Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Mail vs sword: a test Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Dean F. Marino




Location: Midland MI USA
Joined: 24 Aug 2011

Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 11:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lukas MG wrote:
Bryan Heff wrote:
Dean F. Marino wrote:


Second - If "Peter Johnsson designed those swords, his goal was not to make a sword to kill people with! " ? I don't want any of his products. His choice -and I respect it... but I DO want swords that are totally lethal. Oh, the product may be attractive - I respect that. I just don't want it Happy.


I don't want to speak for Lukas, but I think what he was saying was that because we live in 2014 and not 1014....the swords that Albion makes are not marketed as deadly killing weapons...even though they are. So when they sat down to design the swords...I doubt they said OK, how can we make the deadliest killing sword possible, instead they designed them as close to the original specs of swords of that type so they handled and performed like the originals...which by the way WERE designed to kill. So, yes...Albion swords are serious true weapons...but I imagine the design strategy was more how do we make these as close to the originals as possible...not how to we make the deadliest swords. In both cases the end result is the same: A 100% real and functional weapon which has a primary function of damaging humans.


That's exactly what I meant, thanks for putting it in other words! As I elaborated already, I was merely answering to Dan Howard's statement that my mail used is a "costume" and not intended for warfare, unlike the original. As no replica made today is intended for actual war, that argument is flawed. "Costume" doesn't inherently mean bad quality.


It's a relief to know this Happy. Those are some fine looking swords - I would have HATED to pass them by Sad.

In edhil, hai edhil. In edain, hai edain.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 12:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Plenty of comments above on the mail itself (denseness of weave, solid rings, strength of riveting).

But there is plenty of evidence that "typical" mail is not sufficient by itself in a high-threat environment. If you want your armour to stop high-energy arrows and cavalry lances, do not wear "typical" mail by itself. There are at least 4 historical solutions:

[snipped good stuff]

All very good points. I'll add that mail was worn by itself for at least a thousand years and was considered perfectly acceptable against the threats of the time before it started being reinforced in the manner you described. That's why these tests, performed out of context, aren't much use. If the mail in this test can't stop a sword thrust then it wouldn't have been worn when that attack was likely. Either a denser mail would have been worn or the lighter mails would have been layered with something else like a curie, or CoP, or jack.

But Timo, a man thrusting at mail shirt with any sword and the momentum of high poundage bow on arrow or the momentum of lance head on galloping horse is hardly comparable. Also, I ask you Dan, were specialized impact horses and lances and high poundage bows used before such just armour to wear over mail were devised?
View user's profile Send private message
J.D. Crawford




Location: Toronto
Joined: 25 Dec 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,903

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 1:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nice test. As others have already stated, this shows very well what two particular modern swords can do against a particular modern coat of mail. Terrific. The only problem is when one over-generalizes the result.

Can / could swords penetrate mail and other armor? This is a non-question. Of course they can. The laws of physics will tell you that a soft-boiled egg will penegrate an inch think steel plate if its moving fast enough. The real question is, did historic weapons penetrate historic armor in the hands of real people under real battlefield conditions?

This question is tricky not just because of differences in the materials and construction -which likely varied as widely in quality back then as they do today, but also human factors, which also vary widely. A typical person is not as strong as an olympic weight lifter. Also, does a leasurely backyard poke at some armor by a hobbyist simulate the condition of a person trained all their life, under life and death conditions where hormones and neurotransmitters are pumping so wildly that unbelievable feats of strength become possible? All of these factors could vary so widely that armchair generalizations are essentially useless.

I am extremely interested in this topic, but IMHO this topic, which seems to keep repeating itself, usually gets bogged down in a lot of strong polarized opinions (often from the same people), and with very little evidence to back them up. In academia, we would get 'thrown out' for doing this - you can't hardly publish a sentence without directly citing evidence or some other paper that directly provided evidence. Its fun to speculate, but it don't count for a hill of beans.

