Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Mamluk armour versus Mongol arrows Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next 
Author Message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 3:17 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
This test is just as useless as all the others. He never even attempted to get a decent replica of mail. Trying to perform any kind of comparison is a waste of time. He erroneously concludes that mail is inferior and tries to find justification as to why it was worn by the more wealthy soldiers. Officers could wear any armour they wanted. The most logical reason why they chose mail is simply because they considered it superior to the available alternatives.

He also repeats the bollocks about Alexois being pushed out of his saddle and back on again by lance attacks. I've already shown that the account says no such thing. Nor does Comnena or any other Byzantine text ever say that lamellar was worn over mail.

On top of that I don't think his lamellar reconstruction is particularly sensible. IMO this one is far more reasonable
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/...ellar.html


forgive me, since im no expert, what was the main problem with levantias lacing of the 'klibanion' ? or the useof acombination of lacing and rivets on a backing,? compared to pete beatsons?

and what ofhis notions that HIS klibanon also worked quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMWRwNrRnvE now since its done by regia anglorum imgoing to email them for more detail on the tests done in this segment,

though as has been pointed out by you a number of times, the quality of manufacture of the maille can make a huge difference in the test, but its still fairly eye opening,

alot of this discussion seems to have been relegated to why you wouldnt wear leather lamellar over maille, and the problems with leather, the question i also put to people is why not metallic lamellar? aside from the issues of repairing all those lacings. and them getting infested?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 3:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
the question i also put to people is why not metallic lamellar? aside from the issues of repairing all those lacings. and them getting infested?

Any mail that provided similar protection would be lighter, more comfortable, and cover more of the body than lamellar. It is also why you would choose to wear two layers of mail rather than one of mail and one of lamellar. The only reason why you wouldn't choose mail would be because of cost or manufacture time.

Quote:
forgive me, since im no expert, what was the main problem with levantias lacing of the 'klibanion' ? or the useof acombination of lacing and rivets on a backing,? compared to pete beatsons?

The backing increases weight, cost, and manufacture time for no appreciable benefit. It took over a thousand years to work out how to do scale armour without the backing (i.e. lamellar) and Dawson decides to put it back in again.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 6:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

even though he stated quite clearly his rationalle. unless of course lamellar is supposedto be really stiff, like plate but with alot more pieces.

the one burning question i have about lamellar is though, WHY is alot of lamellar armours constructed with the top rows exposed, meaning its like having scale armour inverted, last i checked dont you want someones stroke to NOT be caught in your armour. but to keep sliding along allowing it to better be deflected?

btw, i have actually worn peter beatsons leather version of the visby lamellar ( i ended up joining the NVG mikligard), and i have to say. it seems VERY loose and hung funny on my shoulders then again pictures of the original visby lamellar look quite abit different.
and strangely enough peters apparently worn that vest on top of his maille.



 Attachment: 16.61 KB
morepics2.jpg


 Attachment: 160.39 KB
Peter beatsons visby lamellar on me, it doesnt seem to fit very well [ Download ]


Last edited by William P on Sun 26 Jun, 2011 6:32 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 6:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
even though he stated quite clearly his rationalle. unless of course lamellar is supposedto be really stiff, like plate but with alot more pieces.

Lamellar can be made as flexible or as rigid as you want just by adjusting the lacing.

Quote:
the one burning question i have about lamellar is though, WHY is alot of lamellar armours constructed with the top rows exposed, meaning its like having scale armour inverted, last i checked dont you want someones stroke to NOT be caught in your armour. but to keep sliding along allowing it to better be deflected?

The alignment of the plates makes no difference to whether an attack gets caught or not.

Quote:
btw, i have actually worn peter beatsons leather version of the visby lamellar ( i ended up joining the NVG mikligard), and i have to say. it seems VERY loose and hung funny on my shoulders then again pictures of the original visby lamellar look quite abit different.

Just relace it more tightly. If the plates are made of metal it can be made completely rigid if you want. I'm guessing that your problem is with the leather plates. They are thicker and have too much give in them. Make the same thing from metal and you'll have a better fitting armour. Where's Russ? He knows more about leather lamellar than I do.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
even though he stated quite clearly his rationalle. unless of course lamellar is supposedto be really stiff, like plate but with alot more pieces.

Lamellar can be made as flexible or as rigid as you want just by adjusting the lacing.

Quote:
the one burning question i have about lamellar is though, WHY is alot of lamellar armours constructed with the top rows exposed, meaning its like having scale armour inverted, last i checked dont you want someones stroke to NOT be caught in your armour. but to keep sliding along allowing it to better be deflected?


The alignment of the plates makes no difference to whether an attack gets caught or not.

Quote:
btw, i have actually worn peter beatsons leather version of the visby lamellar ( i ended up joining the NVG mikligard), and i have to say. it seems VERY loose and hung funny on my shoulders then again pictures of the original visby lamellar look quite abit different.


Just relace it more tightly. If the plates are made of metal it can be made completely rigid if you want. I'm guessing that your problem is with the leather plates. They are thicker and have too much give in them. Make the same thing from metal and you'll have a better fitting armour. Where's Russ? He knows more about leather lamellar than I do.


really? so having the rows of lamellar arranged like scale armour doesnt help? i.e the row above covers the tops of the row below, meaning an attack is presented with a smooth surface, i mean try running a point across a fish skin following the direction of the scales and then run your hands back in the pposite direction, going the other way has alot more likelihood of ripping up scales and will feel rougher as your fingers momentarily catch on the edges of the exposed scales. unless im mistaken (or maybe lacing techniques prohibit this? )wont lamellar more or less behave in a similar way, in terms of helping direct the motion that a glancing blow will take?

im not sure whu this 'russ' person is, ive only dealt with quarf morgan, peter beatson,chris barnes and rick watkins for the most part with any sort of regularity since ive been part of the garrison for only about 2 months have yet to go with the garrison to an event having missed blacktown, ironfest and rowany events for various reasons. aside from my lack of period gear, thus if i went alone, id be stuck in 'civvies' and my shield sword and gloves, and my helmet which is dueto be finished being made in about a weeks time.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 7:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:

really? so having the rows of lamellar arranged like scale armour doesnt help?

Not with metal it doesn't. Don't know about leather. Cool photo BTW.
Quote:
im not sure whu this 'russ'.

Russ Mitchell. He's the man to ask about eastern European armour and leather lamellar. No point talking about western European or Scandinavian leather lamellar since we don't have a scrap of evidence that it ever existed.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:

the one burning question i have about lamellar is though, WHY is alot of lamellar armours constructed with the top rows exposed, meaning its like having scale armour inverted, last i checked dont you want someones stroke to NOT be caught in your armour. but to keep sliding along allowing it to better be deflected?


A lot of lamellar armours (most?) were worn by cavalry - Japanese, Central Asian (Mongolian, Tibetan, etc). Infantry spear will be thrusting upwards. Arrows will come in close to horizontal, unless long range shooting, which will come downwards, and point-blank shooting by infantry, which will come upwards. Overlapping with lower over upper looks OK for these.

Mobility, flexibility, and comfort probably matter more. Which way it overlaps might matter a lot when grappling with daggers. Not such a big deal for cavalry.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 8:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:

really? so having the rows of lamellar arranged like scale armour doesnt help?

Not with metal it doesn't. Don't know about leather. Cool photo BTW.
Quote:
im not sure whu this 'russ'.



Russ Mitchell. He's the man to ask about eastern European armour and leather lamellar. No point talking about western European or Scandinavian leather lamellar since we don't have a scrap of evidence that it ever existed.


you may note however that most of that stuff belongs to the other members the only thing thats mine is my clothes, glovesand sword in that photo that and the fact that the lamellar is worn over my Tshirt

like there being no physicalscraps of viking gambesons (even though a common mention in viking history books being that those unable to afford maile made do with a leather or padded shirt, or something along those lines.

and ive wondered ever since knowing peters lamellar was from visby, is why on earth hes wearing armour from a battle in the 14th C as part of the kit of a varangian from the late 10th C and still considering it historical?

and on that same note, pete in his article on lamellar notes lacings of inuit lamellar in helping extrapolate methods, is it usually reasonable to do that sort of extrapolation in terms of armour i.e looking at how types of armour are made used etc based on finds of similar armours in other regions of the world?

and russis a member of the NVG?

on the note of armour. how doesthat dendra armour handle in terms of comfort etc compared to an iron hauberk? or better yet, a medieval plate harness, if youve had the chance to try out the others of course.

when i first saw an illustration of a mycenean charioteer, i remarked that he was like a human sentry tower, encased in a tube of bronze,
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
like there being no physicalscraps of viking gambesons (even though a common mention in viking history books being that those unable to afford maile made do with a leather or padded shirt, or something along those lines.


