[Matthew Amt]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Randall Moffett]

Matt,

We do know that depending on the size ring and system of the pattern the arrow or point may not need to actually defeat the link either but simply go through. There were several original suits I handled and I had not problem putting several inches through the mail without pushing. With force from a bow or blow this would be a serious issue.

But even if some mail had this weakness not all mail was so easy to get around and even mail of larger size and weave still is effective against many threats.

I think the issue is people want to think some armour was 100% but no armour was.

RPM

[Eric S]

[William P]

thats not even mentioning some needle bodkins

some norman needle bodkins were VERY long and one russian 10th century arrowhead is another example, its a thin, spiral fluted straight shaft for most of its length this was fairly thin and have little trouble simply passing right through the centre of some maile links.

http://xxx.xxx/uploads/2011/medwed-bown/arrows05.gif
im very specifically talking about arrowhead number 10 on the top row in the picture, its recognisable because of its spiral shaft which looks like it was a tiny bit more expensive to produce but it might increase the structural strength a little. (the items are numbered

http://xxx.xxx/2011/01/26/af-medvedev...trely.html this is just a showcase of all the illustrations of arrowheads and archery equipment from the journal article.

http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/6522749/il_f...671304.jpg an example of a European bodkin

and whats your typical ID of maile from that era?

your typical indian maile at the least is around 8mm and your medieval maile depending on the area would be narrower bu no by a whole much i dont think...

... that russian arrowhead would slip right through since is probably about 5mm at its absolute widest at the tip.

[Timo Nieminen]

Long narrow pointed arrowheads like these are an important reason why you really want an outer textile armour layer over mail.

[Eric S]

William, thanks for the excellent images, its obvious that while mail could resist slashing attacks some sort of additional protection was needed to keep sharp pointy things from going through the links.

[Kurt Scholz]

[Dan Howard]

The Defense Academy Warbow trials demonstrated that waxing had no effect on penetration.

[Bartek Strojek]

[Matthew Amt]

Just a couple of caveats:

--Absolute inner diameter of mail rings might be a little misleading, since much of the space inside the ring is taken up by the rings linked through it. So an arrowhead 6mm in diameter won't go through a mail ring with an inner diameter of 7mm--the hole is already too crowded.

--How common were those needle bodkins? From what I've heard, they are very much in the minority, compared to broadheads.

--How dangerous is a point a few mm in diameter which is only sticking an inch or two through the mail? Sounds almost as bad as a modern "pinning ceremony", to me. Obviously puncture wounds and infection are bad!

--Just to be complete s.o.b., are we sure that all those wacky little bodkins are actually arrowheads? Any chance any of them could be leatherworking awls or icepicks or something else?

I'm not trying to dismiss bodkins as a threat to a mailed man completely! I'm just saying, beware of "superweapons", especially if the men who actually faced them don't seem to have reacted to them as if they were superweapons...

Matthew

[Kurt Scholz]

[Mart Shearer]

And what's the weight on bodkins vs. broadheads? We know they made "flight arrows" for distance shooting, so a lighter head might not indicate a "mail-piercing" design so much as a "distance shooting" one. It's interesting that a number of gambeson specifications call for the outside layer to be of silk--sendal, cendal, etc., as many have mentioned this would improve the ability of the padded garment to resist penetration. (Although it could simply be because silk looked better!)

[Randall Moffett]

Matt,

I think that is missing the point. An inch or two of passing the links simply pushed through by hand is way different than being loosed from a bow. The mail will not hold ridged so the two inches of point passed the mail could easily penetrate flesh twice or more that depth as the mail will simple flex as will the flesh. This is different from plate that the deformation is usually much less due to resistance of the metal. The argument the open space is taken by links is not a big one either as no one here is stating the arrows penetrate the same against all mail, only some mail. I have had access to several late medieval and early modern mail shirts and have no doubt needle bodkins were developed to pass between these links. I literally sat there and gently stuck a needle bodkin more than a few inches through most of the pieces without even really touching the mail with more then minimal force (hey they are old and I cannot pay for them, nor did I wish to damage them).

The needle bodkins being in the minority is not a huge issue when tied to the fact we largely cannot split what were hunting or combat arrows. I see little point in bodkins for hunting as they do not do any of the things one really needs for hunting an animal. Yet we can speculate and exam to see such things.

But once again no one is claiming all mail equal or arrowheads, only some were likely designed in this way.

RPM

[Matthew Amt]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

Williams testing pretty patchy for this topic. First we need to all realize he a bodkin that was not the one we are speaking about. So we need to sort out type 7s from 10s. As well His testing was using low quality arms which should not surprise the results. Further much of the factors are left untold which complicates how valuable the outcomes are. But you are right a powerful bow would greatly increase this.

Matt,

Glad the point missed you then! I figure this is a slide rule like system.

RPM

[William P]

[Peteris R.]

[Augusto Boer Bront]

In fact they didn't. They killed or disbanded the horses and stopped the charges.