Home Page

Stefan's Florilegium

p-armor-msg



This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

p-armor-msg - 11/8/01

 

Period armor. Referances.

 

NOTE: See also the files: helmets-msg, shields-msg, swords-msg, warfare-msg, weapons-msg, armor-msg, chainmail-msg, coat-of-plates-msg, tournaments-art.

 

************************************************************************

NOTICE -

 

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

 

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

 

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

 

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

 

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

 

Thank you,

    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous

                                          Stefan at florilegium.org

************************************************************************

 

From: rvd at bunker.UUCP (Robert Del Favero Jr.)

Date: 23 Aug 90 14:53:22 GMT

Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company, Shelton, CT

 

Cariadoc described a method of padding a helmet with horsehair, but

disclaimed any relation to period practice.  In fact, his method

is not unlike one example I know of that's arguably period.

 

In the Trapp family armory in the castle at Cherbourg, Austria there is

a 14th century bascinet which retains a very old padding/suspension

system.  Although its exact date is not known, it seems likely that

it's "the real thing" for helmet padding (at least Maestro Roberto

thinks so, and that's good enough for me).  As I say, it's a sort of

padded suspension system consisting of four triangular pads filled with

horsehair (or foam if you don't have horsehair).  One side of each pad

is attached around the circumference of the helmet and the points of

the triangles are joined with a drawstring that allows some

adjustment.

 

Here's a crude drawing of the suspension system laid out flat:

 

            /\        /\        /\        /\    

           /  \      /  \      /  \      /  \  

          /    \    /    \    /    \    /    \

         /      \  /      \  /      \  /      \    

        /        \/        \/        \/        \

        ----------------------------------------

        |<------   circumference of helm ----->|

 

The bases of the triangles are sewed to a leather strip riveted into

the helmet,  and the tips are attached with the drawstring.  They are

adjusted so that the pads form a suspension system keeping the head

away from the sides of the helm.

 

Maestro Roberto has padded several helmets this way, using canvas to

make the pads and filling them with shredded Ensolite foam (the

cream-colored sleeping pad foam).  They work well for fighting, though

the marshalls sometimes look askance.  Those of you who saw us in the

blanket merchant area at Pennsic (Gauntlets R Us) might have noticed

this system in use on a Spanish-style cabocet.

 

        Vittorio del Fabbro

        Myrkfaelinn in exile

        East Kingdom

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Robert V. Del Favero, Jr.            ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company

rvd at clunker.uucp                     Shelton, Connecticut, USA

OR clunker!rvd at oliveb.atc.olivetti.com

 

From:    N6852 U14

To:      All

13-Nov-90 09:58pm

Subject: Historic Armor Cleaning

 

WWIVNET: Snafu Software [618-234-2631] - Node 6852

 

Name: Ted (Ice Breaker) Kocot

 

     What do you think grooms and pages were for?

 

     The methods of cleaning Medieval armor were many and varied. To polish

itthey used something not unlike our sandpaper. It would be a piece of cloth

orlight leather with a grit stuck to it with wax or some sort of glue like

therouge you put on a buffing wheel for going from that first stage of

convertinga satin finish to a mirrored one.

     A technique I've heard for cleaning mail is to put it in a barrel

withsawdust, vinegar and a little sand, but I wouldn't try it with galvinized

wireor unrivited mail.

     I have heard two methods for rustproofing that are suposidly period.

Onenvolves coating the piece in pitch. In tournements, the winner sometimes

goteveryone's armor and you'd have to buy back your BLACK MAIL (or so I'veheard). The other method is to rub the grease from salt pork onto your

armor.This causes rust to form, but rather than being a soft flaky rust it is

a harddense rust. I inadvertantly did this to a helm once (I still don't know

how)and it seems to work - it turned a bread crust brown and then never got

anyworse nor did it leave your hands rust covered after you handled it.

     I've seen armor that was painted in museums, but I don't know if that was

practicle or just for decorative purposed.

     I'd advise painting the inside with a good metal primer and spritzing

itdown with WD-40 every so often. "If they would have had it in the middle

ages,they would have used it!"

 

* Origin: "Heraldy at it's Finest" (WWIVnet Gate) (HST) (1:379/15.0)

 

Dafydd Ap Rhys

Leslie DeGroff

Re: Hoisting Into The Saddle!

21 May 91

 

To all the Gentles on the Rialto, Greetings

 

        I have followed the discusion about armor weight with much

interest. I recently came upon a piece of data that might be of interest.

 

        I was reading _The Battle of Bosworth_ by Michael Bennett when I

came across an illustration of a set of full armor, which is described in

the caption as "German gothic war harness for man and horse, of the last

quarter of the fifteenth century." The armor is the "traditional" walking

plate.  It covers from head to toe, literal. The weight (of the man's

armor only) is given as "just over 59 lbs."

 

        I have carried a 60 lb backback. I could move (and climb) quite

easily. If the weight had been as evenly distrubited as it would be with

armor, I could have gotten onto a horse ( except for the fact that I have

trouble mounting a horse without armor.)

 

                Yours in Service

                        Dafydd ap Rhys

 

Source: _The Battle of Bosworth_ Michael Bennett; Alan Sutton Publishing,

Gloucester. (1985) ISBN 0-86299-053-X

 

From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)

Date: 22 Oct 91 03:47:28 GMT

Organization: University of Chicago

 

Everyone knows that the Saracens used light scimitars and the

crusaders used heavy broadswords. Actually, the curved sword does not

seem to have become common in the Middle East until about the 14th

century, well after the major crusades. As far as I can tell, both

sides used what we would call broadswords.

 

Caridoc

 

 

11 May 92

From: kenm at maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University

 

In article <9205111325.AA20287 at emil.csd.uu.se> vader at emil.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes:

>

>Agreed. I have seen some authentic helms here, pig-faced bascinets

>and barrel helms. But most SCA helms are open-faced with grilles,

>which is necessary for safety, but makes them look like baseball

>implements.

 

      Mine original reaction to grill-faced helms was the same... *but*,

I've since looked closely at paintings of medieval *tournament* armour

(14th, 15th centuries) and that's what they're wearing... helms with

broad mesh faces.... and *wooden* swords.  Some of our armour that isn't

authentic combat armour is actually very close to authentic *tournament*

armour.

 

            ....Cinaed de Moravia

 

 

Lord Cinaed de Moray

In residence in the lands

of Byron, Baron Rising Waters,

under the Coronet of the Ealdormere,

in the Midrealm.

--

 

grilled helms

12 May 92

From: vader at emil.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: The Internet

 

Greetings from William de Corbie!

 

Cinead de Moray writes:

 

>Mine original reaction to grill-faced helms was the same... *but*,

>I've since looked closely at paintings of medieval *tournament* armour

>(14th, 15th centuries) and that's what they're wearing... helms with

>broad mesh faces.... and *wooden* swords. Some of our armour that isn't

>authentic combat armour is actually very close to authentic *tournament*

>armour.

 

I certainly am no expert on armor, but I have some nits to pick here:

 

In those late-period paintings I have seen, jousting knights occasionally

wear a kind of helm which appears to be round like a ball, with a visor

that shows vertical slits, sometimes reinforced with horizontal strips

of metal, somewhat remniscent of our grilles.

 

I am not saying that this was your purpose, Cinead, but as defense of

the authenticity of grilled SCA helms, this is poor.

 

a) Most SCA grilled helms are supposed to depict Celtic, Anglo-Saxon,

   Norman or Viking open-faced helms from AD 600 - 1100. They have

   nothing to do with late-period jousting armor. You cannot say "This

   is an authentic 10th century helm with an authentic 15th century

   grille, so the helm is authentic..."

 

b) The late-period grilled helms appear not to have the type of solid

   bars seen on SCA helms, but rather strips of plate metal riveted

   across a visor with sawed-out vertical slits. At least in the

   paintings I have seen, which I may of course have misinterpreted...

 

c) The late-period grilled helms, if I am not mistaken, belong with

   a very special type of jousting armor. In the renaissance, they

   developed various types of armor that was reinforced to take the

   hits of lances, some even had a metal shield fixed on the left

   side of the breast, as part of the armor. I doubt whether those

   suits were ever used in real combat, or on foot. Anyway, are those

   the kind of tournaments we are depicting here? Methinks not.

 

I am certainly not out to ban grilles -- they are necessary for safety,

and they may even be period, though hardly typical of medieval armor.

My point in the original posting was that they don't look medieval,

they look like baseball helms (I know nothing about baseball, but

I remember seeing the guys who are supposed to catch the ball wearing

a grilled helm, or perhaps it was in American rugby (which you guys

erroneously call "football") that I saw these grilled thingies...)

 

Grumble grumble

 

William

 

grilled helms

13 May 92

From: mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

 

I've seen a rather tiny reproduction of a German altarpiece (? - not sure now,

but it was a pictorial representation) from about 1380 showing a bascinet

with grilled visor hinged from the top.  The outline was similar to the

plate visor and not identical to the standard MidRealm grilled basicnet

visor, but it was not too far away.  It was certainly unique.  It did

appear to either use round or square bars, the picture could not

be interepreted clearly either way.

 

The great bascinet which appeared at about that time is often shown with

a barred visor, and was apparently often used in tourneys. Barred visors

were used in the club tourneys that started in the Middle Ages and continued

until fairly recently in Italy; I suppose one could argue that these helmets

represented an oral tradition.

 

--

 

Mike Squires (mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)     812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)

mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu          546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

 

grilled helms

13 May 92

From: aryk at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: University of Toronto

 

In article <1992May13.154644.8027 at pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt at PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>

>The stuff from Styria is all late and post-period, but there are helms

>with what I would consider face grills.  Some of the helms set up this

>way aren't jousting gear.  Interestingly--the bars aren't continuous

>in both directions, but consist of verticle bars with short extensions

>to either side.  The net effect appears to be to limit the maximum

>size hole in front of the face.  Again--I agree on the point about

>early-vs-late, and these are late.

 

Yes, Hal, those were not jousting gear.  Burgeonets like the ones in the Graz

armoury exhibition were frequently made with barred faces. Sometimes they

were worn with bevors to cover the grill.  These were certainly worn before

1600 by German heavy horse, including Schwarzreiter pistoleers.  I have one

that is SCA-legal; and I've seen others.  There are examples of period grilled

vizors; but if you are going to blow money on a helmet, it seems worthwhile

to make sure that you are getting a helmet with a vizor appropriate to the

helmet, and to the rest of your armour.  Wearing my grilled-face burgeonet

with chain mail and a Norman surcote would be kinda pointless.

 

Aryk Nusbacher

 

P.S.   The "Knight Shirts" they were selling were nifty, too.

 

Basket Faced Helms

15 May 92

From: bnostran at ds5000.crc.northeastern.edu (Barbara Nostrand)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: Northeastern University, Boston MA. USA 02190

 

Gentles!

 

There have been several postings recently which assert that basket faced

helms are OOP and resemble the equipment worn by baseball catchers.

 

While it is true that the faces of these helms do resemble the masks

worn by baseball catchers, it is not true that this visage makes these

helms OOP.  Helmets with similar face construction can be found in

the following illustrations:

 

      15th c. illustration of a scene in Roman history portraying a

            joust with axes (BL MS Harley 4375,f.171v)

 

      15th c. illustration to Rene d'Anjou, Treatise on the form and

            devising of a tournament (Bibliotheque Nationale

            MS 2693 ff. 47v-48)

 

      15th c.      illustration of the dukes of Brittany and Bourbon

            fighting with swords on horseback.

            (ibid. MS 2693 ff.32v-33)

 

      15th c. the king-at-arms about to start a tournament

            (ibid. MS 2693 ff.62v-63)

 

      15th c.      the melee with swords

            (ibid. MS 2692 f.67v-68)

 

Now, it is important to notice that the basket work depicted in these

illustrations appears to be made from bar stock instead of round stock.

However, I consider this to be a minor point.  Also, I think that

flattening the bars of a basket faced helmet is within the technological

capabilities of most SCA armourers.  (However, please understand that

I am not asserting that the use of round stock is OOP. Just that I do

not have documentation for it.)

 

A note to these wise, unless you can document when something was

invented, discovered or introduced or can in the case of art

document a countervening aesthetic, it is dangerous to boldly

claim that something is OOP.

 

                              Your Humble Servant

                              Solveig Throndardottir

 

Basket Faced Helms

15 May 92

From: shick at europa.asd.contel.COM (steve hick)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Organization: The Internet

 

Greetings all,

 

One of the earliest fencing manuals of all, Fiori dei Liberi's Flos

Duellatorum, inludes illustrations of combat in armor which shows great

bascinets with barred visors.  These are shown interchangably with visors with

very narrow occulariums which are very much as expected. These are obviously

intended for mortal combat, as is clearly shown in some of the figures.

 

Strykar

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU

Subject: Horned Helmets

Organization: New York University, NY, NY

Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 05:07:38 GMT

 

Just wanted to ruffle some feathers.

Someone had mentioned horned helmets, this received one or two responses

and no controversy. What is a Jew if not controversial?

Let's begin with early Celts -

A illustration dating nto 1st or 2nd century BCE found in "Greece and

Rome at War" by I forget Who, shows a Celtic military regiment aligned

and ready for battle. Helmets worn include the usual "boat sail " shape,

animal heads, full statues of animals, and horns (some of them real big!).

Continuing in Europe -

We come to 13th and 14th cent. CE in Germany and sometimes England where

great helms were decorated with horns made of tubes of soft leather. These

were often the length of a man's arm. (sorry I forgot the name of the book,

my aprentice is reading it. Dark Mage, if youre there, please post citation).

A little further afield -

India and Persia 15th - 18th cent. (may be earlier beggining and later end)

Helmets oft bear horns made of steel about the size of a man's hand.

Japan , starting 14th? cent.

One can find almost every sort of crest on a Japanese helmet, I've seen

bull horns.

The plains of America, end date late 19th. cent.

Buffalo horns were often worn on a war bonnet.

 

About the only rgroup who almost definitely did not wear horns are the

Vikings. My guess is that the horned helmet immage comes from the Nazi

operas (this is athematically accurate use of the word) of Wagner (cursed be

his memory and that of his descendants!) wherre the nationalist movement

attempted to link the Vikings to the Aryans of India (see comment on Indian

helmets above).

 

May the Everliving one hold you ever in the palm of His hand!

Nahum benGershom haZev of Kuzaristan  <FNKLSHTN at acfcluster.nyu.edu>

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)

Subject: Re: Horned Helmets

Organization: Indiana University

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:06:10 GMT

 

In article <C57A8q.Htx at cmcl2.nyu.edu> fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU writes:

 

I think that horned helmets or crested helmets were worn in combat only when

the dominant weapon style was a thusting or thrown spear and swords were

used in a chopping motion rather than a horizontal motion.

 

>Let's begin with early Celts -

>A illustration dating nto 1st or 2nd century BCE found in "Greece and

>Rome at War" by I forget Who, shows a Celtic military regiment aligned

>and ready for battle. Helmets worn include the usual "boat sail " shape,

>animal heads, full statues of animals, and horns (some of them real big!).

 

      True enough. However, some of the really fancy ones were worn by

chiefs who would be at the back of the formation, directing things. The

dominant weapon was the spear either thrown or weilded from chariot.

