Effectiveness of Mail armor

[JeanryChandler]

For the pieces I make I use pure iron, which is also not 100% authentic, but is closer than mild steel.

How much strength, hardness, and flexibility difference is there between say pure iron and mild steel?

You have mentioend both iron and high carbon steel to make mail. Do you know anything of the use of other metals, copper or bronze or brass for example, for mail rings?

I am especially interested to know if there are any examples of brass being used as armor of any type. I know the Romans used what they called orachulum, which was more like brass than bronze, for helmets. I was wondering if it has ever been used for other types of iron, because based on some of the hardness and flexiblity properties I've seen listed for some modern types of brass, it seems like it is close to mild steel in some aspects.

JR

[Erik D. Schmid]

When normalized pure iron is much softer and more malleable than mild steel. This can also be true for wrought iron provided it is very refined. Certain steps in the link manufacturing process help to strengthen the link a certain amount. Two of the main factors in this are the flattening of the lapped joint/entire link and the setting of the rivet. Each of these actions work hardens their individual areas to some degree.

There are also examples of mail being made with yellow metals. Many of the parade and ceremonial pieces are made with a mixture of butted latten and ferrous links. There are examples of riveted latten links as well. However, they are quite flimsy and would not offer much in the way of protection.

There is a type of Roman armour that seems to use all latten links in its construction and that is the lorica plumata. This armour is made from very small links being woven with small scales. The protection this armour offered would have been minimal. I and others feel it was for ceremonial purposes and nothing more because of this.

Erik

[John_Clements]

I see, you are correct then. The tests were not of scientific standards . That can’t be argued with. I agree completely with the need for scientific testing and standards, and I don’t claim our tests were definitive or anything other than tentative experiments in the effects of modern replica swords (used in expert hands) on accurate reproduction maile, and therefore are limited in their value. Yet, there were certainly factors in our tests that were of import, such as how much the target was moving, the angle of impact, the location of impact, the portion of blade that hit, the cross section of the blade, etc. The results definitely gave us things to consider and clearly give us much more to go on than blind speculation or merely hitting butted maile with blunt blades. Interesting is that they were also fairly consistent with historical accounts of sword blows against maile from period literature. In this regard, the tests definitely have their value, as you agree. (...btw, the problem of using swords of historically equivalent quality in such tests is another problem in itself)

Anyway, how exactly is someone going to scientifically test actual historical specimens of real maile? Do you have a machine calibrate the blows mechanically in some apparatus? What antique swords are going to be used? Or do you propose a test where some device would take measurements of the force required by some tool to penetrate a link of a subject piece of antique mail? I imagine something like that could be arranged...

But from our perspective, I want to understand what practical effect a person's skill --their ability to move to deliver froce with a bladed weapon --will produce on maile that is set up to reflect the dynamics of facing an actual armored opponent. This inherently would be a far more subjective (even holistic) experiment (see where I am getting at?). But, a large concern with some tests of freely striking against armor with modern swords is that those striking the blows may not necessarily possess the nuances of skill to reliably deliver the most effective hit consistently. But then, that happened in real combat too.

Regards,

JC

[Erik D. Schmid]

Anyway, how exactly someone is going to scientifically test actual historical specimens of real maile?

I didn't say that we should test on actual specimens of mail, but instead use the data obtained from metallographic analysis of original links to reproduce links having the same chemical composition and using them for our test purposes. This same thing would apply to the weapons used against it.

There are devices that can be used to measure impact etc..., but the cost of using them is quite high which is why we are looking at getting funding for these sorts of things from various institutions.

In regards to the person using the weapon, of course we are not going to simply go with any fool that can swing a sword. God knows what would happen. We will definately get someone highly skilled for that purpose once we get that far. Many things to do before then though. It will definately make for some very interesting reading.

Cheers,
E

[Shane Smith]

This is truly on of the most fascinating threads I've read in a long time.There is alot of thoughtful debate and sharing of info going on here.

