p-armor-msg - 11/8/01

Period armor. Referances.

NOTE: See also the files: helmets-msg, shields-msg, swords-msg, warfare-msg, weapons-msg, armor-msg, chainmail-msg, coat-of-plates-msg, tournaments-art.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: rvd at bunker.UUCP (Robert Del Favero Jr.)
Date: 23 Aug 90 14:53:22 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company, Shelton, CT

Cariadoc described a method of padding a helmet with horsehair, but
disclaimed any relation to period practice.  In fact, his method
is not unlike one example I know of that's arguably period.

In the Trapp family armory in the castle at Cherbourg, Austria there is
a 14th century bascinet which retains a very old padding/suspension
system.  Although its exact date is not known, it seems likely that
it's "the real thing" for helmet padding (at least Maestro Roberto
thinks so, and that's good enough for me).  As I say, it's a sort of
padded suspension system consisting of four triangular pads filled with
horsehair (or foam if you don't have horsehair).  One side of each pad
is attached around the circumference of the helmet and the points of
the triangles are joined with a drawstring that allows some
adjustment.

Here's a crude drawing of the suspension system laid out flat:

            /\        /\        /\        /\     
           /  \      /  \      /  \      /  \  
          /    \    /    \    /    \    /    \ 
         /      \  /      \  /      \  /      \    
        /        \/        \/        \/        \
        ----------------------------------------
        |<------   circumference of helm ----->|

The bases of the triangles are sewed to a leather strip riveted into
the helmet,  and the tips are attached with the drawstring.  They are
adjusted so that the pads form a suspension system keeping the head
away from the sides of the helm. 

Maestro Roberto has padded several helmets this way, using canvas to
make the pads and filling them with shredded Ensolite foam (the
cream-colored sleeping pad foam).  They work well for fighting, though
the marshalls sometimes look askance.  Those of you who saw us in the
blanket merchant area at Pennsic (Gauntlets R Us) might have noticed
this system in use on a Spanish-style cabocet.

        Vittorio del Fabbro
        Myrkfaelinn in exile
        East Kingdom

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert V. Del Favero, Jr.            ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company 
rvd at clunker.uucp                     Shelton, Connecticut, USA
OR clunker!rvd at oliveb.atc.olivetti.com

From:    N6852 U14 
To:      All
13-Nov-90 09:58pm
Subject: Historic Armor Cleaning

WWIVNET: Snafu Software [618-234-2631] - Node 6852

Name: Ted (Ice Breaker) Kocot 

     What do you think grooms and pages were for?

     The methods of cleaning Medieval armor were many and varied. To polish
itthey used something not unlike our sandpaper. It would be a piece of cloth
orlight leather with a grit stuck to it with wax or some sort of glue like
therouge you put on a buffing wheel for going from that first stage of 
convertinga satin finish to a mirrored one. 
     A technique I've heard for cleaning mail is to put it in a barrel 
withsawdust, vinegar and a little sand, but I wouldn't try it with galvinized 
wireor unrivited mail. 
     I have heard two methods for rustproofing that are suposidly period. 
Onenvolves coating the piece in pitch. In tournements, the winner sometimes 
goteveryone's armor and you'd have to buy back your BLACK MAIL (or so I'veheard). The other method is to rub the grease from salt pork onto your
armor.This causes rust to form, but rather than being a soft flaky rust it is
a harddense rust. I inadvertantly did this to a helm once (I still don't know
how)and it seems to work - it turned a bread crust brown and then never got
anyworse nor did it leave your hands rust covered after you handled it.
     I've seen armor that was painted in museums, but I don't know if that was
 practicle or just for decorative purposed.
     I'd advise painting the inside with a good metal primer and spritzing
itdown with WD-40 every so often. "If they would have had it in the middle
ages,they would have used it!"

 * Origin: "Heraldy at it's Finest" (WWIVnet Gate) (HST) (1:379/15.0)

Dafydd Ap Rhys
Leslie DeGroff
Re: Hoisting Into The Saddle!
21 May 91 

 To all the Gentles on the Rialto, Greetings

        I have followed the discusion about armor weight with much
interest. I recently came upon a piece of data that might be of interest.

        I was reading _The Battle of Bosworth_ by Michael Bennett when I
came across an illustration of a set of full armor, which is described in
the caption as "German gothic war harness for man and horse, of the last
quarter of the fifteenth century." The armor is the "traditional" walking
plate.  It covers from head to toe, literal. The weight  (of the man's
armor only) is given as "just over 59 lbs."

        I have carried a 60 lb backback. I could move (and climb) quite
easily. If the weight had been as evenly distrubited as it would be with
armor, I could have gotten onto a horse ( except for the fact that I have
trouble mounting a horse without armor.)

                Yours in Service
                        Dafydd ap Rhys

Source: _The Battle of Bosworth_ Michael Bennett; Alan Sutton Publishing,
Gloucester. (1985) ISBN 0-86299-053-X

From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 22 Oct 91 03:47:28 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Everyone knows that the Saracens used light scimitars and the
crusaders used heavy broadswords. Actually, the curved sword does not
seem to have become common in the Middle East until about the 14th
century, well after the major crusades. As far as I can tell, both
sides used what we would call broadswords.

Caridoc

11 May 92 
From: kenm at maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University

In article <9205111325.AA20287 at emil.csd.uu.se> vader at emil.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes:
>
>Agreed. I have seen some authentic helms here, pig-faced bascinets
>and barrel helms. But most SCA helms are open-faced with grilles,
>which is necessary for safety, but makes them look like baseball
>implements.

	Mine original reaction to grill-faced helms was the same... *but*,
I've since looked closely at paintings of medieval *tournament* armour
(14th, 15th centuries) and that's what they're wearing... helms with
broad mesh faces.... and *wooden* swords.  Some of our armour that isn't
authentic combat armour is actually very close to authentic *tournament*
armour.

		....Cinaed de Moravia

Lord Cinaed de Moray
In residence in the lands
of Byron, Baron Rising Waters,
under the Coronet of the Ealdormere,
in the Midrealm.
-- 

grilled helms
12 May 92 
From: vader at emil.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Internet

Greetings from William de Corbie!

Cinead de Moray writes:

>Mine original reaction to grill-faced helms was the same... *but*,
>I've since looked closely at paintings of medieval *tournament* armour
>(14th, 15th centuries) and that's what they're wearing... helms with
>broad mesh faces.... and *wooden* swords. Some of our armour that isn't
>authentic combat armour is actually very close to authentic *tournament*
>armour.

I certainly am no expert on armor, but I have some nits to pick here:

In those late-period paintings I have seen, jousting knights occasionally
wear a kind of helm which appears to be round like a ball, with a visor
that shows vertical slits, sometimes reinforced with horizontal strips
of metal, somewhat remniscent of our grilles.

I am not saying that this was your purpose, Cinead, but as defense of
the authenticity of grilled SCA helms, this is poor.

a) Most SCA grilled helms are supposed to depict Celtic, Anglo-Saxon,
   Norman or Viking open-faced helms from AD 600 - 1100. They have
   nothing to do with late-period jousting armor. You cannot say "This 
   is an authentic 10th century helm with an authentic 15th century
   grille, so the helm is authentic..."

b) The late-period grilled helms appear not to have the type of solid
   bars seen on SCA helms, but rather strips of plate metal riveted
   across a visor with sawed-out vertical slits. At least in the
   paintings I have seen, which I may of course have misinterpreted...

c) The late-period grilled helms, if I am not mistaken, belong with
   a very special type of jousting armor. In the renaissance, they
   developed various types of armor that was reinforced to take the
   hits of lances, some even had a metal shield fixed on the left
   side of the breast, as part of the armor. I doubt whether those
   suits were ever used in real combat, or on foot. Anyway, are those
   the kind of tournaments we are depicting here? Methinks not.

I am certainly not out to ban grilles -- they are necessary for safety,
and they may even be period, though hardly typical of medieval armor.
My point in the original posting was that they don't look medieval,
they look like baseball helms (I know nothing about baseball, but
I remember seeing the guys who are supposed to catch the ball wearing
a grilled helm, or perhaps it was in American rugby (which you guys
erroneously call "football") that I saw these grilled thingies...)

Grumble grumble

William

grilled helms
13 May 92 
From: mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

I've seen a rather tiny reproduction of a German altarpiece (? - not sure now,
but it was a pictorial representation) from about 1380 showing a bascinet
with grilled visor hinged from the top.  The outline was similar to the
plate visor and not identical to the standard MidRealm grilled basicnet
visor, but it was not too far away.  It was certainly unique.  It did
appear to either use round or square bars, the picture could not
be interepreted clearly either way.

The great bascinet which appeared at about that time is often shown with
a barred visor, and was apparently often used in tourneys.  Barred visors
were used in the club tourneys that started in the Middle Ages and continued
until fairly recently in Italy; I suppose one could argue that these helmets
represented an oral tradition.

-- 

Mike Squires (mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)     812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu          546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

grilled helms
13 May 92 
From: aryk at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: University of Toronto

In article <1992May13.154644.8027 at pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt at PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
>The stuff from Styria is all late and post-period, but there are helms
>with what I would consider face grills.  Some of the helms set up this
>way aren't jousting gear.  Interestingly--the bars aren't continuous
>in both directions, but consist of verticle bars with short extensions
>to either side.  The net effect appears to be to limit the maximum
>size hole in front of the face.  Again--I agree on the point about
>early-vs-late, and these are late.

Yes, Hal, those were not jousting gear.  Burgeonets like the ones in the Graz
armoury exhibition were frequently made with barred faces.  Sometimes they
were worn with bevors to cover the grill.  These were certainly worn before
1600 by German heavy horse, including Schwarzreiter pistoleers.  I have one
that is SCA-legal; and I've seen others.  There are examples of period grilled
vizors; but if you are going to blow money on a helmet, it seems worthwhile
to make sure that you are getting a helmet with a vizor appropriate to the
helmet, and to the rest of your armour.  Wearing my grilled-face burgeonet
with chain mail and a Norman surcote would be kinda pointless.

Aryk Nusbacher

P.S.   The "Knight Shirts" they were selling were nifty, too.

Basket Faced Helms
15 May 92 
From: bnostran at ds5000.crc.northeastern.edu (Barbara Nostrand)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston MA. USA 02190

Gentles!

There have been several postings recently which assert that basket faced
helms are OOP and resemble the equipment worn by baseball catchers.

While it is true that the faces of these helms do resemble the masks
worn by baseball catchers, it is not true that this visage makes these
helms OOP.  Helmets with similar face construction can be found in
the following illustrations:

	15th c. illustration of a scene in Roman history portraying a
		joust with axes (BL MS Harley 4375,f.171v)

	15th c. illustration to Rene d'Anjou, Treatise on the form and
		devising of a tournament (Bibliotheque Nationale
		MS 2693 ff. 47v-48)

	15th c.	illustration of the dukes of Brittany and Bourbon
		fighting with swords on horseback.
		(ibid. MS 2693 ff.32v-33)

	15th c. the king-at-arms about to start a tournament
		(ibid. MS 2693 ff.62v-63)

	15th c.	the melee with swords
		(ibid. MS 2692 f.67v-68)

Now, it is important to notice that the basket work depicted in these
illustrations appears to be made from bar stock instead of round stock.
However, I consider this to be a minor point.  Also, I think that
flattening the bars of a basket faced helmet is within the technological
capabilities of most SCA armourers.  (However, please understand that
I am not asserting that the use of round stock is OOP.  Just that I do
not have documentation for it.)

A note to these wise, unless you can document when something was 
invented, discovered or introduced or can in the case of art
document a countervening aesthetic, it is dangerous to boldly
claim that something is OOP.

					Your Humble Servant
					Solveig Throndardottir

Basket Faced Helms
15 May 92 
From: shick at europa.asd.contel.COM (steve hick)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Internet

Greetings all,

One of the earliest fencing manuals of all, Fiori dei Liberi's Flos 
Duellatorum, inludes illustrations of combat in armor which shows great 
bascinets with barred visors.  These are shown interchangably with visors with 
very narrow occulariums which are very much as expected.  These are obviously 
intended for mortal combat, as is clearly shown in some of the figures.

Strykar

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU
Subject: Horned Helmets
Organization: New York University, NY, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 05:07:38 GMT

Just wanted to ruffle some feathers.
Someone had mentioned horned helmets, this received one or two responses
and no controversy. What is a Jew if not controversial?
Let's begin with early Celts -
A illustration dating nto 1st or 2nd century BCE found in "Greece and
Rome at War" by I forget Who, shows a Celtic military regiment aligned
and ready for battle. Helmets worn include the usual "boat sail " shape,
animal heads, full statues of animals, and horns (some of them real big!).
Continuing in Europe - 
We come to 13th and 14th cent. CE in Germany and sometimes England where
great helms were decorated with horns made of tubes of soft leather. These
were often the length of a man's arm. (sorry I forgot the name of the book,
my aprentice is reading it. Dark Mage, if youre there, please post citation).
A little further afield -
India and Persia 15th - 18th cent. (may be earlier beggining and later end)
Helmets oft bear horns made of steel about the size of a man's hand.
Japan , starting 14th? cent.
One can find almost every sort of crest on a Japanese helmet, I've seen
bull horns.
The plains of America, end date late 19th. cent.
Buffalo horns were often worn on a war bonnet.

About the only rgroup who almost definitely did not wear horns are the 
Vikings. My guess is that the horned helmet immage comes from the Nazi
operas (this is athematically accurate use of the word) of Wagner (cursed be
his memory and that of his descendants!) wherre the nationalist movement
attempted to link the Vikings to the Aryans of India (see comment on Indian
helmets above).

May the Everliving one hold you ever in the palm of His hand!
Nahum benGershom haZev of Kuzaristan  <FNKLSHTN at acfcluster.nyu.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Horned Helmets
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:06:10 GMT

In article <C57A8q.Htx at cmcl2.nyu.edu> fnklshtn at ACF1.NYU.EDU writes:

I think that horned helmets or crested helmets were worn in combat only when 
the dominant weapon style was a thusting or thrown spear and swords were
used in a chopping motion rather than a horizontal motion.

>Let's begin with early Celts -
>A illustration dating nto 1st or 2nd century BCE found in "Greece and
>Rome at War" by I forget Who, shows a Celtic military regiment aligned
>and ready for battle. Helmets worn include the usual "boat sail " shape,
>animal heads, full statues of animals, and horns (some of them real big!).

	True enough. However, some of the really fancy ones were worn by
chiefs who would be at the back of the formation, directing things. The
dominant weapon was the spear either thrown or weilded from chariot.

>We come to 13th and 14th cent. CE in Germany and sometimes England where
>great helms were decorated with horns made of tubes of soft leather. These
>were often the length of a man's arm. 

	Also true, from the 12th-15th c. very elaborate crests were used
in tourneys. However, they seem to have been removed (and at least 1
14th C. great heume has lugs for mounting crests) for battle. Once
again, the dominant weapon was the spear.

>Japan , starting 14th? cent.
>One can find almost every sort of crest on a Japanese helmet, I've seen
>bull horns.
	
	In the front, low down. so they wouldn't interfere with sword
work.

>The plains of America, end date late 19th. cent.
>Buffalo horns were often worn on a war bonnet.

Umm, I'm not up on my Amerinds, but I think that the buffalo horned
headgear was a ceremonial shaman's cap. I am not certain that it was
worn into battle. I am also not certain that the "warbonnet" was either.
But I'm not sure.

	Lothar \|/
              0

From: gdaub at mcis.messiah.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Metal in period
Date: 11 Oct 1993 09:09:10 -0400
Organization: The Internet

Parlan MacGillivray asked about the gauges of metal in period armor.  These
figures are from _Longbow: A social and military history_.  The figures are
in inches.  I have supplied the approximate gauges (I hope they are right).

                                                approx
                                      inches    gauge
   Bascinet
      1380, German:  top front         .150       7
                     visor snout       .060      14
      1370, German:  top front         .096      11
                     sides             .050      16
      1370, Italian: top front         .120       9
                     back              .060      14
      1370, Italian: top front         .180       5
                     sides and back    .100      10
   Cuisses
      1390, Italian: thickest parts    .070      13
                     thinnest parts    .050      16

   Breastplate
      1470, Italian: thickest          .110       9
                     thinnest          .080      12

   The 14 to 16 gauge plate that is used a lot in the SCA is about equal to
the thinnest parts of these period armors.  If anything, we should be using
heavier metal, not lighter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Gregory Daub                      |  Messiah College                   |
|  Administrative Programmer         |  Computing Services                |
|  Internet: gdaub at mcis.messiah.edu  |  Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 3 Nov 1993 03:24:54 GMT
Organization: Cornell Law School

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

> Coats-of-plate and lamellar armor were both found in the Wisby
> digs, I believe that's 11th C. ? 

I don't. Someone whose library is closer to him than mine is to me at the
moment will probably post the exact date, but I am pretty sure it is a good
deal later than the 11th century.

Dennis's basic point, however, is correct. There are lamellae from
pre-Viking age Scandinavia and lots of other places. Roman armor was
largely plate, loosely defined--i.e. substantial pieces of sheet metal
rather than mail.

Tracker writes:

" Take thou iron, a hammer of goode weighte, and draw plate."

The drawing of iron and steel wire starts long after mail--indeed, I think
after plate has largely replaced mail. It is not known when wire drawing of
any sort was invented--there is no clear evidence for it in classical
antiquity, and it is described by Theophilus c. 1100. But drawing iron and
steel is much more difficult than drawing silver and gold, and so developed
later. Virtually all period mail is forged, not drawn.

"In days of olde a suit of maille took a craftsman perhaps but a day or
two, the time being lesser as the work of apprentices grew greater in
contribution."

