| Author |
Message |
Eric S
|
 Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 11:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Why use butted maille in preference to riveted maille could be the question since everything else being equal riveted will always be harder to pierce than butted of the same diameter and wire gauge and better in most cases than any butted maille. ( Unless of ridicoulously heavy gauge and very small diameter, which Japanese maille was not ).
Japanese/European doesn't change the physics that an open ring than be forced open much more easily than a riveted one or even a modern welded ring: To burst a welded/riveted/solid ring the ring must be deformed enough for it to break or be cut while a butted ring is very easy to wedge open.
Is butted completely useless: No when dealing with draw cuts but yes against a thrust with anything reasonably pointy !
Why did the Japanese use mostly butted rings and why could they be still useful ?
A) Tempered and butted wire can be reasonably strong.
B) Rings that connect like key rings with multiple turns and also spring tempered might be close in strength to riveted maille.
C) Butted rings used to connect plates or for non vital areas.
D) Earlier styles or purely Japanese styles of maille before contacts with European mail seemed to have been mostly butted, so the tradition of using it would have continued even if it was less effective than riveted.
When riveted maille was imported or at least known about in Japan how popular did it become ? Did it replace butted maille for all uses or did it become of general use when the armour was primarily all maille ?
From the pics shown it seems that some very expensive maille was made of butted rings ? Maybe it was considered sufficient for whatever purposes maille would have been preferred by the Japanese and when stronger armour was desired they would have used their more effective traditional alternatives.
In any case just speculation on my part and questions worth asking, but I see no need to get all " emotional " about it instead of just exchanging ideas, opinions or supported by evidence facts, and polite rebutals.
( EDITED: Cross posted the above before seeing Nathan's comment as I was writing it before he posted ). |
Jean, you bring up some good points. For anyone who is actually interested in various types of chain armor, the Japanese provide a great opportunity to study it as there are large amounts of different types of patterns available for sale at fairly low prices compared tp Eastern or European chain armor. Although all Japanese chain armor available appears to be butted at least partially it is still an interesting study. The Japanese were thought to have adopted the European 4 in 1 pattern in the 1500s and added it to the standard Japanese patterns but....did they take the pattern from riveted European chain armor and just produce it in a butted style or did they observe butted European 4 in 1 and copy it exactly? I do not know enough about European chain armor to know if the armor the Portuguese first brought to Japan could have been butted...maybe someone here has an answer...I am assuming that the Japanese first saw riveted European chain armor and tried making it and decided for various reasons to just stick with butted chain while using the pattern, unless it is common knowledge that the Portuguese actually used butted mail at that time (1540s) The older Japanese patterns were lighter in weight than the and have more open space between the links than the European pattern and they readily adopted its use while still using their older style patterns on some armor...sometimes even mixing the two patterns...the heavy pattern European 4 in 1 for the torso and the lighter Japanese 4 in 1 on the lower areas. Here is an example of a chain jacket or kusari katabira with a heavy pattern covering the torso and the Japanese twisted link 4 in 1 on the lower panels....... 
|
|
   |
 |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know of any European armor from this period which was butted. In fact I'm not aware of any European mail dating to before 1800 AD which was butted, (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
Therefore even if the Japanese were not making any of their own riveted mail for whatever reason, they had European mail which had been imported which was riveted, unless it was some second rate export armor.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brawn Barber wrote: |
http://schmitthenner.com/Armor_Tests.htm
Admittedly, the quality of these clips are less than stellar, however I will clarify if there's any questions. I've been having some problems with uploading more videos lately so I haven't had a chance to upgrade them yet.
Didn't document slashing tests regarding butted or riveted maille as I wanted to portray the likely weakness in maille(separation of the links). |
Thanks that is interesting nevertheless. Some high resolution photos would be a good idea next time you do a test.
It looked like you pierced the riveted mail in your second attempt ...?
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | I don't know of any European armor from this period which was butted. In fact I'm not aware of any European mail dating to before 1800 AD which was butted, (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
Therefore even if the Japanese were not making any of their own riveted mail for whatever reason, they had European mail which had been imported which was riveted, unless it was some second rate export armor.
J |
This is from another forum posted by Timo Nieminen>>>>>
| Quote: | From Kozan, The manufacture of armour and helmets in sixteenth century Japan (orig. 1800), pg 83-84 in 1963 Holland Press edition,
"There are several varieties of mail:
... karakuri-namban (riveted namban), with stout links each closed by a rivet. Its invention is credited to Fukushima Dembei Kunitaka, pupil, of Hojo Awa no Kami Ujifusa, but it is also said to be derived directly from foreign models. It is heavy because the links are tinned (biakuro-nagashi) and these are also sharp edged because they are punched out of iron plate." |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | This is from another forum posted by Timo Nieminen>>>>>
| Quote: | From Kozan, The manufacture of armour and helmets in sixteenth century Japan (orig. 1800), pg 83-84 in 1963 Holland Press edition,
"There are several varieties of mail:
... karakuri-namban (riveted namban), with stout links each closed by a rivet. Its invention is credited to Fukushima Dembei Kunitaka, pupil, of Hojo Awa no Kami Ujifusa, but it is also said to be derived directly from foreign models. It is heavy because the links are tinned (biakuro-nagashi) and these are also sharp edged because they are punched out of
iron plate." |
|
Quite interesting, thanks for posting.
| Quote: |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead? |
Riveted mail is not as easy to make as riveted lamellar. The technique may have never been widely disseminated. The bottom-line difference between riveted and butted mail is that butted mail is easier and therefore cheaper to make. If it's armor for town police it may simply not have been that high of a priorrity.
Or maybe it was simply because the occurance of open warfare in Japan declined rapidly in the Edoo period after the ascension of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and armor became slightly more decorative since it was no longer under the direct pressure of the battlefield. There were fewer full scale pitched battles in Japan from 1615-1860 than there were from 1600-1615. The role of Samurai was shifting from soldiers to something more like police and bodyguards.
Also, given that we now know that they did in fact have riveted mail, I'm not yet convinced that riveted mail was as rare as you think it was. Just because it's not widely known in the Japanese armor community may not mean much, it may simply not the type of armor that garners the most interest in the community. There have been countless analagous blind-spots and persistant cliches in the academic and amateur historical communities surrounding Western arms and armor and Historical European Martial arts over the years. Witness the role played by Ewart Oakeshott.
It's also worth pointing out that the methods described in the quote above (using punched rings) is not common for European mail after the early Medieval period, usually it was all-riveted and not particularly heavy, in fact it can be lighter than equivalent butted mail because the wire can be thinner butted mail has to be made of wire of a certain strength (often meaning a heavier gauge) or in many cases it will spontaneously develop a 'moth-eaten' appearance and fall apart under it's own weight. Of course if Japanese mail was usually tempered steel it probably wouldn't have this prooblem as much.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Tue 08 Jun, 2010 1:28 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead? |
They didn't use butted mail exclusively.
Apart from some use of rivetted mail, as noted in the SFI thread, one of the (common) variants of Japanese "double mail", i.e., mail with the upright links connecting the flat links being multiply wound (keyring-style) used solid flat links, so not butted, even partially. Assuming we don't call "keyring-wound" "butted", and we shouldn't, since it's overlapped, not butted. Then there are the styles where the flat rings are keyring-wound as well.
Apart from the above non-butted styles, partially-butted double mail, with butted flat rings, but of very thick wire, was recognised as strong.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
Last edited by Timo Nieminen on Tue 08 Jun, 2010 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Brawn Barber
Location: In the shop Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Brawn Barber wrote: |
http://schmitthenner.com/Armor_Tests.htm
Admittedly, the quality of these clips are less than stellar, however I will clarify if there's any questions. I've been having some problems with uploading more videos lately so I haven't had a chance to upgrade them yet.
Didn't document slashing tests regarding butted or riveted maille as I wanted to portray the likely weakness in maille(separation of the links). |
Thanks that is interesting nevertheless. Some high resolution photos would be a good idea next time you do a test.
It looked like you pierced the riveted mail in your second attempt ...?
J |
Only to the extent of the rings diameter, I believe. With padding not likely to break the skin. However there was an instance in which the "weak link" permitted a breach with the riveted maille. It ended up with a 2" breach. Bear in mind, this was one of a dozen attacks and the links may have already been weakened.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brawn Barber wrote: | | Only to the extent of the rings diameter, I believe. With padding not likely to break the skin. However there was an instance in which the "weak link" permitted a breach with the riveted maille. It ended up with a 2" breach. Bear in mind, this was one of a dozen attacks and the links may have already been weakened. |
Keep in mind that most of the riveted mail used today doesn't have much in common with historical mail.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
It is fine if you just want a comparison in performance between modern butted mail and modern riveted mail but it won't tell you much about how historical mail might have performed.
|
|
|
|
|
Brawn Barber
Location: In the shop Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Brawn Barber wrote: | | Only to the extent of the rings diameter, I believe. With padding not likely to break the skin. However there was an instance in which the "weak link" permitted a breach with the riveted maille. It ended up with a 2" breach. Bear in mind, this was one of a dozen attacks and the links may have already been weakened. |
Keep in mind that most of the riveted mail used today doesn't have much in common with historical mail.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189
It is fine if you just want a comparison in performance between modern butted mail and modern riveted mail but it won't tell you much about how historical mail might have performed. |
True, and thanks, Dan. I'm just trying to show an associated comparison. If I had my hands on some historical riveted maille, there's no way I'd be tearing into it with such reckless abandon.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead? |
They didn't use butted mail exclusively.
Apart from some use of rivetted mail, as noted in the SFI thread, one of the (common) variants of Japanese "double mail", i.e., mail with the upright links connecting the flat links being multiply wound (keyring-style) used solid flat links, so not butted, even partially. Assuming we don't call "keyring-wound" "butted", and we shouldn't, since it's overlapped, not butted. Then there are the styles where the flat rings are keyring-wound as well.
Apart from the above non-butted styles, partially-butted double mail, with butted flat rings, but of very thick wire, was recognised as strong. |
All Japanese mail that I have ever seen is butted or partially butted...here is the double wound links which would not be considered to be butted...but the round connecting links are butted. This is one of the old style Japanese patterns and can see how much open space there is between the links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead? |
They didn't use butted mail exclusively.
Apart from some use of rivetted mail, as noted in the SFI thread, one of the (common) variants of Japanese "double mail", i.e., mail with the upright links connecting the flat links being multiply wound (keyring-style) used solid flat links, so not butted, even partially. Assuming we don't call "keyring-wound" "butted", and we shouldn't, since it's overlapped, not butted. Then there are the styles where the flat rings are keyring-wound as well.
Apart from the above non-butted styles, partially-butted double mail, with butted flat rings, but of very thick wire, was recognised as strong. |
All Japanese mail that I have ever seen is butted or partially butted |
That might well be so, I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean that non-butted mail wasn't used in Japan. Given that we have primary sources describing the existence and construction of such mail in Japan, it's clear that it was used.
That you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. This is why written sources and art can be useful; in the absence of surviving artifacts, it can be all we have to go on (or in the absence of artifacts of reliable provenance).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: |
If this is true then the Japanese saw riveted mail...made it..and then abandonded it but kept the pattern using butted chain instead...but why? They certainly had all the resources to make and produce riveted mail. All traditional Japanese armor plates are riveted together when not laced and there was no lack of low grade iron, there was a huge cheap workforce and flattening out some wire or punching it out and riveting links wound have been quite easily done...so why use butted exclusively instead? |
They didn't use butted mail exclusively.
Apart from some use of rivetted mail, as noted in the SFI thread, one of the (common) variants of Japanese "double mail", i.e., mail with the upright links connecting the flat links being multiply wound (keyring-style) used solid flat links, so not butted, even partially. Assuming we don't call "keyring-wound" "butted", and we shouldn't, since it's overlapped, not butted. Then there are the styles where the flat rings are keyring-wound as well.
Apart from the above non-butted styles, partially-butted double mail, with butted flat rings, but of very thick wire, was recognised as strong. |
All Japanese mail that I have ever seen is butted or partially butted |
That might well be so, I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean that non-butted mail wasn't used in Japan. Given that we have primary sources describing the existence and construction of such mail in Japan, it's clear that it was used.
That you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. This is why written sources and art can be useful; in the absence of surviving artifacts, it can be all we have to go on (or in the absence of artifacts of reliable provenance). |
I would love to see some completely non-butted Japanese chain armor turn up....what I meant was, that all the known Japanese patterns use at least some butted links in their construction, even the double twisted ones....there is probably some missing information and or examples hiding some were.....hopefully something will turn up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: |
I would love to see some completely non-butted Japanese chain armor turn up....what I meant was, that all the known Japanese patterns use at least some butted links in their construction, even the double twisted ones....there is probably some missing information and or examples hiding some were.....hopefully something will turn up. |
Not true. We have written primary sources clearly describing non-butted Japanese mail. Sakakibara Kozan, The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth Century Japan, widely cited in modern works on Japanese armour (e.g., Robinson, Ratti, Bottomley) describes such non-butted mail, of a clearly Japanese pattern. See pp 83-85.
It is simply wrong to say that all Japanese mail was butted.
"Manufacture ..." also decribes rivetted mail, used in Japan, as re-quoted up-thread by you. Whether or not one considers it a "Japanese pattern", it was used in Japan.
Also described is hana-gusari (floral mail), 6-in-1 Japanese pattern. The flat rings are "punched out of solid plate and sometimes riveted", of "modern" make, i.e., Edo period, not known to the author as a pre-Edo style. No details given on the kake-gusari (secondary links), as to whether butted or multiply-wound. If multiply wound, this is a non-butted style.
Further, we have raden-gusari, with both main and secondary links being multiply-wound, usually(?) triple-wound, but sometimes double, "not used in former days", so not known to the author as pre-Edo. He doesn't recommend it - too heavy.
So one source - one of the best known English language source - describes 3 certainly non-butted patterns of mail (two of them certainly Japanese patterns) and one possibly non-butted pattern. Of these, 1 (solid main link, double-wound secondary link Japanese 4-in-1) is described as used pre-Edo.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One factor to consider is that if riveted maille was first known only with the arrival of Europeans it would be fairly late in the period of active large scale warfare in Japan i.e. big battles on the battlefield as opposed to individual " civilian " combat nearer to duels or small clan feuds where armour would tend to be less frequently used ?
The use of armour as suggested earlier in another post would have become much more " ceremonial " and the practical advantages of riveted versus butted would be less important.
Firearms would also make armour and especially maille armour more or less obsolete except for the use of " secrète " armour protection.
Now the traditional Japanese maille patterns seem effective to me for the somewhat limited auxiliary uses it was put to mostly protecting against draw cut I assume.
The very open weaves would still turn a cut but would be almost useless in resisting a thrust.
Pre-European contact(s) I wonder to what degree the Japanese where aware of the use of riveted maille ? On the Japanese mainland probably very little knowledge or firsthand experience with it or even none at all ! But Japanese expeditions in Korea might have exposed them to riveted maille maybe of Indo-Persian/Mongle/Chinese manufacture ?
Japanese pirates being probably more likely to be exposed to foreign weapons and armour coming from very far regions if they came into contact with mercenaries guards or other pirates coming from regions where riveted maille was the norm ?
Now if the Japanese had been exposed to riveted maille a few hundred years earlier it might have become a dominant form of armour rather than mostly ancillary use in arm defences and occasionally for stand alone defence.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Wed 09 Jun, 2010 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jun, 2010 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: |
I would love to see some completely non-butted Japanese chain armor turn up....what I meant was, that all the known Japanese patterns use at least some butted links in their construction, even the double twisted ones....there is probably some missing information and or examples hiding some were.....hopefully something will turn up. |
Not true. We have written primary sources clearly describing non-butted Japanese mail. Sakakibara Kozan, The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth Century Japan, widely cited in modern works on Japanese armour (e.g., Robinson, Ratti, Bottomley) describes such non-butted mail, of a clearly Japanese pattern. See pp 83-85.
It is simply wrong to say that all Japanese mail was butted.
"Manufacture ..." also decribes rivetted mail, used in Japan, as re-quoted up-thread by you. Whether or not one considers it a "Japanese pattern", it was used in Japan.
Also described is hana-gusari (floral mail), 6-in-1 Japanese pattern. The flat rings are "punched out of solid plate and sometimes riveted", of "modern" make, i.e., Edo period, not known to the author as a pre-Edo style. No details given on the kake-gusari (secondary links), as to whether butted or multiply-wound. If multiply wound, this is a non-butted style.
Further, we have raden-gusari, with both main and secondary links being multiply-wound, usually(?) triple-wound, but sometimes double, "not used in former days", so not known to the author as pre-Edo. He doesn't recommend it - too heavy.
So one source - one of the best known English language source - describes 3 certainly non-butted patterns of mail (two of them certainly Japanese patterns) and one possibly non-butted pattern. Of these, 1 (solid main link, double-wound secondary link Japanese 4-in-1) is described as used pre-Edo. |
One written source ( translated from Japanese and written in the 1800s) with no pictures or an known surviving examples.....and how can you have a "solid main link, double-wound secondary link Japanese 4-in-1"?? How would you connect the links??? What you are describing is the picture I just posted...double twisted with butted connecting links..you have to be able to connect the links and since the twisted links act like a solid link the connecting links would have to open up some how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | One written source ( translated from Japanese and written in the 1800s) |
1800. One written source by a writer very familiar with Edo-period armour, and knowledgable about earlier armours. He's also quite willing to write that he doesn't know something when he doesn't know something. The gap separating him from pre-Edo was only half of ours. Is 1800 a problem? Had they stopped making real armour in Japan by then?
If you don't believe him, why not? What in his book makes you so very skeptical? What makes you think that you know better than he did?
Is the English translation so faulty? What is your proposed translation from the original?
Presumably your criticism and dismissal of such a source is based on scholarship and evidence. I'm interested in knowing what's wrong with such a widely cited and well-regarded source.
| Eric S wrote: | | with no pictures or an known surviving examples.....and how can you have a "solid main link, double-wound secondary link Japanese 4-in-1"?? How would you connect the links??? What you are describing is the picture I just posted...double twisted with butted connecting links..you have to be able to connect the links and since the twisted links act like a solid link the connecting links would have to open up some how. |
The descriptions are very explicit. Solid main links, completely unambiguous. Note well that he also describes what you pictured, double-wound secondary links and butted main links. He clearly knew the difference between the two, and clearly distinguishes between them.
How would you connect the links? With the double-wound secondary links. This is clearly possible - else how could they have made mail with triple-wound main and secondary links?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
Last edited by Timo Nieminen on Wed 09 Jun, 2010 3:00 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 2:17 am Post subject: Example of riveted Japanese mail |
|
|
Of relevance to the current discussion on Japanese mail:
Stone, Glossary ..., Figure 475.10 is kote with riveted European-style 4-in-1 mail.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
David Rushworth
Location: Leeds, England Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Mon 06 Sep, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bit of background for me, a reenactor of 35 years and a collector for 45 years. I have had an interest in mail and its varients for a long time, and living in Euro land have access to a wide variety of museums with original tat on display. I mention this cos I'm a newbie stepping into a fraught area. The original question was about relative merits of butted and rivited mail and its use.
In the Nydams Halle at Schloss Gotsdorfe, Schleswig they have on display the Migration Period arms and armour dumped in the Nydame Mose (bog), among the exhibits is a spear point that had been thrust through a BUTTED link mail shirt, and had links jammed on it. You can see a photo of this in the catalogue, Nydam und Thorsberg, Oferplatze der Eisenzeit, D-24837 Schleswig, I couldnt make out an ISBN number, sorry.
Butted mail was found in the foundations of a medieval house in London in the 1930s, and rings from butted mail turn up at C. Columbus's original settlement in the Carribean. Butted mail is also found used in India, and indeed throughout the Islamic world.
To be so widely used, geographicly and temporaly it must have offered reasonable protection, a good enough pay off for the resources used to produce it. I believe that it's production and use was governed by threat expected , production method available, and quality of metal , steel vs wrought iron perhaps.
I have shot arrows through all types of armour, but the range is all important, when they can reach you at a run in 20 seconds or less, you dump the bow, it is a stick with a piece of string on it, and you want your sword, in your hand,NOW.
Sorry to go on, but I thought I had a valid contributio to this thread.
Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained as stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Mar, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: Example of riveted Japanese mail |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | Of relevance to the current discussion on Japanese mail:
Stone, Glossary ..., Figure 475.10 is kote with riveted European-style 4-in-1 mail. |
Unfortunately the picture in Stones book which is labeled as being riveted mail is not detailed enough to see the actual mail. After looking at hundreds (at least) detailed pictures online and searching images in every book I could get my hands on I finally found 1 picture of riveted mail being used in Japanese (samurai) armor. From: JAPANESE ARMS & ARMOR [Hardcover] INTRODUCTION BY ROBINSON, H RUSSELL 1969 P.58 http://www.amazon.com/JAPANESE-ARMOR-INTRODUC...amp;sr=8-1 The image is listed as being an Early 19th century breastplate from Museo Orientale Venice. There is no way of telling if this is European mail imported to Japan or the Japanese variety as described in this book: Sakakibara Kozan, The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth Century Japan pp 83-85. I have asked one of the world foremost authorities on Japanese armor (Trevor Absolon) if he personally has seen any riveted Japanese armor among the thousands of pieces he has come into contact with and he said that there was only 1 that he had been aware of. So still some unanswered questions but now there is actual visual proof of some sort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Ferra
Location: Arizona Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Mar, 2012 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartek Strojek wrote: | Most of butted mails are almost completely useless, blunt spears and stuff can penetrate it, it would be total waste of material in "period".
As for material, I read, here (myArmoury) that wrought iron is actually very good material for mail, it absorbs punishment well with deformations and stuff, instead of breaking at some point of links. Mild steel doesn't fare so well.
Anyway, probably many people'll start heated discussion over it very soon.  |
I should hope the discussion isn't "heated" as to my way of thinking that would be more an argument than a discussion, & not very polite by most standards. Disagreements can certainly be civil, & I actually happen to disagree with you on this one. I watched a show a while back on the Discovery Channel, dealing with shark study. In any event, this one gentleman had painstakingly made a couple of full suits out of "butted" maille, & I know this because he was repairing a very small section by inserting new rings the way I do, with a pair of chain-nose pliers & bYy maneuvering the rings closed through the usual fashion of "twisting," that is, moving the ends alternately closer to & further away from his body position.
In any event, he wanted to prove that chain maille would protect a diver in shark-infested waters, in his case by hand feeding the sharks. He fed the sharks for a while, & then to really test his suit, he stuck his arm into the open mouth of the shark who, by this time, was expecting food. The shark bit down, thrashed about for a couple seconds before realizing that it wasn't "edible," whatever it was he'd bitten down on, & let go, swimming off slowly.
Now, I'm talking an average-sized adult Oceanic Black Tip shark, not a 2-Ton Great White. However, his suit held up perfectly under those conditions & he got off without so much as a bruise. Because he was making a whole suit of maille & needed to have both mobility & light-weight, he'd used tempered titanium to make his suits. This gave him the strength & the light weight he required so as not to be stuck on the bottom of the ocean, unable to swim at all due to the suit's weight.
Granted, an Oceanic Black Tip isn't going to deliver the punch of a large Tiger Shark or Great White; I'm not even sure how he'd have fared against a moderate Bull Shark or Ragged Tooth, but for what most people might encounter when diving near coral reefs, I think that he proved his suit worked well Inder those conditions. As for a large gentleman in full plate armour swinging a broadsword in battle might accomplish, I'm thinking very little overall. The force of a slashing strike would usually be distributed across a large area, so it would likely be repelled if an Oceanic Black Tip's rows of sharp teeth couldn't pierce the suit. Of course, if such a gentleman so dressed for battle were wielding a quality instrument, slashing may not be as effective as stabbing would. I'd be quite interested to see what a well-made & well-sharpened blade of the time could do to such a suit were a well-placed & powerful thrust applied to a very small are of the suit with great skill, like the skill of the Samurai. I'm concerned the suit wouldn't hold up under those specific set of circumstances.
An Oceanic Black Tip shark is no slouch, but the force of his bite is distributed across a great number of teeth, & even with the strength of that animal & his trashing about for a second or two isn't going to increase the force in a single spot on the armour the way a classically made Katana would, especially considering that these swords were kept with a very keen edge & a point specifically made for piercing armour. No, considering what I've seen classically made Japanese blades do, I'm doubtful that any contemporary armour would protect the wearer from a well placed strike with the tip of a true Katana. Such blades are the stuff of legend. Even by today's science, it isn't possible to achieve what traditional forgers could make, especially when each blade was made to an exacting standard & ground & polished to a very fine cutting edge, which included the extremely pointed tip of the blade.
Now, I do know of some classically trained sushi chefs, who use very expensive, hand-forged Japanese knives, who will still wear butted maille gloves when they're cutting sushi or shashimi. I'm sure they put as much faith in that glove as they do their blades, considering that such high-carbon steel needs to be cleaned constantly to protect against oxidation & is honed about every 10-15 minutes to maintain their edge. No one goes to that kind of trouble to keep a razor-sharp blade only to wear butted chain on their free hand when doing so would amount the same as wearing a Jersey cotton glove should the blade contact the gloved hand. No, I'm going to suppose that the butted chain glove will definitely protect the wearers hand, as most of those gloves are custom made for the wearer by a contemporary maille artisan, who, like me, uses rings woven together by hand from various materials, including titanium & stainless steel.
That's my two cents' worth, anyway. I'm sure other scenarios exist where I'm wrong on most counts, though I'm not wrong about the sharpness & durability of a traditional Japanese forged sword. For Samurai, the sword was his life, & failure in battle usually led to one's death by the rite of seppuku. Frankly, I wouldn't want to go into battle with an inferior weapon, & if I had to then kill myself with the smaller sword after my main weapon failed! I'd make damn sure that was equally as sharp as the sword that would be used to chop off my head after I had disemboweled myself.
I'll put well made maille made of jump-rings applied one at a time against just about anything that can be created with a machine. Call me old-fashioned in that regard.
"The sea has neither pity nor meaning" ---Antonin Chekhov
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic