Mail and what is time and region appropriate

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

At a point in time several years ago, I had sat down with Eric Schmid and had a conversation about mail. What types there were, when they were used, etc...Since that conversation, the appropriate level of research that I had been doing sort of fell to the side, as my interest in the plate armours and hammering them out came forth.
I know that a lot of new discoveries and research has been made since then and I would like to learn them myself.
In the discussion I had with Eric, there were the following types of mail:

round ring, butted
round ring, pin riveted
round ring, wedge riveted
flat ring, pin riveted
flat ring, wedge riveted
flat ring, rectangle riveted

Several of those were also weaved together in many examples with solid or punched rings as well. I have heard ring sizes ranging from 9mm to less than 4mm.

Has there been an article or discussion where all of these have been broken down into what was used when and where?

Thanks!

[Ernst]

Not unless Erik published a book.

My understanding is that mail from Roman times until the mid-13th century is usually, though not always, demi-riveted (half solid half punched) with the riveted rings being generally of round section using round (pin) rivets.

Sometime in the late 13th century, wedge riveting seems to appear in northern Europe -- Germany and the Low Countries, still using demi-riveted construction and round to ovoid section rings.

Around the mid-14th century the demi-riveted mail is abandoned for all riveted construction, and flattened or half-flattened rings with wedge riveting becomes the European norm.

I recall Erik mentioning online that pin rivets continue in use longer in Italy, and that square rivets are sometimes in use in Italian mail. Perhaps this is the difference between your mentioned "wedge" vs. "rectangular" rivets? Oriental mail seems to have largely remained demi-riveted with pin rivets and welded wire solids. There is a mail shirt in the Metropolitan Museum of Art with latten wedge rivets attributed to Iran because of its coined rings, but it might be Russian in my view. Indian pin rivets also seem to be double headed, where European examples only have a defined head on the outside. External diameters of under 4mm to over 20mm in the Russian baidana are known. It seems to me the average of European mail has an external diameter of 8 mm - 1 cm, but there are sizable amounts in the 6 mm and 12 mm range.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

I mention wedge and rectangular separately meaning triangular shaped rivets vs. square/rectagular shaped rivets. As I remember the conversation, when the square/rectangular rivets showed up, they were mostly in central Europe (Italy, Germany, etc...) in the latter 14th century.

[Ernst]

The wording can be confusing since the bases of the wedge rivets are rectangular; effectively the wedge rivets are cut nails.

[Konstantin the Red]

Or like 1/48-scale pizza slices.

[Harry Marinakis]

Has there been an article or discussion where all of these have been broken down into what was used when and where?

That's a big bite you're taking there. Complicated topic.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

Has there been an article or discussion where all of these have been broken down into what was used when and where?

That's a big bite you're taking there. Complicated topic.

Why, yes. Yes it is

[Mark D. Chapman]

I would really like to see a reference for rectangular rivets. I have a fairly complete reference library including Dr. Williams book and I cannot remember ever seeing a mention anywhere of rectangular rivets.

The problem with trying to sort mail over time is that very few shirts are datable. Because of this we can only look at styles in broad strokes. For instance you are looking at a shirt that has round cross-section rings 1/2 solid rings, wedge rivets and ovaloid overlaps. Is it fromthe 6th century? the 14th? the 15th? Unless you also match a garment style like the front flaps or mittens incoporated into the shirt you cannot pin things down very well. It gets even worse if you are only staring at a sleeve...

One can also try to look at regional differences but here again you need to track the provinance back to try to establish where a museum originally got it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. There just will not be a lot of fine distinctions due to the dating issue and how much mail may have moved from buyer to seller to buyer over the centuries.

Mark

[Ernst]

There are also additional factors at play. The first is the dearth of mail finds from the so-called "Age of Mail", 11th-13th centuries. Another issue is that multiple ring forms or riveting styles might appear in the same garment. Sometimes there are repairs and additions to existing garments performed at a later date.

Mark,
I've been examining photographs from a mail shirt at the MET, Accession Number 14.99.28.
http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/se ... 2415?img=0
The Metropolitan says Syrian or Iranian because of the coined rings, but I've seen coined rings in Russian mail as well. The copper alloy rivets are unusual, but not unknown in Europe. I first presumed these to be wedge rivets, but upon closer examination of the pictures, they appear to be rectangular. Here's a picture of one of the missing rivets, where the hole doesn't seem to taper much, if at all.

MET 14.99.28 Mail missing rivet (307x350).jpg (93.39 KiB) Viewed 1319 times

There are also a few examples where the hole was placed on the edge of the overlap, and the join has come undone.

MET 14.99.28 Mail-torn.jpg (48.61 KiB) Viewed 1319 times

The photo from the met is quite large and allows a good amount of zoom.
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/a ... 147153.jpg
Unfortunately the shirt is mounted, and the only place to get a view of the other side of the rings is at the sleeve cuffs, but I don't think it's displayed inside-out. That means the rivet head is rectangular, not something we would usually see with a wedge rivet. Whether the provenience or dating is correct can be questioned.

[Mark D. Chapman]

Ernst, Cool. I have not seen this before. Do you have a bigger version of the detail shot where the link has separated? Hole on edge of overlap. I wold like to see some of the surrounding overlaps closer. The odd thing about your extreme closeup is the still closed rivet next to the open one. It seems to show a rounded rectangular rivet head that does nothing to help hold the rivet in place (unless the steel has somehow worn faster than the copper, not likely)

From the hole shape the only thing holding these rings together would be friction between the rivet and the steel as none of the clenching seems to act to make a barrier on either the back or front surface. With a triangular rivet the clenching/ doming seems to lock everything in place.

Good find,
Mark

[Ernst]

That's the best image I've got of that particular link, since it's taken from the pic of the overall shirt. I can blow it up on my monitor until it starts to fractalize. If you use the big image, it's in the middle left chest (right side of the picture).
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/a ... 147153.jpg

There's a similar ring in the upper left chest, about parallel with the brass neck closure, where the hole has been torn out, but it's rotated under the other rings.

MET 14.99.28 Mail-torn2.jpg (96.44 KiB) Viewed 1300 times

The MET has a detailed shot which the missing rivet is taken from: This should allow a better view of the typical rivet. There's a round-pin iron rivet on a repair link on the left side.
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/a ... 147152.jpg

[Ernst]

FWIW, here's one pic from a German haubergeon sleeve with wedge riveting. The inside of the rings can be seen at the edge, where the rectangular base of the iron rivet in the latten ring can be contrasted with the domed head.
http:/www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/40005145

MET 14.25.1540 Mail-German wedge.jpg (97.07 KiB) Viewed 1298 times

And here's a detail of a Turkish hauberk with coined rings and double riveting. Two round-section, single-rivet repair rings are on the bottom.
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/se ... ions/32094

MET 36.25.33 Mail-Double rivet (255x350).jpg (88.25 KiB) Viewed 1298 times

[C. Gadda]

At a point in time several years ago, I had sat down with Eric Schmid and had a conversation about mail. What types there were, when they were used, etc...Since that conversation, the appropriate level of research that I had been doing sort of fell to the side, as my interest in the plate armours and hammering them out came forth.
I know that a lot of new discoveries and research has been made since then and I would like to learn them myself.
In the discussion I had with Eric, there were the following types of mail:

round ring, butted
round ring, pin riveted
round ring, wedge riveted
flat ring, pin riveted
flat ring, wedge riveted
flat ring, rectangle riveted

Several of those were also weaved together in many examples with solid or punched rings as well. I have heard ring sizes ranging from 9mm to less than 4mm.

Has there been an article or discussion where all of these have been broken down into what was used when and where?

Thanks!

The only attested use of butted mail outside of Renaissance parade armour that I know of is from the Ciumeşti find in Romania, 3rd Cen. B.C. Perhaps it was "ceremonial", but it is also possible that the earliest mail armour was simply butted, until some genius figured out that having solid and riveted rings worked better. There are actually a number of other roughly contemporious finds from this general region, but I don't think any of them have been as well researched as Ciumeşti.

There is also another riveting type, a sort of "staple" rivet. See pic for details.

[Dan Howard]

The initial Ciumeşti report said that it was butted but it isn't. It is made of alternating rows of riveted and solid links. It has a small patch of butted links that probably was a repair. IIRC the mail found at Horny Jatov in Slovakia is the earliest example of mail we have and that is also riveted/solid. The available evidence doesn't support the theory that mail "evolved" from butted links to riveted links. It was always riveted.

[C. Gadda]

The initial Ciumeşti report said that it was butted but it isn't. It is made of alternating rows of riveted and solid links. It has a small patch of butted links that probably was a repair. IIRC the mail found at Horny Jatov in Slovakia is the earliest example of mail we have and that is also riveted/solid. The available evidence doesn't support the theory that mail "evolved" from butted links to riveted links. It was always riveted.

Cite sources. What "initial report" are you referring to? Zirra's "Un Cimitir Celtic in Nord-Vestul Romaniei"? I'm referencing Rusu's work, Das keltische Fürstengrab von Ciumeşti in Rumänien in Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Vol. 50, 1969, pp. 267-300, Römisch-Germanischen Kommission Des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 1971.

Like you, for the longest time I figured that reports of Celtic maille being of butted construction were likely incorrect. Indeed, looking at photos of the alleged butted construction on the Tiefenau find had me wondering if the archaeologists were visually or mentally impaired – look close at a detailed photo and you can see what appear to be rivets on those rings.

But now, after translating the text of Rusu’s article on the mail and helmet from Ciumeşti, and examining the one of the close up pictures in detail, it is pretty clear that all the rings on this one are indeed all butted. One can actually see the gap or the joint in the ends on these extremely well preserved rings (plate 146 in the article).

Here is the relevant text from Rusu: „Alle Ringe sind gleichmässig rund und weder verschweisst noch vernietet. Sie sind technisch durch Aufschneiden einer um einen Stab gewundenen Drahtspirale hergestellt und mit der Zange zusammengebogen, so dass jeweils beide Drahtenden dicht aufeinander stossen.“

My translation: “All rings are evenly round and neither welded nor riveted. They are technically manufactured by cutting links from a wire spiral wound around a rod open and bent together with a pliers, so that both wire ends push closely one on the other in each case.”

In addition, it is clear from the text that an X-Ray examination was conducted. Granted, x-ray analysis did not prevent the original examiners of the Kirkburn mail from missing the otherwise obvious copper alloy rivets, so YMMV. Still, though, it seems to have been a very thorough examination.

Based on this, I don't see how one can conclude that there are riveted and solid rings. If you have a better source, that's great. I'd like to obtain and study it at great length. But apart from Connolly's books which state more or less what you did (but don't provide a source for his assertions on the matter) I can find no technical analysis that backs what you say, even if it makes logical sense (I too consider the reports of butted mail to be unlikely, but can't refute what Rusu says).

So, Got Sources?

[C. Gadda]

Let me be clear that the only actual scientific analysis that I know of for the Ciumeşti mail is in Rusu, and that clearly states that the armour is all butted. Note that I have done A GREAT DEAL of research on this particular example, to wit:

Connelly, Peter. Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome. Silver Burdett Co. Morristown, N. J. 1979.

Connelly, Peter. Greece and Rome at War. Greenhill Books. London. 1998.

Gilmour, Brian. Mail in Iron Age Britain. Royal Armouries Yearbook, Vol. 2. 1997.

Németi, Ioan. Weitere Angaben uber die keltischen Gräberfelder von Ciumeşti und Sanislău (Kreis Satu Mare). In “Dacia - Revue d'archéologie et d'histoire ancienne,” No. 19, pp. 243-248. 1975.

Rustoiu, Aurel. A Journey to Mediterranean. Peregrinations of a Celtic Warrior from Transylvania. Studia Universitatis "Babes-Bolyai," Historia 51, no. 1, pp. 42-85. June, 2006.

Rusu, Mircea. Das keltische Fürstengrab von Ciumeşti in Rumänien. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Vol. 50, 1969, pp. 267-300. Römisch-Germanischen Kommission Des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. 1971.

Stead, Ian M. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire. English Heritage. London. 1991.

Zirra, Vlad. Un Cimitir Celtic in Nord-Vestul Romaniei. Baia Mare. 1967.

Out of all this only Connolly asserts anything other than butted, and there is absolutely no basis given in his terse mention of the artefact how he came to his conclusions. He only states that there may be pieces of two armours, and that solid, riveted, and butted rings were all used in the construction. Either he is a genius and Rusu a boob, or vice versa, but SOMEONE is wrong, plainly.

I will say the Ciumeşti mail is the most frustrating artefact I have ever researched. The details available on it are contradictory and frankly mis-reported all the time, to the point where I question the intelligence and competence of archaeologists everywhere. For starters, merely finding Rusu's report is a great challenge - unfortunately for some reason that must remain an eternal mystery to mere mortals such as ourselves, there are actually TWO "Römisch-Germanischen Kommissions" out there, each with their own journals that they publish. Why? Only Yahweh knows. Worse, since archeaologists are, apparently, functionally illiterate, many works cite the WRONG JOURNAL. Finding the right one was a real challenge, and I have gone through great pains and personal expense to cite it correctly above.

And then the details of the find are all garbled, depending upon who you look at. Only Rusu, at this point, can in anyway be considered authoritative. Where and how Connolly came to the conclusions he came to I have no idea. No sources are cited; he simply makes his assertion without any foundation I can detect, and that is that. Perhaps he is right, but I do not see how he came to his conclusion. Worse, at least one source I've read claims the artefact is made of *BRONZE*. I think it was an Osprey work, so it can be safely disregarded, but it illustrates just how f*ed up the situation is.

Bottom line, if anyone has any good sources to add to the list I've given, by all means do so. I'd like to settle the details on this mess as soon as possible.

[Dan Howard]

As you said, every report is contradictory. I wasn't confident enough to translate Rusu so I relied on Williams, The Knight and the Blast Furnace, p. 29.

"Rusu shows what appears to be both riveted and welded links of a circular cross-section. Most of the links were of wire between 0.8 and 1.8mm thick and were between 8.5 and 9.2mm in diameter. There also were rows of butted links which may have been a repair."

Though he cites the Germania reference, which is wrong.

Finding the right one was a real challenge, and I have gone through great pains and personal expense

You could have saved yourself some trouble by looking at my article
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html -- Note #11

[Ernst]

S.U. Kainov, trans. Dmitry V. Ryaboy, Medieval Russian Armour workshop in Gomiy
Likely dated to the destruction from the Mongol Invasion of 1239:

The fragments of maille fabric contain from 1 to 200 rings, over 600 rings total. Half the fragments has rings with a circular cross-section (wire diameter 1-1.5 mm), half -- with a flat cross-section (1x2; 1-1.5x3; 1x3 mm). The diameter of the rings is 6, 9, and 14 mm. It is certain that many fragments formed different sheets of maille. The mail-making process looks unfinished: there is one ring left unriveted, and several chains of single rings.

So we have mail in Gomel, Belarus from c. 1239 of both round and flat section. Diameters of 6mm, 9mm, and 14mm in use. While the report doesn't mention rivet or ring type, and may not have been able to discern these from the burned remains, it seems probable that demi-riveted construction with pin rivets was in use.

Lena Grandin, Ringar från en ringväv
The 13th century Tofta mail coif is made of demi-riveted construction The punched rings are almost rectangular section and around 11.5 mm diameter, while the riveted rings are flattened ovals (about 3:1 width to height) with a diameter around 10mm and pin rivets.

Charles ffoulkes
The 1316 inventory of Louis X, le Hutin (the stubborn) has a numer of references to "half-nailed" and haute-nailed mail. For example, we have several horse armors:
un couverture de jazeran de fer.
Item un couverture de mailles rondes demy cloees;
....une testiere de haute clouere de maille ronde.
This makes a distinction between round mail which is demi-riveted and which is highly riveted, so the appearance of all-riveted seems in use by the early 14th century.


Bengt Thordeman, Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361
A good fixed date for the battle, so we know the mail pre-dates this.

The size of the rings varies a great deal in the different objects which are made of mail.
The diameter of the majority is probably about 0.8-1 cm., but rings also occur from 0.4
cm. in diameter to 1.7 cm (fig. 99). Even in different parts of the same garment, rings of
different sizes occur. The wire of which the rings are made, also varies greatly; the
section is usually round, but even oval and greatly flattened sections (fig. 99: 6) occur.
The bronze rings especially are often made of very thin wire (fig. 100).

So, in 1361 we have rings from 4mm-17mm diameter and wire with round, oval, and extremely flattened section.

Roland Thomas Richardson, The medieval inventories of the Tower armouries 1320–1410

In another receipt
from Langley there are three mail shirts, one riveted in steel, two habergeons, four
pairs of mail chausses, three pairs of mail sleeves and a pair of mail gussets, two
pairs of mail sleeves, one de alta clavatura, the other for the joust; one mail shirt,
hauberk and pair of chausses were of north Italian mail, the habergeon and chausses
part of the same set.

It his believed this "highly-nailed" refers to mail of all riveted construction. It still receives special mention in 1325.

The indenture for issues to the fleet in 1337 includes 262 aventails, 257
pisanes, and 157 mail shirts together with other armour. (85) 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, half riveted
[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.

The accounts of Fleet’s successors as keeper of the privy
wardrobe, Robert Mildenhall and William Rothwell, also distinguish mail ‘with high
nails’ (de alta clavatura), These accounts also show that earlier shirts (made before
1344) had no collars and the newer types did.

In Henry Snaith’s account of 1362 (126) 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),
90 pairs of paunces, 40 pairs of various riveting, 48 pairs worn out and 2 pairs of mail of
Lombardy,
194 pairs of mail sleeves

The various or diversis riveting is believed to refer to mail of demi-riveted (half solid, half riveted) construction.

So at the time of the Battle of Wisby we diversity in ring size, section, construction technique, and probably rivet shape, all within northern Europe. You'll need something with a verifiable date to pin down some construction details, and it would be foolish from a single find to conclude that all mail in the same period was made in the same exact form.

[C. Gadda]

As you said, every report is contradictory. I wasn't confident enough to translate Rusu so I relied on Williams, The Knight and the Blast Furnace, p. 29.

"Rusu shows what appears to be both riveted and welded links of a circular cross-section. Most of the links were of wire between 0.8 and 1.8mm thick and were between 8.5 and 9.2mm in diameter. There also were rows of butted links which may have been a repair."

Though he cites the Germania reference, which is wrong.

Finding the right one was a real challenge, and I have gone through great pains and personal expense

You could have saved yourself some trouble by looking at my article
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html -- Note #11

Alas! As much as I trust Williams I'm not sure I trust his translation here. I wish I knew why he came to the conclusion he did, as the German text is quite clear on this point, and not at all ambiguous.

As for finding the reference, I think you may have gotten it from me, years ago, on Arador Armoury. You originally cited the incorrect reference, and I gave you the up to date one, IIRC.

[C. Gadda]

The more I look at it, the more I think Williams misunderstood what Rusu wrote. In an earlier post I gave the verbetim of the German text - any native speakers care to take a crack at it? I think I have the right of it.

Regardless, Williams has done no original research on this, and is only citing Rusu's work, rightly or wrongly. In that sense, there is nothing new on this subject.

[Dan Howard]

As for finding the reference, I think you may have gotten it from me, years ago, on Arador Armoury. You originally cited the incorrect reference, and I gave you the up to date one, IIRC.

That's certainly possible. It was either you or Martijn. Many thanks in any case. Agreed that Rusu is the primary report. Every other source is second or third hand.

[C. Gadda]

This discussion highlights a serious problem in A&A research, namely the mis-reporting of data (or even its wholecloth invention), and how errors propagate into various scholarly publications and result in myriad mis-interpretations and flaws. Thanks to all these mis-translations or even sheer flights of fancy we now have a hopelessly tangled mess regarding the Ciumeşti mail. In terms of technical details, the only source of any value is Rusu, and it is a fairly straightforward statement that it is in fact butted throughout. There are signs of repairs, but these are differentiated by the size of the rings, not their construction. Note that Rustoiu is of value mostly to get the latest updates with regards to the date of the find.

Another mess that illustrates the problem is the Sutton Hoo mail, which was initially mis-reported by some "genius" as being of butted construction. Utterly false, as a simple x-ray examination revealed, but this mistake was not corrected until the 1970's in the publication of the full excavation report. By then it was far too late, and this error has contaminated all references to this artefact, marring even Claude Blair's otherwise excellent work "European Armour."

Going back to Celtic mail, it would be nice if a re-examination could be done of all extant finds (not just Ciumeşti, but Tiefenau, Kirkburn, etc.) and do as thorough an examination as modern science c. 2013 A.D. will allow, and publish the details in some manner so as to settle once and for all what we know, and set a standard for any future artefacts that come to light as to how they should be investigated and documented. Perhaps a Kickstarter could be used to raise funds for this? Just a thought.

[worldantiques]

I know that a lot of new discoveries and research has been made since then and I would like to learn them myself.

Are you referring to European mail only or all cultures.

[worldantiques]

The only attested use of butted mail outside of Renaissance parade armour that I know of is from the Ciumeşti find in Romania,

Butted mail was used extensively by the Japanese, Sudanese, Indians and Khevsurs.

[C. Gadda]

The only attested use of butted mail outside of Renaissance parade armour that I know of is from the Ciumeşti find in Romania,

Butted mail was used extensively by the Japanese, Sudanese, Indians and Khevsurs.

Oh, very true - I was only referring to European mail. I probably should have specified that.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

I know that a lot of new discoveries and research has been made since then and I would like to learn them myself.

Are you referring to European mail only or all cultures.

Everywhere. While my SCA persona is German, I am seeking knowledge as a whole, not to one locale or time period.

[worldantiques]

Everywhere. While my SCA persona is German, I am seeking knowledge as a whole, not to one locale or time period.

Here is one unmentioned and extremely rare example, Indian theta links.

Indian Chain-mail ‘Khula Zirah’ Coif from the 18th Century, purportedly from the Bikaneer Armoury, made from rows of theta (Θ) links, alternated with rows of fine riveted links. Very long in comparison to any other coifs from India, with a large opening for the face (which would originally had a long chain mail flap for full protection).

[Dan Howard]

Yep. I think theta mail might have been unique to India. What is the earliest example we have?

[Ernst]

I don't know about dating, but the manufacture of theta links is interesting.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-d ... ental-mail

I've never heard of it being used outside India.

[worldantiques]

Yep. I think theta mail might have been unique to India. What is the earliest example we have?

Here is what Stone says about it, according to him it was used in Persia as well as India, I do not know of any other sources or images.

[worldantiques]

Another less known type of mail is the split links used by English armor makers during the 1800s. Helmets and mail shirts were sold to the forces of the Khedive of Egypt, this type of armor was used during the many conflicts there. Helmets made in Birmingham England had split link camails and the split link shirts were used until around 1840 when they were replaced with a French made steel cuirass. Sudanese revolutionaries would use these helmets when captured from Egyptian forces, often they would add a thick quilted lining. The Khedive was actually an Albanian, he and his family ruled Egypt for most of the 1800s, they brought in European and American military advisers to help modernize the Egyptian military forces.


Sudan Dervish helmet, late 1800s, made in Birmingham England originally for the Khedive of Egypt's Zirkhagi (Iron Men), Major-General Sir Horatio Herbert regained the Sudan at the battle of Omdurman with 8,000 British regulars and 17,000 Sudanese / Egyptian soldiers armed with modern rifles, Maxim's and artillery, they defeated the 50,000 man Dervish army of Abdullah al-Taashi. Kitchener's force lost 48 men / 382 wounded, the Dervishes 10,000 dead / 13,000 wounded.



Helmets of this type were made in Birmingham England, originally for the bodyguard of the Khedive of Egypt, known as the Zirkhagi (Iron Men). Amor was always scarce among the Sudanese groups which fought under the Mahdi against the Egyptian army, many subsequently fell into the hands of the Sudanese, presumably through combat. Notice the split rings of the camail.




Egypt, 1820-1898. The Vinkhuijzen collection of military uniforms / Egypt, 1820-1898. Egyptian heavy armoured cavalry 'the Zirkhli (Cuirassier)', once two regiments strong, and contributors to Khedive Ibrahim’s victory at Nezib (1839), armed with sabres and pistols, they wore English made mail armour and European made metal helmets with nose guards. The mail shirts were replaced with a French made cuirass in 1840.

[worldantiques]

Some Indian riveted mail examples, the first showing the size variation in links, the second showing a very uniform style of links, probably swage made, the third is the standard Indian mail.

Indian mail top and bottom, Ottoman mail on the right.



Very precisely made Indian mail, alternating solid and riveted links.


Standard Indian riveted mail, alternating solid and riveted links.