I'd love to see even a single primary source that says this. There isn't anything anywhere in archaeology nor the texts that indicate that leather armour of any kind was ever worn in Scandinavia during the time in question.

Quote:
and ive wondered ever since knowing peters lamellar was from visby, is why on earth hes wearing armour from a battle in the 14th C as part of the kit of a varangian from the late 10th C and still considering it historical?

How is that in any way relevant? The paper he wrote in that link uses plates that were found by Prof. J.H. Baxter in Constantinople and dated to the 5th century. He chose a lacing pattern that has been found on surviving 6th century examples of lamellar (e.g. Krefeld-Gellup). His justification for doing this is sound:

The Krefeld-Gellup cuirass is not an isolated find, lamellar seems to have been briefly adopted by neighbouring Germanic tribes during the period of Avar ascendance. All four burials listed below contained hundreds of plates, probably a complete armour. The Byzantines also keenly appreciated and copied Avarian war technology, as Maurice’s Strategicon clearly shows. As the only European power where lamellar remained continuously in service in the medieval age, the Byzantines may well have preserved the lacing system introduced by the Avars."

It makes far more sense than Dawson's suggestion. A more accurate reconstruction can't be attempted until the original plates are re-examined.



 Attachment: 6.59 KB
Lamellar-Constantinople5.gif



Last edited by Dan Howard on Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
like there being no physicalscraps of viking gambesons (even though a common mention in viking history books being that those unable to afford maile made do with a leather or padded shirt, or something along those lines.


I'd love to see even a single primary source that says this.


theres a reason i said history books by books i mean the ones you see in every dymocks, angus and robinson and borders books . not some article by an archaeologist
and it seems to be in every single illustration, of a group of vking raiders very frequently shows a fair number in what look like quilted shirts.
http://ravenfeast.deviantart.com/favourites/4998082#/d1sj456 like these

though of course we can both agree it makes sense they wore some sort of padding under maille, since as youve pointed out, without aid padding mailles protective capacity is greatly reduced

may i ask how, since theres no evidence for it, that manages to occur? are they just extrapolating from later medieval infantry? or something else.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Easy. One armchair historian proposes a theory based on nothing but empty speculation and everyone following blindly assumes he knows what he is talking about and repeats the statement as if it were fact without any kind of independent thought or attempt at verification. A classic example is the idea that stirrups were needed for couched-lance warfare
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
like there being no physicalscraps of viking gambesons (even though a common mention in viking history books being that those unable to afford maile made do with a leather or padded shirt, or something along those lines.


I'd love to see even a single primary source that says this. There isn't anything anywhere in archaeology nor the texts that indicate that leather armour of any kind was ever worn in Scandinavia during the time in question.

Quote:
and ive wondered ever since knowing peters lamellar was from visby, is why on earth hes wearing armour from a battle in the 14th C as part of the kit of a varangian from the late 10th C and still considering it historical?

How is that in any way relevant? The paper he wrote in that link uses plates that were found by Prof. J.H. Baxter in Constantinople and dated to the 5th century. A more accurate reconstruction can't be attempted until the original plates are re-examined.


and what about the use of padded or quilted shirts either as a backing for maille or as a stand alone armour.

im not talking about the link about armour construction im talking about HIS leather version of the visby lamellar and the fact that the battle took place in ~1363 and that hes using it as part of his kit as a10th C varangian. there seems to be a major disconnect between our groups chosen time period, and the age of that piece of lamellar. THATS what i mean.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

.. then theres not much of a risk of being knocked out of the saddle when hitting a target with a couched lance? or something else keeps you in place?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
and what about the use of padded or quilted shirts either as a backing for maille or as a stand alone armour.

