Chainmail and its Effectiveness

Recently I went on a bit if a history binge, both over the internet and books.

One thing which always made me curious was chainmail. It was used a lot and most historians and writers say, it wouldn't be used a lot of it wasn't effective.

Modern chainmail reinventions are tested and show it was good at preventing cuts and in some cases arrows.

However what has me thinking is this: are the recreations of chainmail we have today as accurate to what they had back in say the 1100s or 1200s?

Historians looking back 1000 or 2000 years from now may see our traditional armoured vests as being extraordinarily effective with their own modern replications of our armour being near bullet proof. But that would be replications using their own quality material.

However the reason we use it today is cause its the only armour available and yes while the grade of armour in the modern military has varied resistence, virtually none are going to stop more than a dozen rounds nor full automatic fire.

How some people discuss chainmail is that it was exceptionally potent and effective armour. But was the quality of material of the same level as some replications we make as of today to make a proper accurate depiction in how tough it was?

That and the varied quality of chainmail, was it not of a much more lower level? During war time I'm sure some armour makers (sorry, don't know the proper name) would cut corners or simply lazily construct it rendering their chainmail inferior to ours?

Just curious, particularly in regards to Norman Knights of the 1100 to the later Knights of 13-1400s.

Cheers in advance.

Other urls found in this thread:

artofchainmail.com/patterns/european/index.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

>Modern chainmail reinventions are tested and show it was good at preventing cuts and in some cases arrows.
They use butted mail a lot of the time, which is not how chainmail was made and is totally useless, you can literally destroy butted mail with your hand.

Mail was good armour, it stopped cuts, and most stabs, it didnt stop force, but the padding undernearth did that.

It's quite heavy though. Heavier than plate.

I see. I guess I am so used to looking at all different forms of media and seeing chainmail getting sliced to pieces.

In one form, I am used to seeing men dying in droves in battle scenes. While the depiction may not be right, there have been historical battles where men got butchered in stupid high numbers.

In contrast many historians compliment the effectiveness of armour, counter acting the pop culture depiction of it, particularly chain mail.

So the conflict between one side saying chainmail and other armours were effective vs the disastrous battles which resulted in massacres is making it hard for me to get a proper idea how good chainmail really was.

Modern chainmail is more machined and uniform. We can pump out a suit much faster than any smith of the 12th, 13th, and 14th century. That does not mean that the smiths of that time were bad though. Chainmail was an awesome advancement that kept its place on the battlefield as long as melee weapons were the primary way of killing each other. Chainmail suits got longer during the time of the Normans. This was following the rise of cavalry as the super power on the European battlefield. Gotta keep those thighs safe.

A lazy smith might take a long time to produce even a mail coif... but you best believe it would work really well. There are different patterns that developed over time which determine how strong the mail was and how long it took to create. 1 into 4 - meaning putting one ring through four others - developed during the time of Rome. From there it spread to all the Germanic kingdoms who conquered them.

Once they discovered wire drawing in the 14th century production got faster and more effective. Many suits that survive today have a lucky ring on them. They were the last ring or close to it, and bear biblical blessings or well wishes for the soldier wearing the armor. As far as I know we do not do that in modern reproductions.

artofchainmail.com/patterns/european/index.html

The most accurate shit today is made by Erik D. Schmid (appropriate name). He uses traditionally drawn wire and twists and rivets it all by hand.

One thing to be noted is that mail can vary a lot, you can have a large internal diameter and thick rings, a small internal diameter and thick rings or thin rings with a large or small internal diameter.

Mail is extremely good armor, not only will it stop 99% of slashes, it will also blunt many thrust and arrows that you might imagine would punch right thru.

modern mail is made of even gauge wire, original mail would have varied in thickness and closeness of links to increase effectiveness in vital areas and decrease overall weight.

In some of the densest made mail it can be hard to even get a pin in it.

>Battle scenes

Never ever trust Hollywood. Remember: armor doesn't matter, nobody's weapons get chipped or broken, bones and flesh are as strong as paper, you can win as long as you believe hard enough, and anybody before the 20th century never heard of bathing.