So here's what I would like to see: please, please, please people, cite some evidence for each opinion stated. It could be historic evidence. It could be archeological. It could be modern tests. Some of it may be nonsense, and much of the extremes may be special cases that do not generalize to what happened on the average day. But only by considering all of the actual evidence will we figure out the range of things that possible happened all those years ago.

Rant over. I hope I did not sound like an arrogant academic this time.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dean F. Marino




Location: Midland MI USA
Joined: 24 Aug 2011

Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 2:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J.D. Crawford wrote:
Nice test. As others have already stated, this shows very well what two particular modern swords can do against a particular modern coat of mail. Terrific. The only problem is when one over-generalizes the result.

Can / could swords penetrate mail and other armor? This is a non-question. Of course they can. The laws of physics will tell you that a soft-boiled egg will penegrate an inch think steel plate if its moving fast enough. The real question is, did historic weapons penetrate historic armor in the hands of real people under real battlefield conditions?

This question is tricky not just because of differences in the materials and construction -which likely varied as widely in quality back then as they do today, but also human factors, which also vary widely. A typical person is not as strong as an olympic weight lifter. Also, does a leasurely backyard poke at some armor by a hobbyist simulate the condition of a person trained all their life, under life and death conditions where hormones and neurotransmitters are pumping so wildly that unbelievable feats of strength become possible? All of these factors could vary so widely that armchair generalizations are essentially useless.

I am extremely interested in this topic, but IMHO this topic, which seems to keep repeating itself, usually gets bogged down in a lot of strong polarized opinions (often from the same people), and with very little evidence to back them up. In academia, we would get 'thrown out' for doing this - you can't hardly publish a sentence without directly citing evidence or some other paper that directly provided evidence. Its fun to speculate, but it don't count for a hill of beans.

So here's what I would like to see: please, please, please people, cite some evidence for each opinion stated. It could be historic evidence. It could be archeological. It could be modern tests. Some of it may be nonsense, and much of the extremes may be special cases that do not generalize to what happened on the average day. But only by considering all of the actual evidence will we figure out the range of things that possible happened all those years ago.

Rant over. I hope I did not sound like an arrogant academic this time.


Dammit J.D. - you're thinking like a Scientist Happy. Amen, and thanks for saying this. Hard data will win against opinion any day... and while this test may not be PERFECT? I still applaud the original poster for his effort. You know, it DOES cost some cash to go out, buy SOMETHING, then do one's best to destroy it - just to try your best to gain some insight for our community. I guess I would have to think CAREFULLY before I went out, bought 10 samples each of 10 different varieties of maille (minimum statistics), then destroyed each one of them with some fairly expensive swords Happy.

In edhil, hai edhil. In edain, hai edain.
View user's profile Send private message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Wed 16 Jul, 2014 7:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:


Not every person on the battlefield will be stabbed but people slash and cut as well.

RPM

This is very true, slashing injuries would be horrible, even light mail would protect from a slashing attack.... for example, riders in horse back were more likely to be slashed than stabbed, different armor for different situations.

Something not being taken into account is the psychological effect that wearing armor has on the human mind. Having no armor leaves a person feeling vulnerable, it also make you look weak and an easy target to an armored opponent. The addition of any armor will change the way an opponent thinks about an attack, now he must decide how to work around his opponents armor, he will more than likely not rush right in for the kill, he will take more time to attack. Giving lower class foot soldiers some type of armor even if not entirely effective not only protected them physically, it help them mentally.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 4:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric S wrote:
Randall Moffett wrote:


Not every person on the battlefield will be stabbed but people slash and cut as well.

RPM

This is very true, slashing injuries would be horrible, even light mail would protect from a slashing attack.... for example, riders in horse back were more likely to be slashed than stabbed, different armor for different situations.

