[Artis Aboltins]

[Stephane Rabier]

Hi,
in La Chanson de Roland (Oxford, 3385)
we can read :
Escuz fruisez e bronies desmaillees
... obviously if it could be desmaillé it had to be mail

[Luis Armando]

for truth as our colleague P. Gottfried does not think it is entirely false this armor, I have some friends here in Mexico we are also very intrigued by this armor, some of my comrades are historians and others are only history buffs like myself, so far fall into the same conclusion as well as of P. Gottfried mesh barely survives these periods but the leather decays much faster than iron and the fabric even faster so we see no historical broignes yet. Maybe the armor is a misunderstanding but maybe not, I say maybe not because this armor would be a good choice for infants and gentlemen "poor " because having a coat of mail would be like driving a Mercedes today.

[Artis Aboltins]

Problem is - making such armour would not cost much less than making a suit of mail of appropriate dimensions so that rules out the theory about the "poor knights". Wherever we have remains of mail, it is always in form of rings riveted closed ora mix of solid/riveted rings, never a pile of separate rings. Also, the main reason why such an armour would be unfeasiable has already been voiced - it offers little to no protection against thrusting weapons and arrows. And primary weapon used back then was a thrusting one - spear or a horsemans lance. So it would make very little sense to spend a considerable effort in crafting an armour that is only marginally (if at all) effective against the most often employed weapon.

[Dan Howard]

[Luis Armando]

ok then the armor if misinterpreted. knights thank you very much indeed

[Quinn W.]