Blackened Chainmail

[ravingbantha]

So I ordered a riveted chainshirt and when it came in I apparently got a blackened one, not exactly what I was expecting. So I am wondering if there is any precidence for blackened Chainmail, if so what periods? If not anyone know how to remove it so I can get a more historical look?

[Dan Howard]

Even if you clean it up it still won't look historical. May as well leave it black and not have to worry about rust. Black mail also looks pretty cool. It will probably wear off by itself after a while anyway.

[Swete]

There are several examples of blackened maille in period art. The Macijowski (sp?) Bible shows several examples.

@Dan: That is quite the defeatist attidude you have there. The only time riveted maille will not "look" completely historical is if you get up close, and even then is a matter of how stickly one wants to be about it.
A knight in maille (even if not exact form to period) will always look better than a knight with a breastplate and no maille/voiders beneath, IMO.

[ravingbantha]

Thanks for the pic, I thought rivited mail wascertain areas. If not rivited what was considered 'standard' mail for most of europe?

[chef de chambre]

Riveted mail was the way mail was made in Europe. Sometimes they had alternating rows of riveted mail and punched 'washer' links, but mail made to be used is thought to have been riveted or riveted in alternating link.The idea of butted mail in a Medieval context has largely been refuted

In regards to the Macjowski bible picture, are we sure that is blackene? Or is it tarnished silver leaf with indications of mail drawn on? Silver leaf tarnishes, and was used for depicting armour, it is important to find out what is going on with the painting before coming to a conclusion.


I'll also agree with the sentiment that riveted mail beats other methods for reenactment purposes (especially the better modern flat link), and discerning it isn't historic requires a bit of pendantic spirit, and close rage viewing.

[Tom B.]

On another note:

I have had quite a few pieces of the Indian made riveted mail from various suppliers, some of which were sold as "blackened mail".
100% of it was just coated in grease / oil. Not really blackened at all.
There are numerous threads here on the archive on how to clean the grease from the mail.

Tom

[Sean M]

There are a lot of pitfalls in buying Indian maille today, because its so diverse and the suppliers aren't always consistent. I suggest that if what you got isn't what you ordered you tell the seller and ask for a replacement.

Dan's main criticisms of Indian riveted maille (link) are that its modern alloys not steely iron, that the wire is too thin, and that the holes are often punched not awled, and that the holes are often off-centre or oversized. Most of these are things which affect its mechanical properties more than its appearance, and I have not seen them all in all the Indian maille I have looked at. A more serious problem is that its never tailored and often too large so doesn't wear like historical examples. To be honest, I haven't seen any studies of Indian maille describing the range of types which are made today and comparing them to the range of examples from say 14th through 16th century Europe.

[Ernst]

The Cantar de Mio Cid has "vestid, ponéos lorigas que reluzcan como el sol;" (dressed, putting on loricas--hauberks--polished bright as the sun).

The Couronnement de Louis has "Desouz la broigne .i. blanc hauberc doublier", (over the byrnie, a white double-hauberk--white meaning polished or bright).

[Swete]

There are a lot of pitfalls in buying Indian maille today, because its so diverse and the suppliers aren't always consistent. I suggest that if what you got isn't what you ordered you tell the seller and ask for a replacement.

Dan's main criticisms of Indian riveted maille (link) are that its modern alloys not steely iron, that the wire is too thin, and that the holes are often punched not awled, and that the holes are often off-centre or oversized. Most of these are things which affect its mechanical properties more than its appearance, and I have not seen them all in all the Indian maille I have looked at. A more serious problem is that its never tailored and often too large so doesn't wear like historical examples. To be honest, I haven't seen any studies of Indian maille describing the range of types which are made today and comparing them to the range of examples from say 14th through 16th century Europe.

This is what I was refering to. I agree with Dan that today's maille leaves a lot to be desired, but it is better than butted, etc, IMO.

[Swete]

Riveted mail was the way mail was made in Europe. Sometimes they had alternating rows of riveted mail and punched 'washer' links, but mail made to be used is thought to have been riveted or riveted in alternating link.The idea of butted mail in a Medieval context has largely been refuted

In regards to the Macjowski bible picture, are we sure that is blackene? Or is it tarnished silver leaf with indications of mail drawn on? Silver leaf tarnishes, and was used for depicting armour, it is important to find out what is going on with the painting before coming to a conclusion.


I'll also agree with the sentiment that riveted mail beats other methods for reenactment purposes (especially the better modern flat link), and discerning it isn't historic requires a bit of pendantic spirit, and close rage viewing.

I am of the belief that the artist(s) meant to color it that way. You will see that the other knights' maille are a nice grey, while our unhorsed fellow's is black. It is a nice even black all over too, not a splotchy black, as if mildew/staining occured.

[Ernst]

You'll notice many of the swords are the same color. Are you suggesting swords were blackened?

[Buster]

Here is the "Just man" wearing blackened mail from a 13thC manuscript.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/ ... l/32-1.jpg

You'll notice many of the swords are the same color. Are you suggesting swords were blackened?

Who's to say? Perhaps they were blackened in some manner to prevent rust.

[Ernst]

And here's an example of badly tarnished silver leaf in a manuscript.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimag ... 8200-p.jpg

[Dan Howard]

This is what I was refering to. I agree with Dan that today's maille leaves a lot to be desired, but it is better than butted, etc, IMO.

I agree that the Indian riveted mail is a hell of a lot better than butted mail. But I don't see how that equates with "historical". Some might define the word differently to me.

[Russ Mitchell]

I'm not sure a blanket assertion of mechanical inferiority applies, either. For instance, my research turned up absolutely zero appreciable differences between "India mail" and much better flat-ring-wedge-riveted stuff, with failures almost always involving the sundering of the link wire at the base of the rivet zone (not the failure of the rivet itself, which I did not document. Too-thin wire would definitely be an issue in such a case, and certainly for a later-era hardened shirt, my research would not be useful at all....but I think the big brush is a step too far.

[Sean M]

Alan Williams did find that his 20th century riveted mail was stronger than his 15th century quenched low-carbon steel maille voider (K&tBF pp. 942-943). Unfortunately, he didn't document his experiments as well as he could have, so we know nothing about the modern maille unless he published the test elsewhere.

This is what I was refering to. I agree with Dan that today's maille leaves a lot to be desired, but it is better than butted, etc, IMO.

I agree that the Indian riveted mail is a hell of a lot better than butted mail. But I don't see how that equates with "historical". Some might define the word differently to me.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that that is any more or less true for maille than for organic fabrics like linen. Commercial fabrics today are made in very different ways than the original material, and probably have different mechanical properties, but its fairly easy to get linen that will pass inspection at a yard. So little maille has been properly published: as far as I can tell, Burgess' three hauberks are the only three with detailed measurements from renaissance Europe outside of Erik Schmidt's hard drive. And I've never cut open some Indian maille rings to see what the rivet holes looked like.

[Buster]

Alan Williams did find that his 20th century riveted mail was stronger than his 15th century quenched low-carbon steel maille voider (K&tBF pp. 942-943). Unfortunately, he was slack about documenting his experiments, so we know nothing about the modern maille unless he published the test elsewhere (I've found its always best to check his generalizations in K&TBF against his original publication).

This is what I was refering to. I agree with Dan that today's maille leaves a lot to be desired, but it is better than butted, etc, IMO.

I agree that the Indian riveted mail is a hell of a lot better than butted mail. But I don't see how that equates with "historical". Some might define the word differently to me.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that that is any more or less true for maille than for organic fabrics like linen. Commercial fabrics today are made in very different ways than the original material, and probably have different mechanical properties, but its fairly easy to get linen that will pass inspection at a yard. So little maille has been properly published: as far as I can tell, Burgess' three hauberks are the only three with detailed measurements from renaissance Europe outside of Erik Schmidt's hard drive. And I've never cut open some Indian maille rings to see what the rivet holes looked like.

But wasn't his 20th century sample case-hardened?
It's also probable that an original path has suffered at least some material loss.

[Dan Howard]

It doesn't matter whether a modern example is better or worse. If it is appreciably different then it can't produce a valid weapon test. Personally I would prefer a shirt of tightly-woven welded steel links and would bet that it provides better protection than a lot of museum examples, but shooting an arrow at it will tell me nothing about how historical mail might have performed. IIRC Erik made the modern test piece for Williams. AFAIK it is the only published test that attempted to replicate a museum example.

[Russ Mitchell]

Disagree strongly. Proper methodology CAN account for differences, and one can do tests which teach us things without forcibly recreating precise replicas -- that's why we have this little thing called science. We don't *have* to only collect anecdotal data from precise replicas in order to learn. What you're propose suggests we can't learn anything of value about "mail" and its general protective properties until we somehow find a single representative mail sample in order to learn anything (any individual mail being immediately dismissable as unusual for bring wrong century X, wrong alloy Y, wrong construction method Z, etc). There are a lot of junk weapon tests out there, true: but what you propose errs so far in the other direction as to be significantly *less* rigorous than using flawed replicas in order to learn cumulative but limited lessons. That's "No True Scotsman" writ large.

Williams' mail failed more or less at 45J delivered by a bodkin impactor. That's more or less completely in line with my results as well (while I don't have his sophistication of equipment, I do have weighted bows, arrows, and the ability to measure arrow speed in order to do similar calcs), and is fundamentally compatible with the historical record as well. Allowing for variations up and down the line depending on the given mail quality, that *does* tell us things -- for instance, it tells us that with period ammunition and strings, a guy shooting anything less than a 75lb stickbow at point-blank range can completely write it off -- the mail's going to win (and will probably keep winning until the draw weight is up in the 90s -- it's an efficiency issue). Consistent with the historical record? You bet. It tells us that hornbows shooting certain sorts of arrows are going to smash through mail like it's going out of style (Magyar, Mongol, old-Turkic hornbow forms). It tells us that other sorts of arrows from the same bows are basically going to do nothing but irritate the snot out of a guy in the same gear (bows in the Turco-Persian tradition, probably including Byzantine bows, especially those using solenarion or majra). Historically consistent? Totally.

Would I prefer well-documented, period-appropriate replicas? You bet. I'd like to have a single historical arrowhead replica that approaches the quality of the orginals in my collection, too, some of which I'm quite sure would simply have chiseled their way right through mail coming off a strong enough bow. But the idea that you can't do a valid test just b/c you don't have a perfect replica is nonsense.

EDIT: As a side note, Dan, my work is public and peer-reviewed. You're really going to shoot your mouth off and tell everybody that my research is invalid? Stop throwing out assertions and prove it. Put up or shut up.

[Sean M]

But wasn't his 20th century sample case-hardened?
It's also probable that an original path has suffered at least some material loss.

The 15th century maille voider was of "low-carbon steel hardened by quenching." The 20th century maille was "mild steel" which doesn't sound like a replica of a museum example, but if it were Erik Schmidt maille that would be comforting. Reading K&tBF can be an exercise in frustration, because it is poorly edited and leaves out many important things such as his raw data and details of his experiments. Its a wonderful piece of work but Brill let it down.

Williams' mail failed more or less at 45J delivered by a bodkin impactor. That's more or less completely in line with my results as well (while I don't have his sophistication of equipment, I do have weighted bows, arrows, and the ability to measure arrow speed in order to do similar calcs), and is fundamentally compatible with the historical record as well. Allowing for variations up and down the line depending on the given mail quality, that *does* tell us things -- for instance, it tells us that with period ammunition and strings, a guy shooting anything less than a 75lb stickbow at point-blank range can completely write it off -- the mail's going to win (and will probably keep winning until the draw weight is up in the 90s -- it's an efficiency issue). Consistent with the historical record? You bet. It tells us that hornbows shooting certain sorts of arrows are going to smash through mail like it's going out of style (Magyar, Mongol, old-Turkic hornbow forms). It tells us that other sorts of arrows from the same bows are basically going to do nothing but irritate the snot out of a guy in the same gear (bows in the Turco-Persian tradition, probably including Byzantine bows, especially those using solenarion or majra). Historically consistent? Totally.

Russ, do you have the citations? The only decent maille test that I know of is Alan Williams' in K&tBF. The odd thing is that I suspect that a good test could be done on Erik Schmidt maille for a few thousand dollars, but nobody seems to have applied for funding, carried it out, documented it and published it.

I tend to agree with Dan that we can't test Indian maille and use it to learn about the mechanical properties of historical maille until a lot more work is done understanding the properties of historical maille and doing mechanical engineering calculations.

Similarly, do you have data on the properties of various types of medieval bows? The earliest I know of are Adam Karpowicz on early modern Turkish bows at Constantinople and Strickland on the Mary Rose bows. My concern with a lot of academic writers is that they often talk about "Magyar bows" or "Avar bows" as if they were a specific model ("Mauser Karabinier '98 kurtz") rather than a class of weapons ("bolt-action rifles") containing examples with a wide range of properties. You can build a yew longbow with a draw anywhere from 50 to 200 lbs, and its still a yew longbow.

[Russ Mitchell]

Russ Mitchell, Archery versus Mail: Experimental Archaeology and the Value of Historical Context, Journal of Medieval Military History, Volume 4 (2006).

My concern with a lot of academic writers is that they often talk about "Magyar bows" or "Avar bows" as if they were a specific model ("Mauser Karabinier '98 kurtz") rather than a class of weapons ("bolt-action rifles") containing examples with a wide range of properties.

Emphasis mine. Cite, please.

[Sean M]

My concern with a lot of academic writers is that they often talk about "Magyar bows" or "Avar bows" as if they were a specific model ("Mauser Karabinier '98 kurtz") rather than a class of weapons ("bolt-action rifles") containing examples with a wide range of properties.

Emphasis mine. Cite, please.

I'm trying to track down the best example, but unfortunately much of my medieval library is in another city. The work I'm looking for has a chart of Scythian, Hunnish, Avar, Turkish, Persian, and so on bows with generalizations about relative strength and technological advancement. Until then, have a look at Christophe Zutterman, “The Bow in the Ancient Near East,” Iranica Antiqua Vol. 38 (2004) pp. 119-166. Its a good article, but it contains statements like “B-shaped composite bows are more powerful, and experiments have shown that triangular composite bows are twice as strong as simple self bows.” Obviously, that depends on the bows and arrows in question! (He cites Fig. 1 of Miller et al. “Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery,” World Archaeology Vol. 18 No. 2 (1986) which tested one African self bow and two replicas of composite bows from New Kingdom Egypt). Confident generalizations about bow types seem to go together with the idea that more powerful bows are always better and that later types of bow are better (although some writers only adopt one or two of these).

I'm an academic-in-training, but I do try to keep in mind that my deformation professionelle has its weaknesses just like any other. It seems to me that the best studies, such as those of Adam Karpowicz, Robert Hardy, and Matthew Strickland, are those that apply craft, shooting, science, and humanities skills together (often by means of collaboration). I would also like to say that despite my tetchiness about some of the things unsaid in K&tBF, Williams' experiments with mail, leather, and cloth armour only fill three pages of a thousand-page book and are still among the best that have been published. We owe a lot to people who spend time and money doing experiments and publishing them for us to study and critique.

[Russ Mitchell]

I have similar issues with the gaps in Williams' writing: me and Cliff wound up going round and round on it in another paper.

If you've given me an accurate summation of what they've said, then I would agree with you that these are not quality assertions, and that such statements can basically be dismissed as having far too inadequate an understanding of how bows work, vs. rifles or something, much as you've said. The simple fact that there's no such thing as a standardized draw length, or that "strength" of bow is a very finicky and often irrelevant factor makes such assertions more or less moot, as is even the vaunted "efficiency ratings" -- Szollosy Gabor notes stick and hornbows used in his experiments where the hornbows are generating more than one joule per pound of draw weight (at his length, which I think was 28, it's an offprint I have to dig out of a filing cabinet), up to something insane like 1.3J/lb for a Manchu-type bow. But as Gabor notes, that doesn't make the hornbow the better weapon! It's simply far too complicated to paint with those sorts of context-less broad brushes.

(One of the fun things about doing historical Hungary is that they pretty much had everything going side-by-side: longbowmen, hornbowmen, Seljuk turk mercs fighting other Seljuk turk mercs in the Balkans over whether Hungary or Byzantium got to levy taxes, mounted crossbowmen, all kinds of wild and crazy stuff....I do admit to one area of general partisanship, however, and that's in the release. The three-finger "mediterranean" release is simply a much sloppier release than the Sassanid or thumbring release, and it's my opinion winds up mandating the larger fletchings you see on so many western european arrows, which in turn tends to hinder penetration b/c of lower arrow speed -- while simultaneously making for more-accurate shooting, which also fits the infantry-archer distance-engagement culture.... so it's all good! Context counts!).

If you follow Karpowitz & Co, then you see discussions of the **general form** of steppe hornbows which use long, rigid siyahs, sans kasanlik, versus the sorts of kasan-enabled, (generalizably) short-siyah'd bows prevalent among many of the Turks and IndoPersians. The former is at its most efficient with pretty beefy arrows, which they cast not all that amazingly far or fast. The latter tend to throw stiff little toothpicks at warp speed, and you can see the cultural preferences for different missile types going back all the way to the Hegira, for instance. What was the name of that battle? Damn. I'll have to look it up -- pretty famous, the Persians get stomped after mocking the Arabs' gear...because the "clunky stuff" will bang through armor, and the toothpicks don't do so well.... okay, I'm rambling. Have good night.

[Starn]

To reply to the second part of ravingbantha's original question (not that everything else being posted is an interesting read) I had some chauses which came with a black paint like coating which I wanted rid of. I soaked it in vinegar which disolved the coating and then scoured it in course sand. It worked okay but left a slightly sticky residue and a little rust but eventually the scouring got rid of it. If you want really nice results a large "jewellry tumbler" arrangment would be ideal. Hope it helps

[Tom B.]

To reply to the second part of ravingbantha's original question (not that everything else being posted is an interesting read) I had some chauses which came with a black paint like coating which I wanted rid of. I soaked it in vinegar which disolved the coating and then scoured it in course sand. It worked okay but left a slightly sticky residue and a little rust but eventually the scouring got rid of it. If you want really nice results a large "jewellry tumbler" arrangment would be ideal. Hope it helps

A Vibratory Tumbler works great.
I have a smaller one than the one I linked to but it works for my needs, voiders, sleeves and faulds.
Leaves a nice non shiny finish even on the stainless mail.

Tom

[Ernst]

Some years ago chef posted this in response to Mr. Cross (Blankenshield):

It is all well and good, as however much documentation you wish to present "doesn't count" to Mr. Cross (for example, anyone could post accounts of armour sent out to specialized polishers and grinders. I could point out the entries in the Howard books for armour being sent out to be 'dyghted' (middle English specificaly to extensive cleaning/polishing), 'made clene', and 'furbyshed', with nary a single reference to it being painted black. Were it black from the forge, it would need none of the above processes. How about references from 1400 - 1500 in inventories to 'alwyght harness', 'white harness', and in French 'harnois blanc'?

While Bob mostly is concerned with plate armor, I'm sure we can find references to mail being polished. Can anyone find historic documents calling for mail to be blackened? I'll wait.

[Russ Mitchell]

Basic, simple, easy, low maintenance -- not the trappings of the social elite.

[Ernst]

Like the knights shown in previous illustrations?

[Russ Mitchell]

That argument homogeneity where none necessarily exists, Ernst. Service to a court or retinue could be so expensive that a second or third son who is made familiaris would be required to mortgage off lands or even towers to afford the gear. Everybody we're looking at in knightly status is the top-1% (top .5% much of the time), but just like today, even within that there are huge differences in wealth -- your local knight from the gentry made be worth more than all his villages put together, and still be considered impoverished riffraff by the local Count.

At the same time, I'd hesitate to assert "blackened = lower status," as a universal....but why send an item out to be made to look *less* refined?

[Ernst]

I am of the belief that the artist(s) meant to color it that way. You will see that the other knights' maille are a nice grey, while our unhorsed fellow's is black. It is a nice even black all over too, not a splotchy black, as if mildew/staining occured.

Swete,
As chef mentioned, silver tarnishes to a black color from a lustrous white. To quote from Old Testament Miniatures, p.20,

Silver occurs only on the few leaves I have ascribed to Hands 2 and 3.

Hand 2 is credited with folios 3 and 4, while Hand 3 is credited with folios 9 and 10, and perhaps 11. This particular example falls on folio 10 recto, the work of hand 3. In fact, these are the only folios in the Maciejowski Bible where you will find "black" mail (as well as black weapons and helms). The silver appears to have been an amalgam paint rather than leaf, but would originally have appeared much brighter, making those figures the center of attention. Modern silver-colored paint has the tendency to dull over time as well, even though it rarely contains silver any longer.

[RandallMoffett]

Ernst,

One has to wonder still why they colored some different at first as well though. If it was brighter what was it that trying to show. Clearly a difference but what?

Was there highly polished mail then? Was all mail darker? Many of the period examples I have seen and worked with were very dark from the years but after having to work and clean I wonder what their original color was and cannot help but think it was not what often we see in mail now.

RPM

[RandallMoffett]

Ernst,

One has to wonder still why they colored some different at first as well though. If it was brighter what was it that trying to show. Clearly a difference but what?

Was there highly polished mail then? Was all mail darker? Many of the period examples I have seen and worked with were very dark from the years but after having to work and clean I wonder what their original color was and cannot help but think it was not what often we see in mail now.

RPM

[Ernst]

I don't doubt there was some variation in the appearance of mail over a millenium and continent of use. In fact I'm quite aware that mail wasn't always kept nice and shiny, Chaucer's knight's jupon being "besmottered" by his haubergeon, or the Hidalgo de Yelves noting the Castillians at Soto's muster wearing "poor and rusty shirts of mail" spring to mind. But the expectation, as far as I can see, is that men should maintain their military gear through cleaning.

Our old friend Charles ffoulkes in The Armourer and His Craft gives a whole page to the cleaning of mail, with various inventories noting barrels for the purpose, e.g. j barrelle cum suis pertinentiis ad purgandos loricas et alia arma de mayle (one barrel with its associated items to cleanse armors and all arms of mail). Tumbling results in the same appearance whether done in a barrel of wood shavings or using a vibratory tumbler with corncob media--bright and polished. One can somewhat dismiss the language in various chansons and romances--Dan notes the need to rhyme, others the "Good cowboys always wear white hats" syndrome, but they're almost always blanc hauberc white hauberk, l'auberc fremillon a glistening hauberk, haubers luisant, lucent-glowing-hauberks, etc. and never hauberc sable. There are a few hauberc or broigne safree, "saffroned" hauberks or byrnies which might have latten bands or be totally latten/gilt. There's even Guy de Allemagne's hauberc jazerant, Rouge est la maille plus que n'est feu ardant with mail more red than burning fire. Does this mean the mail was actually red-bronze color, or polished so much that it appeared to emit its own light, or was covered in red fabric?

Aberdeen Bestiary fo12r.jpg (78.6 KiB) Viewed 1446 times

Silver or gold could be used to signify something. The 1278 records for the Tourney at Windsor Park show differing ranks got leather helmets with silver gilt (most participants) with gold leaf for dignitaries--Earls, Dukes, and higher. We know that Louis VII is King because of his golden armor, while his subordinates would have had once-bright silver in this case:
http://www.histoire-fr.com/images/louis ... france.gif
Or it could simply be the artist doing his best to make a "Royal" manuscript. The limited amount of folios actually using silver may indicate he blew his budget.

[Buster]

Mail doesn't have to be blackened. Since the process of making riveted mail produces rust resistant, blackened rings by default, all one has do to get "blackened" mail is not polish it.

[RandallMoffett]

Ernst,

I will have to look into a few places. The Regisster of the Black Price has some interesting types of mail but I do not have access to it right now sadly.

Interesting that he chose to use this silver for specific things though.

RPM