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
Timo Nieminen




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

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 3:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:

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?


Rounded tops of lamellae reduce the chance of snagging clothing or your own weapon. Also reduce the chance for self-injury.

"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: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 4:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
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.

that was just an afterthought, has anyone actually done damage resistance tests on replicas of the dendra?

btw i also remembered, that peters visby i thought looked fairly different to the original, but according to THIS which is from the book 'armour of the battle of wisby' shows the reconstruction of this type of lamellar being worn
compare it to me wearing it. not as different as i thought, except his piece is using lames twice as wide as the original.



 Attachment: 141.23 KB
me wearing peters leather lamellar [ Download ]

 Attachment: 54.79 KB
reconstruction of the visby lamellar type 5 [ Download ]
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Samuel Bena




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 10 Dec 2007

Posts: 94

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 4:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:

No mention of armour at all, except for his helmet being knocked off his head. Dawson's account is a garbled version of two completely separate battles written by two different authors, one by Comnena and the other by Psellos. Yet another example of why most Osprey books are not worth the wasted space on the bookshelf.


The sources you pointed out make Dawson's work indeed dubious - interesting research and many thanks for correction !
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number
Samuel Bena




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 10 Dec 2007

Posts: 94

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 5:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
The Sarmatians and Parthians and Persians didn't use stirrups and yet had no problems employing heavy cavalry with couched lances


Apologies for diluting the thread but Dan would you happen to have any evidence of the said ancient ("stirrup-less") nations employing their lances in the couched manner? I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number
Dan Howard




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

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,392

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 6:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
that was just an afterthought, has anyone actually done damage resistance tests on replicas of the dendra?


P. H. Blythe, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour Against Arrows in the Persian War (490-479 B. C.), PhD, University of Reading (1977).

He doesn't specifically test a Dendra replica but he tested bronze plates that were the same thickness and alloy as Mycenaean plate armour against arrows and spears.
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 6:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Samuel Bena wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
The Sarmatians and Parthians and Persians didn't use stirrups and yet had no problems employing heavy cavalry with couched lances


Apologies for diluting the thread but Dan would you happen to have any evidence of the said ancient ("stirrup-less") nations employing their lances in the couched manner? I'm genuinely interested.

There are a few discussions over on RAT
http://www.ancient-warfare.org/rat/index.html?func=listcat
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,472

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 8:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
William P wrote:
that was just an afterthought, has anyone actually done damage resistance tests on replicas of the dendra?


P. H. Blythe, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour Against Arrows in the Persian War (490-479 B. C.), PhD, University of Reading (1977).

He doesn't specifically test a Dendra replica but he tested bronze plates that were the same thickness and alloy as Mycenaean plate armour against arrows and spears.


and, generally speaking what was the result of those tests
btw, where can one usually find these articles online?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 8:57 am    Post subject: Qarqal padding         Reply with quote

Since padding was being discussed earlier I might as well link this back to the Mamluks. I was reading an article called 'Know your weaons, know your enemy: a Mamluk training manual" by David Nicolle. Its basically a translation of some sections of a Mamluk furusiyya manual. One passage that was discussing the use of qarqals(padded garment) surprised me.

Quote:
Question What possesses even greater protective qualities than the jawshan?
Answer A padded garment can be worn beneath the jawshan, as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses. This is the qarqal. It will protect the wearer from both heat and cold, and from the blows of maces and kafir kubat which soften the flesh and weaken the bones. If a mail hauberk is worn beneath it, then both protection and safety are found.


Although the manual states that the jawshan should be worn above the qarqal, it also reccomends that the mail be worn beneath the padding rather than above it. Any ideas why that would have been recommended? Also does the fact that the author of the manual identified the qarqal by referring to the Europeans "as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses" imply that such padded garments werent very popular among Muslim armies?

P.S. The Jawshan referred to in the passage is a lamellar cuirass.
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 3:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Qarqal padding         Reply with quote

Ahmad Tabari wrote:


P.S. The Jawshan referred to in the passage is a lamellar cuirass.

