Armour Flexibility

[Achilleus]

You haven't a clue how mail resists attack becausse you haven't seen anything that even remotely resembles historical mail. I have already presented an article that demonstrates that mail could easily resist the vast majority of threats faced by Romans or any other iron age soldier.

Ok.. getting abit personal now Dan.

I have to ask, have you ever participated in full contact sparring ? I've worn mail in full contact fights for many years, riveted mail of the proper thickness, not thin indian mail which my shirts that I bought in Germany are obviously not made from (that is clear). And I'm sorry but it still hurts a lot to get hit and you very easily get injured when wearing mail, even with a thick gambeson underneath. That is the main reason I'm switching to plate armour contests; you quite simply don't get hurt as much.

You obviously haven't read any of the links already posted so I have to clutter up this thread instead. Apologies to the moderators.

Linking to articles written by yourself is abit unusual Dan, and it comes across as a bit pompous really. You would've come across as bit more credible by referencing known experts on the issue instead. Your personal attacks don't help either.

Williams compares the cost of 12 oxen for a 9th century helmet, mail and leggings with the cost of only 2 oxen for horseman's plate armour at the end of the 16th century. At Iserlohn in the 15th century, a mail haubergeon cost 4.6 gulden while plate armour only cost 4.3 gulden. Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times that of a "double breastplate." These records also indicate the huge difference in labour involved. The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate, only 2 days.

Where is your evidence that mail was cheaper than plate? The document in Kassa's archives was for an actual armour order from a manufacturer. Why would anyone in the 17th century order a mail shirt and be happy to wait two months for it when he can have plate armour in two days for less money? Obviously mail still had advantages over plate. Advantages that were apparently worth paying six times more money for.

I don't think you can really compare the cost of plate armour in the middle ages with that in ancient times (esp. not the late middle ages), seeing as the technology & infrastructure to manufacture steel plate in the middle ages was far in advance of anything the Romans would've had. Any form of plate armour most likely was a lot more expensive to manufacture in ancient times quite simply because it demanded skilled smiths and a more advanced 'know how' to manufacture than the by then old technology of chain mail.

Also it is quite obvious that if you had to pay who'ever made the armour, like a smith, then mail would be expensive simply because of the man hours involved in linking all the small rings together, but not because it was difficult to make. And here is where a key difference between the middle ages and the Roman empire becomes important I think: the Romans made far more extensive use of slave labour, something they could've used to produce chain mail quickly & cheaply in huge amounts as it didn't take much skill to make, saving the Romans precious time & money. The production of ferrous plate on the other hand would've proven a lot more difficult for the Romans, as it was a more advanced technology that demanded skilled smiths, the proper equipment and a rather highly developed infrastructure.

Let's look objectively at things please!