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@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@clunker.uucp Shelton, Connecticut, USA OR clunker!rvd@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@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@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University In article <9205111325.AA20287@emil.csd.uu.se> vader@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@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@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@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 grilled helms 13 May 92 From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: University of Toronto In article <1992May13.154644.8027@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@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@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@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@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 Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: tbarnes@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 fnklshtn@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@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@mcis.messiah.edu | Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DDF2@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@Cornell.Edu From: tracker@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@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@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@Cornell.Edu From: tracker@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@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$i3j@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn@AXP3.ACF.NYU.EDU writes: >Wait a minute. All I've seen seems to indicate that armour was essentialy the >same as our cold rolled steel with a small number of the very late stuff being >case hardened. Nothing about tempering. Nopers, not the same. At least, not normally. There are, as always, exceptions in quality, but many of them were done by mistake, and not as a result of scientific tempering as was done in later periods. >You have something that says otherwise? Yuppers.. fragments of a Lorica Segmantata taken from the excavation at Dura-Europos. All the 'tempering' of them is just the result of them being bashed into plates. >> Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander > >Cool! Which museum? Do you work there? Can you get access to the stuff? Higgins Armory Museum, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ed. Staff/Gallery Interpreter/Outreach program staff. Yes. :) (Though not as much of the last one as I'd like... _you_ go ahead and tell the curator you want to play with the gold-edged close helm... _I_ value my life. ;) Blatant plug (Aoogah! Aoogah!): If you're anywhere near Boston, it's pretty nifty. Solely dedicated to Arms and Armor, which makes it the only one on this side of the Mississippi (Someone said anywhere in the US, but I could swear there's one or two out west-ish...) (And the Met doesn't count, they've got other stuff. ;) Current Collection.. I'd say around 65 suits displayed, plus several hundred weapons, other such fun accoutrements. Lots more in storage... which is normally off-limits.. sniff, sniff.. though I got to root around for 3 hours once during training. Grin. Poof! -Tracker From: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings Date: 5 Nov 1993 16:24:35 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article <2bbm4u$u3@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger) writes: |> |> Responses to two postings! (Figured I'd save bandwidth.. well, sort |> of) |> |> DDF2@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@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn@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@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@Cornell.Edu Newsgroups: rec.org.sca From: gregsta@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@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 gregsta@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@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@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@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@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@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker@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@Cornell.Edu From: willey@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@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@ua.d.umn.edu>, panders2@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@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@Hrothgar> willey@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@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@mcis.messiah.edu | Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sherman@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@unc.edu Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill From: ESRLJHD@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$p2c@agate.berkeley.edu>, djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) writes: >In article <33ovhr$m16@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, >Mark A. Cochran 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@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@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@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@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tvolkert@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@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@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 Organization: Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia, and the GDH To: - Ger Makers 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. Magnus, GDH **DO NOT repost to the Rialto or any other NEWSGROUP.** From: Lord Mikhial 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 To: Stefan li Rous 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 Subject: Higgins Armory http://www.higgins.org/ Edited by Mark S. Harris p-armor-msg