Making armor

[Mike Chidester]

A friend asked me a question that I don't know the exact answer to, so I told her I'd ask here. What was more difficult to craft historically, chain mail or full-plate? I realize that there are a lot of factors to consider (necessary skill level, time required, etc.), but what say you? Feel free to qualify and divide up answers as much as you like.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Depends on what time period you are thinking of. Certain plate armourers were much more advanced than their mail making counterparts, but these were few and far between. Most plate shops only produced on or two different pieces rather than a full harness.

A good question though.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

It's more difficult to make a plate-armour, than chain mail, becouse it takes more muscle and lots of equipment. But, it's faster. You can have a great helm ready in 3 days, while a mail hauberk will take a month.

bye,

Szab

[Jeremy Martin]

I think eventually they were able to churn out (chain)mail fairly quickly.

On the other hand, as far as I know, most plate was hand-made for the owner. So I'd think that would take more time, getting the measurements, adjusting parts that don't fit quite right, etc.

I'm assuming you meant an full set of plate armor.

[s_taillebois]

Hand made, is relative. The specifications were certainly for the individual. By the period when plate armour had become fully developed (c. 1450's) the European economy/society had recovered from the plague and related troubles of the 1348 era. Accordingly, their logistics for using water/cam powered machinery had also recovered-but the number of tradesmen had been reduced, and the nature of guilds was such they were in no hurry to boost up the apprentices that much, or that quickly. (And despite the information revolution brought on by such as Aldious Minuteas (sp), the guilds still could restrict access to the trade...as an aside, some of the fechtbuchs were part of that same new access to information) So in plate armor, the basic forming/forging could be done with trip hammers and such-and the refinements by hand. Their big problem was metallurgy, by the technology of the time, consistancy was a big issue. Consistant steel as we know it, they couldn't make (or even remelt). So the quality of plate using carbonized iron, no doubt varied quite a bit, and likely gave the craftsmen making it fits. Depending on the temperatures used, their metals could run from quite brittle to fairly malleble (ie irons of the time). The usual method for making a 'steely iron' was prolonged periods in the crucible, at what amounted to as a 'red hot condition'. Good in that it, over the long times involved (sometimes several days) introduced enough carbon to the iron to change it, but bad insofar as gas contamination and unwanted particulates were also more likely and in greater percentages. Ironically, when they did get really close to a steel, they couldn't generally reach the temps needed to remelt and get rid of some of the dross. (that didn't happen until Huntsman's process much later) In that regard, mail, being usually soft iron, despite the labour in making it, would have been easier from a technical view.
They were a bit trapped, insofar as they had the machinery (in their water mill equipment), and certainly the skill (aristocratic money will buy that), but the metallurgy was limiting to their intent.
All the above said, making these things, and getting it right is hard enough with modern metals and equipment...what they could achieve was quite admirable.
(for some reading on the general industrial level of the late medieval/early renn...a book called "the Medieval Machine" by Jean Gimpel's not a bad one).

[Erik D. Schmid]

Mail was fairly easy to churn out in vast quantities due to the manufacturing setup of the time. Plate was as well for the same reasons. You have to remember that not all plate was made specifically for one person. A good deal of it was pumped out for the masses.

A good deal of the information being presented at the upcoming conference is going to surprise a lot of people. Specifically information on guilds and metalworking. It will change the way many of us view these time periods.

[Jeremy Martin]

"A friend asked me a question that I don't know the exact answer to, so I told her I'd ask here. What was more difficult to craft historically, chain mail or full-plate?"

I assumed that by full-plate, he meant an entire set of plate armor. I'm not sure if my mail he meant a suit of it, or just a shirt. Then a full set of plate would defintely take longer, I believe.

Tell me, how much of the making of plate could be done by apprentices and journeymen? I believe that mail could be taken over at various stages by said people fairly easy, and thus it was turned out at a reasonable rate. I'd like to know more about plate, though.

[s_taillebois]

Likely quite a bit, in the metalworkers guilds prior to becoming a master, they had to submit literally a masterpiece. For metalworkers, often that was something complex (or expensive) such as articulated gauntlets, decorated swords, or later on, spring driven clocks and firearms.
Since admission to master status, was in part a political decision, and partially an economic decision by the guilds...they did tend to admit fairly few per year. So some may have stayed apprentices for some time, although in their own right they may have been quite competant.
Plus, in the period we're discussing, some went into other related fields outside of the armourers trade. Quite a few of the armourers switched to making spring driven clocks...more money in it sometimes (these were the status high tech of the time), the potential of diplomatic recognition, and etc.
So by the 1450's or so, many armourers apprentices may have been working for, or aspiring to masters with the clockmakers and the gun people. (Both closely related technologies in that period)

[s_taillebois]

M. Schmid...looks like an interesting conference.

[Mike Chidester]

Yes, I believe she was speaking of a complete suit of plate vs. a complete set of mail (whatever that entails).

[Erik D. Schmid]

Quite a few of the armourers switched to making spring driven clocks...more money in it sometimes (these were the status high tech of the time), the potential of diplomatic recognition, and etc.
So by the 1450's or so, many armourers apprentices may have been working for, or aspiring to masters with the clockmakers and the gun people.

Interesting. Do you have references to substantiate this?

[s_taillebois]

Two places for general references, "the Medieval Machine" by Gimpel, and these trends are also mentioned in James Burke's "Connections" .
Other sources about, but getting into some pretty obscure academic arenas therein.
The clocks, as the Europeans moved outwards, these became a diplomatic bribe of sorts. So any clockmaker who got one of these sent out, often made important out of country trade links (later on these went as far as China)
And the coincidental discovery of a big silver strike in the Thaler valley, fed the armaments race of the period.
And since the bombard and hand cannon, were expensive and the prestige high tech weapon, the new money floating about essentially caught the armoured aristocrats in a bind.
Buying this stuff, condemned their several centuries of domination, not buying it, ensured someone else would be pointing it at them.
Incidentally, automated toys for the aristocrats, also redirected some of the contingent making armour (gauntlets and such).

[Erik D. Schmid]

Steven,

Thank you for the response. I notice that your first book was originally published almost thirty years ago. Is the book footnoted? What references does he give for his assertions? I may come across as very nitpicky, but I have read far too many books whose authors claim to have the best answers for things, but inthe end they turn out to be nothing more than their own unsubstantiated opinions. The medieval guild system is a very complex subject and the last place I would look for information on it is from books. Academic research journals are the only way to go in my mind. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[s_taillebois]

Yes, Jean Gimpel's book is footnoted/uses citations. Burke the same, but less useful insofar as Burke is writing for a more generalist market.
The Gimpel book, relied fairly heavily upon academic journals...the problem is, as you noted, it was published in 1976. So some of his sources might not be obtainable.
For him, no problem as he was apparently a lecturer at Yale once...the rest of us, going to be troublesome finding some of his sources.
And requesting cited sources...no trouble. Quite a change really...much of the stuff I have to read, it seems they feel the only ones who need to know from whence it came, are themselves and providence.
Academic conferences on Renn/Medieval arms and armour, would seem to be a fairly specialized field. Thought about attending a few, but can't quite take the time off, justify the cost, or convince admin its really legit, alas.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey:

Here is a pretty nice article about armour-smithing, metal, and guilds by Craig Johnson of Oakeshott Institute and Arms &amp; Armor:

http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html