Armor and Weapon Comparison: Europe, Asia and others

Oct 2013
6,192
Planet Nine, Oregon
#31
Reproduction mail armor should be roughly representative in terms of weight. Even if it is butted mail, the lack of rivets shouldn't significantly effect the overall weight. Even when you take rust into account, what would be the impact on weight? Maybe 10%, 20% at most?

Probably the greatest impact on weight on mail would be the size of the rings and and the thickness of the wire used. Heavier gauge wire, with tighter rings would be heavier than mail using lighter rings. Since, even after centuries, I still think we have a good idea of the thickness of wire used, and hence the overall weight of the mail armor.
Here is Dan's article on mail:
Mail: Unchained
The rings expand as they oxidize. A problem is that there was such a variety of mail; some had very thick riveted links, some double layers over vitals, or even double mail; almost as varied as scale.
 
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#32
Reproduction mail armor should be roughly representative in terms of weight. Even if it is butted mail, the lack of rivets shouldn't significantly effect the overall weight. Even when you take rust into account, what would be the impact on weight? Maybe 10%, 20% at most?

Probably the greatest impact on weight on mail would be the size of the rings and and the thickness of the wire used. Heavier gauge wire, with tighter rings would be heavier than mail using lighter rings. Since, even after centuries, I still think we have a good idea of the thickness of wire used, and hence the overall weight of the mail armor.
It is irrelevant how much the variance is. The fact that there IS variance and that it is not possible to determine the amount of variance means that the data is unusable.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#33
It is irrelevant how much the variance is. The fact that there IS variance and that it is not possible to determine the amount of variance means that the data is unusable.
If the variance is limted, than it won't sitniticsnly affect the over a weight. A ten percent increase in the he overall.armor weight is not a lot, and it really doesn't affect the impaf of armor weight . It the armo weighed 17 kg instead of 15 kg is not going to be a major difference.

To.imply that we have no idea what the armor would weigh is simply not true. Now, of t is rue there will be variance simply due to design difference, heavier weave, double mail thickness all will contribute. But we have enough archeological evidence and illustrations to get a fairly accurate idea of the mail armor weight.

Of.course, in the middle.ages, mail.was often worn with cloth armor like a a gambleson, whose weight is more of an estimate. The gambleson designed to be work under mail might not have been as heavy as gambleson worn.by itself. When talking about armor, we need to be talking g about the entire package, and that includes the helmet and the padding work under the helmet.
 
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#34
You missed the point. How do we know whether the variance is limited? It is impossible to tell without knowing the original measurements. Those measurements can be extrapolated if it can be determined how much material was removed during restoration or how much oxidation took place while in the ground or how much wear the rings underwent during the armour's lifetime. Do you know how to work this out because I sure as hell don't.

It is worse in mail than any other type of armour. Any deviance in determining the measurements of a specific link is multiplied twenty to forty thousand times over an entire mail shirt.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
6,192
Planet Nine, Oregon
#35
I suppose a little change in a link's weight could mean a lot of weight adding up --as you state, but there must be some mail in good enough unrestored condition to get at least an accurate weight for a whole armour made from it, but the weight would only be accurate for that particular piece or type.
 
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#36
I suppose a little change in a link's weight could mean a lot of weight adding up --as you state, but there must be some mail in good enough unrestored condition to get at least an accurate weight for a whole armour made from it, but the weight would only be accurate for that particular piece or type.
I already said that the examples that can produce useful data are the ones that aren't subjected to any of the three conditions listed above. There are quite a lot but all of them date very late. There is nothing from the pre-Roman period to the Early Modern period except a few made from copper alloys.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#37
You missed the point. How do we know whether the variance is limited? It is impossible to tell without knowing the original measurements. Those measurements can be extrapolated if it can be determined how much material was removed during restoration or how much oxidation took place while in the ground or how much wear the rings underwent during the armour's lifetime. Do you know how to work this out because I sure as hell don't.

It is worse in mail than any other type of armour. Any deviance in determining the measurements of a specific link is multiplied twenty to forty thousand times over an entire mail shirt.
The loss would not be uniform in all the rings as you seem to assert. By looking at the different losses on the different rings, we can extrapolate what the original dimensions were.

Further, we have samples of mail from many centuries apart, from Roman times Ron early modern times.. To insist that the same among of loss from pieces of mail 1500 years apart.as you imply is absurd. Also, different samples of mail even rrom the same period will not all corrode exactly the same way as you claim. By analyzing the different pieces of mail we can get a good idea of what the initial dimensions were of the rings. You have provided no evidence that corrosions sustantially affected the overall weight of the armor as you claim.

You have provided no evidence that mail armor lossez 40% or some othrr larger percentage of its mass as you insistm. I have seen no evidence that a mail shirt that weights 10 kg was originally 20 kg as you seem to think. We have a lot of mail.samples in various states of preservation, and different periods, so.we do.have an idea of what the variation would be. Plus we can make new mail armo.as well. Yes, the precise amount of variation will very, but t it is up to you to provide evidence that it would make signiticant impact on the weight of the armor, and you have not done so.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#38
I already said that the examples that can produce useful data are the ones that aren't subjected to any of the three conditions listed above. There are quite a lot but all of them date very late. There is nothing from the pre-Roman period to the Early Modern period except a few made from copper alloys.

But we can say that if to the size patch of early modern mail weighs roughly the same as a similar size piece of medieval or Roman armor, it implies that not a lot of mass was loss on the older pieces of armor. The claim that even though the pieces of armor had similar weight now, but originally the ancient armor weighed 40% more would seem very unlikely.

And if the wire thickness of the early modern mail was similar to the medieval or Roman mail, it is less probable that the dimensions of the wire substantially changed over time and the rings were much thicker than if the change in the ring dimensions didn't change as much as Dan seems to think.

We have a number of samples in different states of preservation, and if the variation in mass and ring sizes were significant, we would be able to see it when comparing badly rusted pieces with better preserved pieces. The claim we have no idea whatever of what the variation would be is not true.
 

Similar History Discussions