Making mail look like the effigies

[I. Stewart]

Some effigies show the skirt of the hauberk dipping down in the front. See these examples from the d'Abernon and de Creke effigies.




Has anybody done this? Does anybody know how to do it? I've had some ideas but I'm not sure it would hang right.

Thanks in advance.

[zachos]

That would probably be achieved by the tailoring at the waist. I've not got a pattern for it I'm afraid, but thats what it looks like to me.

[Wouter Nicolai]

I've tried this once. What I did was making a long vertical slit in the middle of a "ordinary" hauberk. I attached a triangle of mail on both sides of the slit, widening it towards the edge, then connected the two sides again.
This leaves more material at the bottom of the haubergeon, and looks like the second effigy. The haubergeon needs to be tight fitting the get the right look.
I hope this is helpfull.

cheers

[Dan Howard]

These illustrations are also a point against the "banded mail" theory. The whole reason for using leather thongs is to reinforce the weave and make it stiffer. Allowing it to drape like this defeats the purpose.

[Mac]

Dan, (ops! should be addressed to I Stewart) (edited)

The short answer is to put a lot of expansion right down the center front. One expansion ring per every other row should do the trick. I would do this in addition to putting one expansion every 4 rows in the center back and over each hip. the rapid expansion in the center front will not only make the skirt come to a point, but it will make it longer, like the pictures. This is because the in the mail in the center will be closer to a diagonal grain, and thus will stretch in that direction.

If you put in a triangular panel like Wouter suggests, it will make it longer in front, but it will not be as pointy as the pictures.

You will, of course, want to start all the expansions at the level of the waist.

Mac

[I. Stewart]

Thanks guys.


I actually started before any of you answered. What I've done so far: I put in two triangles of mail, starting at the waist, essentially using a 45 degree seam there. Those pieces were only about five rows long and the same wide. Below that I'm just doing simple expansions all the way down. I'm going to expand it rapidly so it has more material in the front and sags more. I've tailored the hauberk, so it fits me pretty in the chest down to the waist, then expands below that. I will belt it when I wear it too. I'm about halfway done with it now, and I'll see how well the rest of it works.

[Effingham]

There's a part of me that wonders if this is in fact a flat, 2D representation of mail sagging between the legs of someone lying flat....

[Mac]

I. Steward et Dan,

I just realized that I had addressed my above posting to the wrong person....Sorry guys...

Effingham,

I think that this sort of thing is represented often enough in art (other than brasses) that we can take it at face value. At least that's what I'm going to do...At least for the moment...

Mac

[RandallMoffett]

I had kind of thought the same as Eff. It always seemed like a 2D view to me. That said it could be a pointed or rounded front as well. Makes sense for when riding or on foot as well for some extra there for protection.

RPM

[JT]

It would be somewhat arduous, but you could use slightly larger rings for several rows, up above wherever you want it to curve down.

Now, whether that would be done is another issue altogether. "Yes, my Lord. I put in larger rings that leave your chest and stomach less protected, because the drape of the mail at the bottom then looks much better, don't you agree, my Lord?"

[Andrew Young]

There's a part of me that wonders if this is in fact a flat, 2D representation of mail sagging between the legs of someone lying flat....

I agree with Effingham in large measure here. While that second pointed mail image is hard to argue with, I dont think most mail dipped down like that in "real life." Clearly they are trying to sketch out folds for some clothing but when we also bear in mind 12th through mid 14th century artwork, plaques, rubbings and so forth tend to be very stylized with elongated proportions, extreme hourglass torsos, etc.... And bearing in mind they hadnt quite worked out perspective for uber flat surfaces.... I think what we are seeing in some of these effigies is an artistic technique designed to suggest some 'wave' in the mail, as it might appear between the legs.

Also bear in mind that we see illustrations during this period in which what is almost certainly mail is drawn a dozen different ways on as many people in an image ...and sometimes mail is drawn differently on the same person too. So at least in some cases we may be seeing a way to visualize a "thicker" material like mail.

Take some images of dresses..note the wave in between the legs. Granted some of this is extra material but if we were to imaging looking up at the dress (get your mind out of the gutter) ....or.....looking down at the dress, we can imagine the "wave" would appear to extend out farther then the rest of the material.

I googled 'dress' and came up with some examples:

[img]http://www.nomadsclothing.com/picsitem/blue-midi%20sundress-hs21.jpg[/img]





This last image is great....look at how the folded material appears lower than the rest of the material...its an illusion of sorts but something that I suspect artists wrestled with in trying to depict mail on brasses and shallow effigies.


In affect we can do the same thing with mail hauberks too. They must be wide enough for the legs to move property, even with a slit. So some "wave" of material will appear.....and its my sense that a desire to suggest that waviness in the mail is why we are seeing these dips.


My two cents.

Now having said that.....Id love to see a well thought out reconstruction to change my mind.

[zachos]

While the 2d representation of folds theory holds water, I feel that it doesn't fit with the way the other fabrics are shown as fairly straight across. It does make sense to me that the maille would be tailored in the skirt, as it would make it more difficult to get a nasty old weapon up the middle of the legs if there were more metal in the way. You see the same idea with the later period tassets (I believe what people call nad tassets, but I could be mistaken).

[I. Stewart]

The obvious truth is that if the skirt isn't wide enough to walk or ride in, it's useless. Up until the end of the thirteenth century, all the effigies and artwork I've seen show the hauberk with a slit up the front. While a simple design, it's pretty obvious that you lose some protection between the legs. Perhaps they just wanted to close that gap, or perhaps as hauberks became shorter they started to close it up, either way we end up with a closed front. Now, if you're going to be able to walk in a hauberk, it needs to have some extra material put in somewhere. When you think about walking, center front seems like the best place to put it. If you add some expansions all the way around, it will be wider, but will not be as efficient as adding to the center. So, adding expansions every row, or every other, would give you the required width, and also make the center dip.

I finished the hauberk I was working on tailoring. Though there is a dip in the front, it isn't nearly as pointy as either of the above examples. I know what I did wrong though, and I think that if I had to do it again I could make it look just like that.

I'll post pictures when I get a chance.

[Russ Mitchell]

TANGENT: @ Dan

I agree. I don't like the standard "banded" theory, for the same reason as I think it should be investigated: it simply doesn't result in anything that looks like the art. . But we repeatedly see this done too often, too carefully, by folks who are clearly not incompetent, to shrug this off. It's clearly simply representative of mail... but what about mail is it trying to represent? Why does THIS particular representation make sense to the patrons who are paying out the nose for effigies like this? Dunno. But it's both too widespread, and too consistent (even taking model books into account), to simply dismiss.

[Andrew Young]

While the 2d representation of folds theory holds water, I feel that it doesn't fit with the way the other fabrics are shown as fairly straight across. It does make sense to me that the maille would be tailored in the skirt, as it would make it more difficult to get a nasty old weapon up the middle of the legs if there were more metal in the way. You see the same idea with the later period tassets (I believe what people call nad tassets, but I could be mistaken).

I do think there is some validity for a tailored V dip..rather like the 'DPU's we see on early faulds also.

However I guess I have to question how likely it would have been for a weapon to fly down and and then upward so easily such that the dip would really (I mean really) do that much. The efficacy of a floppy dip of mail seems pretty dubious to me unless the banded mail concept gave it ridgity....then I buy it.

Still, we have issues of horse riding which is often overlooked by our foot stomping experience.

[Dan Howard]

TANGENT: @ Dan

I agree. I don't like the standard "banded" theory, for the same reason as I think it should be investigated: it simply doesn't result in anything that looks like the art. . But we repeatedly see this done too often, too carefully, by folks who are clearly not incompetent, to shrug this off. It's clearly simply representative of mail... but what about mail is it trying to represent? Why does THIS particular representation make sense to the patrons who are paying out the nose for effigies like this? Dunno. But it's both too widespread, and too consistent (even taking model books into account), to simply dismiss.

Hi Russ. I'm not dismissing it. I just can't come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Especially since I think that regular mail made with alternate rows of round and flat-sectioned links looks exactly like the illustrations. In some light all mail has a banded appearance.

[zachos]

However I guess I have to question how likely it would have been for a weapon to fly down and and then upward so easily such that the dip would really (I mean really) do that much. The efficacy of a floppy dip of mail seems pretty dubious to me unless the banded mail concept gave it ridgity....then I buy it.

Still, we have issues of horse riding which is often overlooked by our foot stomping experience.

It probably wouldn't do much against a solid blow landed by a mace or axe, but against a slash from a sword it would do all it needs to, which is to put metal in the way of metal. Our fighting is very different to theirs as we bludgeon where they would slash, and our weapons are heavier and do more blunt damage than a sharp sword would. Just having enough maille to prevent slashes would be worth it in my opinion.

I'll be starting to ride in my maille reasonably soon. Its not got a dip in it like these, but no doubt it'll flag up some issues for consideration. If I come up with anything relevant I'll post it here.

[Andrew Young]

However I guess I have to question how likely it would have been for a weapon to fly down and and then upward so easily such that the dip would really (I mean really) do that much. The efficacy of a floppy dip of mail seems pretty dubious to me unless the banded mail concept gave it ridgity....then I buy it.

Still, we have issues of horse riding which is often overlooked by our foot stomping experience.

It probably wouldn't do much against a solid blow landed by a mace or axe, but against a slash from a sword it would do all it needs to, which is to put metal in the way of metal. Our fighting is very different to theirs as we bludgeon where they would slash, and our weapons are heavier and do more blunt damage than a sharp sword would. Just having enough maille to prevent slashes would be worth it in my opinion.

I'll be starting to ride in my maille reasonably soon. Its not got a dip in it like these, but no doubt it'll flag up some issues for consideration. If I come up with anything relevant I'll post it here.

Your riding experiments should prove interesting.

Only thing I would suggest Zachos is that while a sword at high speeds/and weight (such as on a horse at a gallop) is more likely to cut, its efficacy against a "standing" opponent in mail doesnt amount to as much more than bludgeoning. And this is part of the reason Im still fence-sitting on the issue....ie on a horse, that V flap doesnt do anything; on the ground if reinforced with leather it might slow up the bludgeoning impact.

[zachos]

Against the extra force supplied by a horse I don't think there is much that would be protective enough for this period. Armour will never be completely impervious, but there are some things that it can help protect against. If maille could stop the force of a charging knights sword then there would be no point in the plate re-reinforcements that later become plate armour.

Think as well that this guy probably isn't going to be standing still to receive a blow to the knackers. If you move with the blow then it will remove some of the force, something that we rarely do in our non life or death reconstructions, but something that no doubt these men would be trained as imperative to surviving, especially considering the already noted inadequacies of maille.

*Edit*
I slightly misread your post there, but I think my post might still stand by itself.

[I. Stewart]

I think the shape has less to do with defense, and more to do with mobility. As I said above, expanding at the center creates the dip. Expanding at the center also makes walking and running easier.

[Dan Howard]

Why not just look at some surviving hauberks and see if any have the expansions in that location? If the droop at the front improves mobility or defense then it should be fairly common. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. If there are no surviving examples then perhaps it is simply a way of rendering a tuck between the legs.

[zachos]

Why not just look at some surviving hauberks and see if any have the expansions in that location? If the droop at the front improves mobility or defense then it should be fairly common. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. If there are no surviving examples then perhaps it is simply a way of rendering a tuck between the legs.

because there are no truly extant pieces from that period, as they've all been messed with as fashions change.

I think the shape has less to do with defense, and more to do with mobility. As I said above, expanding at the center creates the dip. Expanding at the center also makes walking and running easier.

So why not just put a slit in? Its probably a combination of both TBH. A way of creating the mobility while still protecting family jewels.

[Andrew Young]

Indeed I think this is a question of experimentation...which I think should be really interesting to study.

[Kindyr]

the talk about riding got me to thinking. And those who actually ride may be ablee to answer this. is it possible that the droppin the front is so that the mail looks right while in the saddle? I would think that a droop like that might be most useful which in a saddle with your legs spread further than a walking gait.

As for walking I'd think the droop would be more uncomfortable since it'd would swing back against the wearer with every step.

the artistice interpretation of mail drooping while laying flat seems reasonable, but there could always be other theories.

what i find most unsually is that it isn't dagged, but that the rows of rings droop. it almost looks like the middle of the mail is not supported, as if it were a voider supported on the sides but not in the middle. if that description makes any sense

[Effingham]

I have to post this picture.

It's probably my favorite effigy of all time -- the effigy of Piers de Grandisson.



It shows in 3D what I think we're seeing in 2D in the brasses.

Now... to show the other side of the coin, we have the effigy of William Bruce:
[img]http://sengokudaimyo.com/Tempstuff/William-Bruce-1346.jpg[/img]

This is some German dood:

[img]http://sengokudaimyo.com/Tempstuff/MI02308d10a.jpg[/img]

This one just weirds me out. It's Jan I van Wassenaar (1372):



Effingham

[Andrew Young]

WOW Effingham......I must say, good eye! That draping down mail is a detail Ive never caught on the Piers de Grandisson effigy before!



Its amazing what you see every day and then realize what youre missing.


After looking at these effigies I have to say I think both sides are correct.


I think there is a dip in the mail....but I also think the mail dip is draping too. So I think both interpretative perspectives are correct simultaneously.

[Effingham]

<bows>

By the way, did you notice that the weave on the last mail example is vertical? I wonder if that was really how that guy's mail went. I've never (EVER) seen mail done that way.


Effingham

[I. Stewart]

I think it's still pretty clear that it's longer in the front.

[Andrew Young]

I think it's still pretty clear that it's longer in the front.

Yes it is longer, but we are also seeing it draping down considerably which is adding to the appearance of more length that might not necessarily be there if not layed flat.

Also, brasses were cheap forms of effigies! They were copying the style of effigies for knights whos families may not have been able to afford full 3D stone or wood sculptures.

So there must be some realization that we have to bear in mind artistic interpretation from a 3D sculpture to a 2D brass. Some of the perspective and true length is lost in translation....

[InsaneIrish]

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is an artists 2D interpretation of "draping". Draping of cloth/mail is actually a VERY big turning point in art history. The progression of perceived draping to actual draping is a keystone in determining where in the progession of art, the piece was made.

The further back in time you go the more perceived draping becomes. Meaning folds in cloth and the way it hangs on the body is more perceived by the artist than the way it ACTUALLY looks. The more modern the art, the more the draping becomes what the artist actually sees and not so much what he THINKS it looks like.

the first example (the one that is golden hued) is a perfect example of this. The folds in the cloak and material above the brig are clearly perceived representations of folded/draped cloth. Not what that cloth actually looked like.

this leads me to believe just as Effingham that the dip in the chainmail is actually a perceived 2D repesentation of the sag between the legs of the mail and not an actual dart or gore in the mail.

[Andrew Young]

I agree about the folding art turning points, very true and this is partly the issue here.

But I do believe that the mail does drape down somewhat. Its very hard to argue with the 3D sculptures that are often much more proportionate as we approach the late 14th century.

Ergo Im saying we are seeing a mix of mis-guided proportion/interpretation with some degree of draping along with some V-dipping....a combination of all three issues.


Also, here is a point of logic....

When we are seeing an effigy or brass.....the knight is not supposed to be standing up. He is laying down and gravity is pulling down aspects of his garment, such as the mail.

Its for this reason we see the mail actually perform an anti-clastic shape

...the mail is shown rising up/down the thighs as it sits on them....and falling at the same time.

The complexity of this sculpture detail seems hard to dismiss.

[Andrew McKinnon]

What a timely thread. I am going for the same look but am considering just achieving the shape by tailoring an overly long hauberk. I think this will achieve the layered look I am after.

I can see benefits to the shape when in the saddle. It would add some level of protection to a delicate region whilst not preventing blunt trauma maybe preventing a tear from a piece of lance? In any case the maille does tend to bunch up in the saddle if its not split.