Jawshan is interpreted by Nicolle as a lamellar but there are plenty of texts that use the same word to describe "mail and plates" armours. I think the same term was used for both and it depends on the time period which one is being referred to. What is the date for Nicolle's passage?
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 3:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:

P. H. Blythe, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour Against Arrows in the Persian War (490-479 B. C.), PhD, University of Reading (1977).

He doesn't specifically test a Dendra replica but he tested bronze plates that were the same thickness and alloy as Mycenaean plate armour against arrows and spears.


and, generally speaking what was the result of those tests
btw, where can one usually find these articles online?


"A Greek hoplite could quite happily rely upon his bronze helmet to keep out both Persian and Scythian arrows, and on his breastplate and greaves, if he wore them. On the other hand, his armour was far from complete, and the eyes, right arm, and the neck were particularly vulnerable. His shield would provide adequate protection against arrows from the Scythian bow…, but not, at short range, against those from the Persian infantry bow." pp 195-6.

You could try looking here for an online version
http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do
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 3:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Samuel Bena wrote:
Apologies for diluting the thread but Dan would you happen to have any evidence of the said ancient ("stirrup-less") nations employing their lances in the couched manner? I'm genuinely interested.


This might help too
http://comitatus.net/cavalryrecreate.html
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 3:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Qarqal padding         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Ahmad Tabari wrote:


P.S. The Jawshan referred to in the passage is a lamellar cuirass.

Jawshan is interpreted by Nicolle as a lamellar but there are plenty of texts that use the same word to describe "mail and plates" armours. I think the same term was used for both and it depends on the time period which one is being referred to. What is the date for Nicolle's passage?

The manual itself was not written by one author but seems to have been compiled over more than 200 years. I am quite sure the Jawshan referred to in the manual is lamellar as there is mention of silk cords in the Jawshan. Here is the link for the article http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/medi...ng_manual/
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 3:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Excellent. A good read. Does anyone have access to the original text to confirm the translation?

It confirms the use of lamellar over mail by the Mamluks

"A padded garment can be worn beneath the jawshan, as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses. This is the qarqal. It will protect the wearer from both heat and cold, and from the blows of maces and kafir kubat which soften the flesh and weaken the bones. If a mail hauberk is worn beneath it, then both protection and safety are found."

and adds further confirmation to Kozan's complaints about lamellar:

"Every day he must train himself to dismount elegantly so that he does not break or damage it, and he must keep practising and improving this skill. If, during the winter, the cuirass gets wet or damp from rain, he must examine its leather straps and its connections carefully and wipe off any dampness or mud from its individual pieces and any wetness from its cords. If he fails to do this, the inside of it will rot and it will become out of shape. Such rotting shows negligence and carelessness"

Quote:
Although the manual states that the jawshan should be worn above the qarqal, it also reccomends that the mail be worn beneath the padding rather than above it. Any ideas why that would have been recommended? Also does the fact that the author of the manual identified the qarqal by referring to the Europeans "as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses" imply that such padded garments werent very popular among Muslim armies?

I think it does. It also implies that wearing mail underneath the jawshan wasn't common either. Based on the time period I think he is referring to the European combination of coat of plates and pourpoint.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have been trying to find the original Arabic version but I havent had luck so far.

Lamellar certainly wasnt a convenient form of armour. It no doubt would have been very uncomfortable fighting in Lamellar when it is raining. This certainly explains why it never gained popularity in Europe.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2011 12:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are a few reasons where I can see why one would wear lammelar over mail. Obviously, the better protection is one of them. And yes, a 2nd layer of mail over the first would also provide protection, though I am not sure if lammelar over mail would be easier on the wearer than mail over mail.

I do agree that to provide the same protection level, lammelar would be heavier. Ran some numbers a while back ago figuring a 50% overlap, and what weight would be needed to provide similar protection as mail (using William's tests as a guide based on the resistance levels of various thickness of plate vs mail). iirc these correctly, to get similar protection the lammelar would be about 50% heavier. Lammelar might provide better protection though than a similar thickness of steel plate - it has a give to it that plate would not, though not as much give as mail

However, it should be cheaper (less labor intensive) than mail, and you can do more spot protection. A lammelar curiass is going to be lighter than a full mail hauberk.

