Butted Mail Historical for Tournament?

[Ernst]

Sean Manning brought up the thesis of Thom Richardson on my other mail thread. Fortunately it's available online.
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/1/T ... _final.pdf
PP.32-33

No mail is listed in the inventory of 1324 at the Tower,(76) but some pieces
appear in the now fragmentary ‘great indenture’ of receipt by John Fleet of the arms
and armour from the chamber under William of Langley in 1325, ‘one mail shirt . . .
for the tourney’ and ‘two long mail shirts’.(77) Much more can be found in Fleet’s own
account.(78) In the receipt of the armoury of Edward II we find a relatively small
collection of mail ‘eleven mail shirts, fourteen pairs of mail leg defences or chausses,
six mail coifs (tenis pro guerra);(79) ‘seven hauberks, one for a child, seven pairs of
mail chausses, five mail coifs, five pairs of mail cuisses, and a mail collar’;(80) and in
the dregs at the end of the receipt a unique reference to practical butted mail, ‘one
habergeon of coarse mail without rivets, old and rusty, one double gorget of coarse
mail without rivets, old and rusty . . . one aventail worn out and rusty, a habergeon
for the tournament of the same mail . . . two habergeons worth 3s. 6d., four
habergeons worth 13s. 4d., and a pair of chausses worth 15d.’(81)

Footnote 81 is cited as BL, Add. MS 60584, f. 13r.

WTF?

[chef de chambre]

It makes the assumption that 'an old hauberk of course mail without rivets' is referring to butted mail. It could as likely refer to one of those (assumed improbable) sewn washer to backing contraptions that Buttin has championed in the 1960's-1980's.

[Ernst]

I'm sure the original inventory is in Latin or OF, so I'm open to meaning. Dan Howard and I have been round the bush a few times on the "thrice-woven" descriptor, where the OF term is also used to describe mail, burlap, and iron grates. It's the same root for the English trellis, though the original Latin specifically means woven from triple threads. Some translators render it as "coarse". But without rivets is hard to fathom compared to the available demi-nailed description.

[chef de chambre]

I meant to go back and edit this. What I mean to say is that it could be documentary evidence for some sort of washer mail fixed to a backing, such as Buttin had championed, which obviously there are no survivals of, but he insisted that he discerned in art. English armour scholars reject it out of hand, French ones usually support it, perhaps it is possible that Buttin was correct.

As a form of scale, if you will, I think such a defense would be more sturdy than an armour made entirely of butted mail, which I do not think would survive tournament use.

[Sean M]

That is very peculiar!

I didn't know that the article corresponded to a thesis. I was surprised that the article did not contain a text, but in fact his thesis transcribes many of the sources. There are many interesting things, like a reference on p. 265 to "men at arms" in the 1370s being issued bascinet and aventail, shirt of mail, pair of plates, pair of vambraces, pair of gauntlets, and axe with no leg harness. Or the inventories of several armourers' shops.

[Ernst]

Sean,
I also cite it in the Mail Sleeves thread on the Design and Construction section, as it mentions numerous mail sleeves and skirts being purchased in the 1330s, perhaps for use under coats of plate.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=157253&start=70

Oddley, the thesis paper seems to suggest haute, alta and tut all refer to fully riveted construction, though I believe alta makes the argument lean toward so-called "barleycorn" or "grain d'orge" mail. From pp. 34-35:

This indenture includes
more detail than Fleet’s own account, and explains a poorly understood aspect of
mail construction, ‘item 120 aventails of good German and Lombard mail, halfriveted
[demi enclous] and fully riveted [tut enclous].(86) This term, also found in
French as de haute clouere, has mystified scholars for over a century.(87) From the
details in Fleet’s account and indenture, it is clear that the word haute (or alta)
evidently refers to the proportion of riveted links in the garments.

chef,
We had quite a thread on the "Banded Mail" made of washers:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=150031&hilit=Banded+Mail

I don't know if I prefer the Buttin theory any more than the butted mail theory. The Japanese made rivet-less mail by giving multiple turns to the wire, but I have never seen anything to suggest this was done in Europe. It would add one more possibility to Dan's list of possible "double mail" interpretations. I merely suspect that the "coarse mail" is what is usually listed as a hauberk tresliz.
http://www.anglo-norman.net/cgi-bin/form-s1

[Len Parker]

Ernst, Laking has a couple of pieces of butted maille http://www.archive.org/stream/recordofe ... 6/mode/2up Oakeshott tells us of a tournament at Windsor in 1278. He writes that all the armour mentioned in the accounts were of leather, which was all that was needed against the whalebone swords. It makes sense that butted maille could be used where no thrusting with points was involved.

So does this mean we all can make butted maille and call it historically correct tournament maille?

[Ernst]

Rothwell received from Mildenhall (p.44)

173 mail shirts, 88 older examples without collars, 76 newer ones with collars, 4 all-riveted,
3 for the tournament and worn out, one of jazerant mail and one of latten.

(P.46)

In Henry Snaith’s account of 1362126 the receipt of mail comprised:
186 mail shirts, 29 with pisane collars, 112 with collars of new manufacture, 4 highly riveted
(de alta clavatura), 3 for the tournament, worn out, 1 of jazerant mail, 1 of latten, 18 of steel
and 18 ordinary (communes),

There has been a presumption that mail for the tournament was specially reinforced. However, the specific tournament mail we find here seems to be in poor and rusty condition or "worn out" (although these may be the same three shirts in two separate inventories). Butted mail would certainly get torn apart more easily in tournament, even with rebated swords or batons of wood or whalebone. That may have been the purpose.

I recall late German tournaments, where armour was specifically designed to throw off pieces with spring-loaded devices, shields were made of segments designed to break apart in spectacular fashion when struck, etc.. Perhaps butted mail was used for tournament precisely because it could be torn apart, sending rings flying to impress the ladies in the gallery? Butted mail is certainly not what I would want in a joust with lances of war, but for a Behourd/Bohort with whalebone (or rattan)...

[Len Parker]

Ernst, I was just about to post the same thing. These guys were recreating battles from Arthurian legends where plate and maille were always being destroyed. They would want to achieve the same results.

[Ernst]

I mistakenly erased my post questioning whther Len's link from Laking showed butted rings while trying to quote his following post. Sorry if the conversation doesn't follow as well.

Len,

Figure 515? You're right. I'll be damned that alternating butted and riveted makes even less sense to me than all butted.

[Len Parker]

Look at the maille on the right. The smaller round rings all look butted to me. Now maybe it could be section of the maille where there some repairs, but I can't see a single round ring that looks riveted. Use the zoom.

[Dan Howard]

It makes sense that butted maille could be used where no thrusting with points was involved.

It makes sense today but it doesn't make sense when you realise how the product was made at the time. The majority of the cost of mail armour was in making the links. Paying someone to weave the mail was a small part of the overall cost. The difference in cost between butted mail and riveted mail would be neglible until good quality iron becomes cheap and mass-produced drawn wire was available. Today, iron wire is dirt cheap, so the majority of the cost is in the labour required to weave the mail (even with Indian wages), so there is a much greater difference in cost between butted and riveted mail. Why would anyone buy butted mail, which is considerably inferior to riveted mail, unless there was a reasonable difference in cost?

[Ernst]

For show, sir! How to explain mail without rivets?

[Tostig]

Would these links have been welded then?

[Ernst]

How? Weave and weld in place with nothing fancier than a blowpipe and hammer?

[Tostig]

Maybe. Maille makers werent ordinary smiths, more like jewelers. Maybe not, but could explain it.

[chef de chambre]

The linguistic indicators are they are older armour, relegated to the task, not specific purpose-made armour.

I am more and more inclined to think they are older, welded link shirts done in the style Buttin suggests. Nobody would intentionally make a defense useless for any other purpose (butted mail) to use in a rough sport that would fall to pieces in shirt order.

The comparative to specialized tournament armour nearly 2 centuries later, when the sport had evolved, and for specific games in a much more complex sport I do not think is a good comparative. The inventories are from a time before tournaments evolved away from being practical training for mounted combat by conrois of men.

We always have to keep in mind the context of the specific time and place documentary evidence is from, rather than extrapolating a later era back onto it.

[Ernst]

Look at the maille on the right. The smaller round rings all look butted to me. Now maybe it could be section of the maille where there some repairs, but I can't see a single round ring that looks riveted. Use the zoom.

Yep. I somehow managed to edit my previous post rather than quoting yours. I didn't see it but you did. Continuity has been disrupted....sorry about that.

[Ernst]

The linguistic indicators are they are older armour, relegated to the task, not specific purpose-made armour.

I am more and more inclined to think they are older, welded link shirts done in the style Buttin suggests. Nobody would intentionally make a defense useless for any other purpose (butted mail) to use in a rough sport that would fall to pieces in shirt order.

The comparative to specialized tournament armour nearly 2 centuries later, when the sport had evolved, and for specific games in a much more complex sport I do not think is a good comparative. The inventories are from a time before tournaments evolved away from being practical training for mounted combat by conrois of men.

We always have to keep in mind the context of the specific time and place documentary evidence is from, rather than extrapolating a later era back onto it.

Len already brought up the tournament at Windsor Park in the previous century, where helmets and body armor were specially made of leather, swords of baleen covered with silver-gilt parchment, and so on. Specialized tournamnet armor certainly exists in the late 13th century, so I see no reason to believe it didn't exist in the early 14th as well.

[Len Parker]

To me it's the word coarse ( rough; crude; not refined ) that that makes me believe it's butted, and of course that it says without rivets.
The exploding armour, breakable shields and tearable mail makes perfect sense if you were trying to recreate these scenes from Malory:
"and then they recovered both, and hewed great pieces off their harness and their shields that a great part fell into the fields"

"they hewed so fast with their swords that they cut in down half their swords and mails, that the bare flesh in some place stood above their harness"

"and their hauberks unnailed that naked they were on every side"

I definitely like the idea of being able to make a complete kit using leather and butted maille in silence. The neighbors would like it too.

[Dan Howard]

To me it's the word coarse ( rough; crude; not refined ) that that makes me believe it's butted, and of course that it says without rivets.

Did the word mean the same back then as it does today?

FWIW I think that it is plausible for butted mail to be used in a tournament where the armour was specifically designed to fall apart during the bout. I have no idea whether this type of tournament was ever done in the 14th century.

[chef de chambre]

The linguistic indicators are they are older armour, relegated to the task, not specific purpose-made armour.

I am more and more inclined to think they are older, welded link shirts done in the style Buttin suggests. Nobody would intentionally make a defense useless for any other purpose (butted mail) to use in a rough sport that would fall to pieces in shirt order.

The comparative to specialized tournament armour nearly 2 centuries later, when the sport had evolved, and for specific games in a much more complex sport I do not think is a good comparative. The inventories are from a time before tournaments evolved away from being practical training for mounted combat by conrois of men.

We always have to keep in mind the context of the specific time and place documentary evidence is from, rather than extrapolating a later era back onto it.

Len already brought up the tournament at Windsor Park in the previous century, where helmets and body armor were specially made of leather, swords of baleen covered with silver-gilt parchment, and so on. Specialized tournamnet armor certainly exists in the late 13th century, so I see no reason to believe it didn't exist in the early 14th as well.

It was a specific type of tournament - a round table, which is exactly where you would expect to have armour failures if the participants were reading Mallory. The problem is, that there is a lot of conflation going on in this discussion, and the Mallory comparative is 200 years in the future from the Windsor Round Table.

These are 'for the tournament', without any qualifiers, and are clearly older pieces going by the linguistics of the inventory. I cannot find it believable that armour made to fail was made for tournaments, unless you can find me a shred of evidence, prior to 1322, that tournaments existed where such special effects were required or sought for. The Windsor tournament provides no such evidence, as armour and weapons are comparable, designed specifically to ensure the participants are safe, and light to use, so as to not cause injury - they clearly aren't meant to fail.

[Len Parker]

Malory's stories were old by the time he wrote them down. He was just the first to try to create a history from start to finish. And even if the mail wasn't suppose to break, you still could use butted against baleen.

[chef de chambre]

OK, If what you theorize is correct, then you should easily be able to find documentary reference to butted mail being made outside of this solitary reference (which is an interpretation you chose, which can be interpreted very readily in other ways, because it *does not* specify this is butted mail), if it was something that was normally produced for tournaments.

[Len Parker]

Coarse mail without rivets sounds like butted to me.
And did you notice the early mention of a mail collar.

[Len Parker]

If this is the only mention of butted mail, would it be any different than any other singular mentions of items? Right off the top of my head I'm thinking of metal rods being glued to cuir boulli vambraces and rerebraces in King Rene's tournament book. Are there any other mentions of this?

[chef de chambre]

But it does *not* mention butted mail, it mentions mail without rivets, and we know for a fact mail was welded, and possibly punched in the specific era.

What evidence do you have again that the mail was butted? You are making an assumption that is not proven, and taking it as fact.

[Ernst]

By the mid-13th century, English law was mandating rebated weapons, no thrusting, and limited armor to be worn for tournaments. War gear was definitively non grata for supporters.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1 ... e-arms.asp

And no Knight or Esquire serving at the Tournament, shall bear a sword pointed, or Dagger pointed, or Staff or Mace, but only a broad sword for tourneying. And all that bear Banners shall be armed with Mufflers and Cuishes, and Shoulder-Plates, and a Skull-cap, without more.

And if it happen that any Earl or Baron or other knight, do go against this statute, that such knight, by assent of all the Baronage, shall lose Horse and Harness, and abide in prison at the pleasure of our Lord Sir Edward the King's son, and Sir Edmund his brother, and the Earl of Gloucester, and the Earl of Lincoln. And the Esquire who shall be found offending against the statute here devised, in any point, shall lose Horse and Harness, and be imprisoned three years. And if any man shall cast a knight to the ground, except they who are armed for their Lord's service, the knight shall have his horse, and the offender shall be punished as the Esquires aforesaid.

And no son of a great lord, that is to say, of an Earl or Baron, shall have other armor than mufflers and cuishes, and Shoulder-Plates, and a skull-cap, without more; and shall not bear a dagger or sword pointed, nor mace, but only a broad sword. And if any be found who, in either of these points, shall offend against the statute, he shall lose his horse whereon he is mounted that day, and be imprisoned for one year.

And they who shall come to see the tournament, shall not be armed with any manner of armor, and shall bear no sword, or dagger, or staff, or mace, or stone, upon such forfeiture as in the case of Esquires aforesaid. And no groom or footman shall bear sword, or dagger, or staff, or stone; and if they be found offending, they shall be imprisoned for seven years.

Like modern music concerts or sporting events, there was a tendency for the party to get out of hand, so the crown moved to limit access to real weapons and armor.


While I have nothing to support the idea that mail was specifically made to be destoyed in tournament, it does fit the idea of heroic battle common in the centuries before Mallory. In the 12th century chanson Couronnement de Louis, Guillaume l'Orange faces off in a one-on-one combat with the Saracen Corsolt. In L.XXVI, lines 1045-6, we get this example of the strength of Count Guillaume's blows:

The blow was huge and it came with much speed;
it cast three hundred rings on the ground at his feet.

Li cops fu granz si vint de grant randon;
que iii.c. mailles en abat sablor.

Chretien de Troyes has a length passage in Yvain where he waxes on-and-on about a personal combat which seems to last forever. The mail gets hot from repeated blows and begins to snap. The helmets dent and cave, and sword arms grow tired, shields splinter, yet the hero and his enemy continue to fight. This is the romantic 12th and 13th century image of battle. The late 12th and early 13th century tournaments were much more pageant and sporting event than mortal combat, but they still wanted to present the valor of the participants.

Still not proof for the idea that this mail without rivets is butted, but it would lend credence to the idea that it was deemed useless for much of anything else, and so allowed to become poor and rusty.

[Ernst]

But it does *not* mention butted mail, it mentions mail without rivets, and we know for a fact mail was welded, and possibly punched in the specific era.

What evidence do you have again that the mail was butted? You are making an assumption that is not proven, and taking it as fact.

What evidence do you have that European mail was welded? Punched is not "possibly" but proven metalurgically.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=162278&start=35

Of course it's impossible to weave together solid punched rings, though they could be alternated with unriveted (butted) or welded rings. Or the old banded mail theories are correct...

[Signo]

Well, a single occurrence doesn't make it a custom, maybe if the meaning is effectively of butted maille, it could have been made for a particular event, so, it may have been made just once in history, maybe more, maybe it was normal... we will see.

[chef de chambre]

I don't think that Statute is saying what you have read it to.

The statute in question does not specify non-armour, or special tournament armour. In point of fact, it limits the type of armour that can be used only by the banner bearers themselves (keeping them out of the game). For participants, it only limits the weapons, and that they should not have a point, so as to limit lethality.

[Len Parker]

Do we always find are modern terminology in the middle ages? And I didn't know for a fact that entire mail shirts were welded.

[chef de chambre]

To which modern terminology are you referring? The original document is in Latin, and translated to modern English. Hopefully accurately, but what is in dispute is technical terminology.


A theory has been in existence since the later 1960's that various other sorts of mail existed than linked mail, which a debate regarding this has been linked to in this very thread (see 'banded mail'), for which there is some evidence in art, through a 200 year period. Instead of being linked through each other, the idea is they were strung together, and fixed to a backing like scale armour was, and that such mail went away during the course of the 14th century.

[Ernst]

More citations from the thesis:
84 pairs of mail paunces and sleeves, 12 for the tournament, 4 pairs of paunces without sleeves
------------
138 pairs of mail sleeves plus one, 77 long, 45 short, 2 pairs for the tournament
------------
173 mail shirts, 88 older examples without collars, 76 newer ones with collars, 4 all-riveted,
3 for the tournament and worn out, one of jazerant mail and one of latten.
------------
186 mail shirts, 29 with pisane collars, 112 with collars of new manufacture, 4 highly riveted
(de alta clavatura), 3 for the tournament, worn out, 1 of jazerant mail, 1 of latten, 18 of steel
and 18 ordinary (communes)

We are unable today to differentiate mail for tournament from mail for the field, but
clearly the privy wardrobe saw a distinction.

And specific tournament armor isn't limited to mail in the 14th century.

quirre for the tournament,
7 pairs of sabatons
------------
38 kettle hats, one of hardened leather for the tournament, one of iron with a border of silver,
embossed with gilded animals, and 36 of iron
------------
17 quirres for the tournament, 12 with spaudlers.....
1 pair of ailettes of red velvet with silver gilt leopards, for the tournament
------------
240 pairs and a single cuisse, 13 of which were of iron, 2 covered in cloth of Cologne, 103
pairs and the single cuisse of leather and small plates covered in red leather, 12 pairs for the
tournament of which 10 were worn out, one pair covered in cloth of gold and decorated with
latten, one pair covered in red silk with the old arms of England
228 pairs of poleyns and a singleton, 13 of iron, 2 covered in cloth of Cologne, 103 pairs and
the single poleyn of leather and small plates covered in red leather, 12 pairs of leather for the
tournament of which 9 were worn out, one pair covered in cloth of gold and decorated with
latten, one pair covered in red silk with the old arms of England
146 pairs of lower leg defences, 32 of iron, 2 covered in cloth of Cologne, 100 of leather and
12 pairs for the tournament, all worn out
------------

Of course there are special tournament swords, coronels for the lances, and horse armor specifically for tournament as well. Many of these seem to be lighter in weight (leather rather than iron) or covered with expensive materials to increase their bling factor in the spectacle. A number of them seem to be worn out.

There was a noted difference in mail for the tournament vs. normal mail. At least one set of mail for tournament is without rivets. perhaps the rings were overlapped and flattened, but the steps of drifting and riveting were deemed superfluous. That's not quite what we perceive as "butted", but it's not riveted. That leaves us with a mail shirt which looks the same from 10' away, but isn't as strong, so more prone to "wearing out". The older school of thought is that tournament armor was stronger in some way, in which case the no-rivet mail would have to be all welded rings or half punched and half welded. But would such an armour be the first to the junk heap?

[Len Parker]

Here is the other ring armour stuff viewtopic.php?f=1&t=143828 Here is a question. If ring armour and banded maille were real, and they lasted for hundreds of years, then why don't we have names for this stuff? Didn't they name every type of armour? Shouldn't somebody somewhere have come up with a specific name.
The thing about "coarse mail without rivets" is that it isn't a name- it's a description. If this were some kind of unique mail you would think it would have a name like a jazerant. To me it reads like it's just some old rusty un-riveted mail just like it says.

Here are some fragments of late butted copper rings (more at bottom) http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/529029 These might be just maille around borders of plate or maybe some kind of decorative rings for maille, I don't know. But butted rings are not completely alien to europe.