 

>We come to 13th and 14th cent. CE in Germany and sometimes England where

>great helms were decorated with horns made of tubes of soft leather. These

>were often the length of a man's arm.

 

      Also true, from the 12th-15th c. very elaborate crests were used

in tourneys. However, they seem to have been removed (and at least 1

14th C. great heume has lugs for mounting crests) for battle. Once

again, the dominant weapon was the spear.

 

>Japan , starting 14th? cent.

>One can find almost every sort of crest on a Japanese helmet, I've seen

>bull horns.

     

      In the front, low down. so they wouldn't interfere with sword

work.

 

>The plains of America, end date late 19th. cent.

>Buffalo horns were often worn on a war bonnet.

 

Umm, I'm not up on my Amerinds, but I think that the buffalo horned

headgear was a ceremonial shaman's cap. I am not certain that it was

worn into battle. I am also not certain that the "warbonnet" was either.

But I'm not sure.

 

      Lothar \|/

              0

 

 

From: gdaub at mcis.messiah.EDU

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Metal in period

Date: 11 Oct 1993 09:09:10 -0400

Organization: The Internet

 

Parlan MacGillivray asked about the gauges of metal in period armor.  These

figures are from _Longbow: A social and military history_. The figures are

in inches.  I have supplied the approximate gauges (I hope they are right).

 

                                                approx

                                      inches    gauge

   Bascinet

      1380, German:  top front         .150       7

                     visor snout       .060      14

      1370, German:  top front         .096      11

                     sides             .050      16

      1370, Italian: top front         .120       9

                     back              .060      14

      1370, Italian: top front         .180       5

                     sides and back    .100      10

   Cuisses

      1390, Italian: thickest parts    .070      13

                     thinnest parts    .050      16

 

   Breastplate

      1470, Italian: thickest          .110       9

                     thinnest          .080      12

 

   The 14 to 16 gauge plate that is used a lot in the SCA is about equal to

the thinnest parts of these period armors.  If anything, we should be using

heavier metal, not lighter.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|  Gregory Daub                      |  Messiah College                  |

|  Administrative Programmer         |  Computing Services                |

|  Internet: gdaub at mcis.messiah.edu  |  Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027      |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 3 Nov 1993 03:24:54 GMT

Organization: Cornell Law School

 

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

 

> Coats-of-plate and lamellar armor were both found in the Wisby

> digs, I believe that's 11th C. ?

 

I don't. Someone whose library is closer to him than mine is to me at the

moment will probably post the exact date, but I am pretty sure it is a good

deal later than the 11th century.

 

Dennis's basic point, however, is correct. There are lamellae from

pre-Viking age Scandinavia and lots of other places. Roman armor was

largely plate, loosely defined--i.e. substantial pieces of sheet metal

rather than mail.

 

Tracker writes:

 

" Take thou iron, a hammer of goode weighte, and draw plate."

 

The drawing of iron and steel wire starts long after mail--indeed, I think

after plate has largely replaced mail. It is not known when wire drawing of

any sort was invented--there is no clear evidence for it in classical

antiquity, and it is described by Theophilus c. 1100. But drawing iron and

steel is much more difficult than drawing silver and gold, and so developed

later. Virtually all period mail is forged, not drawn.

 

"In days of olde a suit of maille took a craftsman perhaps but a day or

two, the time being lesser as the work of apprentices grew greater in

contribution."

 

Do you have any evidence for this estimate? Remember that every link was

rivetted--and you are talking about many thousands of links. I would have

guessed months, not days. Think about how long it takes SCA armorers to

make a hauberk--starting with wire and without rivetting it.

 

Dorothea argues that mail was preferred because of the difficulty of

forging large pieces of iron. But the Romans and the Greeks did it.

Besides, lamellar only requires pieces a few inches on a side.

 

Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or

plate of one sort or another.

 

DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

 

 

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 3 Nov 1993 05:58:27 GMT

Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

 

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:

 

>The drawing of iron and steel wire starts long after mail--indeed, I think

>after plate has largely replaced mail. It is not known when wire drawing of

>any sort was invented--there is no clear evidence for it in classical

>antiquity, and it is described by Theophilus c. 1100. But drawing iron and

>steel is much more difficult than drawing silver and gold, and so developed

>later. Virtually all period mail is forged, not drawn.

 

(Dropping out of period-ness for a sec..)

 

Ductile (soft) iron is relatively easy to draw. The quenching process

is what hardened it in period. A look at some of the (few) period

woodcuts which demonstrate the maker of mail at his craft show draw

plates in the background, and drawing pliers. One doesn't forge with

drawing pliers and a plate. The draw plate goes back a long way, and

there have been hypotheses bantered about that before the draw plate

the wire was split-hammered and then rough-formed round, wrapped, then

cut.

 

>"In days of olde a suit of maille took a craftsman perhaps but a day or

>two, the time being lesser as the work of apprentices grew greater in

>contribution."

>

>Do you have any evidence for this estimate? Remember that every link was

>rivetted--and you are talking about many thousands of links. I would have

>guessed months, not days. Think about how long it takes SCA armorers to

>make a hauberk--starting with wire and without rivetting it.

 

With links made, I can complete a non-riveted hauberk in one weekend

of solid work. That is my time frame estimate, for a modern basis. You

don't rivet each link as you put it on... that would be insanely

ineffective. Using the 4-in-1, open/closed ring method, you pre-rivet

quite a number of the links. Or, rather, your apprentice does. Then

you have only a fraction of the number to rivet when you're ready to

finish up the hauberk. Practice makes anything easy. Well, except

spontaneous self-combustion...

 

Mathematics: If you can put two rings (one open, one closed) onto a

sheet of mail every 8 seconds, you average about 14 rings per minute.

That's 840 links per hour. An 'average' short hauberk is about 24,000

links. That's under 30 hours... mind you, that's the attaching time,

not including quenching, final riveting.. but with ductile rivets, all

you do is smash them flat, then quench when they're all in place.

 

>Dorothea argues that mail was preferred because of the difficulty of

>forging large pieces of iron. But the Romans and the Greeks did it.

>Besides, lamellar only requires pieces a few inches on a side.

 

The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers

of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,

since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of

softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

 

>Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or

>plate of one sort or another.

 

For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and

for many people it's a lot cheaper. :)

 

Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander

around with you and show you the period examples that I'm taking all

this from. T'would beat sitting around on my arse reading class

notes any day of the week. :)

 

-Tracker

 

 

 

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 3 Nov 1993 13:34:55 GMT

Organization: Cornell Law School

 

The Renegade Ranger, replying to my reply, wrote:

 

> Ductile (soft) iron is relatively easy to draw. The quenching process

> is what hardened it in period. A look at some of the (few) period

> woodcuts which demonstrate the maker of mail at his craft show draw

> plates in the background, and drawing pliers. One doesn't forge with

> drawing pliers and a plate.

 

I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are

fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in

Ithaca for the year, but I think if you check any of the standard sources

you will find that they confirm my claim--that the use of drawn wire for

mail occurs after the shift to plate armor, not before.

 

>  With links made, I can complete a non-riveted hauberk in one weekend

> of solid work. That is my time frame estimate, for a modern basis. You

> don't rivet each link as you put it on... that would be insanely

> ineffective. Using the 4-in-1, open/closed ring method, you pre-rivet

> quite a number of the links. Or, rather, your apprentice does. Then

> you have only a fraction of the number to rivet when you're ready to

> finish up the hauberk.

 

I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think

you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you

think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four

seconds, starting with an ingot?

 

>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers

> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,

> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of

> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

 

But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that

twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make

plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the

distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you

have any evidence for that argument?

