Posts: 2,121 Location: Northern Utah
Fri 18 Jul, 2014 6:04 am
Phil,
About quality of mail. Yes I know. I have handed hundreds of examples of period mail from some of the earliest periods toward current example. The issue is that weapons were made to counter it. This is how warfare works and still does. At no single point did I say these weapons were always successful only that they were made to kill people with armour on and did so. The problem with how these posts are going is the faulty 'all or nothing' perception which is in itself flawed severely. Armour protected men more than nothing and armour varied from just better than nothing in some cases to many times greater. But I still will content it was never invulnerable, even for kings as they die as well.
'As I criticism of you, Randall, you point about armour not being perfect protection is sound but conflated. The stab shown on the pointy sword would have gotten the person killed, and since most current evidence indicate that the main weapon of all soldiers in a medieval army, from knights to levys, for several reasons, was a spear, puncture threats would have been a much more common threat against armour than swords, people that could afford to improve or replace their armour would probably made their gear to resist puncture first. '
This concept is also flawed because you assume the mail was the primary defense for most of the period which it was not. The
shield was. And the shield in concert with the mail would have given far superior protection to the man wearing them. Now the man without the mail if the spear gets past or is deflected off the shield at him has a greater likelihood of death. With mail a greater chance of survival but I'd contend still, if of lesser quality or a stout blow yes injury or even death is still on the table of options.
'Now the principle that armour isn't designed for complete protection, ie it is designed to keep from getting killed, '
No. Armour is designed to increase your odds of not getting killed. Men in armour die all the time in the medieval period. The difficulty is knowing if they died in undefended places or through the armour but they still die. Look at
Hastings. The AS huscarls and AS nobles died at a frightening level and they would have been some of the best equipped on the fields of war in medieval Europe at the time. Armour does not make any invulnerable only increases their odds of survival.
'We ee history armour such as curries, early cops, etc come into play when maces were started to be commonly use, '
As far as I know this is incorrect. Maces seem to have been in use before this in much of the world where mail was in use. In Europe these developments seem far more likely tied to the couched lance proliferation. There are maces in use since antiquity in much of the world. Now Blunt force trauma weapons come into play more and more as plate becomes more common as it is easier to bludgeon a person to death in plate than use an edged weapon on them to kill or injure them.
'Also, the no armour aspect ignores how thick and durable a padded armour can be made, as seen in highland cotun and the fact a gambeson immensed in salt water can be made to resist blades'
There is no evidence for mail and padding until the 12th century in Europe. How does this work then for much of the medieval period? Not sure this is accurate. Padding is for sure useful but the fact plate develops over this indicates it was still not sufficient for one reason or another.
"Also, there is shit ton you can do to protect yourself with just good , dense fabric and/or stuffing. To make something out of cloth to come close to being as protective as good
chainmail, from what I've read here, it has to be pretty heavy and stiff but it still probably be cheaper than a brand new mail shirt. "
I am not sure I believe this on many levels, in part going back to above. Yes padded armours can be very successful but the fact most places prefer mail over them indicates medieval peoples did not think this way for a start. As well we have evidence it was the entry level gear for the grunt and they die by the thousands and thousands. Clearly not superior to metal armour or better or complete protection.
I am not saying armour was worthless. Far from it. I suspect the development of armour greatly increased the wearer's protection. It is a major investment that men would never have made if not so. There are also accounts of men being pommelled and being fine inside. But I do not believe any armour ever made/makes the person invulnerable. If so it would have become uniform and we'd see battles would have changed forever. More so there are period accounts of mail and padding failing and the wearer being injured or killed so we know armour was not perfect or complete protection.
RPM
Cleaned up some typos