Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armour Flexibility
#31
Quote:Since you don't wear a subarmalis past your abdomen,
Huh? What evidence is this based on?

Quote:Hi Christian,

Does the article speculate on how the tubing might have been made? Does it cite other evidence that Romans had iron tubing suitable for making mail links?
Investigation of tool marks has shown:
Step1: bar is forged
Step2: bar turned evenly round on lathe => rod
Step3: Hole is drilled into rod on lathe => tube
Step4: rings are taken of tube with chisel on lathe
Process leaves a small flash along one side of the ring, along the inner circumference.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#32
Quote:Huh? What evidence is this based on?

As in the actually subarmalis, not the pteruges. We have almost nothing to go by historically about subarmalis, but are you suggesting a heavy padded garment was worn as low as just above the knee? Or are all the hamata reenactors doing it wrong?
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#33
I don´t know, but wouldn´t it make sense to have the subarmalis as long as the chain mail? I was asking for evidence, hence. For all we seem to know, subarmalis was worn under armour. So why should it not be under the whole armour? Especially in regard of the longer mail shirts, later 2nd c onwards. It all stays spculative, though, I was just wondering what you base your comment on. Reenactorisms are not really a good source. The only depictions we have in not-contemporary copies show rather long garments.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#34
Quote:So why should it not be under the whole armour? Especially in regard of the longer mail shirts, later 2nd c onwards. It all stays spculative, though, I was just wondering what you base your comment on. Reenactorisms are not really a good source. The only depictions we have in not-contemporary copies show rather long garments.

No we should not base all our observations on reenactors, but one thing we strive to do is portray is accuracy. I do not have lorica hamata, but I cannot imagine that wearing a heavy garment around your body that goes down to your knees may obstruct mobility. One thing that both modern and ancient soldiers will agree on is that mobility is key. Of course this is speculation, but I think there is a reason we have not seen subarmalis available that go past the midsecion. Besides, would a marching legionary have to remove or pull up this lengthy under garment every time nature called?

But what evidence do we have to go on the exact length of hamata? I don't know nearly as much as some of you, but not everyone wears thigh length hamata, reenactor-wise of course
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#35
Some years ago in the SCA Some years ago in the SCA some people researched the protective properties of chainmail. Why? Because in tourneys you were supposed to deliver a killing blow that would penetrate light chainmail. So they took a pig carcass and put a chainmail hauberk on it and hit it with various weapons. Surprisingly, only thrusts with a short sword penetrated the mail. However, even if the blows from the various weapons did not penetrate the mail, they broke a lot of bones inside. Chainmail really doesn't do a whole lot to reduce the shock wave from a hard blow from a weapon. The overlapping plates of a segmentata, should give greater protection fromthat especially if there is some sort of quilting underneath. I don't see that the mail would do much to prevent fractures and ruptured organs from a solid blow. If anone has some armor they don't mind banging on, why not test it out. See what effects weapons have on mail scale, and plates. Thats really the best way to see what happens. But for me, as cool as chainmail is, I would want plates in battle. Maybe a combination of mail covered by plates so armpits are covered and so on.
Caesar audieritis hoc
Reply
#36
Quote:Some years ago in the SCA Some years ago in the SCA some people researched the protective properties of chainmail. Why? Because in tourneys you were supposed to deliver a killing blow that would penetrate light chainmail. So they took a pig carcass and put a chainmail hauberk on it and hit it with various weapons. Surprisingly, only thrusts with a short sword penetrated the mail.
They tested modern crappy imported mail, not a reconstruction of historical mail. The differences are obvious just by looking at the pics already in this thread. A sword thrust is easily stopped by a decent mail shirt.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#37
I think Tom's main point Dan was that mail doesn't protect like plate armor against blows, although it was used through the middle ages, knights with plate armor became more desired for this reason
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#38
Was there a historical source that the described the hamata as being heavier than the segmentata?
Henry O.
Reply
#39
I think that the construction of chainmail is the general reasoning behind the higher weight reasoning
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#40
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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!
Reply
#41
Quote:Call me a "pedantic"? You using poor generalizations and vague descriptions of what you "actually" meant is what should be called out on. Don't get mad at me because I called out your post. Maybe you are the jolly green giant and the segmentata stops at your navel, but for me it covers my lower abdomen just fine.

Since you don't wear a subarmalis past your abdomen, chain isn't going to stop the blunt trauma from a swing aimed past your subarmalis, so your chain loses some credit there. Other than the top of the thighs, segmentata covers all the same areas.

I don't agree with your pro's and con's opinionated list either, is riveting new chains easier to putting a rivet through a piece of leather and hammering it more time consuming and difficult? and I'll take blunt trauma protection to "something easier to put on and easy to store" thank you. Give some weight or points to certain benefits and present them in a well balanced list and I'll take what you say with credibility.

Segmentata was in use for 300 years, it worked, why did it stop? Your guess is as good as mine, maybe it had something to do with cracks in the state starting to fracture the Empire, or the influx of mercenaries in the army, this was after all when the empire became very unstable (There were about 18 Emperors in the first 200 years vs 40 Western Emperors in the last 200 years, things were that unstable). But certainly it wasn't because the seg was junk or easy to manufacturer.

Agreed.
Reply
#42
Quote: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.
You need to go back and get your misinformation straight. You have tried two completely opposite tacks so far.

Quote:Also whilst the time of contructing a shirt of chain mail takes longer than a plate cuirass for example, producing plate was still more expensive thanks to the expertise and equipment needed to do so, which was true in the medieval period and therefore also must have been the case in ancient times when the small efficient blast furnaces of the middle ages didnt exist.
This is your quote not mine. All I did was present evidence that directly contradicted this statement. First you specifically say that the cost of making armour in the middle ages could be used as an indicator of the cost for Roman armour and now you say it can't.

Quote: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.
Read Sim and Kaminsky's new book. The Romans had production techniques that seem to be more advanced than that used for most of the medieval period.

Do some research on what it takes to produce iron wire without modern machinery. The cost of weaving the links is a fraction of the total production cost of mail armour. Citing slave labour as a cost saver for one industry and not another is disingenuous.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#43
Quote:This is your quote not mine. All I did was present evidence that directly contradicted this statement. First you specifically say that the cost of making armour in the middle ages could be used as an indicator of the cost for Roman armour and now you say it can't.

I didn't say that it couldn't, that would be ignorant at best seeing as the best plate armour naturally was a lot more expensive than the best chain mail, even in the late middle ages where the industrial infrastructure to mass produce plate was in place.

On equal footing quality wise I have always read and been told that plate was more expensive to manufacture than mail during the middle ages, heck it even is with traditional smiths today. Infact your two references are the only ones I have ever seen that would suggest that chain mail sometimes was more expensive than plate armour in the middle ages, for which there can be a number of reasons, such as the quality & design of the plate & mail armour requested or the time it took to make by the specific smith depending on what he was best equipped to manufacture.

On a final note: Having just participated at a medieval gathering this last week in Denmark I was told straight up that my future set of plate armour will be a much more expensive purchase for me than the chain mail suits I have been wearing so far; We're talking about roughly double the price. How can this be if not because plate armour is a more sophisticated type of armour to manufacture traditionally ?

Quote:Read Sim and Kaminsky's new book. The Romans had production techniques that seem to be more advanced than that used for most of the medieval period.

More advanced production techniques for what ? You're talking in very general terms now, but surely you can't be trying to suggest that the Roman smiths knew how to make steel of superior quality than the smiths of the medieval ages ? Let alone make plate faster & cheaper ?? If so you'd be the first person I have ever witnessed claim this.

Quote:Do some research on what it takes to produce iron wire without modern machinery. The cost of weaving the links is a fraction of the total production cost of mail armour. Citing slave labour as a cost saver for one industry and not another is disingenuous.

I know what it takes to make iron wire, and I also know what it takes to make iron plate, which is what makes me chuckle abit during all this talk about the expenses of manufacturing chain mail and plate armour. Cause even today a good suit of plate armour usually costs more than a good suit of chain mail.

And as for slave labour, this was in far greater use by the Roman empire than by any nation/kingdom during the medieval period. It can't even be compared. Infact the procurement of slave labour was the main driving force behind the many Roman conquests, as the extensive use of slave labour was what the Roman empire was build upon and the most important thing that maintained it.
Reply
#44
Quote:On equal footing quality wise I have always read and been told that plate was more expensive to manufacture than mail during the middle ages, heck it even is with traditional smiths today.
Irrelevant since today the proportional cost of the materials is much much lower than it has ever been in the past.

Quote:Infact your two references are the only ones I have ever seen that would suggest that chain mail sometimes was more expensive than plate armour in the middle ages
I believe that they are the only ones you have ever seen. Please cite a single primary source from anywhere in the world that demonstrates that plate cost more than mail to make.

Quote:On a final note: Having just participated at a medieval gathering this last week in Denmark I was told straight up that my future set of plate armour will be a much more expensive purchase for me than the chain mail suits I have been wearing so far; We're talking about roughly double the price. How can this be if not because plate armour is a more sophisticated type of armour to manufacture traditionally ?
Ask them how much they would charge to make riveted mail using historial links, not the links imported from India. People doing this kind of work charge $2,000-5,000 just for a hauberk. Double this if you want leggings too.

Quote:I know what it takes to make iron wire, and I also know what it takes to make iron plate, which is what makes me chuckle abit during all this talk about the expenses of manufacturing chain mail and plate armour. Cause even today a good suit of plate armour usually costs more than a good suit of chain mail.
Plate can be made from poorer quality iron. You need finely refined iron just to enable it to be pulled through the draw plate otherwise it continually snaps. The cost of the raw iron is more expensive for mail than plate.

It takes much more time for someone to draw down a kilometer of wire compared to running a few billets through rollers. The cost of iron wire is more expensive than a similar weight of plate.

The fittings for segmetata are more varied but there are only a few dozen of them. Mail requires thousands of individual components all made by hand.

After the components are made it takes a day to assemble segmetata compared to around 20 days for a hamata. Assembling mail costs more than segmentata.

So in all stages mail costs more to make.

Quote:And as for slave labour, this was in far greater use by the Roman empire than by any nation/kingdom during the medieval period. It can't even be compared. Infact the procurement of slave labour was the main driving force behind the many Roman conquests, as the extensive use of slave labour was what the Roman empire was build upon and the most important thing that maintained it.
Slave labour was used in most industries including both mail and segmentata fabrica.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#45
Quote:On equal footing quality wise I have always read and been told that plate was more expensive to manufacture than mail during the middle ages, heck it even is with traditional smiths today. Infact your two references are the only ones I have ever seen that would suggest that chain mail sometimes was more expensive than plate armour in the middle ages, for which there can be a number of reasons, such as the quality & design of the plate & mail armour requested or the time it took to make by the specific smith depending on what he was best equipped to manufacture.

On a final note: Having just participated at a medieval gathering this last week in Denmark I was told straight up that my future set of plate armour will be a much more expensive purchase for me than the chain mail suits I have been wearing so far; We're talking about roughly double the price. How can this be if not because plate armour is a more sophisticated type of armour to manufacture traditionally ?

I would have to agree that plate armor was more expensive due to the nature of the design it can only fit certain body types. Because of the nature of the construction of segmentata, the wearer only needs to have their chest fit into seg, or a manica armguard, which being adjustable could accommodate several different sizes. A gauntlet or arm/leg pieces can only fit a certain height/weight. If I'm wearing leg armor meant for someone 6" taller than me, I won't be able to bend my legs properly. Quality medieval armor was tailored to an individual who was trained to be just as nimble in it as they were out of it.
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Flexibility of the Legion Coriolanus 25 5,314 09-01-2007, 08:24 AM
Last Post: Sardaukar

Forum Jump: