| Author |
Message |
Randall Moffett
|
 Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Elling,
Very true. Another thing to keep in mind is not all textile armour is equal as well. 30 layers is the top of the chain. I do not know of any existing jacks of 30 layers. That said only a few have been opened but the thickness would be noticable I think. You also have factors like weight of material heavy or light and the material itself. One issue is the jack was dying out likely as it was not much use verse guns as plate could be and plate was to be had at good prices. Now if it is more expensive and less protection.... no doubt why they left it behind.
Randall
|
|
  |
 |
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In the late period, you could stuff a jack with mail, just to really complicate the classification of things.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Just a litte observation...
It seems to be a common assumption that cloth armour is cheap; This isn't necessarily the case.
Making a 20+ layer cloth armour takes a LOT of textiles. If you asume a loom width of 75 cm, a sleeveless, knee length armour would take about 22 meters of linen canvas. If you look at the prices of textiles in the period, this is by no means cheap.
In fact, one reason cloth armour became less common in the 16th century could be that mass produced light plate was cheaper...
(If you do some creative math based on this page, http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/prim...plies.html , the plate "light armour" is cheaper than 22 m of cloth...)
(Plate and plate is also DEFINITELY not the same... Looking at the inventory of the Higgins museum, breastplates range from 2,5 to 10 kg, indicating a huge variety of thickness... ) |
if its so cheap then why were men that were mustered given a jack ,sallet and a bow? i do believe this is in the mail research journal #1.
|
|
  |
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Historical Ordinances
From the ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves , published October of 1473.
| Quote: |
In the section describing the equipment of members of a lance - specifically the mounted archer "The mounted archer must possess a horse worth not less than six francs, and should wear a visorless sallet, a gorget (This may mean a maille standard or bevor), a brigandine, or a sleeveless mail shirt under a ten layer jack" |
From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)
| Quote: |
And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting." |
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I definitely agree that textile defenses were not cheap. A 20 layer jack uses almost as much cloth as 20 separate tunics. However, by the 15th century, a jack would have cost less than a munitions cuirass which would have cost less than a mail haubergeon, which would have cost less than a custom fitted hardened steel cuirass.
Regarding defining terms, I agree with Rod that pourpoint should be reserved for arming garments - specifically worn under plate or transitional armour. I would use arming doublet for similar garments during later centuries. Regarding other terms I prefer aketon or haqueton for a garment worn under mail. Gambeson is a padded or multi-layer quilted defence worn either by itself or over mail. Jack is another standalone defense often made from multiple layers of cloth but can be reinforced with bone, horn, metal, etc. Jupon is a shorter and better tailored light padded garment worn as a substitute for the earlier surcoat. These are only for clarifying discussions today and are not necessarily the same as the terms used in period.
Regarding butted mail, I can't think of any confirmed evidence to suggest that it was ever worn on a western European battlefield and it is easy to see why not. Even a butter knife can go through it. Which is why I wondered why anyone would bother wasting time shooting it with arrows or bolts. The primary threat on any battlefield was from arrows and spears. Butted mail offers zero defense against these threats unless the links are very small and the weave very dense. At the time the cost of producing butted mail would have been little less than producing riveted mail. The resources involved just in producing wrought iron wire are substantial. The cost of labour involved in actually riveting the links closed is insignificant compared to the total cost of production.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jul, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chuck,
Very good information. I love army req's form the medeival period.
As to expenses of fabric armour. Let me go and look through some inventories today and get back to you. The prices for the jacks tends to be fairly low on most compared to mail and plate but I will get some firm values later.
I think Dan's definitions for the textile armour is very good for our discussion as it covers all the major ones that come to mind and their function well.
Like Dan said their is no evidence I know of for butted in the Medieval period. There is from Roman era and before but by the medeival it is all solid (punched or welded) and riveted. After 1300 rivetted takes over and thereafter almost all is just rivetted. Now it may be expensive but mail is falling somewhat in price at the methods for pulling wire and mass production get a boost from cheaper materials, likely a part of the growing demand on metal for plate as well as continued need of mail armour. So it may have been cheaper to have made butted but it would not likely hold up very long and ergo not worth the cost if you wanted it to keep you alive. I can only imagine the difference in cost would have been marginal as the costs are the same except butted would have to use heavy diameter wire to be of any value making it more expensive materials wise while labor was not all that expensive, an extra gram rivet and done.