Something not being taken into account is the psychological effect that wearing armor has on the human mind. Having no armor leaves a person feeling vulnerable, it also make you look weak and an easy target to an armored opponent. The addition of any armor will change the way an opponent thinks about an attack, now he must decide how to work around his opponents armor, he will more than likely not rush right in for the kill, he will take more time to attack. Giving lower class foot soldiers some type of armor even if not entirely effective not only protected them physically, it help them mentally.
But we know from period artywork, economics, arms rolls,armour examinations etc, that the most common threat faced from medieval warriors of all social classes would be from spears and missile weapons which do piercing damage to a an enemy not slashing attacks. Also, the psychological factor is highly relative, people back then had something we don't have, actual military experience with these weapons and armor being immersed in them since these things were part of it, I believe it rather arrogant statement to jump into the minds of people on a factor that we aren't willing to recreate, as we know, people could spot whether their opponents armour was shit or not from distance and adjust accordingly
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 5:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

Timo Nieminen wrote:
From "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", we have some data (see http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25576 for details). 120J will put an arrow through a particular sample of 15th century mail, 170J to go through that mail and underlying textile armour. A high draw weight warbow can deliver 135J or more (for long-draw bows, you can get to that even with under 100lb draw weight), which will penetrate the mail, but not the complete set of armour.


According to The Knight and the Blast Furnace, at 120 J the simulated arrowhead completely defeated the mail-plus-jack combo and put a 35mm (1.378in) dent in the plastilene behind. And that's with a jack that would weigh 3lbs just to cover my torso from the shoulders down to the navel - about the same weight as a 1.2mm breastplate. Williams doesn't say how much the mail weighs, but I'd guess it weighs as much as the jack or more.


Yes, my error. That 120J goes through both mail and jack. If you wanted to stop high energy arrows with that mail, you'd want to be wearing an outer layer of textile/padded/felt armour.

Btw, that mail is, IIRC, described as a gusset, so wasn't somewhere too exposed, and wasn't the main protection in the complete armour.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
According to The Knight and the Blast Furnace, at 120 J the simulated arrowhead completely defeated the mail-plus-jack combo and put a 35mm (1.378in) dent in the plastilene behind. And that's with a jack that would weigh 3lbs just to cover my torso from the shoulders down to the navel - about the same weight as a 1.2mm breastplate. Williams doesn't say how much the mail weighs, but I'd guess it weighs as much as the jack or more.

A three pound garment isn't a "jack"; it is light underpadding. A proper jack weighs a minimum of 12-15 pounds. The good ones are over 20 pounds and can stop most arrows all by themselves. The one in the Victoria and Albert Museum is over an inch thick and we have plenty of texts telling us that they could be anywhere from 2 to 4 fingers thick.. They weigh a lot more than a plate cuirass or even a mail haubergeon that provides the same protection.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 5:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
But Timo, a man thrusting at mail shirt with any sword and the momentum of high poundage bow on arrow or the momentum of lance head on galloping horse is hardly comparable.


What we can compare is the energy needed to penetrate metal armour. For breaking mail rings or making holes in plate, it is energy that matters. For a given armour, how much energy is needed depends on the geometry of the penetrator. For plate, a slender 3 or 4 sided pyramid is best, as long as it isn't too thin for strength. Arrows and the tips of armour-piercing thrusting swords have good anti-plate geometry. Triangular and square lance heads have good anti-plate geometry (but should need more energy, since they are larger).

Sword thrusts and arrows can deliver energy in the same range, so we can compare those directly. I don't know if we have good measurements of the energy that can be delivered with a lance.

The are three issues making the comparison harder:

1. Not all of the energy goes into penetrating the armour. Some of the energy goes into moving the armour. This means that it is easier to penetrate a plate that is held rigidly, compared to a freely-hanging plate. The smaller the plate, the bigger the difference. (So brigandine should offer better protection for the same plate thickness.) The faster that the penetrator is moving, the less time the armour has to move, so faster is better. This has an interesting consequence: given a faster lighter arrows and a heavier slower arrow with the same energy, the lighter arrow should penetrate plate better (as long as it is strong enough to not break). Note that the heavier arrow has more momentum. For going through metal plate, energy matters, not momentum (momentum matters when the energy goes into overcoming viscous drag; e.g., for penetration deep into soft tissue, so for bowhunters, momentum is more important).

The same principle of energy being lost affects mail as well. Against mail, faster will be better.

This means that arrows should need less energy to go through armour than swords, since they will be faster.

2. The energy delivered by a sword depends on interaction between wielder, sword, and target during the hit. If the target moves more (more energy going into moving the target), the sword-wielder should be able to deliver more energy during the strike, partly making up for this.

3. For textile armour, sharpness matters.

The anti-plate pyramid is not ideal for textile armour. This is an extra benefit of textile/mail and textile/plate layered protection. What goes more easily through the textile part of the armour is stopped more easily by the plate/mail. What goes more easily through the mail/plate is stopped more easily by the textile layer.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dean F. Marino




Location: Midland MI USA
Joined: 24 Aug 2011

Posts: 229

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 6:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo Nieminen wrote:
Philip Dyer wrote:
But Timo, a man thrusting at mail shirt with any sword and the momentum of high poundage bow on arrow or the momentum of lance head on galloping horse is hardly comparable.


What we can compare is the energy needed to penetrate metal armour. For breaking mail rings or making holes in plate, it is energy that matters. For a given armour, how much energy is needed depends on the geometry of the penetrator. For plate, a slender 3 or 4 sided pyramid is best, as long as it isn't too thin for strength. Arrows and the tips of armour-piercing thrusting swords have good anti-plate geometry. Triangular and square lance heads have good anti-plate geometry (but should need more energy, since they are larger).

Sword thrusts and arrows can deliver energy in the same range, so we can compare those directly. I don't know if we have good measurements of the energy that can be delivered with a lance.

The are three issues making the comparison harder:

1. Not all of the energy goes into penetrating the armour. Some of the energy goes into moving the armour. This means that it is easier to penetrate a plate that is held rigidly, compared to a freely-hanging plate. The smaller the plate, the bigger the difference. (So brigandine should offer better protection for the same plate thickness.) The faster that the penetrator is moving, the less time the armour has to move, so faster is better. This has an interesting consequence: given a faster lighter arrows and a heavier slower arrow with the same energy, the lighter arrow should penetrate plate better (as long as it is strong enough to not break). Note that the heavier arrow has more momentum. For going through metal plate, energy matters, not momentum (momentum matters when the energy goes into overcoming viscous drag; e.g., for penetration deep into soft tissue, so for bowhunters, momentum is more important).

The same principle of energy being lost affects mail as well. Against mail, faster will be better.

This means that arrows should need less energy to go through armour than swords, since they will be faster.

2. The energy delivered by a sword depends on interaction between wielder, sword, and target during the hit. If the target moves more (more energy going into moving the target), the sword-wielder should be able to deliver more energy during the strike, partly making up for this.

3. For textile armour, sharpness matters.

The anti-plate pyramid is not ideal for textile armour. This is an extra benefit of textile/mail and textile/plate layered protection. What goes more easily through the textile part of the armour is stopped more easily by the plate/mail. What goes more easily through the mail/plate is stopped more easily by the textile layer.


While I'm pretty sure it was not intended... I'm struck by the similarities regarding energy and velocity of a medieval "projectile" against medieval "ballistic protection". Sounds REMARKABLY similar to several of the arguments I've heard in THIS age regarding bullet mass, velocity, and penetration of modern armor. I probably should not be surprised - society has changed, basic physics have not.

In edhil, hai edhil. In edain, hai edain.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
According to The Knight and the Blast Furnace, at 120 J the simulated arrowhead completely defeated the mail-plus-jack combo and put a 35mm (1.378in) dent in the plastilene behind. And that's with a jack that would weigh 3lbs just to cover my torso from the shoulders down to the navel - about the same weight as a 1.2mm breastplate. Williams doesn't say how much the mail weighs, but I'd guess it weighs as much as the jack or more.