 

> >Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or

> >plate of one sort or another. (me)

>

>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and

> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :)

 

Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that

your short hauberk (which, as I recall, would be 15-40 lbs) corresponds to

only a part of a suit of plate--roughly back and breast (which I think

would be down in the same weight range). I would think that by the time you

expand your mail to a full, long sleeved hauberk plus pants, the weight

would be comparable to full plate (not tilting armor, of course). I'll

check with Master Roberto next time I see him, for opinions on weight,

time, and why plate came in so late.

 

David/Cariadoc

DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

 

 

From: tracker at bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 4 Nov 1993 19:45:34 GMT

Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

 

 

Responses to two postings! (Figured I'd save bandwidth.. well, sort

of)

 

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:

>

>I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are

>fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in

 

According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the

armourer and his craft), they are circa 11th C.

 

[timimg stuff deleted]

>I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think

>you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you

>think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four

>seconds, starting with an ingot?

 

You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. You do

_not_ rivet each open link as you put it together. That's silly. You

prepare the rivets and rivet all the open rings at once. Riveting them

individually would be like cutting one link at a timne, then attaching

it. You cut a bunch, then go from there. Repetition vs task-switching.

And I wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no.

Since I can cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster (I cut

several at once using good cutters), a cold chisel going through soft

iron would easily be as fast in skilled hands. Remember, all the iron

is soft until you quench it. You do not have to draw a bead on the

rivets, or anything like that. Shove them in place, one shot, move on

to the next. When you dunk the shirt to quench it, you harden the

rivets.

 

>>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers

>> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,

>> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of

>> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

>

>But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that

>twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make

>plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the

>distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you

>have any evidence for that argument?

 

That's not what I'm arguing. Romans did not make tempered steel

armour of comparable quality to that of the Gothic and later periods.

They, in many cases, did not use iron at all, when bronze was easier

to play with. Twelfth century armorers were able to create a tempered

steel which was more effective against the weapons. Bronze versus

hardened steel is not a contest, nor is untempered steel versus

tempered steel weaponry. Since the Romans could not uniformly temper

steel in flat plates from blooms, maille (which was quenched and

therefore hardened)(quenching is much easier than tempering a flat

plate to unifrom hardness) was tougher. Since the longbow was not in

the developed use of say, Agincort, all they really wanted was better

protection against the steel weaponry, which was slightly (though not

much) easier to temper evenly, since it was a smaller amount of metal.

 

Note that the Romans _could_ make steel/iron plates, the lorica

segmantata is witness to that. But it was not a _tempered_ armor.

 

>>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and

>> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :)

>

>Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that

 

Full gothic plate weighs approximately 75 pounds for a 5'10"

individual, including vambraces, et.al. A long mail hauberk, with

rings of an inside diameter slightly larger than your average crayon,

weighs in at about 40 pounds, long sleeves and all. Toss in light

protection for legs, and you're up to about 50.  

Prices? Check out FFoulkes' inventory listing of the Armouries at the

Tower, including wages paid, and such like that. In there you will

find prices for quite a number of things.

 

Want a better example? Ask someone in the SCA how much they would

charge you for a long hauberk, with sleeves and coif. Now ask someone

else how much it would be for a suit of Gothic plate, with all pieces

sans helmet. Not plastic armour, mind you, full steel, elbow cops,

pauldrons, the works. If you can find someone who will make a good

suit of the latter for the price of the former, PLEASE send me their

address.. I would be forever greatful. (Heck, I'm serious, I've always

wantd a suit of plate..  :)

 

As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes

in mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a

breastplate? Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix

their own maille.

 

 

 

In article <2b9rjt$i3j at cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn at AXP3.ACF.NYU.EDU writes:

 

>Wait a minute. All I've seen seems to indicate that armour was essentialy the

>same as our cold rolled steel with a small number of the very late stuff being

>case hardened. Nothing about tempering.

 

Nopers, not the same. At least, not normally. There are, as always,

exceptions in quality, but many of them were done by mistake, and not

as a result of scientific tempering as was done in later periods.

 

>You have something that says otherwise?

 

Yuppers.. fragments of a Lorica Segmantata taken from the excavation

at Dura-Europos. All the 'tempering' of them is just the result of

them being bashed into plates.

 

>> Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander

>

>Cool! Which museum? Do you work there? Can you get access to the stuff?

 

Higgins Armory Museum, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ed. Staff/Gallery

Interpreter/Outreach program staff. Yes. :) (Though not as much of the

last one as I'd like... _you_ go ahead and tell the curator you want

to play with the gold-edged close helm... _I_ value my life. ;)

 

Blatant plug (Aoogah! Aoogah!): If you're anywhere near Boston, it's

pretty nifty. Solely dedicated to Arms and Armor, which makes it the

only one on this side of the Mississippi (Someone said anywhere in the

US, but I could swear there's one or two out west-ish...) (And the Met

doesn't count, they've got other stuff. ;) Current Collection.. I'd

say around 65 suits displayed, plus several hundred weapons, other

such fun accoutrements. Lots more in storage... which is normally

off-limits.. sniff, sniff.. though I got to root around for 3 hours

once during training. Grin.

 

 

Poof!

 

-Tracker

 

 

 

From: cav at bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 5 Nov 1993 16:24:35 GMT

Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

 

In article <2bbm4u$u3 at bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker at bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger) writes:

|>

|> Responses to two postings! (Figured I'd save bandwidth.. well, sort

|> of)

|>

|> DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:

|> >

|> >I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are

|> >fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in

|>

|>  According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the

|> armourer and his craft), they are circa 11th C.

|>

|> [timimg stuff deleted]

|> >I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think

|> >you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you

|> >think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four

|> >seconds, starting with an ingot?

|>

|>  You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. You do

|> _not_ rivet each open link as you put it together. That's silly. You

|> prepare the rivets and rivet all the open rings at once. Riveting them

|> individually would be like cutting one link at a timne, then attaching

|> it. You cut a bunch, then go from there. Repetition vs task-switching.

|> And I wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no.

|> Since I can cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster (I cut

|> several at once using good cutters), a cold chisel going through soft

|> iron would easily be as fast in skilled hands. Remember, all the iron

|> is soft until you quench it. You do not have to draw a bead on the

 

Uh, sorry, but I believe that all iron is soft *period*. Quenching does

NOT harden iron to any appreciable degree.  The iron must be alloyed with

a minimum amount of carbon for quenching to harden it. Iron that has been

alloyed with carbon is called steel. Even mild steel

remains largely unaffected by quenching.  This may sound like nit picking,

but you're speaking with a certain degree of authority, and I'd hate for

someone to come away with misconceptions about the terminology.  For the

shirt to be hardenable, the iron would have to have been carburized at some point.  This could theoretically be done after the shirt

is made.  Even if the quenching was performed in oil or some other carbon

containing bath, I doubt that the amount of carburization that would occur

would be enough to convert wrought iron to (hardenable) steel.  In any case,

changing the carbon content of the iron/steel is not typically performed in this

way (to my knowledge).  Significant carburization would require prolonged

exposure to carbon at high temperatures (preferably in the absense of oxygen).

 

Do you have any evidence that the iron used for mail shirts was ever

carburized/hardened?  (I'd be really interested to know if they did this)

 

|> rivets, or anything like that. Shove them in place, one shot, move on

|> to the next. When you dunk the shirt to quench it, you harden the

|> rivets.

|>

|> >>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers

|> >> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,

|> >> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of

|> >> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

 

Probably just wrought iron in the case of Lorica Segmentata.

 

|> >

|> >But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that

|> >twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make

|> >plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the

|> >distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you

|> >have any evidence for that argument?

|>

|>  That's not what I'm arguing. Romans did not make tempered steel

|> armour of comparable quality to that of the Gothic and later periods.

|> They, in many cases, did not use iron at all, when bronze was easier

|> to play with. Twelfth century armorers were able to create a tempered

|> steel which was more effective against the weapons. Bronze versus

|> hardened steel is not a contest, nor is untempered steel versus

|> tempered steel weaponry. Since the Romans could not uniformly temper

|> steel in flat plates from blooms, maille (which was quenched and

|> therefore hardened)(quenching is much easier than tempering a flat

 

I'm not sure you are using the terminology correctly. Tempering is a

process of *softening* a piece that has been hardened (by quenching)

ie. you are tempering the hardness to prevent cracking.

 

Steel (alloy of iron and carbon) can exist in several different crystaline

forms.  With higher carbon steels, the crystaline structure is altered

radically when it is heated beyond the 'critical' temperature.  If allowed

to cool slowly, the crystaline structure reverts to it's normal (soft)

morphology.  If you cool it quickly (quenching), the structure is locked

in the hard form.  This is a very simplified description without getting

into the different structures involved (which I always have to look up

anyway).  High carbon steels hardened in this manner will be VERY hard,

but also VERY brittle, often to the point of being useless.  In order to

soften the steel a little to make it useable, you 'draw the temper'.

To do this you reheat the steel (the degree to which it is heated

depends on the purpose to which it will be put - it is judged by the

colour of surface oxides).  When the desired amount of temper is drawn,

the piece is rapidly cooled (quenched) to prevent further softening.

 

 

|> plate to unifrom hardness) was tougher. Since the longbow was not in

|> the developed use of say, Agincort, all they really wanted was better

|> protection against the steel weaponry, which was slightly (though not

|> much) easier to temper evenly, since it was a smaller amount of metal.

|>

|>  Note that the Romans _could_ make steel/iron plates, the lorica

|> segmantata is witness to that. But it was not a _tempered_ armor.

|>

|> >>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and

|> >> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :)

|> >

|> >Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that

|>

|>  Full gothic plate weighs approximately 75 pounds for a 5'10"

|> individual, including vambraces, et.al. A long mail hauberk, with

|> rings of an inside diameter slightly larger than your average crayon,

|> weighs in at about 40 pounds, long sleeves and all. Toss in light

|> protection for legs, and you're up to about 50.  

|>  

|>  Prices? Check out FFoulkes' inventory listing of the Armouries at the

|> Tower, including wages paid, and such like that. In there you will

|> find prices for quite a number of things.

|>

|>  Want a better example? Ask someone in the SCA how much they would

|> charge you for a long hauberk, with sleeves and coif. Now ask someone

|> else how much it would be for a suit of Gothic plate, with all pieces

|> sans helmet. Not plastic armour, mind you, full steel, elbow cops,

|> pauldrons, the works. If you can find someone who will make a good

|> suit of the latter for the price of the former, PLEASE send me their

|> address.. I would be forever greatful. (Heck, I'm serious, I've always

|> wantd a suit of plate..  :)

|>

|>  As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes

|> in mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a

|> breastplate? Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix

|> their own maille.

 

No argument there.  If you're on campaign, far from home/armourers, these

things are important considerations (until you start bringing armourers

along in your entourage).  

 

|>

|>

|>

|> In article <2b9rjt$i3j at cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn at AXP3.ACF.NYU.EDU writes:

|>

|> >Wait a minute. All I've seen seems to indicate that armour was essentialy the

|> >same as our cold rolled steel with a small number of the very late stuff being

|> >case hardened. Nothing about tempering.

 

Tempering *softens* steel.  That's why it's called that. The term is commonly

misused to mean hardening (until I learned a bit about Blacksmithing, I did so

too). To case harden a piece, you pack it in a sealed

iron box with carbon powder and bake it in a furnace for a while.  The depth

of the carbon absorbtion depends on temp/duration of the baking.  When it

comes out, you heat it up to the critical temperture and quench it to harden

the outer carburized layer of the piece.  Since the core is still soft iron,

you may not have to temper it to prevent reduce brittleness and prevent cracking.

 

|>

|>  Nopers, not the same. At least, not normally. There are, as always,

|> exceptions in quality, but many of them were done by mistake, and not

|> as a result of scientific tempering as was done in later periods.

|>

|> >You have something that says otherwise?

|>

|>  Yuppers.. fragments of a Lorica Segmantata taken from the excavation

|> at Dura-Europos. All the 'tempering' of them is just the result of

|> them being bashed into plates.

|>

 

In the case of Roman era gear, I don't know.  It wouldn't surprise me if

the lorica was simply wrought iron since I'm under the impression that

they were mass produced.  

In early period, iron plates were certainly being made, for helmets if

for nothing else.  Iron was being carburized into steel for sword edges,

knife edges, etc.  I can think of no technical reason for them not being

able to make hardened steel plate armour.  If they did carburize/harden

mail (don't know for sure one way or t'other), they could certainly carburize/

harden plates.  Was it considered practical?  Was it deemed worth the

expense?  I think that would be the important question. How closely does

the widespread proliferation of plate armour coincide with the advent

of water driven trip hammers?  

 

 

|> >> Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander

|> >

|> >Cool! Which museum? Do you work there? Can you get access to the stuff?

|>

|> Higgins Armory Museum, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ed. Staff/Gallery

|> Interpreter/Outreach program staff. Yes. :) (Though not as much of the

|> last one as I'd like... _you_ go ahead and tell the curator you want

|> to play with the gold-edged close helm... _I_ value my life. ;)

|>

|> Blatant plug (Aoogah! Aoogah!): If you're anywhere near Boston, it's

|> pretty nifty. Solely dedicated to Arms and Armor, which makes it the

|> only one on this side of the Mississippi (Someone said anywhere in the

|> US, but I could swear there's one or two out west-ish...) (And the Met

|> doesn't count, they've got other stuff. ;) Current Collection.. I'd

|> say around 65 suits displayed, plus several hundred weapons, other

|> such fun accoutrements. Lots more in storage... which is normally

|> off-limits.. sniff, sniff.. though I got to root around for 3 hours

|> once during training. Grin.

|>

|>

|> Poof!

|>

|> -Tracker

|>

 

Cheers, Balderik

 

 

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 8 Nov 1993 23:44:19 GMT

Organization: Cornell Law School

 

I wrote, responding to an earlier posting by Tracker, in which he described

woodcuts showing armor makers with draw plates:

 

"I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are

fourteenth or fifteenth century."

 

Tracker replied:

 

"According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the armourer and

his craft), they are circa 11th C."

 

It is unclear from this whether you are referring to one book (_The

Armourer and his Craft_, by Ffoulkes) or two books (that one and Ffoulkes'

other book, _Arms and Armour_). I have neither here, but Robert Macpherson

(Master Roberto di Milano) has both, so I asked him to look through them.

According to him, there is only one woodcut (in _The Armourer and his

Craft_) that has anything to do with mail making. It does not show a draw

plate and is dated to the sixteenth century (1590 according to the book,

but Mac thinks it is really from 1540). There is nothing in either book

that comes anywhere close to your description. There is a figure showing

wire being wound to make mail, but it is a drawing by the author, not a

period picture.

 

Furthermore, Ffoulkes says (p. 44 in the Dover edition of _The Armourer and

his Craft_) that mail was at first not made from drawn wire, that the

invention of the drawing of wire is credited to Rudolph of Nurenburg in the

mid 14th century, but that there is evidence that two corporations of wire

drawers (he does not specify what kind of wire they were drawing, and may

not have considered the possibility that they were drawing silver and gold

wire for jewelry rather than iron for mail) existed by 1260.