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | Like Dan said their is no evidence I know of for butted in the Medieval period. There is from Roman era and before but by the medeival it is all solid (punched or welded) and riveted. |
Many of the Roman era samples originally though to have been butted have turned out to be riveted. Kirkburn is one that immediately comes to mind. The intractible problem with butted mail is its impracticality on the battlefield. Why wear something so expensive and heavy in battle if it offers negligible protection? The only examples of butted mail in the Medieval/Renaissance period are intended for ceremonial wear - not combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | Historical Ordinances
From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)
| Quote: |
Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; ." |
|
This quotation seems to support my proposition that a pourpoint is characterised by it's function of providing points of attachment, as the name pourpoint literally suggests. In this case for chausses.
Not that it will necessarily be a padded arming garment.
Rod.
|
|
 |
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
ya the once thought butted roman mail was rings that busted, the only butted i know of were on teh coppergate helmet and that is thought to have been a ceremonial death helmet. not for actual battle. butted mail just doesnt make since. and the cause it was cheaper thought doesnt fly either. men either had mail or they didnt. no inbetween issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan and Chuck
If that is the case then I really do not have much more to back up butted. Have the early celtic ones also been shown to be rivetted or solid rings as well? I personally never saw the purpose of butted mail as armour in battle but I figured it fit in nicely with its progression. I have some stuff written on this somewhere but since I moved do not have all my sources at easy access. When I get back stateside I will have to recheck some of the info I have to make sure it is corrected if needs be. Do you know which ones have been shown to not be butted or where I should look? Thanks again,
Randall[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Goff
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Even a butter knife can go through it. |
Using just a wee bit of hyperbole here, are we? 
I just ran a test using my in-progress butted mail shirt, some padding, and an 8" knife, sharpened to a cutting edge and with a fine point. Knife didn't go through the mail in three tries. I should probably have done some more, but the shirt isn't complete, and I had to wear it to get it properly filled out. Stabbing toward myself more than three times with an incomplete shirt seemed to be tempting fate, so I wussed out.
Admittedly, it wasn't done using period materials. The shirt is 14 ga. galvanized steel links with a 1/4" inner diameter in the traditional 4-in-1 pattern, and the knife is a stainless steel Henckels cooking knife. It may not be worth anything in period terms, but like some of the other posters have said, any data is good data.
| Quote: | | Butted mail offers zero defense against arrows and spears.unless the links are very small and the weave very dense. |
That I believe. I wouldn't care to try and stop an arrow or spear with a 3/8" inner diameter shirt, not without some heavy padding underneath.
Oh, East of sands and sunlit gulf, your blood is thin, your gods are few;
You could not break the Northern wolf and now the wolf has turned on you.
The fires that light the coasts of Spain fling shadows on the Eastern strand.
Master, your slave has come again with torch and axe in his right hand!
-Robert E. Howard
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | | ya the once thought butted roman mail was rings that busted, the only butted i know of were on teh coppergate helmet and that is thought to have been a ceremonial death helmet. not for actual battle. butted mail just doesnt make since. and the cause it was cheaper thought doesnt fly either. men either had mail or they didnt. no inbetween issues. |
Even the Coppergate mail has turned out to be riveted.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, The Coppergate (or York helmet as the trust now calls it) is rivetted, and I believe as well as the curator who works with it a war helmet. The helmet's thickness also indicates it could be a substancial defence. The only issue about it being a burial helmet is that it was buried w/out a body....
Jacks in the 15th inventories go from 8p to 8shillings. Most about 3 shillings.
A breastplate is 20 shillings but there are less so not as many for comparison. The most interesting is a number of doublets of the ARchbishop that are 19 shillings....
I will get a chart up with some info when its done,
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most Indian and Persian mail made after 1750 AD is butted not rivetted, by this time armour was largely redundant and mail shirts from this period are probably for parade and ceremonial use only.
I always find this picture from Robinson's 'Oriental Armour' to be a good illustration of this trend, check out what the caption says about the mail aventails:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...A_BW_1.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Chuck Russell wrote: | | ya the once thought butted roman mail was rings that busted, the only butted i know of were on teh coppergate helmet and that is thought to have been a ceremonial death helmet. not for actual battle. butted mail just doesnt make since. and the cause it was cheaper thought doesnt fly either. men either had mail or they didnt. no inbetween issues. |
Even the Coppergate mail has turned out to be riveted. |
slaps forhead. you are correct. even the sutton hoo was thought to have butted rings but has since been proven to be solid and riveted. see the prob there is a ton of dated material still in circulation by known/great authors. everyones gonna take "their" word on such things until they find out much later about newer studies.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chuck,
I did not get the memo on all of them either. 
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
well damn them for not tell us! hahahha authors should be required too!! hehehe jkjk 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic