Armor: How effective was Chainmail

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I was wondering, having watched movies aplenty, I remember many scenes where a spear or sword penetrated chainmail.
I know there were specially designed narrow-headed arrows designed to penetrate chainmail (crusade period) but just how effective was, and how forceful would a thrust have to be, to penetrate a chainmail cuirass?

Thanks,
Tom

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hey Tom,

Chainmail was extraordinarily effective. Roman mail could stop thrusts by swords and spears, but the issue was even though it didn't penetrate the mail, the force of the impact would still break bones or even kill you. Lots of internal trauma.

[Nathan Ross]

There have been quite a few discussions over the years that have touched on this. The impression I get is that properly constructed mail was pretty much invulnerable to hand weapons, and probably arrows too - it's all to do with the amount of energy (joules) needed to break through the links. A bolt from a catapult might penetrate it, of course... As Evan says, though, the force of a blow transmitted through the flexible mail could still wound or incapacitate.

You're quite right about mail proving strangely ineffective in movies. Fiction too... I've read several novels recently which describe swords cutting or stabbing through mail...

[Urselius]

There are, however, a number of high Medieval accounts of couched lances penetrating mail. Also, as has been already mentioned, mail often merely converted a piercing or cutting blow into a blunt-trauma injury, which could be incapacitating or mortal.

[john m roberts]

We can be sure that mail was extremely effective because it was worn continuously for close to 2,000 years. Other types of armor came and went, but the basic mail shirt remained in use nearly without change for the whole time. It was expensive, heavy and like all armor uncomfortable, and people wouldn't have worn it unless its protection made all of that irrelevant.

[Eleatic Guest]

I once read a battle account of an Arab chronicler who wrote in astonishment about crusaders fighting on seemingly unharmed despite their armour being peppered by arrows.

[Dan Howard]

All of the commonly-cited accounts are here but I have collected more since that article was written.
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

That particular Arab account isn't all that useful because we don't know whether the layer of felt he mentioned was just a standard aketon worn under the mail or whether it was an additional layer worn over the top for extra protection.

[Caius Artorius Castus]

Also important to consider is that there are loads of types of mail with many different thickness, diameter and weaves for mail. The thicker the ring and the smaller the denser the weave and the more protection it will give in many ways. But it is far heavier. I think Roman mail tends to be pretty small links that are relatively thick.

I think invulnerable is a major stretch for any armour but I think but there are many accounts that indicate it was very effective against the weapons that were common during its time. Not all of them, all the time but most of them almost all the time. Two handed weapons are more effective against mail as are weapons with narrow and rigid points/blades. I suspect with so many weapons being single handed mail in the classical period was pretty nice investment.

But as Dan has often pointed out there has to be a reason it was looked at as the armour of the elite for a thousand plus years. I tend to think it allowed more flexibility, it could cover more area of the body and still offer very good protection while doing so.

CAC

[Dan Howard]

Agreed with Randall. This is what I concluded in the article:

"Based on modern experimental results and contemporary accounts one must conclude that, while not impervious, mail and its associated padding offered good protection against arrows. It is evident, though, that some types of mail offered better protection than others and that it was possible to make mail that was arrow-proof, yet these variants may have been too heavy or not flexible enough for prolonged wear on the battlefield."

A lot of the Roman mail I've seen is pretty chunky. Rings of 6-7mm outside diameter and made from thick wire. It would have resisted pretty much everything that the Romans might have faced on the battlefiield at the time. Nothing you can commercially buy on the market today even goes close to resembling this. What the Indian manufacturers call "6mm mail" is actually 9mm or more, since they measure the INSIDE diameter, not the OUTSIDE.

If you watch movies more carefully you'll see that ALL armour is useless against weapons, not just mail. Movie armour doesn't do anything except provide the actor with a cool costume. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

[Dan Howard]

There are, however, a number of high Medieval accounts of couched lances penetrating mail.

Not many. I can think of four. I've found more saying that mail stopped a mounted lance.

[FarDarter]

Early medieval knights, like those that went on the Crusades, wore heavy chainmail all the way down to their knees and wrists, but they also wore something called a gambeson, which was essentially medieval Kevlar. The knights were made pincushions by enemy archers yet the only wounds they would have received were some nasty bruises.

As for chainmail in the ancient times, it was quite effective. The advantages chainmail has over segmentata is that although it is time-consuming to make, it is easy to make, and could be done by slaves, whereas plates required skilled blacksmiths. Further, a well-kept hauberk might last decades even under constant battlefield usage, whereas segmentata might last a few years if well-kept. However, segmentata was, obviously, better at stopping blows for reasons which I should not have to explain. The reason chainmail eventually superceded plates was honestly probably because the Roman army eventually became barbarianized and less able to sustain extremely well-equipped troops. Chainmail was a very tough armor certainly; however, many Roman soldiers also wore a subarmalis, which is essentially the Roman gambeson; I am sure this would greatly help to cushion stabbing attacks.

[Dan Howard]

This has all been covered before. Segmentata was munitions armour. There isn't a single depiction of an officer wearing it. Those who had the means seem to have preferred mail or scale or solid plate, rather than segmentata. Mail took longer to make and was more expensive than segmentata. Given the time required just to make wire (hundreds of meters for each hamata) and the purity of the iron required, its likely that mail was the most expensive type of armour available (apart from heavily decorated bronze plate).

Mail was just as protective as segmentata, covered more of the body, was more comfortable, more flexible, easier to transport, easier to maintain and repair, required far fewer tools and spare parts, and it lasted longer. Segmentata was cheaper and faster to produce, was a little lighter than mail, and better against blunt trauma. Strips of iron plate can be made by apprentices. There is no skill required. There is also a suggestion that at least some Roman plate was made with rolling mills.

Segmentata was phased out around the same time that the state took over the armour fabricas and had nothing to do with a "barbarianized" army.

We have no idea whether Romans wore a subarmalis under their mail. IMO their mail had an integrated padded liner and they just wore a regular tunic underneath.

[Urselius]

There are, of course physical limitations on the strength of mail. In order to be drawn into wire the iron has to have a certain metallurgical properties, these are then represented in the final armour. The finished mailshirt could in theory be case-hardened, but there is little evidence of this being carried out.

Then you have the treatment of individual rings, butted rings, riveted rings or forge-welded rings would have different properties in respect to their being broken open. Rings with copper-alloy rivets might be expected to show distinctions from those with iron rivets.

There are some arguments against Dan's case in respect to segmental armour. The manica and leg armours of cataphracts were the opposite of munitions armour, they were specialist armour. Given that mail sleeves and chausses would have been possible for Romans to have made, it is obvious that segmented limb armour offered some advantage over mail in the opinion of Roman armourers and those procuring armour.

[Kegluneq]

We have no idea whether Romans wore a subarmalis under their mail. IMO their mail had an integrated padded liner and they just wore a regular tunic underneath.

I know this was brought up last time but I'm still highly sceptical of this. It seems to me you'd lose a lot of advantages of ring mail by fixing it to a padded undercoat, from flexibility to ease of cleaning, repair and transportation. Is there a historical equivalent that could put my mind to rest on that account? I'm not aware of any archaeological example of Roman ring mail that shows signs of attached textiles, or means of doing so.

Given that mail sleeves and chausses would have been possible for Romans to have made, it is obvious that segmented limb armour offered some advantage over mail in the opinion of Roman armourers and those procuring armour.

I believe this was certainly McCarthy et al's conclusion regarding the manicae from Carlisle, which were kept in active use until they had all but disintegrated. Rigid armour would certainly be more important on the limbs than heavy padding. These obviously needn't have been worn only with seggy though, even if surviving art indicates that.

[Nathan Ross]

IMO their mail had an integrated padded liner...

It seems to me you'd lose a lot of advantages of ring mail by fixing it to a padded undercoat... I'm not aware of any archaeological example of Roman ring mail that shows signs of attached textiles, or means of doing so.

I wanted to ask about this too, the last time it came up. I remember Dan saying that the leather 'edging' on mail would suggest a fixed liner underneath. As far as I know, though, this edging is only shown on representations of early hamata shoulder doublers, which are a double layer of mail anyway. As Robert says, an integral liner would seem to have few advantages and many disadvantages. Quicker to put on, perhaps?

Rigid armour would certainly be more important on the limbs than heavy padding. These obviously needn't have been worn only with seggy though, even if surviving art indicates that.

The Adamklissi metopes show manica used with scale and mail. It's perhaps easy to see why plate might be preferable to mail as a limb defence - the chances of a blow breaking or fracturing bone and disabling an arm or leg are much greater with a more flexible armour.