How plausible is banded mail?

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Thu May 31, 2012 2:29 pm

I was looking through Ashdown's book, and although I don't agree with his opinion that banded mail largely superseded "chain" mail during the 14th century, I think he does make a case for it's existence.
It seems like the main problem with it would be the weight. Would banded mail have necessarily been heavier than scale armour of the same surface area? I'm assuming if it was real, the metal would have needed to be thin.
Ashdown also theorizes that it was flexible enough to be used in the exact same way as "chain mail" (ie. for aventails and hauberk sleeves.), would that have been possible?
Ashdown presented a photograph of reconstructed sample patch of banded mail, but I have yet to see a serious reconstruction of functional armour using it.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:20 pm

It's a giant can of worms. The mail guys tend to laugh it out of the room, and Dan Howard has a plausible argument about it being a convention to capture how mail can look in certain lights -- I don't agree with that per se, as the images don't look similar to my eye.... at which point we then get into the evil area of "what's stylized" versus "what's real," and sadly, 90% of people doing research, even really good ones, seem to define their terms based on what's convenient for their hypothesis -- I've had serious scholars flip-flop between "realism" and "stylized" in the very same image in order to try to make their arguments.

I personally tend to assume realism; to me "stylized" merely means "going according to a convention," and conventions originate and propagate for a reason. There are counter-arguments: I know them, I pee on them. Even in those very tiny circles of academia and research that know I exist, this tends to make me a bit of a red-headed stepchild.

My $.02, which, due to intellectual deflation, is probably only worth $.002 -- it seems plausible to me. NOT because its properties would be superior as a specific armor, but because it's a great way to "take in" and therefore retailor a very expensive piece of armor (seriously, it wasn't uncommon for people to have to alienate chunks of their estates for this stuff) on the cheap-and-easy. If a little extra rigidity happened, that'd be okay, as the period we mostly tend to see this is when we're also tending to assume a semi-rigid cuirie under the mail anyway.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:44 pm

I started making a small patch of my own to see how it would work, and it seems like quite a hassle to make.
To make it like Ashdown suggests, I don't think it'd be any quicker or easier than riveted mail (and would need a lot of leather), though it would be considerably simpler if you had a way to punch out the "washers".
I'm still trying to figure out how the rows of washers are supposed to be attached together, but Ashdown says his sample had excellent mobility, which lends credibility to the idea.
(Your idea about being able to re-tailor it makes sense.)

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Thu May 31, 2012 5:22 pm

It is obviously plausble in certain situations because we have surviving examples. It was used to create rigidity around the neck and, as Russ says, possibly to help to retailor it. I think the Vancouver anthropology museum has an example with banding across the chest but I doubt it was ever done on a complete suit. If you take iconographical evidence at face value then a large proportion of medieval mail was banded, which is contrary to all evidence. My argument for the illustrations being an attempt to depict regular mail is here.
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html

Athanaric · Post by **Athanaric** » Thu May 31, 2012 5:41 pm

Here are some pics I took of "banded" mail over in Poland. The first one is from Malbork Castle armoury and was labeled as 16/17th cent Persian armour. Other then that I know nothing about it.

The second was at the Polish army Museum in Warsaw, providence unknown, probably 17th cent as well.

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:05 pm

That is "mail and plates". Banded mail is regular mail with leather strips woven horizontally through the weave.

Athanaric · Post by **Athanaric** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:17 pm

Well alright then. Can you point me to any sources because now I am curious. This may just be a terminology fail as I thought banded mail was what I posted. Not arguing, just trying to work out the common terms.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:38 pm

Dan Howard wrote:It is obviously plausble in certain situations because we have surviving examples. It was used to create rigidity around the neck and, as Russ says, possibly to help to retailor it. I think the Vancouver anthropology museum has an example with banding across the chest but I doubt it was ever done on a complete suit. If you take iconographical evidence at face value then a large proportion of medieval mail was banded, which is contrary to all evidence. My argument for the illustrations being an attempt to depict regular mail is here.
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html

It's a good article, too-- I may not be sold, but that takes nothing away from the argument.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:40 pm

Athanaric wrote:Well alright then. Can you point me to any sources because now I am curious. This may just be a terminology fail as I thought banded mail was what I posted. Not arguing, just trying to work out the common terms.

You're using the terminology as generally used in East-Central Europe. Dan's using it as generally used in Anglo-American circles. You're both correct, it's potato potahto.

Athanaric · Post by **Athanaric** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:51 pm

Thank you Russ, that makes sense. Also, good article.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:31 pm

Dan Howard wrote:It is obviously plausble in certain situations because we have surviving examples. It was used to create rigidity around the neck and, as Russ says, possibly to help to retailor it. I think the Vancouver anthropology museum has an example with banding across the chest but I doubt it was ever done on a complete suit. If you take iconographical evidence at face value then a large proportion of medieval mail was banded, which is contrary to all evidence. My argument for the illustrations being an attempt to depict regular mail is here.
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html

I was actually just reading your article earlier today.
I used to just assume that depictions of "banded mail" were stylized depictions of normal mail, but I've noticed a few features that have made me think again.
If it were a shorthand depiction conventional mail, one might expect all the rings to be shown running in the same direction, (as the row running the other direction would be mostly obscured.), but the majority show the rows in alternating directions.
I also notice the the rows on the arms lay the same direction as the rows on the torso when the arms are lowered, which isn't something encountered in surviving mail.
The Stapleton brass is a good illustration of both of these features.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... /original/
(Especially note his left armpit.)
By contrast, the Fitz Ralph brass is clearly showing conventional mail, and displays all the normal mail features one would expect.
http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/Pe ... 201323.jpg

BTW, do you know any more about the Vancouver suit you mentioned, such as when or where it was made? I didn't know we had any such examples.

Len Parker · Post by **Len Parker** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:29 pm

Some authentic banded maille around collar
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilami/2038411460/ and what I believe is some speculation http://www.tforum.info/forum/index.php? ... 2103&st=80

I'm convinced that all the strange maille patterns on effigies are just the result of sculptors making their job easier. For example, if you look at any effigy where the maille is going the wrong way, it's always to avoid sculpting compressed rings around armpits and elbows joints.

mackenzie · Post by **mackenzie** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:32 pm

Dan Howard wrote:It is obviously plausble in certain situations because we have surviving examples. It was used to create rigidity around the neck and, as Russ says, possibly to help to retailor it. I think the Vancouver anthropology museum has an example with banding across the chest but I doubt it was ever done on a complete suit. If you take iconographical evidence at face value then a large proportion of medieval mail was banded, which is contrary to all evidence. My argument for the illustrations being an attempt to depict regular mail is here.
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html

You got me excited since I live in the Vancouver area

http://collection-online.moa.ubc.ca/col ... mail&row=4

When you look at it it looks a lot like some of the images
mackenzie

Albrechtthesilent · Post by **Albrechtthesilent** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:06 am

I'm convinced that all the strange maille patterns on effigies are just the result of sculptors making their job easier. For example, if you look at any effigy where the maille is going the wrong way, it's always to avoid sculpting compressed rings around armpits and elbows joints.

+1

When you look at it it looks a lot like some of the images

That's an opinion. Mine is: No it doesn't. Here's why:
If the artist is depicting banded maille; that's intentional, correct? He's going out of his way to illustrate a specific attribute, right?
We can all agree that banding maille makes it stiffer (whether you believe it to be a period practice aside), correct?

Then WHY is it banded in the elbows and armpits? In other words, why would such an armour type be adopted when it is a known disadvantage to mobility?

Why would they adopt it when the banding opens the weave of the maille making it MORE prone to fail in protecting from a thrust or missile attack (arrow)?

If you are to believe that this illustrates banded maille, then there is A LOT of banded maille being made & worn throughout the medieval period. This means A LOT of leather was being used. Leather was a commodity. It had a lot of important uses. I don't buy that they would've used it to limit the wearer's mobility & ventilation, & compromise the protective quality of his defenses (his maille harness). I further don't buy the arguement that we don't have any examples "because all the leather would've rotted away". If banded maille was as prevalent as you'd have to assume if you're going to believe it at all, it's ridiculously unlikely that there would not be a better array of extant pieces than one banded collar...

And on that one piece, has it been researched, tested and documented? Are we sure the banding is original? I'm curious if anyone has seriously studied that? It just seems counterintuitive to use banding to attempt to protect such a critical area when there are far better alternatives to doing so.

Obviously, this is MY opinion. That and a $1.25 will buy you a soda.

Albrecht

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:03 am

Drawing stripes/bands on mail is a lot simpler than trying to draw all of the individual links. Some illustrations use cross hatching, some use lots of circles, some use horizontal lines, some try to draw all the links, and some draw half links and half lines. If you show regular mail to a class full of kids and ask them to draw it, you'll get all of those variations and a lot more.

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:06 am

Albrechtthesilent wrote:Then WHY is it banded in the elbows and armpits? In other words, why would such an armour type be adopted when it is a known disadvantage to mobility?

One obvious answer is that it is not banded mail. It is artistic convention.

Signo · Post by **Signo** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:49 am

About the two examples of "real banded mail" shown in this thread:
1) What I notice, is that ring diameter is quite big. This lead me to think two possible explanations:
1A) That maille are of low quality, and effectively, leather bindings so big could have improved their performances, especially in the neck / torso area, limiting the loss of mobility of arms (due to the fact that free rings are big, permitting a lot of movement).
1B) That this kind of maille doesn't come from west europe but from east, I don't know how far east, but I remember some russian maille with very large rings, where baidanas are just an extreme of that concept.

2) Anyway, I don't think that depictions of maille in west europe show "banded maille", because if it's really a eastern product or a lower quality product, it's not the kind of maille in which you want to portray a dead west european knight in his effigy.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:51 am

By banded mail, I wasn't referring to normal mail with leather running through it to stiffen it, but an entirely different armour consisting of leather bands running through overlapping rows of washers.
http://archive.org/stream/britishforeig ... 5/mode/2up
The author claims it has good mobility in any direction.

Len Parker · Post by **Len Parker** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:30 am

Wouldn't that invite any pointed weapon between the rows? And you'd have to tin them to prevent rust.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:58 pm

Len Parker wrote:Wouldn't that invite any pointed weapon between the rows? And you'd have to tin them to prevent rust.

He starts discussing how it would resist arrows near the bottom of page 137 of the book I linked.
He basically theorizes an arrow striking the bands of washers (or rouleaux) would either be deflected sideways, or if it hit the other direction, might become wedged between the washers.
He also says if the arrow struck between the rows of washers (as you mentioned.), that "it would have to penetrate at least half-an-inch of leather and force apart the rouleaux firmly sewn, or affixed in other ways, the the band on either side."
(The manner in which the rouleaux of washers are joined together is described near the top of page 137.)

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:18 pm

I have to say that I'm really skeptical about the washer idea. It would be an incredibly inefficient and over-heavy design.

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:06 pm

The "washer" reconstruction has been discredited for at least a century - Ffoulkes, Laking, etc all reckon that it is bollocks for a host of reasons. For a start it doesn't look like the illustrations. Take a look at any of the illustrations that show the inside of the armour - they don't look like the back of the "washer" reconstruction. Ashdown ignored decades of research and just rehashed Meyrick's initial work. It is the worst possible book you could have picked for this kind of research. Viollet le duc would be a close second.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:03 pm

Ashdown actually notes that on the brasses, the inside of the armour looks the same as the outside, and says his reconstruction looks identical from either side.
I agree that the lack of overlap between the rows doesn't seem characteristic of historical armour, but I think the weight problem could have been averted by using thin enough metal. (In any one spot, you would have at least 3 washers overlapping.)

Dan Howard · Post by **Dan Howard** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:22 am

Ashdown actually notes that on the brasses, the inside of the armour looks the same as the outside, and says his reconstruction looks identical from either side.

A few rows maybe. Try making a whole hauberk out of it and you'll see that it can't hold together without being attached to a backing.

worldantiques · Post by **worldantiques** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:55 am

I found this image and thought that if might be of interest to some forum members.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... C05548.JPG

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:14 pm

Take a look at this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taylordave ... otostream/
If you look closely at the foot/ankle area, you can see the rows meeting up at a right angle. Joining the rows like this would be awkward and unnecessary with regular mail, but with banded mail, such a connection would be needed. (I imagine sleeves could have been attached in the same manner.)
Whatever the intention, the sculptor did a good job of making the rows look like overlapping washers.
I don't think this form of armour is as impractical as a lot of people think. I don't see why the weight would have to be much more than scale armour of the same thickness.
Yes the armour would essentially be threaded together, but with so many connection points (and using reasonably sturdy thread) it could have been durable.

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:02 pm

Buster wrote: If you look closely at the foot/ankle area, you can see the rows meeting up at a right angle. Joining the rows like this would be awkward and unnecessary with regular mail,....

"Tailoring" of mail around the ankle in this manner wouldn't be awkward at all; in fact, it's the way most cloth chausses are cut.

I must confess Dan and I are in rare agreement. Most of the depictions of "banded mail" represent plain-old 4:1 mail. We have plenty of evidence for mail, and none for Ashdown's washer theories. Further, we have evidence of leather thongs being run through mail to stiffen or cinch. We even have examples of mail with half-solid/half-riveted construction where the two rows are of different diameters. Given the full breadth of our knowledge, it is highly probable that most of these depictions show mail. Variations in ring sizes, construction, or thonging could account for most of the various representations without the need to invent some unknown form of armor. You might see multiple armor types here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... erman_.jpg
I just see multiple ring-sizes, and all-riveted vs. alternating solid and riveted rings. For comparison:
http://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/c ... iew/165567

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:26 pm

Yeah, I'm with Ernst here -- the alternate weaves don't result in something that looks like the art, and the washer theory just doesn't have any evidence to back it up (compared to a lot of reasons why it'd be suboptimal). I start to wonder if thonging was perhaps a bit more common, as it produces the right look, and my experimental work on archery vs. mail suggests that it'd be an almost perfect solution for repelling arrows.

I'd *like* to believe the alternating-size explanation, Ernst, but I'm not coming up with any ring-differential that comes out looking the same, unless they're some really mongo-large diameter differences. Dan's more tied into the mail-madness crowd than I am, maybe he can comment there. (Unless, of course, all of Europe suddenly went to wearing baidana, which would explain it but be...weird. Of course, by doubling the *band width* of each link, it could in theory answer that whole "doubled mail" insanity, too. So at the moment, my money's on "they got weird and the baidana type got popular for some reason")

Either way, Ashdown's theory is a valiant attempt that just doesn't pass muster. I find use of ring-mail significantly more plausible (aka, not very).

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:08 am

mackenzie wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:It is obviously plausble in certain situations because we have surviving examples. It was used to create rigidity around the neck and, as Russ says, possibly to help to retailor it. I think the Vancouver anthropology museum has an example with banding across the chest but I doubt it was ever done on a complete suit. If you take iconographical evidence at face value then a large proportion of medieval mail was banded, which is contrary to all evidence. My argument for the illustrations being an attempt to depict regular mail is here.
http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html
You got me excited since I live in the Vancouver area

http://collection-online.moa.ubc.ca/col ... mail&row=4

When you look at it it looks a lot like some of the images
mackenzie

When was this made, though? It says it was acquired in Palestine in 1963, but I can't blow it up enough to tell if it is riveted, or butted, but it looks butted to me. Maybe it was made by a souvenir shop in 1962, I have no idea. It is also in pretty uniformly good shape for something that is really old, but not for something that is fairly new. And just because it is in a museum doesn't mean they know anything about it. At my university's anthropological museum they have a knife with an antler for a handle, and they call it horn. Considering we are smack dab in the middle of Kansas, and it is an American Indian tribal artifact you would think that someone would know the difference! I did pass word up through a friend that was in the department asking for them to correct it.

Baron Alcyoneus · Post by **Baron Alcyoneus** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:13 am

Buster wrote:Ashdown actually notes that on the brasses, the inside of the armour looks the same as the outside, and says his reconstruction looks identical from either side.
I agree that the lack of overlap between the rows doesn't seem characteristic of historical armour, but I think the weight problem could have been averted by using thin enough metal. (In any one spot, you would have at least 3 washers overlapping.)

Did he say where this brass was? I'd like to see the inside of it.

Would it make much sense to have 3 thin washers overlapping each other, and then pretty much nothing in between them?

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:24 am

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:
Buster wrote:Ashdown actually notes that on the brasses, the inside of the armour looks the same as the outside, and says his reconstruction looks identical from either side.
I agree that the lack of overlap between the rows doesn't seem characteristic of historical armour, but I think the weight problem could have been averted by using thin enough metal. (In any one spot, you would have at least 3 washers overlapping.)
Did he say where this brass was? I'd like to see the inside of it.

Would it make much sense to have 3 thin washers overlapping each other, and then pretty much nothing in between them?

Sure, if you connect the washers to the row above it using some thin riveted rings.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:38 am

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:
Buster wrote:Ashdown actually notes that on the brasses, the inside of the armour looks the same as the outside, and says his reconstruction looks identical from either side.
I agree that the lack of overlap between the rows doesn't seem characteristic of historical armour, but I think the weight problem could have been averted by using thin enough metal. (In any one spot, you would have at least 3 washers overlapping.)
Did he say where this brass was? I'd like to see the inside of it.

Would it make much sense to have 3 thin washers overlapping each other, and then pretty much nothing in between them?

When discussing that point, Ashdown references the Northwood brass:
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/monuments ... /66/large/
(You can see inside the split sleeves.)
He also seems to think that an arrow striking between the rows of washers would still have a hard time penetrating the armour. He goes over his reasoning for this on page 138.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:14 pm

Ashdown figured the strap-strung rouleaux had to be sewn together -- through the centers of the washers, through a leather welt -- edge to edge with stout thread, such as stitching awl thread. Okay until those strings cut or break. And there's the complete absence of archaeological support for the idea. We've tons of surviving mail from many centuries' span and all over the Old World -- and no deposits of dense aggregates of suitable washers anywhere.

The argument was ingenious as hell and impressed me too way back then, but it didn't hold up to testing it. Yes, I sighed a little.

I've heard there have been a couple experimental pieces -- none as big as a complete shirt, possibly more like faulds -- made up in SCAdia and worn on the field. Apparently they were satisfactory against rattan sticks -- and very heavy, even if alternating leather and metal washers were used. Handsomer than carpet armor, which was very prevalent in that era of the SCA. About that shock absorptive too, or somewhat more through its mass. The idea never went much beyond this, apparently because of that weight and the expense even of leather scrap bundles for kids on student budgets. Galvanized wire was still cheaper, and maybe quicker to weave into a piece. Salvaged wire coathangers were free.

There may be some application for such a scheme in the SCA-Engineered school of armour design, but that is what it'd purely be. As far as covering your own hide is concerned, you'd get the same results from a layer of 10oz leather. Better ones if you harden it, with all that opportunity for decoration too.

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:37 pm

You will note that mail also looks the same on the inside and outside. No need to come up with a new construction that will do that.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:47 pm

Konstantin the Red wrote:Ashdown figured the strap-strung rouleaux had to be sewn together -- through the centers of the washers, through a leather welt -- edge to edge with stout thread, such as stitching awl thread. Okay until those strings cut or break. And there's the complete absence of archaeological support for the idea. We've tons of surviving mail from many centuries' span and all over the Old World -- and no deposits of dense aggregates of suitable washers anywhere.

The argument was ingenious as hell and impressed me too way back then, but it didn't hold up to testing it. Yes, I sighed a little.

I've heard there have been a couple experimental pieces -- none as big as a complete shirt, possibly more like faulds -- made up in SCAdia and worn on the field. Apparently they were satisfactory against rattan sticks -- and very heavy, even if alternating leather and metal washers were used. Handsomer than carpet armor, which was very prevalent in that era of the SCA. About that shock absorptive too, or somewhat more through its mass. The idea never went much beyond this, apparently because of that weight and the expense even of leather scrap bundles for kids on student budgets. Galvanized wire was still cheaper, and maybe quicker to weave into a piece. Salvaged wire coathangers were free.

There may be some application for such a scheme in the SCA-Engineered school of armour design, but that is what it'd purely be. As far as covering your own hide is concerned, you'd get the same results from a layer of 10oz leather. Better ones if you harden it, with all that opportunity for decoration too.

True there is no archeological evidence, but we also have no archeological evidence for Sugarloaf helmets, something that was popular during the early 14thC., when Ashdown theorizes banded mail was at it's most popular. Medieval scale armour also falls nearly into the same category, despite it's apparent popularity in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.
Depictions of suspected banded mail are largely confined to a relatively brief period, and are never as common as clear depictions of regular mail.
Concerning the SCA reproductions you mentioned, do you know if they were constructed with washers handmade from sheet metal, or if commercial washers were used?
Most commercial washers of the appropriate dimensions are in the 18-16g range, and you'd probably want to use metal about 1/3 that thick for a functional piece.
I've also noticed that this form of armour could be expanded/contracted simply by adding or removing the appropriate number of washers in the next row, and adjusting the length of the leather to match.

How plausible is banded mail?

How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?

Re: How plausible is banded mail?