penatrating plate & mail!

[rev.jc]

historicly say 12 - 14th century,
how difficult was it for an un armored foot soilder or swordsman to penatrate a knight or troop clad in plate and mail armour, say wisby coat full mail haburk, knees and thigh protection and a von-pranker barrel helm with coif and under helm!

I hope if possible you can give historical and practical references!

[matthijs]

Depends on a lot of factors. Is the knight mounted or on foot, alone or fighting in formation? I heard once that according to some viking, you should be able to pull the ring in your maille square when drawing on the hauberk. This implicates rather thin rings which would be effective against so called nuisance cuts, but not against a full dedicated strike. In other words, if the knight is standing still and not defending himself, a thrust or strong cut would probably pentrate if aligned well. On a moving target who defends himself it would be much more difficult to get an effective hit. In other words: the armour doesn´t make you invulnerable, but will make cuts and thrusts less effective.

[rev.jc]

great stuff, I need more though!

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Uh... What's a 'troop'?

[Ian]

Arrow-fodder?

[Josh W]

I think the man in plate was pretty darn safe from anything but a very high-powered crossbow, the point of a lance at full charge, or an early handgun....

....and sometimes even from those.

[jester]

historicly say 12 - 14th century,
how difficult was it for an un armored foot soilder or swordsman to penatrate a knight or troop clad in plate and mail armour, say wisby coat full mail haburk, knees and thigh protection and a von-pranker barrel helm with coif and under helm!

I hope if possible you can give historical and practical references!

You don't pentrate armor, you go around it. We know that happened.

Could you regularly penetrate armor? The jury is out on this subject with good arguments on both sides. The short answer is that it seems to depend on the specific circumstances.

[AllenJ]

Jester has the right idea. The weapons and the techniques were more often designed to go where the armour isnt. A few things like maces, axes and warhammers and the like were a little more effective at going "through" things.

[Buran]

For penetrating mail, it's been proved to me anyway that a spear can go through period mail if it's thrust hard enough - within the ability of a horse and rider, anyway.

Now, the force applied by the horseman holding a lance to someone on the ground I would think should also be equal to the force applied by someone on the ground with a spear to someone charging him on a horse, nicht wahr?

[Dan Howard]

For penetrating mail, it's been proved to me anyway that a spear can go through period mail if it's thrust hard enough - within the ability of a horse and rider, anyway.

What is your definition of "period mail"?

Yes the sources indicate that mail can be penetrated with a mounted lance, but they are also pretty clear that the occurrence was rare and something of note. They are also pretty clear that some types of mail, e.g. hauberts de joute, "double mail", etc, were considered proof against the mounted lance. Maybe people could explain the existence of hauberts de joute if the mounted lance could so easily compromise mail? At the time the lances used in jousting were just as sharp as those used on the battlefield.

[rev.jc]

This is great stuff, I am looking for the occurences of penatrating a suit of mail with a wisby coat of plates and a great helm.

I am aware of the battle of hastings, and the hardened Italian mercanary armour, but say a Knight on foot against a soilder with no armour and a pick or mace!

I am of the argument that the armour would hold because nither would stand still, any thought here!

[jester]

This is great stuff, I am looking for the occurences of penatrating a suit of mail with a wisby coat of plates and a great helm.

I am aware of the battle of hastings, and the hardened Italian mercanary armour, but say a Knight on foot against a soilder with no armour and a pick or mace!

I am of the argument that the armour would hold because nither would stand still, any thought here!

The armored knight is going to be able to wade through the less well armored opponents like a shark through a school of fish. It wil take a concerted effort by the fish to take down the shark. And we know this was done because some of the accounts of early tournaments detail (okay, suggest) how squires and various footmen were used to pull knights down from on horseback and take them prisoner.

Armor works, else it would not have been used. That said, I still hold the belief (unsubstantiated) that armor was essentially ablative. It wasn't designed to stand up to multiple beatings over the course of several years the way that modern SCA armor is. It was as light as possible for reasons of comfort and cost. It was intended to protect you from the couple of serious blows that slip past your defence and then it became part of the second-hand armor market or was repaired.

[rev.jc]

Can I use your shark analogy in a class next mon! I really like it it was just what I wasa looking for!

[Ean]

Mail may stop a lance, but not blunt trauma. If a mounted knight charged you with a lance and your mail stopped it you wouldnt feel like fighting afterward...

[Martin Hodges]

My impression of mail's effectiveness was always something similar to bullet proof/kevlar vests. The vests stop the bullet, but it still hurts like hell and leaves a bad bruise, and it would probably take you down for a while. However, the bullet was stopped and you live. That was always my impression.

[Aaron]

None of the dead at Wisby who had a Coat of Plates had documented rib or spine damage.

The US Army at Natick Labs based the flak-vest off of the Wisby COPs. There are THREE copies of the original work in their library (and it's a SMALL library).

-Aaron

[Buran]

What is your definition of "period mail"?

Er, mail that was used in period?

[Dan Howard]

What is your definition of "period mail"?

Er, mail that was used in period?

I was responding to this

For penetrating mail, it's been proved to me anyway that a spear can go through period mail if it's thrust hard enough - within the ability of a horse and rider, anyway.

How is it that you have witnessed a "period" mounted lance being used in a "period" manner penetrating a "period" hauberk? What is it about the mail in question that makes you think that it was representative of what was worn in "period"?

"riveted" does not equal "period"

Edit: FWIW this is the only online test I've seen that even comes close to mail that was worn "in period" http://es.geocities.com/cotasmalla/test2.htm

[rev.jc]

So I am assuming that the general consensus is that armour, good armour added a much higher level of ferocity on the battle field, I know this sounds rather obvious but I am dealing with an issue of some one who swears that armour is not as important as swordsman ship I.E boffer vs heavy combat, I guess I am the Jack lambert of the Armour fighting community and I would like proof that a legitimate fighting style is to use ones muscle and strength to take one and give a heavy blow back.

I understand thier are weapons that go around armour but against an attacking knight wouldnt this be difficult? I also would have to add from my counter knife training in the USMC that a cut doesw not stop you from fighting!

Any Ideas!

[Dave Womble]

If arrows, spears and other piercing weapons all penetrated mail as easily as many of you seem to think, why would it have been worn for centuries? One of the Royal Armouries guys said it best: "You didn't wear anything that didnt keep you alive." Or something along those lines.

Blunt trauma in conjunction with mail isn't as big an issue as some of you seem it to be....hence the reason gambesons, aketons, and the like were worn with mail.

The stuff worked...period.

Even weapons specially designed to defeat mail and plate were not magical Ginsu or Vorpal blades folks. Theres both muscle AND technique involved in defeating an armoured opponent. Having the best sword on the field won't help you much against a knight if you lack the strength, courage, will and skill to use it.

Conversely, the best armour in the known world isn't going to save you against a throng of pissed off Swiss pikemen defending their homeland or waiting for their next paycheck.

There's a lot more to it than those scenarios, but the point is no weapon or armour is completely proof against all other weapons and armour and the skilled and unskilled combatants who used them. You can minimize risk of injury or death by being trained, wearing decent armour thats constructed and fitted properly and wielding weapons appropriate for the type of warfare and opponents you're facing.

Dave

[Buran]

What is your definition of "period mail"?

Er, mail that was used in period?

I was responding to this

For penetrating mail, it's been proved to me anyway that a spear can go through period mail if it's thrust hard enough - within the ability of a horse and rider, anyway.

How is it that you have witnessed a "period" mounted lance being used in a "period" manner penetrating a "period" hauberk? What is it about the mail in question that makes you think that it was representative of what was worn in "period"?

"riveted" does not equal "period"

Edit: FWIW this is the only online test I've seen that even comes close to mail that was worn "in period" http://es.geocities.com/cotasmalla/test2.htm

I don't know why these discussions always seem to turn to this. No, I am not living right now in the middle ages, and I am not in the service of a medieval lord. I don't have samples of every piece of mail ever made, and I don't actually have a selection of actual medieval weapons and actual medieval knights to test this with. It seems to me that you are setting the bar so high it will never be proved or disproved.

What we have is, like your link to the archery test, reasonable fascimiles from which we can attempt to draw reasonable conclusions. The spear test was not documented on-line, which is why I said it had been "proved to me anyway". You are free to demand a higher level of proof.

The arrows penetrate mail to a degree; doesn't it seem that a spear, when driven with sufficient force, can and will penetrate mail? If mail was totally proof against everything on the battlefield, then why did they shift to plate?

Modern armor vests are not "bullet proof". They may be tested to resist a round from a 9mm gun, and often various rifle cartridges, but not a .50 cal round. My point is that there were weapons on the medieval battlefield that equated to a medieval .50 cal round.

[Dan Howard]

I have already acknowledged that "period" mail could occasionally be penetrated by lances and arrows. The contention is the regularity of this occurrence. People also ignore the fact that there were many different types of mail and the sources are very clear that some types of mail were considered proof against arrows and lances by those who actually wore this armour. I ask again if you could explain the existence of hauberts de jout - mail that was specifically designed to be used in jousts where the wearer expected to be hit on multiple occasions by a sharpened mounted lance - if mail could be compromsied as readily as you suggest.

Why was plate developed?
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... adid=41041

[chef de chambre]

And there is the crux of the confusion - just as there are different threat level weapons on a battlefield, so mail is not a uniform defence, it is clearly documented that there were different forms and qualities of mail.

[Ivo]

Hello.

Mail was not impenetrable to any weapon.
But- a fighter whose life was at stake did not just stand there and take any blow or stab before he thought about defending himself.
So shooting at a maille- clad dummy and shooting at a moving figure are two different pairs of shoes.

Think hand- to- hand combat.
Maille and padding would not stand up to any kind of attack, like, say, percussive weapons or a spearman trying to run his weapon straight into your guts.
But they surely saved you from the last bit of energy that went through your parry or slid from your shield, from stabs that at close quarters surely were not perfectly executed due to lack of space, and from cuts from any sharp edge that without armour might have rendered you unable keep fighting.

Regards

Ivo

[Dan Howard]

Hello.

Mail was not impenetrable to any weapon.

Some types of mail definitely were impenetrable to many weapons.

Maille and padding would not stand up to any kind of attack, like, say, percussive weapons or a spearman trying to run his weapon straight into your guts.

Even my clumsy attempts to recreate mail can easily resist the hardest stabs I can do with a two-handed spear thrust if placed on suitable padding.

[rev.jc]

yo said just what I was tryying to get at, Armor incresed a warrirs ferocity, so nnly very cleany landed blows wwold have an effect, however what about say a horsemans pick, wwould iron armor be able to absorb a blow, and then allow you to pull away withh thhe weapon?

[Dave Womble]

I wouldn't say armour increased a warriors ferocity...Irish and Scottish warriors wore little if any armour and were definately ferocious and savage in a fight...as were many of the Germanic warriors.

One could argue that some warriors felt their armour made them invulnerable, and so would then charge pell-mell into conflict.....I imagine they didnt last long, armour or no.

Plate armour was not designed to absorb a blow JC.....it was designed to present glancing surfaces to deflect a blow, or ribbed or ridged surfaces to catch and channel a blow away from vital areas. A pick swung with vicious intent against a plate armoured target may or may not have a chance to penetrate the iron/steel, it depends on many factors...but the attacker wasn't trying to just muscle through the steel....he was trying to get the tip of that pick into a visor, or a groin, or an armpit...as was said....you focused your attacks where the armour wasn't...or where it wasn't as thick...say the gaps in earlier plate armour where mail protected the joints.

Dave

[rhook]

I think the man in plate was pretty darn safe from anything but a very high-powered crossbow, the point of a lance at full charge, or an early handgun

Or four or six random soldiers pulling him to the ground and beating the (noun) out of him with great big (adjective) hammers or maces.

[rhook]

yo said just what I was tryying to get at, Armor incresed a warrirs ferocity, so nnly very cleany landed blows wwold have an effect, however what about say a horsemans pick, wwould iron armor be able to absorb a blow, and then allow you to pull away withh thhe weapon?

If I might make a humble suggestion and observation: I believe you may be misunderstanding the nature of the man inside the harness. I will hazard a guess that you are picturing someone wearing mail with some variety of full or partial plate over it, or some sort of coat of plates, or similar. By the time you saw that sort of armor being worn with any sort of regularity on the field of battle, then the man inside the harness is more-or-less a professional soldier (leaving aside all sorts of detail here).

As has been mentioned above, soldiers in general have one aim in life: to become OLD soldiers (ok, so women, booze and food are also on the agenda, you know what I mean). Strapping on harness isn't going to inspire a professional soldier to suddenly throw caution to the wind and risk his life, and that is almost definitely not why he chose to wear armor. The evolution and development of armor through history categorically shows two trends:

1) do whatever will give you a defensive edge;
2) don't wear heavy stuff that doesn't give you any advantage;

I strongly advocate thinking about the reality of the man, not his costume, because it most certainly was not a costume to him.

[Madyn]

Even my clumsy attempts to recreate mail can easily resist the hardest stabs I can do with a two-handed spear thrust if placed on suitable padding.

I was browsing Borders the other day and came across one of the hundreds of books on Viking arms and armour (Viking Weapons and Warfare, perhaps?). I flipped through the book and saw that the author had performed some tests, using mail from Forth Armoury.

Obviously not all mail is equal, and plenty of modern riveted stuff is regarded as a poor stand in for "period" mail, but it's my understanding that Steve's stuff is, if not quite on par with Erik Schmid's, certainly highly regarded in the authenticity department.

The tests basically confirmed the opinion that mail was certainly an effective armour, particularly when worn over padding, but that it could be compromised by thrusts, and in particular, spear thrusts. And even if links weren't torn/sheared/pierced, the man wearing it could still suffer lots of concussive damage, padding or not.

Now, I wasn't present for the testing (heck, I can't even remember the title for sure), and I didn't read the whole book, so I can't vouch for any prejudices on the part of the author or the validity of the tests, but it did strike me as more accurate than most. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

I'll try to find the title and author for sure. . .

[Dan Howard]

Which Forth mail was tested? The 9.5mm or the 8mm mail? Even the 8mm links are on the large side of authentic. The mail I tested was around 5-6mm - similar to the mail tested by Julio in the above link - alternating rows of riveted and solid rings. This type of mail easily resists the hardest spear thrusts. I have also made mail consisting of alternating rows of soild and butted links with an ID of 4-5mm. Even without riveting this denser mail resists the hardest knife stab I can do but can be penetrated with a two-handed spear thrust.

[Russ Mitchell]

Careful, Dan... they're on the large side, but within bounds. I know what you mean, but ya don't want it to sound like you're saying something that you're not...

[Dan Howard]

Yes indeed. Thanks for the caution. My point is that 8mm mail would be far more susceptible to points than 6mm mail. It is likely that the instances in the sources in which mail is compromised by spears/arrows/etc involve mail made with these larger rings.

[Madyn]

Which Forth mail was tested? The 9.5mm or the 8mm mail? Even the 8mm links are on the large side of authentic. The mail I tested was around 5-6mm - similar to the mail tested by Julio in the above link - alternating rows of riveted and solid rings. This type of mail easily resists the hardest spear thrusts. I have also made mail consisting of alternating rows of soild and butted links with an ID of 4-5mm. Even without riveting this denser mail resists the hardest knife stab I can do but can be penetrated with a two-handed spear thrust.

So, were your attempts at making mail really "clumsy", as you stated a few posts ago, or were you being falsely modest, and they were in fact a better representative of medieval mail than the kind made by Forth Armouries?

I'm not trying to be contentious, but it seems like you're implying that
your testing was more valid and authentic than any other tests conducted. As Erik Scmid even noted on another forum, there is a wide variety of mail that existed over the centuries, and it is impossible to get a truly conclusive test until exacting specifications/standards are met both by the mail maker reproducing it using methods and materials as medieval as possible, and the same being done for the maker of spears, arrow heads, axes, whatever.

I wasn't implying that the test I read about was conclusive (as I admitted, I simply came across it), only that it was simply another attempt.

[Dan Howard]

I'm simply suggesting that mail that was intended to be proof againt lances and arrows would not be made of links as large as those produced by Forth. Using Forth mail to test against these types of attacks doesn't produce useful results, except to lend support to my proposition.