You are correct that the quality of processed iron increased, but not to the degree that we have today. Period examples of mail that have been studied metallographically show a wide variance in chemical composition. Much of this has to do with where the iron ore was mined and the smelting process used. Obviously some places were better at it than others.
Dark age mail was not that different from Roman mail. Granted it was not produced on the same level as that done during the 3rd century, but the basic process was the same. In fact the process of mail manufacture used by the Romans was essentially the same as that used by the Vikings. This style continued in use into the 14th century around Italy. Quite a bit of 14th century Milanese mail is basically identical to Viking mail of the 10th century. The Germans seem to be the ones who changed the process of link manufacture as I have stated previously.
In order to draw iron into wire the raw material has to be of a fairly uniform consistency. If it isn't then it will be prone to breaking when it is pulled through a drawplate. There can still be a certain amount of slag inclusions, but for the most part it has to be quite uniform. Almost all mail that has been studied has been shown to be made of simple wrought iron, or at best steely iron. There are examples of high carbon steel mail, but these are generally in the minority and don't seem to come into existence until late in the medieval period.
So to answer your last question, yes, modern steel is far different than its medieval counterpart due to the process in which it is manufactured. For the pieces I make I use pure iron, which is also not 100% authentic, but is closer than mild steel. For some applications I do use traditional wrought iron, but making my own wire raises the difficulty factor quite a bit and thus the price goes up. I will say that using wrought iron wire is a far cry different than using mild steel or even pure iron. It is because of the knowledge gained from the research I have done using all three that I find fault with tests of the sort described previsouly by Mr. Clements. It's not because I am looking to nit pick. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Just trying to do my best to get better information out to people.
Caspar, for tests of this nature to carry any real scholarly weight they have to be conducted under very strict guidelines. Also, the items being tested have to almost perfectly mimic their historical counterparts in order for any conclusions to be drawn as to what the historical pieces were or were not capable of.
Tests like the one ARMA and others have conducted do have their place, but you have to understand what their limitations are in terms of the data obtained from them and how this data can then be applied in order to help answer certain questions.
Of course the mail used worked well, but when all is said and done the main thing learned was what a modern reproduction made of modern materials was capable of. Do you see my point?
Before anyone states the obvious I will say it first. Were we to manufacture metal having the same properties as a specific example of period metal and then make it into mail we would still be using a modern reproduction. However, the resulting test data would be that much more informative.
Cheers,
Erik
