Introduction and High Medieval mail project
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:49 am
Hello!
Greetings from Texas everyone. I was told about the armour archive by my friend Mart Shearer, who has been helping me with a mail armor project of mine. I wanted to take this time to introduce myself to everyone. This seems like a great community, I hope to be a contributing long term member.
I was also hoping that I could get some critique and insights for my High Medieval mail. I've been slowly developing my tools and techniques over the course of about three years...about two years in I was fortunate enough to get some valuable advice from Julio Funes, a very talented mail artisan from Spain.
What I'm showing here are rings made from 1.6mm mild steel wire with an 8mm inner diameter. They are of round riveted construction, with .73mm rivets. I tried to copy what appeared to be a rounded appearance of the lapped joints on the Bayeux and St. Wenceslaus pieces, which are two of the only (if not THE only) High Medieval shirts I know of. Whether or not the rings I made are typical of this period is anyone's guess, given that we have so few examples from this time.
The rings were given this shape through the use of swaging pliers which both peen the rivet and deform the lapped joint in one strike. The rivets are flush with the back side of the lapped joint. This is honestly the step that I found to be the most difficult in making this style of mail, next to piercing the rings; while I initially assumed that the swage was made artificially, such as through filing, I am now of the volition that it is created as an artifact of peening hundreds or thousands of rings. I suspect that it was later found to be a desirable quality. The rounded shape helps not only to deform the rivet, but also to crush the entire overlap together into a tight mass. The rivet head is made from the rivet as well as material that “pokes out” from the ring itself after it is pierced.
My first small patch of mail was of demi-riveted construction as was typical of the High Middle Ages. The solid rings were punched from 1.6mm sheet using a #7 Whitney punch. I found it easier to punch out the inner diameter first and then follow up with the outer diameter, using a filed out section of the punch as a guide. The guide fits a bit loosely in the first hole, resulting in solid rings that are very slightly uneven, which I feel is a bit more authentic and gives the mail a more organic look. My concern at this point is that the plate that I punched from is perfectly flat, which may not have been the case at the time.
The riveted rings shown in this patch look a bit inferior to the first ones. I realized after this patch was made that the issue stemmed from the rings being overly flattened before piercing. In order for the overlap to properly take the shape of the swaging tongs, it MUST be as thick as possible in order to have enough material to deform.
This is where the real balancing act comes in; flattening the ring just enough to have room to pierce it without overflattening, which will prevent the ring from taking the shape of the swage. The real difficulty lies in piercing an overlap that is around 2.4mm thick with a drift that is about .8mm in diameter. I have found that long, “tube-like” drifts tend to work well as opposed to highly tapered ones. I'm currently utilizing an arbor press with an attached Dremel chuck for piercing. How our ancestors were capable of such feats without modern tools never ceases to amaze me.
While I have managed to make some prototype rings and patches of mail, I have recently hit a roadblock and was hoping that the community could help with some nuggets of wisdom. As it stands, only about 1 in 3 of my mild steel rings are pierced accurately. More often than not there is so much warping of the ring during the piercing process that the drift pushes through very crooked, despite the rings being in a fully annealed state.
On a whim I decided to attempt to pierce brass rings of the same diameter wire, and was very surprised that the great majority of them pierced perfectly, obviously due to being much softer. The material was pushed “down and out” through the hole as opposed to being “pushed aside” like with the mild steel. It was at this point that I began to wonder whether or not mild steel was even a good analogue to Medieval wrought iron. I know wrought iron isn't as soft as brass, but is it perhaps soft enough to allow for consistent piercing? Given that smiths of this time would not have been working with mild steel, I suspect that they would not have hit this same roadblock.
This is what prompted me to begin experimenting with wrought iron. I recently ordered some wrought iron bars from a gentleman in Minnesota. They were used in the construction of the Globe Elevators, completed in 1887. Given the date, I strongly suspect that this is puddled wrought iron as opposed to charcoal or bloomery iron. Nonetheless, I was curious to see if it was refined enough to be drawn into wire, and if so, whether or not it would allow for more consistent piercing of rings. The results were actually quite surprising...but I think I should save them for another thread.
All in all, while I'm mostly happy with my mail so far, I do have to admit to some very glaring weaknesses. First of all, I am not copying any one historical example in particular. I feel that the 10th through 12th centuries are a very difficult era to try and work from given the tiny amount of examples we have to work with. This is simply the best approximation I could come up with in my attempts to make something that would hopefully not be out of place during this period. Secondly, I'm obviously not using period materials. Oddly enough, it was the process itself which taught me WHY period materials are often required for the production of mail. Last of all, I'm using certain tools that would not have been available to Medieval smiths. I hope to make a switch to more accurate methods in the future.
Well folks, that's all I got. If anyone could kindly gift me with both insights and critique I would be very grateful. My hope is to someday make a 12th Century hauberk with incorporated mittons and coif out of period materials. Additionally, if anyone wants to learn more about my process for making mail, I would be more than happy to help. What I currently know right now is the culmination of countless hands and minds, and I hope to give back to the community.
A very special thanks goes out to my friend and teacher Julio Funes for freely sharing his knowledge with me, Pekka Pasanen for his insights and kind words, Mart Shearer for his knowledge and patience, Shawn Sebok for his undying support, Petr Bohdan for his awesome blog, and Erik D. Schmid, whose diligence and research made this all possible.
Greetings from Texas everyone. I was told about the armour archive by my friend Mart Shearer, who has been helping me with a mail armor project of mine. I wanted to take this time to introduce myself to everyone. This seems like a great community, I hope to be a contributing long term member.
I was also hoping that I could get some critique and insights for my High Medieval mail. I've been slowly developing my tools and techniques over the course of about three years...about two years in I was fortunate enough to get some valuable advice from Julio Funes, a very talented mail artisan from Spain.
What I'm showing here are rings made from 1.6mm mild steel wire with an 8mm inner diameter. They are of round riveted construction, with .73mm rivets. I tried to copy what appeared to be a rounded appearance of the lapped joints on the Bayeux and St. Wenceslaus pieces, which are two of the only (if not THE only) High Medieval shirts I know of. Whether or not the rings I made are typical of this period is anyone's guess, given that we have so few examples from this time.
The rings were given this shape through the use of swaging pliers which both peen the rivet and deform the lapped joint in one strike. The rivets are flush with the back side of the lapped joint. This is honestly the step that I found to be the most difficult in making this style of mail, next to piercing the rings; while I initially assumed that the swage was made artificially, such as through filing, I am now of the volition that it is created as an artifact of peening hundreds or thousands of rings. I suspect that it was later found to be a desirable quality. The rounded shape helps not only to deform the rivet, but also to crush the entire overlap together into a tight mass. The rivet head is made from the rivet as well as material that “pokes out” from the ring itself after it is pierced.
My first small patch of mail was of demi-riveted construction as was typical of the High Middle Ages. The solid rings were punched from 1.6mm sheet using a #7 Whitney punch. I found it easier to punch out the inner diameter first and then follow up with the outer diameter, using a filed out section of the punch as a guide. The guide fits a bit loosely in the first hole, resulting in solid rings that are very slightly uneven, which I feel is a bit more authentic and gives the mail a more organic look. My concern at this point is that the plate that I punched from is perfectly flat, which may not have been the case at the time.
The riveted rings shown in this patch look a bit inferior to the first ones. I realized after this patch was made that the issue stemmed from the rings being overly flattened before piercing. In order for the overlap to properly take the shape of the swaging tongs, it MUST be as thick as possible in order to have enough material to deform.
This is where the real balancing act comes in; flattening the ring just enough to have room to pierce it without overflattening, which will prevent the ring from taking the shape of the swage. The real difficulty lies in piercing an overlap that is around 2.4mm thick with a drift that is about .8mm in diameter. I have found that long, “tube-like” drifts tend to work well as opposed to highly tapered ones. I'm currently utilizing an arbor press with an attached Dremel chuck for piercing. How our ancestors were capable of such feats without modern tools never ceases to amaze me.
While I have managed to make some prototype rings and patches of mail, I have recently hit a roadblock and was hoping that the community could help with some nuggets of wisdom. As it stands, only about 1 in 3 of my mild steel rings are pierced accurately. More often than not there is so much warping of the ring during the piercing process that the drift pushes through very crooked, despite the rings being in a fully annealed state.
On a whim I decided to attempt to pierce brass rings of the same diameter wire, and was very surprised that the great majority of them pierced perfectly, obviously due to being much softer. The material was pushed “down and out” through the hole as opposed to being “pushed aside” like with the mild steel. It was at this point that I began to wonder whether or not mild steel was even a good analogue to Medieval wrought iron. I know wrought iron isn't as soft as brass, but is it perhaps soft enough to allow for consistent piercing? Given that smiths of this time would not have been working with mild steel, I suspect that they would not have hit this same roadblock.
This is what prompted me to begin experimenting with wrought iron. I recently ordered some wrought iron bars from a gentleman in Minnesota. They were used in the construction of the Globe Elevators, completed in 1887. Given the date, I strongly suspect that this is puddled wrought iron as opposed to charcoal or bloomery iron. Nonetheless, I was curious to see if it was refined enough to be drawn into wire, and if so, whether or not it would allow for more consistent piercing of rings. The results were actually quite surprising...but I think I should save them for another thread.
All in all, while I'm mostly happy with my mail so far, I do have to admit to some very glaring weaknesses. First of all, I am not copying any one historical example in particular. I feel that the 10th through 12th centuries are a very difficult era to try and work from given the tiny amount of examples we have to work with. This is simply the best approximation I could come up with in my attempts to make something that would hopefully not be out of place during this period. Secondly, I'm obviously not using period materials. Oddly enough, it was the process itself which taught me WHY period materials are often required for the production of mail. Last of all, I'm using certain tools that would not have been available to Medieval smiths. I hope to make a switch to more accurate methods in the future.
Well folks, that's all I got. If anyone could kindly gift me with both insights and critique I would be very grateful. My hope is to someday make a 12th Century hauberk with incorporated mittons and coif out of period materials. Additionally, if anyone wants to learn more about my process for making mail, I would be more than happy to help. What I currently know right now is the culmination of countless hands and minds, and I hope to give back to the community.
A very special thanks goes out to my friend and teacher Julio Funes for freely sharing his knowledge with me, Pekka Pasanen for his insights and kind words, Mart Shearer for his knowledge and patience, Shawn Sebok for his undying support, Petr Bohdan for his awesome blog, and Erik D. Schmid, whose diligence and research made this all possible.