 

Or in other words, the evidence you cited does not seem to exist and the

authority you cited agrees with my claim (that the use of drawn wire for

making mail only comes in after plate has begun to replace mail) not yours

(that mail was made from drawn wire from an early date). Perhaps you could

check your source again, and describe exactly where the woodcuts you

describe are to be found in the book. I would find 11th century woodcuts

from Europe about as surprising as evidence of the drawing of iron wire in

the 11th century, so if you have both ...   .

 

Incidentally, Mac says there is an article by Cyril Stanley Smith in Volume

1 nbr 1 of "Technology and Culture" describing the results of a

metallurgical analysis of various links of mail. Mac's memory is that some

but not very many turned out to be from drawn wire, with more from strips

cut from sheet, in some cases then rounded. He thinks the links were not

dated. You might want to check the article--Mac was going by memory on it.

 

I wrote:

 

"Do you think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring

every four seconds, starting with an ingot?"

 

Tracker replied:

 

"You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. ... And I

wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no. Since I can

cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster ..."

 

I don't think I missed anything. I was talking about the time to forge the

links from an ingot since, as I had maintained (and still maintain--see

above), they did not have drawn iron wire to make their links out of. So

you start with an ingot, make that into sheet (I suspect by forging in the

11th century--when did rollers come in?), cut the sheet into strips,

perhaps round the strips either with a hammer or by tumbling, make the

strips into coils--and are now ready to start the process you described.

 

Tracker also wrote:

 

"As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes in

mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a breastplate?

Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix their own maille."

 

This applies to plate vs mail but not to lamellar vs mail--which is another

part of the same puzzle, since lamellar exists at the time when mail is

dominant.

 

Tracker also, responding to my question about relative price of mail and

plate, refers to inventories from the tower cited by Ffoulkes. Inventories

from when? I would expect the relative price of mail to be a good deal

lower after they started drawing iron wire, for the reasons discussed

above.

 

David/Cariadoc

DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: gregsta at microsoft.com (Gregory Stapleton)

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Organization: Microsoft Corp.

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 16:52:13 GMT

 

The Wisby dig is definately 11 Century A.D.  Just checked 3 different sources.

 

My 2-cents worth.

 

Gawaine Kilgore

 

 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Organization: Indiana University

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 20:49:30 GMT

 

In article <CG8HJ2.v1 at microsoft.com> gregsta at microsoft.com (Gregory Stapleton) writes:

 

>The Wisby dig is definately 11 Century A.D.  Just checked 3 different sources.

>

 

      Then your books are wrong. The battle of Visby was fought

between the Gottlanders and the Danes in 1389 near the city of Visby.

This doesn't mean that there might not have been earlier battles near

the same town, but the battle that produced all the skeletal remains and

bits of armor is DEFINATELY late 14th c. That's the reason that it

appears in books on 14th c. armor, rather than books on 11th c. armor.

         

       Lothar \|/

            0

 

 

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 11 Nov 1993 15:57:04 GMT

Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

 

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:

>Tracker replied:

>

>"According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the armourer and

>his craft), they are circa 11th C."

 

Today's lesson: GO to the primary source. This is directed at me, not

Cariadoc. I did indeed check the book, and you are indeed correct.

I've since thrown out the mislabeled photocopy that said at the bottom

that it was a) from Ffoulkes' book and b) from the 11th c. I'm

certainly now in agreement as to the non-presence of it in Ffoulkes,

and since I have nothing that says otherwise, I won't dispute the

mention you made earlier of the dates of the plates.

 

>Incidentally, Mac says there is an article by Cyril Stanley Smith in Volume

>1 nbr 1 of "Technology and Culture" describing the results of a

>metallurgical analysis of various links of mail. Mac's memory is that some

>but not very many turned out to be from drawn wire, with more from strips

>cut from sheet, in some cases then rounded. He thinks the links were not

>dated. You might want to check the article--Mac was going by memory on it.

 

Hmm, that would be interesting..  I'll check the consortium library

to see if I can find the article. There are definitely a number of

mail examples that I've seen that would be in agreement with this

theory. It's reasonably easy (I say reasonably, but my own attempts

wouldn't even come close...) to pound a small flate plate of uneven

structure (ie, a generic plate), and that would provide a base surface

to cut the strips from. It would be interesting to find out what

percentage were made in what method in the different periods, and

especially what dates they came into existance. It figures that the

one time that we'd like to see records from was one of the least

documented periods.. ah, the Dark ages.

 

>"As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes in

>mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a breastplate?

>Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix their own maille."

>

>This applies to plate vs mail but not to lamellar vs mail--which is another

>part of the same puzzle, since lamellar exists at the time when mail is

>dominant.

 

Now this is definitely a puzzle. Lamellar armor was prominent, as far

as I've been able to tell, throughout the same period of mail. The

Romans, with the Lorica Hamata, used lamellar and maille

simultaneously for different troops. Small plates would be easy enough

to replace in the field.. the only reason I can think of for the

dominance of mail is better protection/weight ratio, but I have no

comparisons to base it on at the moment. Maille was very expensive to

produce, so why bother producing it if lamellar armors gave equivalent

protection?

 

If anyone knows of any good research along these lines, especially

technical articles or entries in a reputable book, I would be

extremely greatful for being directed towards them/it. There's a

(large) set of books written by either Ffoulkes or Laking (If memory

serves) that deals with quite a bit of this. It was published in

England, at the turn of the century. Unfortunately I don't have access

to it anymore, and didn't take enough notes when I did. If anyone

knows specifically the name of the series, I'd love to get that as

well. (All these requests..)

 

>Tracker also, responding to my question about relative price of mail and

>plate, refers to inventories from the tower cited by Ffoulkes. Inventories

>from when? I would expect the relative price of mail to be a good deal

>lower after they started drawing iron wire, for the reasons discussed

>above.

 

Hmm, didn't check. Silly me. It would definitely be lower, but the

skill that's necessary for making a good hardened suit of plate is

necessary throughout the entire period of manufacture; from

measuring/tailoring, basic shaping, etc., all the way to the finished

product, with the exception of the finishing done by an artisan, if

any. Granted this does not hold true in later industrialzed periods,

such as the die-stamped Napoleonic breastplate I have, but in earlier

periods it required skill throughout. For making maille, using your

example of cutting strips and then shaping into wire, you would need

less skill, as it is more repetitive. Any apprentice or n'er-do-well

(even I) could join rings in a 4-in-1 pattern to be rivetted later by

a real craftsman, freeing up more of the mail-maker's time to make

more links or to rivet 'finished' suits. Arguably, the apprentice to

an armourer making plate could perform rough shaping, but even that

requires more skilled help than the mere linking (but not rivetting)

of rings.

 

On this tangent, could this be the reason for maille being dominant?

If lamellar armor were rivetted to a base material (such as a coat of

plates), or to other pieces, this would require more tools/time than

just hooking rings together. Lining up the plates for lamellar armor

wouldn't do much, unless you held them in place with pitch or

whatever. You'd still have to have someone go through and rivet each

piece, assuming that would be the sturdiest way of connecting them. If

Maille took only slightly longer with the help of 'joiners', and

provided even marginally better protection, that would seem to be a

reason for it's predominance. Again, this is only theory, and any

research (practical or historical) that could shed some light on this

would be appreciated. I'll check some sources to see if I can find

anything...

 

-Tracker

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: haslock at rust.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 11 Nov 1993 22:35:46 GMT

Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering

 

 

Greetings from Fiacha,

 

People have been wondering why mail was used in preference to lamellar armor

give the theoretical ease of construction of lamellar with respect to mail.

 

Let me suggest that field repair is the answer.

 

Field repair of mail requires a handful of rings and some pliers. The repairs

need not include riveting the inserted links. Holes in the underlying gambeson

can be ignored.

 

Lamellar is rather more difficult. If the backing remains whole, one needs a

drill or a cold chisel to remove the old rivet (with some risk of damaging the

backing material. If the backing is torn, it must be patched before the lame

can be replaced. It might be simpler to patch the backing for every repair,

rather that mess around with drills or chisels. Then one needs replacement

lames, rivets and washers and a hammer and an anvil.

 

Thus the repair kit for lamellar armor requires more and heavier tools, more

skills and more different spare parts than the equivalent mail repair kit. I

would rather take a company wearing mail on a long campaign than a company

wearing lamellar.

 

      Fiacha

 

 

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings

Date: 14 Nov 1993 13:30:38 GMT

Organization: Cornell Law School

 

In article <2btncg$b10 at bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade

Ranger) wrote:

 

>  On this tangent, could this be the reason for maille being dominant?

> If lamellar armor were rivetted to a base material (such as a coat of

> plates), or to other pieces, this would require more tools/time than

> just hooking rings together. Lining up the plates for lamellar armor

> wouldn't do much, unless you held them in place with pitch or

> whatever. You'd still have to have someone go through and rivet each

> piece, assuming that would be the sturdiest way of connecting them. If

> Maille took only slightly longer with the help of 'joiners', and

> provided even marginally better protection, that would seem to be a

> reason for it's predominance. Again, this is only theory, and any

> research (practical or historical) that could shed some light on this

> would be appreciated. I'll check some sources to see if I can find

> anything...

 

I think you are confusing the construction of lamellar with the

construction of scale or brigantine. Lamellar is not attached to a base

material. The lamellae are laced together to each other. I had a T.I.

article a couple of years ago on making hardened leather armor which

includes lacing diagrams for lamellar. Lacing one klibanion takes

substantially less than a day's work.

 

While we are on the subject ...  . Lamellar seems, quite consistently, to

overlap up--each row of lamellae goes over the row above it. Scale overlaps

down (like a shingle roof). Why?

 

David/Cariadoc

DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

 

 

From: willey at ftp.com  (Richard E. Willey)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: rivetted chain

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1993 17:47:54

Organization: FTP Software, North Andover, Massachusetts

NNTP-Software: PC/TCP NNTP

 

With all due respect to Tracker, I'm not sure that you've ever tried making

rivetted mail.  You can not simply rivet all the open links together

in one large batch.  I'e been working on and off on some rivetted mail

for quite some time now, and it it virtually impossible to get the mail

to lie properly so that you can rivet more than one ring at once.  

I loose a large amount of time shifting mail around and changing tools.

I can close ad rivet about 1 run every 10 seconds, and this is a

significant gain over what i used to do.  Adding and closing open

rings is much slower.

 

 

 

                                        hrothgar

 

 

 

From: fnklshtn at axp2.acf.nyu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: decline of plate

Date: 8 Nov 1993 04:25:06 GMT

Organization: New York University, NY, NY

 

In article <2bcg6fINNaf7 at ua.d.umn.edu>, panders2 at ua.d.umn.edu (patrick anderson) writes:

>

>Concerning not the decline of plate neccesarily, but of scaled armour.

>

>Did scale mail actually exist, and if so how was it constructed??

>

>patrick

 

Which are you asking about scale or mail?

Romans used scale shirts - the scales where from 1 cm to 5 cm in length. each

had four holes and was attached to each other and heavy fabric.

The Poles used scale - I dont know the size. they had two holes and were

riveted to leather or heavy cloth.

The Chinese used scale - At least some of it circular with one hole, riveted to

cloth - pattern looked like a fish.

Many chinese and Korean shirts were shaped like a Karate gi.

I'm sure others can give you more examples.

 

Nahum

 

 

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: rivetted chain

Date: 5 Nov 1993 16:12:35 GMT

Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

 

In article <931104174754 at Hrothgar> willey at ftp.com writes:

>With all due respect to Tracker, I'm not sure that you've ever tried making

>rivetted mail.  You can not simply rivet all the open links together

>in one large batch.

 

Prithee, tell me, since when am I deserving of respect? If indeed I

am, then I must indeed inform many whom I know...

 

Indeed, you're correct. I personally have never tried making riveted

mail, but this is the method I have been told is correct by both

conservators at the Royal Armouries and by the practice of our

Curator/Conservator:

 

Insert flat-based rivet into rivet hole (Rivet is, as depicted in

several period woodcuts, triangular) from underneath, point up. Hit

with hammer (one of the tapered ones.. not a forging hammer, but the

one that looks sort of like a pick.. I forget the name..) to flatten.

Insert next rivet somewhere nearby, and repeat. They say it goes

quickly.

 

 

>  I've been working on and off on some rivetted mail

>for quite some time now, and it it virtually impossible to get the mail

>to lie properly so that you can rivet more than one ring at once.  

>I loose a large amount of time shifting mail around and changing tools.

>I can close ad rivet about 1 run every 10 seconds, and this is a

>significant gain over what i used to do.  Adding and closing open

>rings is much slower.

 

While I wish I had your level of skill, I'm guessing that the more

practice, the better the turnout rate. I know that's proven true in

leatherworking and in connecting butted links, so I would theorize it

would be true for riveting.

 

Since I haven't made rivetted mail before, what did you find as the

best/fastest way to flatten the ends? Our curator smiled and told me

"A really big hammer..."... helpful, eh? :)

 

-Tracker

 

 

From: gdaub at mcis.messiah.EDU

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Period armor thicknesses...finally

Date: 14 Dec 1993 08:44:38 -0500

Organization: The Internet

 

Greetings,

   I promised so many weeks ago to check the armor thicknesses I had from

_Longbow: A social and military history_ by Robert Hardy. Well it was

finally returned to our library after being overdue for a long time, so here

it is.  The inches and millimeters are from the book (p.205-206), and the gauge

sizes I added:

                                                     approx

Bascinet, 1380, German         inches  millimeters   gauge

  thickest: top front           .150      3.81         8-10

  thinnest: visor snout         .060      1.52          16

Bascinet, 1370-1380, German

  thickest: top front           .096      2.44       12-14

  thinnest: side                .050      1.27          18

Bascinet, 1370-1380, Italian

  thickest: top front           .120      3.05       10-12

  thinnest: back                .060      1.52          16

Bascinet, 1370-1380, Italian

  thickest: top front           .180      4.57         8?? (my chart doesn't

  thinnest: side and back       .100      2.54       12-14  have this thick)

Pair of cuisses, 1390, Italian

  thickest:                     .070      1.78       14-16

  thinnest:                     .050      1.27          18

Breastplate, 1470, Italian

  thickest:                     .110      2.79          12

  thinnest:                     .080      2.03          14

 

   "Thus it can be seen that the top of the head was the most heavily armoured

portion of the body (.100-.180 in; 2.54-4.57 mm) {12-8? g} followed, probably,

by the chest (.080-.110 in; 2.03-2.79 mm) {14-12 g} and then the legs (.050-

.070 in; 1.27-1.77mm) {18-14 g}.  At first sight, the level of protection is

proportional to the sensitivity of the target area and the probability of a

direct rather than a glancing arrow attack."

 

   I hope this is helpful, even though it's been a while.

 

.......................................................................

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|  Gregory Daub                      |  Messiah College                  |

|  Administrative Programmer         |  Computing Services                |

|  Internet: gdaub at mcis.messiah.edu  |  Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027      |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From: sherman at trln.lib.unc.edu (dennis r. sherman)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: canine armour

Date: 6 Jan 1994 14:14:56 GMT

Organization: Triangle Research Libraries Network

 

Greetings to the Rialto from Robyyan.

 

Blackwolf asks about canine armor.

 

I've thought about making some for my shepherd/lab mix, (but no time

for it yet) and looked into it a little.  The only thing I came across

in a cursory search is some boarhunting armor at the Higgins Armory.  

As I recall, it is primarily a chest/belly plate worn over what is

essentially a gambeson, with mail here and there.

 

I'll hunt around and see if I can find a bibliographic reference for

you -- the pictures I've got are from postcards the Higgins sells /

sold.

 

If you find other references, please post!

--

  Robyyan Torr d'Elandris  Kapellenberg, Windmaster's Hill Atlantia

  Dennis R. Sherman            Triangle Research Libraries Network

  dennis_sherman at unc.edu       Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

 

 

From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Excalibur

Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 07:48

Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

 

In article <33p0sv$p2c at agate.berkeley.edu>,

djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

 

>In article <33ovhr$m16 at nyx10.cs.du.edu>,

>Mark A. Cochran <mcochran at nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:

>>

>>Obviously the best example being the sex scene between Uther and

>>Igraine in which he somehow manages to couple without removing his

>>armor (when was the fly invented, and has it ever been installed on

>>mail?).

>>I mean, some people think rug burns are bad...

>

>Now, I have been told that late, full suits of plate really did

>have removable plate codpieces--so that the knight could take a

>leak without having to remove the whole suit--and that the rapid

>unbolting of this codpiece was the purpose for which the wrench

>was invented.

>

>Anybody have some real data?

>

>

>Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin                Dorothy J. Heydt

>Mists/Mists/West                        UC Berkeley

>Argent, a cross forme'e sable           djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu

>PRO DEO ET REGE

 

As an add on to this,

 

There is the famous case of Henry VIII's garniture for foot combat that is

displayed at the Tower of London armouries. I read an article on this

armour that used to be displayed near a flight of stairs. The curators

found that they never had to polish the cod piece, which on this

garniture is quite pronounced. One brave curator decided to find out why

by watching the patrons as they passed the exhibit. He noted that many

of the women going up the stairs would touch the cod piece as they

passed. The curator questioned them and learned that it was folklore

among many of the women visitors that it was considered good luck

for having children, a sort of fertility charm.

 

Why Henry VIII, who had such trouble having children is left to another

discussion.

 

As to the invention of the wrench, I have no information.

 

Just my t'pence

Siohn ap Govannan

in the Barony of Altavia

in the kingdom of Caid

 

 

From: tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Armour

Date: 22 Jun 1996 07:53:39 -0400

Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 

A better and more period source for the construction techniques of armour

is "The Armourer and his Craft From the XIth to the XVIth Century" by

Charles FFoulkes, Dover Books. It is available through Barnes and Noble

mail order catalog.

 

Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach

Canton of the Dragons Aerie

Barony Beyond the Mountain

Eastern Kingdom

 

 

From: caradoc at neta.com (John Groseclose)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Armour

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:38:00 -0700

Organization: Yngvi's De-Lousing and Pest Control Center

 

In article <4qgms3$bab at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)

wrote:

> A better and more period source for the construction techniques of armour

> is "The Armourer and his Craft From the XIth to the XVIth Century" by

> Charles FFoulkes, Dover Books. It is available through Barnes and Noble

> mail order catalog.

>

> Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach

 

While the ffoulkes book is rather nice, it's also got some well-documented

errors - banded mail, etc.

 

Back it up with its own bibliography.

 

 

From: tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Subject: Re: Armour

Date: 24 Jun 1996 16:29:22 -0400

Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

 

caradoc at neta.com (John Groseclose) writes:

>While the ffoulkes book is rather nice, it's also got some well-documented

>errors - banded mail, etc.

 

You are quite right on that point, but for the contruction of latches,

hinges and the basic shapes of the armour plates the illustrations are

very good. The rule of thumb for FFoulkes is: if there's a picture (not a

drawing) to back it up then it's okay.

 

>Back it up with its own bibliography.

 

What can I say? Maybe he got tired!

 

Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach

 

 

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:57:27 -0500

From: rmhowe <magnusm at ncsu.edu>

Organization: Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia, and the GDH

To: - Ger Makers <ger-makers at PEAK.ORG>

 

You might be interested in the following:

 

Arms and Armour of the Great Steppe in the Times of the Mongol

Expansion (12-14th C) by Withold Swietoslwski.

 

United by Genghis Khan in the 12th Century, Central Asian NomadicArmies became a force of terror afflicting both the great ChineseEmpire to the East and the European Kingdoms to the West. Theimpressionthat these conquering armies were only lightly armed haas been an accident of historical research. As this ground-breaking book(publishedin English, in Poland) shows, the nomads possessed a technologicalrange of weapons and armour, which at least matched the warriors withwhom they came in contact. Because most of the published studies of this material have been in Russian, and other languages of the formerUSSR, western scholars have lacked access to this information...untilnow.... This concise synthesis covers not only human and horse armor,but also explores literary evidence for explosives and chemicalweapons. With full bibliographic notes, and a number of line drawings,this is a welcome publication on a previously unexplored topic. 144pp., 33 b/w plates. (Studies on the History of the Ancient and Medieval Arts of Warfare (SHAMAW) III. Oficyna Naukowa 1999)ISBN 838587402X Pb $19.95

 

Arms and Armour in the Medieval Teutonic Orders State in Prussia

by Andrzej Nowakowski. 161pp., 35 b/w plates., pb., SHAMAW II, 1994

ISBN 8385874011 $19/95

 

Cataphracti and Clibanarii: Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry

of the Ancient World by Mariusz Mielczarek. 145 p., 34 b/w plates,

SHAMAW I, 1993, Pb $19.95. ISBN 8385874003

 

Available from David Brown Book Co.

<david.brown.bk.co at snet.net>

 

Magnus, GDH

 

**DO NOT repost to the Rialto or any other NEWSGROUP.**

 

 

From: Lord Mikhial <sjclem1NOsjSPAM at hotmail.com.invalid>

Subject: Re: Russian Armor

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 04:11:21 -0700

 

Sasha,

 

    I am Lord Mikhial Da'Mianovich, I'm currently living in the Kingdom

of Caid and have been doing this for two years.  Last summer I was

researching for Russian armor like yourself and have found two types

most commonly used.  First type is the chain mail which most people are

familiar with if there is an armorer in the area.  I chose to go a

different direction because it would provide a more personal look.

Beginning in the 13th century, the Rus created an armor called "KUYAK"

it was basically a long shirt of hide leather with bronze plates

riveted throughout.  I'm leaving two site address, feel free to check

them out, the first is very detailed about Russian armor and weapons,

it has good pictures of the armor I mentioned.  The second one is of my

homepage, but my photographer wasn't the best and my pics are a little

dark so you may not be able to see how I did it.

 

http://members.aol.com/johns426/partII.htm#Kuyak

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Loft/9623/SCA.html

 

 

Subject: a URL you may want to add.

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:14:14 -0500 (CDT)

From: Jeff Heilveil <heilveil at uiuc.edu>

To: Stefan li Rous <stefan at texas.net>

 

This URL was posted on the SIG list, but I thought you might want to add

it somewhere in the florelegium...

 

The URL is: http://tgorod.go.ru/librar/a033lb_e.htm

 

It's a nice translation of russian archaeology finds of a IXth cent shirt

made of metal lamellae. (armour)

 

Bogdan

_______________________________________________________________________________

Jeffrey Heilveil M.S.                 Ld. Bogdan de la Brasov, C.W.

Department of Entomology        A Bear's paw and base vert on field argent

University of Illinois

 

 

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:30:18 -0400

From: rmhowe <MMagnusM at bellsouth.net>

Subject: Higgins Armory

 

http://www.higgins.org/

 

<the end>



Formatting copyright © Mark S. Harris (THLord Stefan li Rous).
All other copyrights are property of the original article and message authors.

Comments to the Editor: stefan at florilegium.org