Armor: How effective was Chainmail

[Dan Howard]

That might work today when you can drive down to the local store for a roll of wire. People have no idea of how difficult it was to produce enough wire for a single hamata using the technology of the time. The cost of the labour to make the armour was a much smaller percentage of the total cost of armour than it is today.

[Kegluneq]

That might work today when you can drive down to the local store for a roll of wire. People have no idea of how difficult it was to produce enough wire for a single hamata using the technology of the time. The cost of the labour to make the armour was a much smaller percentage of the total cost of armour than it is today.

In fairness there has been some investigation of this issue - I have Sim and Kaminski's Roman Imperial Armour to hand at least, in which they address the production of ferrous wire. They established that to use draw plates, mechanical rather than human force must have been utilised (probably simple counterweight systems), which meant production of wire was certainly restricted to specialist sites. Annoyingly they don't break down the time needed to produce individual rings here (I'm sure Sim has elsewhere), but they do state that a coat containing 40,000 6mm rings (solid and riveted) took 230 work days to produce and utilised c.760m of wire.

Edit: They allocated 200 of those days to the production of the rings, with 30 days to assembly (a distinction missed by Travis and Travis). Preparation of materials, it seems, will have taken more effort than modern reenactors appreciate so your point is well made!

As for other costs involved, this is possibly very circumstantial. Lee Bray identified a value of 1.1 denarii per kg for iron at Vindolanda, but I don't know what charcoal would have been valued at, nor if it's even worth talking of commissioned labour when the available workforce was owned, seconded, or related to the recipient of the armour.

[Dan Howard]

In order to mechanise wire production like this you need very high quality bloomery iron. If the slag isn't very finely distributed, the wire constantly snaps in the drawplate. This is also important during the riveting process because slag can cause a link to delaminate when pierced with a drift. This type of bloomery iron requires a lot more refining than standard bloomery iron and is a lot more expensive. The time and cost of the raw materials for mail is higher than for any other type of ferrous armour. The time and cost to make the individual components is higher than any other kind of armour. The time and cost to assemble the armour is higher than any other kind of armour. It is impossible to argue that mail wasn't the most expensive armour ever invented, yet it was the most widespread and long-lived armour ever invented too.

I hope I'm remembering this correctly. If not, then hopefully Erik will pop in here and notice. My figure of 1 link per minute assumes that one person is making everything himself. Erik reckons that he can do about a thousand links per day (10 hours?) if the links are already cut and annealed but he still has to lap and flatten them. If they are fully prepared beforehand and all that is required is closing and riveting, he reckons that he can manage around 3,000 links per day. That would increase to over 5,000 per day if every second row consists of solid links. A hamata with 40,000 links can therefore be assembled by a single person in 9 days (one day for tailoring, fittings, etc) if everything is fully prepared beforehand.

[caiusbeerquitius]

In Raetia we have have evidence for chain mail rings being cut from a metal tube on a turning lace. This has been investigated in detail: A flat sheet of steel was made, then it was bent into a tube, which was then welded along the two edges. The closed tube was then turned at a comparatively high velocity, and the rings were cut of with a stylus. So at least half of the rings of such chain mail was made probably comparatively quickly.

[Dan Howard]

In Raetia we have have evidence for chain mail rings being cut from a metal tube on a turning lace. This has been investigated in detail: A flat sheet of steel was made, then it was bent into a tube, which was then welded along the two edges. The closed tube was then turned at a comparatively high velocity, and the rings were cut of with a stylus. So at least half of the rings of such chain mail was made probably comparatively quickly.

I've read a translation of part of this study. I am thinking that Sim's suggested method of punching them from plate would be a lot quicker.

[caiusbeerquitius]

B. A. Greiner, Zur Herstellungsweise römischer Kettenhemden (Lorica Hamata), in: G. Seitz (Hg.), Im Dienste Roms, Festschrift für H.U. Nuber, Remshalden 2006, S. 199-204.

Can´t tell what is faster. One probably would have to try out. The turned rings might possibly be made thicker, as is the case on the Rainau-Buch armor. Such thicker rings might be difficult to punch. Pure speculation on my part, though.

[Caius Artorius Castus]

Hand drawing wire.... so painful.

I would not be as hard on Indian makers as Dan is for mail in general. I have seen several examples of mail from the late medieval period, such as the one at the Museum of London that has the 'pop tab' look. Interesting enough that one is wedge riveted and pop tab with round links that are generally pretty big. So yes they have historic mail of this type. The types of mail links themselves can be squared, oval, round in cross section. I have seen super fine mail that must have been less than 1/4" in OD and mail much larger than .5" OD. You also have some wire thickness that is very fine.

But another difference is over lap. Some are simply overlapped end to end. Rounded or flat. The rounded ones can be made to almost look like they are still once piece. I suspect they have been worked after being peened. Not all were made this way though. Flat riveted very often ends up with the pop tab look.

I literally have hundreds if not thousands of pictures of original mail, have handled and worked on who knows how many pieces as well and have seen some that is similar to Indian work. My biggest issue with Indian rings is that their riveting is done pretty poorly in general. I have to go through and re-rivet many of the links.

In fact I disagree that all mail would look like butted mail. I think it depends on what type of mail.

Now I have largely worked with medieval and modern mail so Roman I have seen but am not as familiar with so some of these observations are not the same. Roman mail tends to be tighter weaves, smaller diameter rings and such. I suspect it was pretty heavy.

Now as to lances. I suspect against most mail it would have a high chance of success. I do not have a list but I suspect I could find fare more than four examples of mail being penetrated by a lance. In fact just got four in my head sitting here so with a few hours of research I have no doubt I could triple that number. But that is really not the point of mail or armour in general. You could make armour proof everything but you'd not be able to move if you did likely.

CAC

[Dan Howard]

In fact I disagree that all mail would look like butted mail. I think it depends on what type of mail.

I was specifically talking about Roman mail.

[Caius Artorius Castus]

Dan,

On that I totally support you. Earlier links seem to be almost blended together. The only way I have gotten mail links to look this way is by hammering the links after riveting it.

I just found a few pictures If have of some Roman mail. Are there any bits that are anything more than small fragments?

[Dan Howard]

Arbeia
http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/Canterbur...mailSm.jpg
http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/Canterbur...ilCXSm.jpg

[Caius Artorius Castus]

Funny you linked that. I think I have photos of this same shirt. Late Imperial right. Literally after posting went back to my photo files and came across this. It was at the Constantine exhibit.

Apart from this all my pictures are small rust balls as most mail from every period was. This one is sure impressive though.

CAC

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Arbeia is early 4th century. My Spiculum head is based off the Arbeia, Nydam, and Carvoran ones.

It's amazing how tiny those links are, they have to be only 6mm ED. Do you have measurements?