07-22-2009, 02:44 AM
Quote:I have presented a peer-reviewed paper reporting on the effectiveness of mail armor. The test was specifically set up to see how 15th C medieval mail would perform against a 15th C arrow. The main problem with the test is that Williams probably underestimated the amount of energy a medieval longbow could deliver. It does suggest that McEwan's bow would have had no chance of compromising the combination. Until a similar test is performed against a decent reconstruction of Roman mail then it is the only data we have to work with. It is better than the empty speculation I've seen in response. It also counters the argument that mail armour, in general, is highly susceptible to impaling attacks.
No, you've selectively presented the results, not the paper.
Certainly the underestimation of the power of the longbow was ONE of the problems of the report. But as I have demonstrated, the arrowhead form used for the test was incorrect (the wrong tool for the job, and I'm not the first to point this out), and certainly incorrect for the Roman era. Eric Schmid himself says that mail basically didn't change throughout time except in style, until the 15th century when a real change in mail quality is seen and mail begins to be made of hardened and tempered high carbon steel, so the mail isn't equivalent to Roman-era mail (or 10th century mail or 14th century mail for that matter). And the heavy jack, which was probably a very important factor in why the mail took so much force to fail, was also inappropriate to the Roman era.
For someone so unfailingly adamant in that past that such tests are not valid unless accurate for form, function and period, your insistance that a test that uses 15th century mail, a 15th century padded defence and an inapropriate arrowhead is relevant to the question at hand is a remarkable change of philosophy. Are you now taking a more liberal view towards the validity of such evidence? Or only when the evidence supports your preconceived notions?
Gregg