Some movies do good jobs of showing battles, but they are trying to entertain not educate

[Alexiad, VIII.8];

"He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt."

Viking mail armor, Ljósvetninga Saga, about Hardrada's mail;

"a coat of mail called 'Emma' that reached to the knees and was so strong that no weapon could bite into it."

Gregory of Tours [2.27];

"Afterwards the king, when having put the Goths to flight he had killed king Alaric, two from the enemy army suddenly coming upon him, with their lances they strike him on both sides; but with the help of his mail and of the speed of his horse, he did not perish but was preserved."

I can go on and on.

It was very good armor and provided complete coverage without gaps, unlike lamellar or scale, which could only form rigid structures and would always have big openings in the inner arms.

Also, it appears that European mail was superior to other mail for some reason, numerous sources describe so.

The writings of Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad even describe one of Saladins generals bragging to everyone how he got himself a Frankish mail shirt.

Thanks for the good stuff anons.

Well, its obvious then that chainmail actually was a good piece of equipment. But as much as armour is praised by us as being highly effective, in that regard what actually resulted in the brutal massacres in the 1100-1400 periods?

As to varied quality or cutting corners, no evidence of it to my knowledge.

We are talking about smiths who would craft mail all their lives and become very good at it.

We are also talking about customers whose lives depended on that product, so quality control was probably present.

They would most likely take a random small piece and test it out, then have the smith repair the links.

Some other advantage;

- as stated, very easy to repair damage
- very easy to store in large quantities
- unlike other forms of armor, does not encase the body and cause body heat to built up
- easier to maintain from rust
- easier to craft

Another note;

the vast majority of modern mail, including riveted, is not historically constructed properly.

Historically made mail is made by only a few dudes, usually historians, and it is extremely expensive.

Welp I post one here and then see your response.

Mind giving me some good books on armour/chainmail and medieval warfare? I have been hunting in book stores again but have no reference besides one book I got on Knight armour and its history but that was less detailed.

> But as much as armour is praised by us as being highly effective, in that regard what actually resulted in the brutal massacres in the 1100-1400 periods?

Armor does not help you when you are lying on the ground defeated, someone takes your helmet off and stabs you in the face.

>Historically made mail is made by only a few dudes, usually historians, and it is extremely expensive.

I am going to assume from others in this thread, the cost is also comparable to its effectiveness?

...

No matter how good your armor is, combat is chaos. Getting pummeled to death would be a shitty way to go but it happened. Trampling? That happened. Having your helmet ripped off and eyes gouged out? That too. Strangled? Yep.

Armor is meant to make you last longer on the battlefield. Not even the best made, highest quality plate armors could prevent you from dying. And not everyone had full chainmail suits. Protecting vitals came first. Extremities came second

A coif by Schmid will set you back 400 dollars.

>the cost is also comparable to its effectiveness?
No. It just takes a shitload of time to make chainmail by hand. The plague killing off half the armourers and the re-invention of the trip hammer are part of the reason why plate armour rose into its position.

And armor got better because the weapons were getting better. Their developments were intertwined

Well shit.

Source?

>In one form, I am used to seeing men dying in droves in battle scenes. While the depiction may not be right, there have been historical battles where men got butchered in stupid high numbers.
To kill a human being is a hard task. Medieval skeletons of men who died in battle don't have one single wound, they are covered in wounds, all over, and then usually one final fatal wound in the head (or neck) which finished them off when they were already in a position of weakness.

William the Breton on the battle of bouvines.

>Breton

Skyrim is for the Nords

...

There was still extensive use of mail in the late medieval period.

It was more common than plate, though less iconic and less represented in art. We see more mail shirts (shirts, not just coifs and voiders) than plate on Wars of the Roses muster rolls.

>William the Breton on the battle of bouvines.
Would there be any good books I could pick up examining this account further?

>that halberd to the groin

Jesus

He tripled the size of just Royal land. Damn

Should have worn his codpiece

While not a question about "realism" per se, the existence of plate armor in Tolkien related works always pisses me off enormously. The books make it quite clear that everyone runs around in mail, and that solid plate stuff hasn't been invented yet.

I am not sure, high medieval history is not really my strong point.

Nigga is the founder of France properly. I believe he is one of the first French kings who is called King of France rather than king of the Franks.

See picture (you are now breathing manually)

This one is also funny to read.

That...that doesn't sound possible. Shot to the neck, nose, good god.

I am assuming since its 1397 this guy had chainmail, plate and a kite shield? Noticed a Shield was mentioned and can only assume that would be the only one to endure such punishment like that.

I want some of those 14th century amphetamines myself.

Actually it is pretty survivable.

Being a high Spanish noble he would most likely have worn a bascinet with mail aventail (which is incorrectly translated to gorget).

An arrow in the neck will not kill you instantly unless it severs your spine, opens and artery or opens your throat so a degree where breathing becomes impossible. If it misses any of these vitals you are fine for the moment. Intubation doesn't kill a patient either.

The face consists mostly of skin, bone and cavities. There isn't really anything vital there. Getting an arrow in the face was a regular occurrence and as long as it doesn't damage your brain or get infected its fine.

Adrenaline bruh

...

Jesus fucking christ!

I lost one of my sources which mentions an Irish mercenary in French service during the 17th century.

The guy got shot in the shoulder, knee and arm and had his hand and skull chopped up by swords until his brain became visible. He survived it.

Here is some more from the Indian Mutiny

> It was more common than plate, though less iconic and less represented in art.
>We see more mail shirts (shirts, not just coifs and voiders) than plate on Wars of the Roses muster rolls.

To be fair, a lot of that mail in those arsenals and muster rolls was worn by dudes who wore plate above that mail.

Full mail shirts being worn under breastplates were still common up until the late 15th century.

>all these badass anectodes and writing
>actual bits of primary accounts
>no source or link

user STOP TEASING US FOR FUCKS SAKE

Swordsmen of the British empire by D.A. Kinsley

It's almost 600 pages worth of this stuff with an introduction written by Matt "context" Easton

It costs a shittonne to make it properly, BUT, it was apparently still well worth it for the people who regularly trusted their lives in it in battle to pay the high prices.

I got some for you, user

...

>that file name

>Swordsmen of the British empire by D.A. Kinsley
Based user. Gonna pick that up tomorrow hopefully if Hodges and Figs is as good a shop as I hope.

I think I made that one originally from the account of Del Castillo

I got it at lulu when it was only a few eurobucks

...

...

Except the Naugrim wore armor of plates of black steel and red gold during their wars with the Elves, so the technology certainly exists.

...

I can think of no such passage claiming that. Source? The closest thing I can think of is that thing about how Thingol sends for Dwarven smiths to teach his people metalworking, and Eol comes up with that Galvorn stuff.

Interesting to hear about the chainmail

How does scale and lamaller armour stack up?

Lamellar is great, but can be extremely heavy if you want good coverage in combat

I would imagine somewhat less effective, certainly not to the degree of the accounts here.

To be honest this thread puts the whole Norman knight into a new perspective for me, never mind the 14 century knights. That stuff really wasn't for show, was legit tough as nails.

Scale too, both are fantastic at resisting edged weapons. You can get inbetween the gaps with a piercing weapon though - and spears were the most common weapon on the battlefield - so it is not full proof

I would assume though that it would be cheaper and quicker to produce these types of armour?

>checked

East Asia has some great examples of scale and lamellar armors

Depends on how you want it made. Advanced protection and coverage would take more time and cost more than chainmail of the same caliber

If you want to protect the vitals, it would certainly be faster and cheaper than producing chainmail protecting the same areas

To be honest, I'd want a good helmet. Head wounds bleed like crazy and would scare the shit out of me even if it was minor

Fascinating

Why didnt the east adopt chainmail armour?

Lamellar is inflexible, meaning it's great for cavalry but not so great for infantry. Scale is a Hollywood trope, it didn't exist except maybe as gladiator costumes.

Also it's "maille" or "mail", there's no such thing as "chainmail", that's another Hollywoodism.

Scale was popular for a while too, but chainmail was the common soldier's friend since it was first produced

>Scale is a Hollywood trope, it didn't exist except maybe as gladiator costumes.

Well, also in cultures that hadn't developed mail armor, bronze age near east had it all over the place.

Too labor intensive for the vast East Asian armies. The various Rajas of India did use mail, tho.

Not him, but at least to a complete amateur user, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, places like China and some of the larger east asian polities could field enormous armies, but they also had enormous civilian support structures. I would have thought that the ratio of soldiers to armorsmiths wasn't much different than it was in Europe, just everything was on a larger scale.

China was not worried about infantry vs. infantry combat like Europe. China's adversaries were always horse nomads. Sure China had conflicts with Chinese on Chinese violence, but their longer conflicts were with horse archer neighbors. Countering them was the priority. Chainmail suits are not a way to counter such people

This user speaks truth... but it's caught on so much. I just use it now

I was watching a youtube video (can't recall exact source) claiming it would be better to, assuming you were too poor, to choose a helmet over a piece of armour.

I understand the logic that one shot to your head, you are dead or as , head wounds.

But in reality what would provide you with better protection? A piece of chest armour ala chain mail or leather armour (whichever equivilent) or a good helmet?

Lamellar makes great cavalry armor like says: both for the horse and rider

Get yourself a nice shield and your body is mostly protected. Your head is not covered by that generally, so spring for a good helmet next. After all that then you can worry about core vitals: heart, lungs, lower guts, and such. If you still got cash after all that then extremities could come next

delete this

...

...

The oldest evidence I got says helmet over armor: it's cheaper, easier to mass produce, and goes well in conjunction with a large shield

Well thanks anons for all the info. It was a nice and very informative thread.

I believe the Chinese used mail occasionally, usually officers and the richer sort.

>lances, and spears- among which some were shaped like swords-
What did he mean by this

How did a good brigandine compare?

have this passage of western mail armor versus eastern arrows in the late 11th century[Alexiad, VIII.8]; "He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt."

The BEST piece of armor is the shield, followed by the helmet, and then the gauntlet. Breastplates are way down there, they're nice and all but they don't help you do your primary task in a battle, which is, kill the other guy.

Notably however, the pagan Irish fought without helmets, using clubs and spears as their weapons. AFAIK they are the only iron-age people not to use helmets, but they soon learned once the Norse started raping the fuck out of them.

pretty close to a breastplate, better than just mail

brigandines would be worn over a mail shirt, which would be over a gamberson. Even for less wealthy soldiers, they were pretty damn well armored

>Historians looking back 1000 or 2000 years from now may see our traditional armoured vests as being extraordinarily effective with their own modern replications of our armour being near bullet proof. But that would be replications using their own quality material.
They'd be right. level 4 vests could take a full magazine if 30-06 from across the room and leave the wearer able to fight.

Pagan Irish didn't fight in any armour at all. They would go into battle with their cocks hanging out.

Also when the Norse started raiding Ireland the iron age was over and they were no longer pagan.

>But as much as armour is praised by us as being highly effective, in that regard what actually resulted in the brutal massacres in the 1100-1400 periods?
Not everyone could afford the best protection. Only the military elite could afford to cover the whole body in mail.

And if not every part is covered, that's where people are going to attack.

...

...

>Also, it appears that European mail was superior to other mail for some reason, numerous sources describe so.
Almost certainly different methods of construction.

Someone had to make every single one of those by hand. What a nightmare.

IIRC it was good against broadside sword strikes because the chains would distribute the blow across all the links, but shit against things like pikes, arrows and maces,

why not both!

I hope to god that poor fucker was dead face down in the mud before those arrows stuck in his skull

>brigandines would be worn over a mail shirt, which would be over a gamberson

isnt that a bit overkill? each one of those seem fine on their own but together that sounds restrictive

Thats the makers ring my dude

HOw realistic is this

It depends on the material the mail is made out of and also the type of mail. I have a butted mail vest made out of mild steel and that's worse quality than some high-end mail from the late medieval period.