What about it? Plenty of re-enactors reckon that mail protects just fine with a woollen tunic under their mail. There are also examples of mail that have their own integrated padded liners. IMO there was a lot more of this than many people suspect.

Quote:
im not talking about the link about armour construction im talking about HIS leather version of the visby lamellar and the fact that the battle took place in ~1363 and that hes using it as part of his kit as a10th C varangian. there seems to be a major disconnect between our groups chosen time period, and the age of that piece of lamellar. THATS what i mean.

I'm not interested in that. I don't care about re-enctment. I've never participated in re-enactment. I make armour for research purposes only. As far as I'm concerned if you aren't wearing lamellar made in the manner of that paper then it is not representative of Byzantine lamellar. If you are using it as part of Varangian armour then it is even worse. The Varangians were paid more than enough to be wearing mail armour. AFAIK none of the Varangians we know by name are said to have worn lamellar. They have mail. Hardrada is a classsic example.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 9:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
.. then theres not much of a risk of being knocked out of the saddle when hitting a target with a couched lance? or something else keeps you in place?

How is a stirrup supposed to help with that? It is the saddle that is important. The Sarmatians and Parthians and Persians didn't use stirrups and yet had no problems employing heavy cavalry with couched lances
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jun, 2011 11:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
and what about the use of padded or quilted shirts either as a backing for maille or as a stand alone armour.

What about it? Plenty of re-enactors reckon that mail protects just fine with a woollen tunic under their mail. There are also examples of mail that have their own integrated padded liners. IMO there was a lot more of this than many people suspect.

Quote:
im not talking about the link about armour construction im talking about HIS leather version of the visby lamellar and the fact that the battle took place in ~1363 and that hes using it as part of his kit as a10th C varangian. there seems to be a major disconnect between our groups chosen time period, and the age of that piece of lamellar. THATS what i mean.


I'm not interested in that. I don't care about re-enctment. I've never participated in re-enactment. I make armour for research purposes only. As far as I'm concerned if you aren't wearing lamellar made in the manner of that paper then it is not representative of Byzantine lamellar. If you are using it as part of Varangian armour then it is even worse. The Varangians were paid more than enough to be wearing mail armour. AFAIK none of the Varangians we know by name are said to have worn lamellar. They have mail. Hardrada is a classsic example.

as did every other viking with enough pocket money from here to dublin

as for the first point.. clearly.. since my updated knowledge of maille is based on your own article which i dont remember reading about maille having integrated padded liners. is there pictures anywhere of reconstructions of that sort of arrangement?

and im going to assume that the arguement that said padded shirts, being of perishable materials wouldnt likely survive till the present say, since most viking artifacts are 1000 yrs old or more... isnt sufficient to explain their apparent non existance during that place and period

that said in support of your statement that not much padding is needed there was a quick test thrusting a replica viking period spear against riveted maille (The mail was the 0.0625 galvanized steel wire in 3/8 ID rings with round wire and pin rivets sold by 'The Ring Lord', according to the author)
and the maile tied to a pig carcass with padding underneath, not even a heavy gambeson, a layer of soft leather like those used in a couch or clothes, and a couple of layers of cloth one wooll one cotten helped a geat deal since when he subseqently tried to stab the maile without any padding, he punched right through wheraswith thepadding, it was stopped completely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI&feature=related heres the video.

...and thats why im wondering about his visby and why he has it or wears it as either a byzantine infantryman, or a guardsman. But I guessthats more a question that peter alone can answer. hen again in his article he notes two types of lame, that bulged and ridged rectangle, and the round arch shape, seems to me that while yeah ifi wanted to be byzantine id have those shaped lames it doesnt seem far fetched that there was more than one lamellar design in the byzantine forces

i also feel tempted to wonder, why the 'round arch' design of lame became so prominant, it appears to be the ubiquitous type of lame in europe and central asia as well as apparently being the design of the lames in the inuit pieces, if my memory of the book 'armour from the battle of wisby' serves me correctly
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 12:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
that said in support of your statement that not much padding is needed there was a quick test thrusting a replica viking period spear against riveted maille (The mail was the 0.0625 galvanized steel wire in 3/8 ID rings with round wire and pin rivets sold by 'The Ring Lord', according to the author)

Which tells us nothing about viking mail, nor any other historical type of mail. Ring Lord mail has the same flaws as all of the other mass produced mail sold today.

Quote:
and im going to assume that the arguement that said padded shirts, being of perishable materials wouldnt likely survive till the present say, since most viking artifacts are 1000 yrs old or more... isnt sufficient to explain their apparent non existance during that place and period

You'll see how silly this sounds when you look up the total number of examples of viking mail that are available for study.

Quote:
also feel tempted to wonder, why the 'round arch' design of lame became so prominant, it appears to be the ubiquitous type of lame in europe and central asia as well as apparently being the design of the lames in the inuit pieces, if my memory of the book 'armour from the battle of wisby' serves me correctly

It works like fluting. It is stronger without having to increase its thickness. Embossed ribs serve the same purpose.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 2:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
that said in support of your statement that not much padding is needed there was a quick test thrusting a replica viking period spear against riveted maille (The mail was the 0.0625 galvanized steel wire in 3/8 ID rings with round wire and pin rivets sold by 'The Ring Lord', according to the author)

Which tells us nothing about viking mail, nor any other historical type of mail. Ring Lord mail has the same flaws as all of the other mass produced mail sold today.

Quote:
and im going to assume that the arguement that said padded shirts, being of perishable materials wouldnt likely survive till the present say, since most viking artifacts are 1000 yrs old or more... isnt sufficient to explain their apparent non existance during that place and period

You'll see how silly this sounds when you look up the total number of examples of viking mail that are available for study.

Quote:
also feel tempted to wonder, why the 'round arch' design of lame became so prominant, it appears to be the ubiquitous type of lame in europe and central asia as well as apparently being the design of the lames in the inuit pieces, if my memory of the book 'armour from the battle of wisby' serves me correctly

It works like fluting. It is stronger without having to increase its thickness. Embossed ribs serve the same purpose.


i realise that too, since unless im mistaken historical maille is often thought to be a combination of rivveted and solid links.

BUT, what it does show is that, as you said, you dont need a massive gambeson to turn a nasty wound, that would otherwise kill you, into almost no wound at all, and i wouldnt be surprised if riveted and solid linked viking maile may/may not be even tougher than the stuff in the test, or at least use smaller links.

how does one go about finding that number? and why does that number make such an arguement silly?

fluting? im talking about the shape of the scale itself not effects like ridges bosses or making the scales concave or such
or are you refering to the fact that one end is rounded off, or something else?
that said i realise not all lamellar used lames of the same dimensions. some were tall and skinny some shorter and wider.

because as the visby shows, lames can be of multiple different shapes,
but that shape of scale which seems to be in greek linothorax reinforcing, roman squamata (different armour types i know) as wel as mongol, inuit and byzantine lamellar , considering that that shape is so prevalent, i wonder why. is it maybe just that it looks like fish scales?



 Attachment: 19.86 KB
188main.jpg
manning imperial leather lamellar

 Attachment: 28.58 KB
CenterPlates.jpg
as opposed to this shape.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 3:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
how does one go about finding that number? and why does that number make such an arguement silly?
There are very few surviving fragments of mail dating to the viking peroid. There is only one that is largely intact. The fact that none show evidence of a lining isn't surprising. IMO any time that you see an illustration of mail with some kind of border around the edge, then you are likely looking at lined mail.

Quote:
fluting? im talking about the shape of the scale itself not effects like ridges bosses or making the scales concave or such

Ah. Got it.

Quote:
because as the visby shows, lames can be of multiple different shapes, but that shape of scale which seems to be in greek linothorax reinforcing, roman squamata (different armour types i know) as wel as mongol, inuit and byzantine lamellar , considering that that shape is so prevalent, i wonder why. is it maybe just that it looks like fish scales?

No idea. Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 3:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
on the note of armour. how doesthat dendra armour handle in terms of comfort etc compared to an iron hauberk? or better yet, a medieval plate harness, if youve had the chance to try out the others of course.,

It puts a lot more weight on the shoulders than later harnesses. Some details here.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8942
Best to comment on that thread rather than derail this one any further.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Mamluk armour versus Mongol arrows
Page 4 of 7 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  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 2003-2020 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum