The Armour Archive

I put this as a single entry into the An-Tir Kingdom A&S last year.

Got some initial buzz. I converted my PowerPoint presentation into video and posted it.

Check it out here: Medieval Mythbusting: Silk Shirts vs Arrows version 2.0

EDIT: updated video has been published - as there were complaints about being able to view the video in its original format.

Nicely done!

Question; were you using metal salt weighted silks? (very common in modern times to give the silk more "weight" but it does weaken them too) Also wrought iron tends to have more "tooth" on a microscopic scale than modern steels (why it accepts a heavier galvanization layer in 100 year old tests) I don't know of this would have any effect. Just a couple of more variables like the unwillingness of mongol warriors to stand still and be shot for *science*!

Thanks for the question.
Lightweight was basically for veils, etc.
Medium weight was about the type you will find on shirts and dresses.
Heavy-weight was stained heavy bridal silk that the fabric store had for $2/yard (for what I was going to do with it - stains did not matter!)

I have no clue if they were "metal salt weighted" I did not know this was a thing.

And yah - for some strange reason - no one at all was willing to stand still and get shot with arrows while wearing only a silk shirt!

It does make me wonder if the old story about bullets and silk shirts might have some validity, for round nosed ammunition traveling slowly. Someone might have thought that it would have the same effect on arrows. Layered silk armour intended to resist bullets has appeared every now and again in the West over the past three centuries.

Yes it is traditional to be *running* or even diving out of a window when only wearing a silk shirt and her husband bursts in and starts firing arrows at you! (Who says that Laurels don't have a sense of humour!---I can document several jokes to medieval times....)

UPDATE:
There were some complaints about the original formatting of the video.
I have put together an updated video that is now much easier to read.
The original video is still on Youtube at the original link, but I made it private/non-searchable so people can go to the new video and not strain their eyes.

Malek, have you seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

If we assume that the arrows are not loosed under a full draw, what might happen?

Hard to say exactly.
Definitely the arrows would have less impact force.
Give the results of the veg tan and 2x hardened, likely would be proof.
I don't know under what circumstances that technique would have been used.
I have been trying it out myself for target archery, and it definitely takes some practice and training.

There were multiple layered silk bullet "resistant" vests in the late 19th and early 20th century. Widespread use among dignitaries in the age of anachists (the mad bomber what bombs at midnight!). The Archduke was wearing one in Sarevo--too bad he got hit in the face.

Interesting!

What was equally surprising to me was that the single layer of hardened leather fared ridiculously poorly compared to the non-hardened single layer of leather. What do you think might account for this?

Most "leather" armour was actually rawhide and consists of multiple layers sewn together (scale/lamellar also produces a multi-layered defence). Cuirbouili seems to have mainly been layered over mail, not worn by itself.

Regardless, the leather fared worse after hardening than without being hardened, which I find odd. Any materials engineers here?

Leather on its own is flexible and has a pretty high friction factor.
Suffice it to say, 60 frames a second does not fully demonstrate how the plain leather flexed as the arrowhead cut into it.

When hardened, that hardening reduces the flexibility of the leather and makes the material more brittle.

The single layer of hardened leather was soaked in water, baked in the oven and given a surface coating of wax.
The dual layer had the same treatment, but were left in the wax longer - so the wax penetrated deeper and likely increased the flexibility some. (they were scraps from other projects)

Hope that helps.

Yup. Cumans and others with leather armor were, so far as I've been able to dig up, known for wearing multiple layers of THICK, SOFT leather.

I'm interested in your range calculation between the 50 and 100lb bows. This would affect my own research and potentially some of the archery/armor historiography. Could you elaborate please?

I did not do the calculations myself. Rather I cited from another paper done by Sir Matheus Bane from An-Tir.
He did some experimentation that showed the effects of English Longbows vs arrows and cited the calculus formulas used to arrive at that conclusion.

Page 8 of the document shows the calculations:
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci ... esting.pdf

His goal was to simulate the impact of a 110lb longbow. His bow was 75lb pull.

From the calculations above, The 110 lb longbow at full 250 yd range will equal the 75 lb
longbow in momentum at point blank range. I used 10 yards for safety reasons to simulate point
blank range

Although a 50lb Mongolian recurve is not the same ratio as a 110lb period bow, for backyard experimentation, it seemed reasonably close.

(edited to correct the link and add commentary)

Wow. e seems abnormally high there. Thanks, I'll chew through that formula and see how it affects my own work.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Yup. Cumans and others with leather armor were, so far as I've been able to dig up, known for wearing multiple layers of THICK, SOFT leather.

Do you have data for the number of layers or the overall thickness of their armour? The weight of a typical corselet would be neat to know too. It would help dispel the myth that leather armour was "light" and metal armour was "heavy".

The four layer farsetto I've referenced earlier is the only direct primary source I've found. However, the (very similar) Cuman babas appear to show some fairly heavy lacing on their caftans, which argues in favor of similarly thick stuff, and the historiography similarly says alum-tawed stuff.

Those will be better at shedding cuts than arrows if all layers are hot-stuffed for flexiblity and weather resistance. If only the outer layer is, or none are, by contrast, you're looking at a seriously tough garment. My article "Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Horse Archers, Oh My! What Abstract Definitions Don’t Tell Us About 1205 Adrianople," in JMMH vol 6 takes Williams' calculations and comes up with some actually pretty shocking potential figures for defensive values.

As to light or heavy, I consider arguments in either direction silliness -- it's trying to answer an issue no serious person is actually asking.

Ah... so these hardened pieces of leather were treated with wax. Anyone know how that affects penetration? In any case, I can see how brittleness might account for the differences in penetration... not to mention we are talking about modern veg-tanned leather and not half-tanned stuff.

Andeerz, It may have a trivial impact, to be honest. I've had similar experiences with felt. Midweight felt is much harder to penetrate effectively with an edged weapon than hard felt is.

The British Museum has a Patagonian example made from 7 layers of horse hide.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hi ... rmour.aspx

Nowadays horsehide is nothing special -- but in the era of draft horses those hides are really dense and strong.

fyi, Dan, I'm lacing up a fairly crude shot* at the farsetto di cordovano. The villani version, not the "basically a buff coat" depicted on Hungarian troops by Altichiero in the Oratorio di San Giorgio. (Already have one of those, though not dyed fancy colors like Altichiero's guys get to wear!)

*nobody would ever mistake me for a skilled craftsman. The armor will basically mimic what's seen on Cuman babas for lack of a specifically reliable image from which to draw, and will likely turn out to be just miserably tailored.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Nowadays horsehide is nothing special -- but in the era of draft horses those hides are really dense and strong.

I thought that rhinoceros hide was pretty dense and strong too but, according to the Chou Li, the Chinese needed at least five layers to make something that was suitable for armour:

"The armorers (han jên) make the cuirasses (kia). Those made from the hide of the two-horned rhinoceros (si) consist of seven layers of hide; those made from the hide of the singlehorned rhinoceros (se) consist of six layers. Those made from a combination of both hides consist of five layers."

Russ Mitchell wrote:fyi, Dan, I'm lacing up a fairly crude shot* at the farsetto di cordovano. The villani version, not the "basically a buff coat" depicted on Hungarian troops by Altichiero in the Oratorio di San Giorgio. (Already have one of those, though not dyed fancy colors like Altichiero's guys get to wear!)

*nobody would ever mistake me for a skilled craftsman. The armor will basically mimic what's seen on Cuman babas for lack of a specifically reliable image from which to draw, and will likely turn out to be just miserably tailored.

Are you going to shoot some arrows at it?

Dan Howard wrote:I thought that rhinoceros hide was pretty dense and strong too but, according to the Chou Li, the Chinese needed at least five layers to make something that was suitable for armour:

"The armorers (han jên) make the cuirasses (kia). Those made from the hide of the two-horned rhinoceros (si) consist of seven layers of hide; those made from the hide of the singlehorned rhinoceros (se) consist of six layers. Those made from a combination of both hides consist of five layers."

Interesting that the composite takes few layers than either of the single-hide variants. Composite armor of dissimilar materials is still used on tanks.

Ernst: We've definitely got composites at work in some of the period Mamluk recipes as well.
Yeah, I may not shoot directly at the coat, rather than to swatches. But then again, I may. I don't have anybody to hit with sabres or axes where I live, so what else am I going to do with it? Though I do think I've cracked the Cuman Bra, which goes with it, and that'll be next up when it's done.

Russ, I think this was the best thread you've had regarding the subject of leather with powdered glass and iron filings mixed into the glue.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=131492

Well, and beyond that, multiple layers means multiple *grain layers.* At the same thickness, five layers of thin hide sewn together is MUCH stronger than one thick hide laying there.

I've only handled rhino once. I found it vaguely equivalent to good horsehide but otherwise not very remarkable. Now, maybe I had a bad sample, but big animal doesn't *always* translate to "thick skin." Moose hide is pretty thick for instance -- Euro elk ofc -- but I've seen buffalo hide that looked like it could have come off a large-ish sheep or goat if you weren't looking at how wide it was. If you want those properties, you need to page Kel Rekuta, he'll surely have seen more than me.

EDIT: belay that on the rhino... I remember a guy now in San Francisco had a coat made of the stuff. THAT was a hell of a thick coat, though I think it was in two layers. But still, thickness would vary considerably depending on how it was prepared.

The problem is that the Chinese used hides from the Asian rhinoceros which they hunted to extinction a couple of millenia ago. We can't know how similar their hides were compared to African ones.

Re the silk, what I read was that it was specifically raw silk that was used. I'm not sure what was meant by "raw silk" that context, as what goes by that name today is noil which is weaker than processed silks.

Raw silk hasn't been processed. Apparently silk loses a lot of tensile strength whenever it is exposed to mechanical looms, dyes, sunlight, water, impact, tension, etc. So the closer it is to the original fibre, the more effective armour it should make.

Noil is the short pieces of thread that are left over from combing and spinning. Thread spun from this is a lot weaker and would be totally unsuitable for making armour.

Dan Howard wrote:The problem is that the Chinese used hides from the Asian rhinoceros which they hunted to extinction a couple of millenia ago. We can't know how similar their hides were compared to African ones.

Just a small note on rhinos, lest anyone get the wrong idea. Three of the five currently surviving species of rhino are Asian rhinos. The rhinos of Ancient China are extinct in China, but they live on today. The rhinos of China based on the surviving sculptures and artwork are believed to primarily be modern day Sumatran Rhinos, which are I think the smallest of the five species and don't have those massive thick skin folds that look like armor plates like Indian rhinos have, so that may account for the five layer necessity.

That's good to know. Five to seven layers starts to make sense.