My meager contribution is this question; Considering that modern maille is made from modern high-quality steel links of the proper gauge and reasonably well-riveted,wouldn't it be safe to advance the hypothesis that it is probably more effective and consistant in it's performance than period pieces made from relatively impure materials? It just seems to me that whether we are speaking of armor or swords,some folks seem to believe that just because it's a real "period" piece,it is automatically better than a modern reproduction(Though I must admit the period pieces I've handled seem to bear that out somehow <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> ). What am I missing? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

heh, I own a bunch or riveted mail armour, the kind made in an indian sweat shop I think. While I have no doubt about its abilities to hold against a blow, I DO NOT place much faith in the shoddy riveting job, though it's far and away better than butted.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Considering that modern maille is made from modern high-quality steel links of the proper gauge and reasonably well-riveted,wouldn't it be safe to advance the hypothesis that it is probably more effective and consistant in it's performance than period pieces made from relatively impure materials?

That is certainly one conclusion that could be drawn. However, it is somewhat of a broad generalization. The reason being is that there was a tremendous amount of variation in mail depending on where the raw material was taken from, the smelting process used, the way in which the links were manufactured etc...

What we are trying to do is catalogue practically every mail item in both private and public collections to give us an idea of what is really out there and to also analyze samples of these pieces to gain an idea of what their chemical makeup is. Obviously this is going to take quite a while, but the knowledge gained will be priceless. I am a firm believer that this should be done with as many different pieces of arms and armour as possible.

As for period pieces being better, well... I have seen both ends of the spectrum on this one. One piece is simply fantastic and another is utter trash. That is why cataloguing them is so important. We will eventually be able to get a better picture of what the norm was. Now all we have are half baked theories based on a sample of ten pieces or less. With oddball items this is not so bad, but with an armour like mail that was used for more than two millenia in much of the known world that type of scholarship doesn't cut it.

Cheers,
E

[George Turner]

Hi Erik,

One thing the simple tests tell us is that maille that's somewhat (roughly?) similar to historical will stop a strong edge blow, even without all the optimizations of authentic maille. Even though not nearly scientific, it at least is telling us we're not going to be hacking through period maille with any ease. If we could, they of course wouldn't have bothered with wearing it. But you're correct in saying we're not recording impact velocities, masses, or drawing curves of penetrations, given a broad range of exactly reproduced maille laid over precisely described backing materials.

Basically, we're not yet using a cutting lab with a room full of data recorders. I think the difference over testing is between our field tests ("this is fairly close, and here's what we're seeing. What worked and what failed") versus the kind of tests you're talking about for drawing precise and exact historical information for scientific publication.

Anyway, I would think the rivet area is crucial because of the stress concentrations around the hole, and the variety of failure modes in tension and shear that the rivet represents. What would also be nice is to get some recording of the deformation curve on a link under tension from two ends, till failure, and the deformation curve across it (folding it) until failure. Plus standard stress/strain curves in tension, which might be difficult since unrolling a link to perform the test would probably screw up the results. But along with hardness data, this might help us make a better mechanical facsimile that could allow us to get the same general performance with a different quality steel. Then
we can start comparing the capabilities of different link sizes, weaves, and densities, just to get a ballpark idea of what we're looking at. This might help correct so much opinion that's accumulated from playing with butted hardware store maille.

And nice to have you posting on the forum!

[JeanryChandler]

There is a type of Roman armour that seems to use all latten links in its construction and that is the lorica plumata. This armour is made from very small links being woven with small scales. The protection this armour offered would have been minimal. I and others feel it was for ceremonial purposes and nothing more because of this.

I think it's very interesting that you brought up lorica plumata, I have been researching this type of armor quite a bit lately, and was recently discussing it via email with Mathew Amt, who is the technical advisor of Legio XX, one of the largest Roman Re-enactment / Living History groups in the US.

There is a guy who is trying to reconstruct some plumata, you can see his progress here:

http://members.sockets.net/~firemsn/plumatapics/plumatapics.html

I wonder if he'll let us cut it when he's done <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I wonder about the contention that it is for show. I know that many other historians have suggested similar theories to your own regarding plumata and also the lorica squamata, the 'traditional' type of scale armor which was worn by Roman cavalry and auxiliaries. The claim is specifically that all forms of Roman scale armor were worn because it looked better in spite of being inferior armor.

Unlike Lorica Squamata, Plumata, (named after the appearance of bird feathers) was worn by standard bearers and high ranking artistocratic officers. Standard bearers were very important and prominent, having advanced from the ranks of the highest ranking centurians. They carried the most precious posession of the legion and often fought in harms way in front of the infantry squares (maniples / centuries), and long after the light - armed velites had retired to the rear.

My question is, why would Roman officers wear inferior armor, especially when they were going to be in harms way? Evidence from columns etc. seems to indicate that this armor was worn in battle. If all they wanted to do was look good why not wear cloth of gold or purple togas? Why go to all the trouble of riviting tens of thousands of tiny links, and wiring scales onto them? If it was just for apperance wouldn't something much simpler be in order?

I'm not an expert on armor or metalurgy, but it seems logical to me that if it were made of a strong metal, a lorica plumata shirt would be extraordinarily good protection.

When I suggested that ordinary scale armor was inferior, Mathew Amt pointed out to me that some caution should be used in rushing to judgement on this issue, remembering how people thought mail was inferior based on tests in the 70s...

I didn't realise that most plumata was believed to be brass. Is there any known find of what seems to be plumata that is made of iron or steel? Or is it all brass? (latten or orachulum)

I have heard some references to the scales of plumata being coated in 'white metal' believed to be silver or tin. Wierd!? Makes me think of a comment John C. made about a lot of medieval mail armor being lacquered. Would plating help with corrosion?

I have seen some metalurgical charts which seem to indicated that certain alloys of brass were actually stronger in some aspects than mild steel. Was I reading those charts wrong? If not, is it possible they had such alloys in the Classical period? I know they experimented with various combinations of copper with arsenic, zinc, tin, and other metals...

JR

[John_Clements]

&gt;&gt;As for period pieces being better, well... I have seen both ends of the spectrum on this one. One piece is simply fantastic and another is utter trash. That is why cataloguing them is so important. We will eventually be able to get a better picture of what the norm was. Now all we have are half baked theories based on a sample of ten pieces or less. With oddball items this is not so bad, but with an armour like mail that was used for more than two millenia in much of the known world that type of scholarship doesn't cut it.
&gt;&gt;

So in effect, Erik, you are saying there was such a thing as -1 or +2 maile? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Erik D. Schmid]

George,

The lapped and riveted area is a very interesting place on the link. Some of the tests I have conducted show the rivet area to be the strongest part of the link. This is most likely due to the work hardening this area receives when the rivet is peened between the jaws of the setting tongs.

One of the wrought iron links I tested using a pulling type force failed at 95lbs. The lapped joint held. It was the other part fo the link that failed. This was not the most high quality of wrought iron by the way. The link had an inner diameter of approximately 5.5 - 6mm and was made of wire having a thickness of approx. 1.3mm or thereabouts. The link was also of round section and not flattened.

More thorough tests need to be done in a more scientific manner to get more reliable data, but it was intriguing nonetheless.

Jeanry,

I apologize for what I am about to say but... I cannot answer your question at this time. However, when I get back from the UK on Nov. 14th I will do my best to provide you with an adequate answer. It may have to wait until that following Monday, but I will get you one. I am going to be examining several pieces of Roman mail and also will be up close and personal with the piece of plumata at Edinburgh. Hopefully I will be able to provide you with some decent information when I return. Please be patient.

John, you need help. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I almost spit out my tea when I read that. I heard enough of that goofyness at the local renn faire last month.

This will most likely be my lasty visit to the board until I get back. I leave Monday evening, but will be spending the next two days getting ready. Glad to be hear as well.

Take care,
E

[Shane Smith]

Here's what happens when butted maille meets a sharp blade in testing
www.gunsnet.net/album/showphoto.php?photo=15282

[Erik D. Schmid]

Jeanry,

I just got back from the UK a few days ago. While there I did a thorough analysis of the plumata sample from the Newstead find. The piece is in the National Museum of Scotland.

The scales used on it are approximately 7.5mm wide and 13mm long with a thickness of about 1mm. It would seem that there were alternating rows of both bronze and iron scales. The iron scales may have been tinned while the bronze ones may have been gilt.

The scales are directly attached to the mail by having the top of the scale folded over and four holes pierced in the folded portion. The mail is woven in an alternating row fashion of riveted and solid links.

The riveted bronze links have an outside diameter of about 4.5mm and an inside diameter of about 3.5mm. They are of semi-round section. The rivet is ovoid and looks to have been made from either a strip or flattened wire.

The solid or whole bronze links have an outside diameter of about 3.3mm and an inside diameter of about 2.2mm. They have been made by punching from a sheet or strip of metal.

This armour would have been stunning to look at, but I fear it would not have stood up in battle.

The main focus of this research trip was Roman, but I did get up close and personal with the Archibald hauberk something fierce. As such there will be a very interesting article on it in the very near future.

Cheers,
E

[George Turner]

Hmm.... Fascinating Erik. And nice to have you back!

So ballistically you've got roughly 20 gage plate segments backed by very fine maille. From my experience making a mitten with link ID in the 4 to 6mm range, I'd say it took a very high number of man hours to make. That they'd use alternating rows of iron and bronze is curious. You'd think they'd pick one material or the other, but there's probably a sound reason for their decision.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Hello George,

Good to be back.

To you and I it may indeed take quite a few hours to construct something of this nature. However, with the manufacturing capabilities of the Roman industrial machine, it may have not been as bad as we imagine. The use of both iron and bronze sclaes could have been purely for ornamentation.

On another note, there always seems to be controversy surrounding how well mail actually worked with regards to weapons. One of the things I did on this trip was to have some of my mail tested by professionals at the Royal Military College at Shrivenham, UK. Now remember you heard it here first. This will probably get posted elsewhere, but it was here first.

Now, the piece tested was a 6" x 6" square of mail made in the Viking fashion of alternating rows of both riveted and solid links.

The round section riveted links were made of mild steel wire roughly 1.5mm thick. The hole in the lapped ends was pierced so that the if viewed in the parallel plane the hole would resemble and hour glass. The rivets were mild steel as well and were round. The joints were set with a pair of specially shaped tongs. The size of the links was roughy 6-7mm inside diameter.

The solid or whole links were made of square section pure iron and were punched from a sheet. The thickness was equivalent to the riveted links.

I know some of you are thinking to yourselves that because I used mild steel it negates the test. Well, in a way yes, but... because of recent research by Dr. Alan Williams it has been concluded that mild steel reacts in much the same way as medieval iron. Anyway...

This piece of mail was placed over a piece of padding made to represent an aketon, which was placed over a substance used to mimick the human body. Something like a hard wax. The padding however was not adequate. It was roughly 1/4" thick. It should have been the traditional four fingers thick batting and then quilted. Believe me, I have had beach towels thicker than this.

All of this was placed under a drop tower. The weapon fastened to this machine was a pointed lance head. Nasty looking bastard. Basically it was made to represent a war lance. Three tests were performed at 40, 50 and 60 joules of energy. The only one that finally compromised the mail was the 60. It did not rupture a link, but rather sheared through it. Not once in all of the tests did the lapped joint fail. Were the padding more substantial I feel the mail would have held out longer, but that may not have been necessary. This is due to the fact that 60 joules of force is the equivalent of a couched lance with a graper and an arret.

That is a tremendous amount of force no matter how you look at it. Granted, the mail was earlier and pitted against a more powerful weapon than it would have normally faced which means that it would have withstood the weapons of its day quite well.

What am I getting at here you might ask? Well, it is just that there were more things influencing armour design that simply weapons. Alright, you can now ask questions and pick my brain. I am sure I forgot something.

E