Effectiveness of Lorica Hamata/chainmail

[Gaius Colletti]

How effective was Roman chainmail? I have seen several reconstruction videos in which chainmail was tested, and in all the videos I have seen, chainmail is very easy to stab or thrust through, though it is resistant to swings and slashing attacks, though it would appear that the attack would break bones upon contact.

I know there are several different way to make chainmail, including butted and riveted methods, what did the Romans use, and how beneficial was it.

Naturally I want to say that Roman hamata had to be somewhat effective since it outlasted lorica segmentata. But from the videos I have seen, I cannot see how wearing an extra 20-30lbs of armor that tires you out and slows you down, while being easy to stab through would benefit the soldiers. Now that I own my own segmentata, I can see the drawbacks as the shoulder pieces make it harder to perform thrusting and throwing movements, and how hamata would look appealing by allowing more flexibility. Please enlighten me.

[Titus Marius Secundus]

Hey Matt, mile:
My opinion on the matter is that, when the Romans were fighting, they usually fought an enemy that used slashing swords. Segmentata you would have to think of hinges breaking and literally, plates falling off as a result. Romans as we all know used large shields covering most of the body. Segmentata would restrict movements, and also serve the same purpose as the shield. Hamata, you still carry the shield which basically equals wearing segmentata, but you also get much less restrictions... Any spearmen, arrows, and short swords would be stopped by the shield, any long swords that get past the shield are only good for slashing, which chain mail ( riveted or butted) would protect against.
Do you get what I'm getting at? To be honest, took the Romans pleanty time to figure it out. Segmentata is still a very nice piece of work, but if I were to chose between seg, or hamata, and STILL carry a big shield that practically does the seg's work, I would go for hamata....maybe I'll be able to twost my arm around a bit easier to scratch my arse! :mrgreen:
Sam

[rrgg]

If I remember correctly most roman mail was made of alternating rows of riveted and solid rings.

Like most armors the effectiveness of mail depends on a number of variables including the thickness/quality of the metal (1.5 mm wire rings are going to be considerably more difficult to cut than 1 mm rings) and how much 'padding' is worn in conjunction with it (in theory, if a warrior's armor wasn't doing the job he could just add more and more layers of cloth/leather underneath it).
This video demonstrates the latter rather effectively
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI

There is a very good MyArmory article on the effectiveness of chainmail called "Mail: Unchained" if you want to read through it.

[Dan Howard]

How effective was Roman chainmail? I have seen several reconstruction videos in which chainmail was tested, and in all the videos I have seen, chainmail is very easy to stab or thrust through, though it is resistant to swings and slashing attacks, though it would appear that the attack would break bones upon contact.

None of the videos you have seen use mail that is any way close to what was worn by the romans. Most backyard tests use mail that is imported from India. Here is a list of problems with this mail, all of which reduce its ability to resist weapons.
* The thickness of the wire is generally too light for the diameter of the link, making it lighter but less capable of resisting a weapon.
* Holes are made with a punch rather than a drift. This leaves a lot less metal around the rivet to help secure it.
* Rivet holes are either too large or not centred. Both will leave too little material on one or both sides and the link will tear too easily.
* The links are hammered way too thin (probably to make them easier to punch), but this greatly reduces the strength of the link
* Rivets are incorrectly set. If a rivet is not peened tightly, the link will pull apart too easily
* There isn't enough overlap in the lapped section of the link to create a decent join
* Wrong shape rivet hole. Indian mail has rectangular holes. Historical wedge-riveted mail has ovoid holes. Rectangular holes tear very easily at the corners. Circular or ovoid holes are much stronger
* Incorrect metallurgy. Mild steel (or even so-called modern "iron") is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending

Keep in mind that mail was the preferred type of armour for virtually every metal using culture on the planet for more than a thousand years when the most common threat was from spears and arrows (not slashing swords). Why would anyone have bothered with the weight and expense of this armour if the wearer was not confident in its ability to protect him?

This might help
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Mail is effective with slashing movements and also with some kinds of arrowheads and spear tips. But when you look closely at Roman daggers of the first century like the Leeuwen one, you will see that the tip is bodkin shaped, ie square. That opens the mail when used correctly. It is true that most modern day Indian mail is not very effective against weaponry. However if you read several archaeological tests like for instance in the Vetera report, you see that the quality of Roman armor was very adept for the time.

M.VIB.M.

[Dan Howard]

The tests conducted by Williams suggests that it is virtually impossible to pierce riveted mail with a one-handed thrust - even using a "bodkin" shaped point. The only way to compromise mail is to have a force multiplier such as a pick or to enable the second hand to be engaged such as with a rondel-dagger. The optimal shape for punching through mail is a narrow spike with no edge at all, and even this requires more than the strength of a one-handed thrust to have much of a chance. Just changing the shape of the tip has minimal effect and can even work in reverse - the more you reinforce the point the less chance it has of penetrating. The reason for reinforcing the point of a blade is to stop it from breaking when it incidentally hits armour or bone, not to help it punch through armour.

[clubinglex]

Dimicator ( https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dimicator...4476773420) say : "Sicard Alexis, nobody said that it is easy to penetrate mail armour. This is why it remained so popular through the ages. However, I have met many people in the past 20+ years who have been into historical combat in one way or other, but I have only met comparably few who were good martial artists at the same time. So I have become very reluctant to take somebody's word for something being impossible, particularly when it is depicted in period sources. Most modern experiments suffer from two flaws: First, the target is set up in a way that it does not offer sufficient resistance. An opponent in a fight is not moved as easily on impact as the light weight constructions we see in videos. Secondly, in both videos you have linked to above, weapon acceleration and body mechanics are very poor. So the results are hardly surprising." Is there a way to convince him that you can't trust into good mail with a trust of one handed weapon ?

[Dan Howard]

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

There are a lot of primary sources cited relating to the effectiveness of mail vs different weapons.