Butted VS Rivited

[Decimus Apollonius]

I made my links the same way but I used wire snips to cut the "spring" I do have a dremel with cut off wheels. Hmmm I do think that would be alot faster. I will give it a go, thanks Matt!

[Matt Lukes]

No problem Brian- and yeah, the Dremel is a lot faster and nicer than just wire-cutters, especially since it leaves fairly flat ends, not the pointed ones cutters leave.

[Marcus Julius]

I'm only speaking from my own experience, but it doesn't seem to be damaged by NF. Occasionally, a link needs to be tightened, or if not noticed soon enough, replaced. I think that's just from body motion and perhaps stress on a certain point, all kinds of sources for that, such as being bumped by a shield edge or something, or from storage/retrieval maybe...can't say. Basically, I'd give it an A- for durability.

A few amazing points about mail armor: It's been found to have been used in BC, and is still in use today in the form of shark suits and mail gloves for butchers.

I used butted mail armor in a LARP game for years that used foam padded weapons. The only damage to the armor was from things like the rocks on the ground, or rubbing up against structures such as doorways, trees, or fences.

Damage to the weapons was pretty much from the same sources.

[arklore70]

Brian,
I am a big fan of mail and butted rings are just fine for re enactment. Butted is definitley cheaper. Butted will hold up fine to needlefelt strikes, but I found that butted rings tended to get caught on my other gear, get stretched and fall out , or get popped with frequent packing and unpacking from one event to the next.

If you are looking for durability, I would suggest going with one of the retailers that make alternating solid and riveted ring Roman pattern shirts. Not only will you find it more historically acurate, but it will be far more durable in the long run.

Erik Schmid, Adrian Wink, and Matt Amt are just a few of the most knowledgable on the subject here, and have forgotten more about mail than I will ever be able to learn, but if you shoot me a PM I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if you have furhter questions.

v/r
Mike

[Matthew Amt]

I am a big fan of mail and butted rings are just fine for re enactment.

Careful, that will depend on the group you participate with. In Legio XX we still have several older butted shirts, and I'm not making the owners replace them, but I don't want to allow any more butted mail into the ranks. There are still debates about the exact accuracy of the mail made by places like Find-It Armory, but as far as I'm concerned that is GREAT stuff for under $500. In other words, the bar has been raised, and I'm doing what I can to encourage the world to phase out their butted mail. Even if the Kirkburn shirt proves that some butted mail was actually used, there will always be some butted mail used by reenactors even if we try to get rid of it all.

Definitely go with half riveted/half solid mail if at all possible. You'll never regret it!

Valete,

Matthew

[MeinPanzer]

The Kirkburn (Yorkshire) shirt was butted. Probably of British, not Roman manufacture. Much older IIRC.

When does it date to?

[Primvs Pavlvs]

300-200 BC I believe

[arklore70]

Matt,
good point on the butted mail. I forgot to add that little clause in there. I was a bit tired over here in Parthia when I made the post.

V/r
Mike

[Ironhand]

Most butted shirts were between 400-200 B.C. and I cannot recall any shirts being founds in the A.D. period. Most shirts that were thought to be butted have been shown to be rivetted. Butted was possibly used for field repair type work, which would of course have been fixed whenever it was possible and convenient. Butted would be historically accurate perhaps if you are representing an early La Tene Celtic warrior, but butted is horrible protection and tends to get forced open very easily under impact. It has to be very thick and heavy to begin to get protective. I know hardsuit fighters who have butted shirts that weigh 50 pounds and they always complain about the weight of maille. Only one six in one pattern shirt has been found. The majority of shirts in this time period utilize a round rivet, 4 in 1 pattern. I'll provide a few links to historical sizes for maille. Aside from this, the best contact I can think of is Eric Schmid who is possibly the best source anyone could find for this area.

www.armourarchive.org/essays/essay__mai ... able.shtml

http://vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/a ... /index.htm

If you need anything else I have a lot of articles on maille making it to tests against swords and arrows.

[Dan Howard]

Most butted shirts were between 400-200 B.C.

Nope. Even the earliest mail shirts were made of riveted and punched links. The earliest so far is the Ciumesti find dating to the beginning of the 4th century. The next is Hjortspring which dates to the mid 4th century. There is a small patch of butted mail on the Ciumesti sample but that is almost certainly a repair.

www.armourarchive.org/essays/essay__maille_timetable.shtml

This is a good effort but the sources used are sadly out of date. AFAIK the only confirmed example of butted mail dating anywhere near this period is Kirkburn.

[MeinPanzer]

Most butted shirts were between 400-200 B.C.

Nope. Even the earliest mail shirts were made of riveted and punched links. The earliest so far is the Ciumesti find dating to the beginning of the 4th century. The next is Hjortspring which dates to the mid 4th century. There is a small patch of butted mail on the Ciumesti sample but that is almost certainly a repair.

I think your dating is a little bit off... I've always seen the Ciumesti find as being 3rd C. BC, while recent carbon dating on some Hjortspring artifacts places the mail in the late 4th to early 3rd C. BC.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Dan your also leaving out the butted shirt from Tiefenau Switzerland. Its also the only 6 in 1 maile shirt found in a European context. This has been dated to the 1st century.

[Ironhand]

Sorry Dan, but butted was made. The whys are probably very debatable and could probably range from munitions reasons to perhaps even being purely a funerary piece of gear that was quickly made. Thats aside from the subject. I can easily understand groups banning or limiting its use since far too many people would just wear the cheap butted gear like with a lot of groups. That is hardly accurate either as rivetted was the norm. Personally, I would debate the use of butted as actual armour in combat, but enough archaeological evidence has been produced that one cannot deny that it was made and is historically accurate in that it existed.

If you follow the links that I posted, they show two shirts of butted maille (both the 6 in 1 find and another). Until the whys are answered one cannot assume that more were not made until we know the reasons why they used butted instead of a more practical technique that required more man hours of work, but an almost equivalent amount of materials (less if you're making butted thick to compensate for its flaws). What one can show is that rivetted is vastly superior to butted for armour purposes and that it is far more practical for someone who considers themselves a warrior to use. So for most of our purposes as reenacting soldiers I fully agree that rivetted maille should be used.

(Sorry if my grammar is a bit off as I just spent 12 hours at A.P. Hill and I'm a bit tired.)

[Dan Howard]

There have been plenty of mail fragments found that were initially described as butted or welded and after radiographical analysis have turned out to be riveted. Until the same is done with every piece then nobody can claim that the examples are butted.

[Caius Fabius]

Anyone can claim that the links are butted, they just can't prove it.

Some posters often come down as if they are the sole authority on everything, and leave no room for anyone else to have an opinion, even on things that are not proven, and that they haven't bothered to cite any sources for. This is somewhat unnerving to the newer members of the forum who are not used to such pugnatious delivery, much more suited to the anvil than the classroom discussion.

We all might think about the possibility of listening to different points of view without giving in to the urge to jump up and figuratively slap our 'opponent' in the face for not agreeing with us?

We have had complaints about the tone and dissagreements on these forums, and it would be nice if everyone would think about the way their postings come across, with no smiles, no body language and not everyone having the same grasp of the forum's primary language.

Remember we are sharing opinions and knowledge, and there is no great book where all history is factually written down. Your best educated opinion just may be wrong. Even PhD's in Ancient History have been found to have based their careers on a "fact' that was later proven to be totally false. There is room for disagreement. There is certainly room for citing your sources, rather than just making a callous dismissal of someone else's post.

Have a great day!