Plus, a thinner lammelar plate could well have been used if over mail, much in the way that breastplates in the chain and plate period were thinnner than those when used in a suit of full plate.

As to the abilities of leather/cuir boilli/Leather Lammelar, I saw some testing on utube regarding this, and this actually appeared to be pretty well done. I'm not sure if it was schmid's mail or not, but it held up very well.

There was not any arrow testing, but testing vs swords predominantly and a two handed axe.

The results -
8 weight leather provide virtually no protection. Even 2 layers of such leather provided almost no protection, and you are talking now about 16 weight leather, which is very thick. Get much thicker and it becomes difficult to wear, as 16 weight is about moccasin bottom thickness.

Now, the treated leather (boiled) provided better protection - it was certainly not impervious to the attacks, but could absorb much of a sword cut, though it was not as good against thrusts, and an axe hacked it up pretty easily. But it still provided some decent protection.

Problems with the Boiled leather - It's stiff of course, so good for spot protection but not overall armour unless articualted like plate. Other problem - it should a lot of stress after defending from 1 or 2 attacks. Unless they had a much better way of treating this, even boiled leather spot protection would be almost disposable, a few good hits rendering it useless.

The one type of leather based armour that perform better was boiled leather lammelar. This resisted attacks very well, though not nearly as well as mail, though it turned aside anything but a very hard, direct trust, and even limited penetration with this. The give of the lammelar seemed to give it the ability to withstand attacks without being damaged much.

Thing here though - as Dan mentioned, Leather was not a cheap commodity. Throw in the labor to make lammelar, and you probably have something that would cost at least 50% or more as metal lammelar - at offer less prtection, and it would be far less durable, so it wold make a lot more sense to have steel lammelar if going that route.

The mail was pretty well impervious to the attacks, about the worst you would see would be a few deformed rings or possibly even a few cut rings, with virtually no penetration.

No metal lammelar was tested.

About the only use I could see for even the fairly efficient leather lammelar would be in a very hide rich but metal poor culture, possibly certain steppe nomads.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Tue 28 Jun, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would love to see that video. Can you post the link?
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jun, 2011 8:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpuSzgkZN4&feature=related

Above is the Link, Ahmad. It is a series of tests, but you can access all of them from there.

As I said, I'm not sure what quality mail was being used - but it's not that important. It does not show mail as vulnerable, it shows how superior it is to leather type armours.

I'd love to see some quilted material tested as well and compared to leather, though I don't think we truly know the exact construction of thes texxtile based forms of armour.

I've heard 16-24 layers of linen, that's about it Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 567

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jun, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The problem with textile armours is that it is very hard to find the right kind of linen cloth. Modern cloths are often not woven as tightly as historical linen cloths and the thread is weaker due to the fibres being shortend so that machines intended for cotton can be used. I've seen some samples of handmade attempts to recreate historical linen cloths and the end result is rather diffrent the typical modern linen cloth. Strong threads and more of them in each square cm will produce a cloth which is more resistant to damage when layered.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
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: Wed 29 Jun, 2011 4:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Traditional long-fibre linen works for bowstrings. Likewise, silk. Both are among the best for woven textile armour. Hemp was/is used for bowstrings too. Is it also long-fibre? It's been used in East Asian textile armour, and for textile components of armour in East Asia. Was it used in Europe?
"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
Ahmad Tabari





Joined: 15 Jun 2008

Posts: 148

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jun, 2011 7:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I just watched the video and I must say the hardened leather was impressive. It would be interesting to see a test done on wax hardened leather. As for quilted material, I imagine it would provide decent protection against sword cuts and maybe even arrows. But it probably wouldnt fair so well against spear thrusts. So far I havent found any tests on youtube.

Timo, as far as I know silk was not commonly used in European armour but I would bet that some French Knights would have worn silk shirts beneath their aketons during the hundred years war as additional protection from the dreaded bodkin arrows.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Mamluk armour versus Mongol arrows
Page 5 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