claiming that there is little evidence for Greek leather armour and by the end of it I was convinced that the opposite was true - that leather and not linen was more common during the Classical and Hellenistic periods. I fell for the same trap as everyone else. All of the so-called cites for Greek linen armour are actually passages talking about the armour worn by other people, not Greeks.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin Floyd II





Joined: 13 Dec 2008

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Mon 05 Dec, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Sure, I'd be willing to try to cut it. Someone would have to provide a sample.

Fair warning...many years have passed, and I have learned much. Not only am I a much better cutter, but my swords are sharper. I'd be willing to bet that I would have no problem blasting through that 30 layer jack with a longsword.


Need pics or it wouldn't happen. Wink

Krieg School of Historical Swordsmanship
A HEMA Alliance Affliate
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,443

PostPosted: Thu 03 May, 2012 2:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Arrow removed:



70lbs, 20 yards: all three arrows were stopped (bounced off), but each one broke at least one link.



Here are some of the links broken by the arrows. You can see that when an arrow breaks a link, it is usually at the rivet point.



These results are far superior to the imported Indian 9.5mm riveted hauberk I tested earlier. That hauberk could not stop the bow at 50lbs and 20 feet, nor did it stop any of the arrows at 20 yards, though it did rob them of enough force that the gambeson was able to defeat half of them. I later tested that hauberk at 70lbs and each arrow at both ranges easily defeated it. This maille, much more historically correct and of stouter rings with better quality riveting defeated every arrow shot at 50lbs and all of the arrows shot at 70lbs from 20 yards. The difference between them is literally life and death.

After concluding the arrow tests, I went on to test the maille against two melee weapons; an MRL hilted Del Tin longsword, mostly likely type XX, and the Knightly Poleaxe from Arms and Armor.





For thrusting tests, I used an Albion Talhoffer, a longsword of type XVa.



Cutting test with sword: I attempted to cut through the maille several times with powerful over the shoulder and over the head cuts. The sword failed to penetrate the maille and could not break any links. Some of the links were slightly bent and nicked, but all were intact. The damage to the edge of the sword was extremely minor, which demonstrates how well the padding of the gambeson absorbs the force of the cut.



Thrusting test with Albion Talhoffer: using the half-sword grip, I thrust three times into the maille. I was afraid to damage my Talhoffer, I sword I am very fond of, so did not thrust as hard as I could have. Despite that, out of three thrusts, I was able to break one link. However, even without breaking a single link, the Talhoffer’s point is able to penetrate 5/8” past the maille. With a broken link, that becomes about 3”. The gambeson offered no resistance to the Talhoffer’s point, so whatever got through the maille penetrated the flesh underneath.

Unfortunately I do not have photos as I conducted this particular test at a later time for my own enjoyment and did not capture it on camera. I had not planned to include it in the write-up but later decided that it should not be left out.

Cutting test with the Poleaxe: The poleaxe failed to fully penetrate the maille, although believe me when I say whoever was under that maille would have been thoroughly dead. The poleaxe is a devastating weapon.

Each strike with the poleaxe resulted in at least 3 broken links, sometimes quite a bit more.



When the poleaxe breaks a link, it breaks it where it meets it, unlike the bow.



Thrusting test with poleaxe: the poleaxe’s top spike devastated the maille. It easily broke through and penetrated the gambeson underneath, burying itself in the 4x4 post at the heart of the pell.



sorry if this seems a silly question but, all these thrust tests.. were you thrusting at only the spanish made rivited maile, or the indian maile as well as the spanish one?

and out of curiosity, did you cut the the indian maile with either the sword or the pollaxe out of curiosity?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
T. Arndt




Location: La Crosse, WI
Joined: 07 Jul 2011
Likes: 14 pages
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Thu 03 May, 2012 5:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:

sorry if this seems a silly question but, all these thrust tests.. were you thrusting at only the spanish made rivited maile, or the indian maile as well as the spanish one?

and out of curiosity, did you cut the the indian maile with either the sword or the pollaxe out of curiosity?


Isn't your answer below the picture of the three rings that are broken at at rivet?

Michael Edelson wrote:
These results are far superior to the imported Indian 9.5mm riveted hauberk I tested earlier. That hauberk could not stop the bow at 50lbs and 20 feet, nor did it stop any of the arrows at 20 yards, though it did rob them of enough force that the gambeson was able to defeat half of them. I later tested that hauberk at 70lbs and each arrow at both ranges easily defeated it. This maille, much more historically correct and of stouter rings with better quality riveting defeated every arrow shot at 50lbs and all of the arrows shot at 70lbs from 20 yards. The difference between them is literally life and death.

Wisconsin Historical Fencing Association (WHFA) - La Crosse
A HEMA Alliance Affiliate

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” -Juvenal
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Riveted Maille and Padded Jack Tests (very photo intensive)
Page 10 of 11 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum