Thegn Ansgar

The primary difference between the two, is ease of making it. Lamellar armour is significantly easier to make (making metal "plates" requires less technological advancement than drawing metal wire), and the time it takes to make the armour itself.

Both offered very similar levels of protection, for different reasons. The only difference between the two, is that lamellar dissipates blunt force better than chain.

Another important thing to remember, is that both would have been paired with some form of padding to cushion any sort of attack against it.

To get a high quality suit of lamellar armour, would take less time, and less technological advances than chainmail. The other thing to note is that it was highly modular. With chainmail, you could have a full hauberk, or a short length "tunic". With lamellar, you can easily make a chest piece, pauldrons, cuisses, bracers, and even high quality helmets. A chainmail coif offers significantly less protection to your head, than a lamellar helmet. That's why coifs were generally coupled with nasal helms, or the later great helms and cervellieres.

Lamellar is also easily layered without too much problem. So you might have a cuirass of lamellar, and then a specific piece that goes over that to specifically add more protection to your chest and back. This can be done with chainmail too, but it involves different patterns, and takes more time to make.

Overall, both were good quality armours. Chainmail had the disadvantage that the people who were likely to be wearing it were wealthy (or at least were compensated by something), and the poorer soldiers had to make due with less. Lamellar on the other hand could easily be made by a regular every day person, and get great protection from something as simple as boiled leather, while the wealthy could get great lamellar made with metal.

AlpinLuke

I agree with this opinion, Western Knights and warriors [like the one in the picture of my avatar] used their "economical tools" to equip themselves as better as possible [also considering mobility, environmental heat, weight to carry ...].

Al-Tabari

Mail was far more superior to lamellar. While lamellar armour arguably provides better protection from blunt trauma, it has many disadvantages that renders it inferior to mail in my opinion. Leather lamellar provides very limited protection against spear thrusts, whereas mail is much protective. Leather lamellar is also unsuited for fighting in the rain as it can rot easily. Iron lamellar is no doubt more protective than leather, but it too has its disadvantages. The cords which keep the plates together could be cut in a prolonged melee. In addition to this there will always be gaps in lamellar which could be exploited. Mail on the other hand is much more durable and has far better coverage than lamellar. A mail hauberk is also likely to be significantly lighter than an iron lameller coat. It also provides better flexibility.

Thegn Ansgar

Not true really. Leather lamellar was frequently boiled, and in Asia it was also lacquered. There are many accounts in Chinese sources which state that leather lamellar could hold against crossbow bolts, sword strikes, and lances/spears. The lacquering also prevents rotting, and the boiling would also limit this as well.

The other important thing to note, is that rain does not do much to any sort of garment. Even wearing it repeatedly in a rainy area won't really cause leather to rot. It's not being submerged in a lake.

For the cords being cut, that is a problem, but not a very significant one. Well made lamellar out of iron, generally was very tight and the likelihood of cutting these cords is fluke level at best. There are also Chinese lamellar armours which were designed to hide the cords (mountain cloud pattern for example).

Mail will always have as it's weakest point, the rivets that hold links together. Primarily because that is a shear point. Steel is strong in compression, and weak in shear.

Al-Tabari

Can you cite any of these sources?

The following is a translated passage from a Mamluk military manual. It shows that leather lamellar could rot under damp conditions:

Question What shows that a man is accustomed to his his jawshan?
Answer Every day he must train himself to dismount elegantly so that he does not break or damage it, and he must keep practising and improving this skill. If, during the winter, the cuirass gets wet or damp from rain, he must examine its leather straps and its connections carefully and wipe off any dampness or mud from its individual pieces and any wetness from its cords. If he fails to do this, the inside of it will rot and it will become out of shape. Such rotting shows negligence and carelessness.

Mind you though this is Middle Eastern lamellar and not east Asian. But nevertheless it shows that leather lamellar (which was not always laquered) could rot if not constantly maintained.

You have to keep in mind that most pre-14th century mail was made of wrought iron rather than steel. And unlike steel, wrought iron is very malleable and flexible, and so the iron rivet is more likely to deform under pressure rather than being sheared.

Thegn Ansgar

From the 78th chapter of the Song Shu

""With Northern Wei support, Yang Nandang, the Di King of Chouchi (southern Gansu), invaded the Liu-Song dynasty's Hanzhong prefecture in late 433. Liu-Song troops under Xiao Sihua, Xiao Chengzhi, Xiao Wangzhi and Xiao Tan counter-attacked......and began driving the Chouchi troops back from Hanzhong. But in early 434 Xiao Chengzhi and his men were trapped by Yang Nandang's son Yang He and four other Chouchi generals, with 10,000 infantry and cavalry, in a fort. The besieging Chouchi army was several tens of layers deep, and stormed the fort at close range such that bows and arrows were of no use to the defenders. Furthermore, they all wore rhinoceros-hide armour which was impenetrable to spears and ji halberds"


There's also examples in the Xun Zi which state that both lacquered leather, and rhino hide armour were as hard as iron and stone.

You can also find tests done on said armours, in books by Albert Dien and Yang Hong, which corroborate the texts.

There is a difference between letting armour sit while wet, and muddy, and wearing it in the rain. As for east Asian lamellar, all examples are either of rhino or water buffalo hide (which is essentially leather), or cow hide, and was lacquered.

Likewise though, chainmail had to be maintained as well to keep it free from rust. A rusty byrnie or hauberk is no better protection, than lamellar damaged by water.

It may well deform, but the weakness at the rivets is still present. Both offered adequate protection, albeit in different ways. If I had a choice between the two, I'd take well crafted lamellar armour, if only for its increased protection against blunt force trauma.

Landsknecht

Top quality or Should I say historically accrete Chain-mail were 18 to 16 gauge thick to be light... But to add strength & still keep it light they were 4mm, 5mm, 6mm, & 7mm rings being the biggest. Small rings makes it a bit stronger & makes it lighter. European Chain-mail at least senesce the Romans were in fact flatten wedged & or riveted to make it even stronger. A Halsberge or Hauberk Mail made like what I said on top can be as light as 15 lbs! And still be very strong!

During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
“...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks” --- myarmoury.com
Here are some more brief examples: at the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk. During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets...

Just want to put my take on this... : )

purakjelia

Basically, I agree with what Thegn Ansgar said. Lamellar armors were prevalent in East Asia because they were easier to mass produce, and they offered some protections against arrows and blunt force. Well-crafted lamellar armor, such as the mountain pattern armor, probably offered better protection than chainmail.

HaNsWiDjAjA

The thing is mountain pattern lamellar is rather heavy and inflexible, you might as well get a plate cuirass....

Thegn Ansgar

It's not that inflexible. Not to mention, it was mostly used as a composite structure, protecting certain places of the body, while other types of armour were used elsewhere.

Also, there is someone who has made their own reproduction of Shan Wen Kia, and found it to be exceptionally flexible and strong, and would offer considerable protection.