Three link mail?

Cliff Rogers · Post by **Cliff Rogers** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:56 pm

Is it possible to make a mail shirt with each link passing through 3 others instead of the usual four? Are there any preserved examples of such mail?

Thanks
Cliff

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:23 pm

If you are looking for physical evidence to support the sources that write about "thrice linked mail" then I think you are looking in the wrong place. There are a lot of sources saying that something was done "three times" or "thrice" to give emphasis to how well the task was performed. So "thrice woven mail" probably doesn't have anything to do with the physical number three. It is more likely to simply mean that it was "well made".

Cliff Rogers · Post by **Cliff Rogers** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:43 pm

That is what I was wondering about.

I don't buy your "just well made" idea though. I'm not sure what it has to do with the number 3, but I think something.

Gregory · Post by **Gregory** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:52 pm

I guess the weave you're thinking of would be called European 3-in-1 (E4-1). It would be very weak, and very open. It would also be a pain in the back side to attach sleeves to, or expansion/contraction joints needed to fit the maille to the wearer's body.

It could also be trippling the rings--instead of the normal fivelet you'd get three central rings and 12 rings around it (four piles of 3 rings each). I can't see the advantage of that, though. It'd need larger rings, smaller wire, and more weight to achieve the same strength of standard E4-1.

The only weave that offers the strength and flexability of E4-1 is Japanese 4-in-1 (J4-1), which was predominantly used in, go figure, Japan. There's also J6-1, which creats little flowers around the central rings. But I haven't seen any J3-1--it would create a REALLY loose web, which wouldn't be bad if the holes were filled with hardened leather or something but which would invite death without such additions.

Norman · Post by **Norman** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:00 pm

4 in 1 is "normal" mail - it wouldn't be called anything

popular theories for "doubled" is that it was either 6 in 1 or just with rings that are twice as thick as normal
(the thickness thing is unlikey as there is just too much variety in size of rings)
going that way, "tripple" would have to go above 6 in 1 or get realy massively thick

alternatively - there is certainly a practice of wearing more than one hauberk. This was also an explanation to "doubled mail"
it could be that references to trippled may be to wearing three coats.

If I am not misremembering, in El Cid there are references to a spear going through all three of a man's hauberks.

BTW: I have never seen mail with 3 in 1 used for fabric (ie: as opposed to necklaces)
Why did you get the idea that this is something that was done?

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

I can think of at least half a dozen definitions of "double mail" that can all be supported from available evidence. Until someone produces a solid argument that pins down this term there is little point trying to use it to define "triple mail".

Gregory · Post by **Gregory** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:02 pm

I was talking more about looking for maille in a modern context. Look up "maille" on a site like M.A.I.L. Artisians and your brain will explode. Look up E4-1 and you'll only fry half your synapses.

I have never seen mail with 3 in 1 used for fabric

I think I have, but the weave is less than 50 years old, so it's definitely not period.