A three pound garment isn't a "jack"; it is light underpadding. A proper jack weighs a minimum of 12-15 pounds. The good ones are over 20 pounds and can stop most arrows all by themselves. The one in the Victoria and Albert Museum is over an inch thick and we have plenty of texts telling us that they could be anywhere from 2 to 4 fingers thick.. They weigh a lot more than a plate cuirass or even a mail haubergeon that provides the same protection.


i hope this doesnt derail too much, but based on what you're saying how would you rate something like the byzantine padded kavadion which was meant to be either underarmour or standalone (i think), as well as its quilted cousion the epilorikion which was designed purely to be worn OVER the armour.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 6:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It should be noted that modern body armor which reduces casualty rates by 50% is highly desired by troops who have seen the results of not having it. Testing of the T45 body armor in Korea saw troops who had tested it reluctant to return to the front when the armor was transferred to other units for testing. In the days before antibiotics, any reduction in wounds would have been more acutely appreciated.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/...pter11.htm

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 8:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
i hope this doesnt derail too much, but based on what you're saying how would you rate something like the byzantine padded kavadion which was meant to be either underarmour or standalone (i think), as well as its quilted cousion the epilorikion which was designed purely to be worn OVER the armour.

I'm not sure what the question is. Underpadding (aketon, pourpoint, etc) was lighter than winter clothing. It was meant to stop chafing and help distribute impact. Worn by itself it might stop a sword cut or a light arrow. Jacks were stuffed like a cushion till they were up to six inches thick and then compressed with quilting, or made of multiple layers of quilted cloth (or a combination of both). The lighter ones were meant to be layered with another armour. The heaviest ones were meant to be worn by themselves. It was the same in Europe, India and the Middle East. There is no reason why the Byzantines wouldn't have adopted similar protection.

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Lance Morris




Location: NYC
Joined: 17 Aug 2013
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 8:33 pm    Post subject: gotta agree with Nick         Reply with quote

Hey Guys.

Albion makes great swords and they look sexy.
However I have to agree with Nick. I don't believe they are made for the trails of battle like other swords.

I've used custom tinkers. Atrims and Albions to death.
The albions break and or bend much sooner.

Some of the best furniture in the Industry however
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 17 Jul, 2014 8:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
A three pound garment isn't a "jack"; it is light underpadding.


It's 2.9lbs for a breastplate-sized piece of Williams's jack: 15x15 inches. A 1mm steel plate of the same dimensions weighs only 2.5lbs, so the jack is quite substantial. A full jack covering front and back down to the thighs as well as arms of the same thickness as tested might weigh 15lbs or more. As far as I can see, Williams doesn't give a weight for either of mail pieces tested, but sixteenth-century mail shirts with sleeves commonly weigh 15-20lbs. Assuming the mail weighs the same as the padding, you're looking at about 30lbs to cover the torso, arms, and perhaps thighs.

I suspect some historical mail had thinner padding.
View user's profile Send private message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Fri 18 Jul, 2014 4:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
But we know from period artywork, economics, arms rolls,armour examinations etc, that the most common threat faced from medieval warriors of all social classes would be from spears and missile weapons which do piercing damage to a an enemy not slashing attacks. Also, the psychological factor is highly relative, people back then had something we don't have, actual military experience with these weapons and armor being immersed in them since these things were part of it, I believe it rather arrogant statement to jump into the minds of people on a factor that we aren't willing to recreate, as we know, people could spot whether their opponents armour was shit or not from distance and adjust accordingly


You say that it is
Quote:
"rather arrogant statement to jump into the minds of people"
and then you rather arrogantly say that you know that
Quote:
"people could spot whether their opponents armour was shit or not from distance and adjust accordingly"
. So All people had "actual military experience" and all those swords were just for looks and never actually used because spears and missile weapons were all they had to worry about. Your knowledge of all medieval cultures is a little lacking.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 18 Jul, 2014 6:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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


Last edited by Randall Moffett on Fri 18 Jul, 2014 6:56 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Fri 18 Jul, 2014 6:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric S wrote:
Philip Dyer wrote:
But we know from period artwork, economics, arms rolls,armor examinations etc, that the most common threat faced from medieval warriors of all social classes would be from spears and missile weapons which do piercing damage to a an enemy not slashing attacks. Also, the psychological factor is highly relative, people back then had something we don't have, actual military experience with these weapons and armor being immersed in them since these things were part of it, I believe it rather arrogant statement to jump into the minds of people on a factor that we aren't willing to recreate, as far we could know, people could spot whether their opponents armor was shit or not from distance and adjust accordingly


You say that it is
Quote:
"rather arrogant statement to jump into the minds of people"
and then you rather arrogantly say that you know that
Quote:
"people could spot whether their opponents armor was shit or not from distance and adjust accordingly"
. So All people had "actual military experience" and all those swords were just for looks and never actually used because spears and missile weapons were all they had to worry about. Your knowledge of all medieval cultures is a little lacking.
...... No...... that was typo... I had thought I wrote as far and could into the last sentence, indicating that we can't jump into the psychology of people in the middle ages because the world we live in and thus most people's experiences are leaps and bounds different that theirs are thus the way we think would be different. Weaponry and armor don't lie, they have experiences, and they take generally take longer to decay than human beings. The assumption of tool design based something as variable, subjective, and fleeting as the psyche of people and society disconnected from 500 years or more is an arrogant statement.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Fri 18 Jul, 2014 3:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Moffett wrote:
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.


Less weight/bulk for the same protection (as one gets for protection against sharp things) will drive a switch from padding to plate if plate is cheap enough. Or, if weight/bulk was limiting how much protection you could get, less weight/bulk for the same protection means you can get more protection for the same weight/bulk.

Randall Moffett wrote:
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.


There are compromises. First, there is the compromise between cost and protection. But even if one has the money (and other resources) so that cost is not a major issue, there are still other factors that need to be balanced against protection:

1. Weight - will affect mobility and stamina. Heavy arm armour will slow movement of arms, which can directly affect fighting.

2. Bulk - will affect mobility and overheating

3. Ventilation - overheating and breathing. Given accounts of heatstroke deaths on the battlefield, this matters.

4. Visibility and hearing

In principle, you can make armour that will stop any Medieval melee weapon or handheld missile weapon (including guns). But it would be highly impractical, if not completely useless.

So while you might be able to armour the torso to keep out 90% of arrows, limbs can end up less well armoured. The face can be significantly less protected. Which affects how protective it's worth making the torso armour. Since the less protected parts mean that not all attacks will be stopped, there's very little overall gain from making torso armour a little bit better.

Example: If 10% of arrows will hit unarmoured parts, and the torso armour stops 90% of arrows, you're stopping 81% of arrows. If making your torso armour 50% heavier means it stops 95% of arrows, then you're stopping 85.5% of all arrows. If doubling the weight gets you to 98%, you stop 88% in total. Not very much improvement, for a big penalty in weight (and cost, and bulk).

Since you won't be invulnerable all over, it may not be worthwhile making individual body parts invulnerable. Heavy weapons such as very heavy crossbows, muskets, jingals, and artillery (mechanical and gunpowder) mean that full invulverability just isn't there.

Still, armour was clearly valued. Given that most soldiers who died didn't die in battle, but died of disease or starvation (partly because those are constant threats, while battle was rare), the willingness of soldiers to go to lighter or no armour makes sense. From a commander's perspective, armour is a good force multiplier - fewer soldiers needed for the same fighting power. Makes lots of things easier (especially logistics).

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Fri 18 Jul, 2014 3:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Timo,

That is indeed how I feel about it as well. But I'd still say Economics is to me the biggest factor. I think this likely played such a big part. To me generally the big three are protection, cost and weight but this is a very general triangle of factors... but others are for sure part of the larger scope of things.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Mail vs sword: a test
Page 3 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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