Do you have any evidence for this estimate? Remember that every link was
rivetted--and you are talking about many thousands of links. I would have
guessed months, not days. Think about how long it takes SCA armorers to
make a hauberk--starting with wire and without rivetting it.

Dorothea argues that mail was preferred because of the difficulty of
forging large pieces of iron. But the Romans and the Greeks did it.
Besides, lamellar only requires pieces a few inches on a side.

Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or
plate of one sort or another. 

DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 3 Nov 1993 05:58:27 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:

>The drawing of iron and steel wire starts long after mail--indeed, I think
>after plate has largely replaced mail. It is not known when wire drawing of
>any sort was invented--there is no clear evidence for it in classical
>antiquity, and it is described by Theophilus c. 1100. But drawing iron and
>steel is much more difficult than drawing silver and gold, and so developed
>later. Virtually all period mail is forged, not drawn.

 (Dropping out of period-ness for a sec..)

Ductile (soft) iron is relatively easy to draw. The quenching process
is what hardened it in period. A look at some of the (few) period
woodcuts which demonstrate the maker of mail at his craft show draw
plates in the background, and drawing pliers. One doesn't forge with
drawing pliers and a plate. The draw plate goes back a long way, and
there have been hypotheses bantered about that before the draw plate
the wire was split-hammered and then rough-formed round, wrapped, then
cut. 

>"In days of olde a suit of maille took a craftsman perhaps but a day or
>two, the time being lesser as the work of apprentices grew greater in
>contribution."
>
>Do you have any evidence for this estimate? Remember that every link was
>rivetted--and you are talking about many thousands of links. I would have
>guessed months, not days. Think about how long it takes SCA armorers to
>make a hauberk--starting with wire and without rivetting it.

 With links made, I can complete a non-riveted hauberk in one weekend
of solid work. That is my time frame estimate, for a modern basis. You
don't rivet each link as you put it on... that would be insanely
ineffective. Using the 4-in-1, open/closed ring method, you pre-rivet
quite a number of the links. Or, rather, your apprentice does. Then
you have only a fraction of the number to rivet when you're ready to
finish up the hauberk. Practice makes anything easy. Well, except
spontaneous self-combustion... 

 Mathematics: If you can put two rings (one open, one closed) onto a
sheet of mail every 8 seconds, you average about 14 rings per minute.
That's 840 links per hour. An 'average' short hauberk is about 24,000
links. That's under 30 hours... mind you, that's the attaching time,
not including quenching, final riveting.. but with ductile rivets, all
you do is smash them flat, then quench when they're all in place. 

>Dorothea argues that mail was preferred because of the difficulty of
>forging large pieces of iron. But the Romans and the Greeks did it.
>Besides, lamellar only requires pieces a few inches on a side.

 The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers
of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,
since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of
softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

>Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or
>plate of one sort or another. 

 For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and
for many people it's a lot cheaper. :) 

 Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander
around with you and show you the period examples that I'm taking all
this from. T'would beat sitting around on my arse reading class
notes any day of the week. :)

-Tracker

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 3 Nov 1993 13:34:55 GMT
Organization: Cornell Law School

The Renegade Ranger, replying to my reply, wrote:

> Ductile (soft) iron is relatively easy to draw. The quenching process
> is what hardened it in period. A look at some of the (few) period
> woodcuts which demonstrate the maker of mail at his craft show draw
> plates in the background, and drawing pliers. One doesn't forge with
> drawing pliers and a plate.

I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are
fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in
Ithaca for the year, but I think if you check any of the standard sources
you will find that they confirm my claim--that the use of drawn wire for
mail occurs after the shift to plate armor, not before.

>  With links made, I can complete a non-riveted hauberk in one weekend
> of solid work. That is my time frame estimate, for a modern basis. You
> don't rivet each link as you put it on... that would be insanely
> ineffective. Using the 4-in-1, open/closed ring method, you pre-rivet
> quite a number of the links. Or, rather, your apprentice does. Then
> you have only a fraction of the number to rivet when you're ready to
> finish up the hauberk. 

I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think
you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you
think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four
seconds, starting with an ingot? 

>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers
> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,
> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of
> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that
twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make
plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the
distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you
have any evidence for that argument?

> >Or in other words, I don't know why people used mail instead of lamellar or
> >plate of one sort or another. (me)
> 
>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and
> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :) 

Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that
your short hauberk (which, as I recall, would be 15-40 lbs) corresponds to
only a part of a suit of plate--roughly back and breast (which I think
would be down in the same weight range). I would think that by the time you
expand your mail to a full, long sleeved hauberk plus pants, the weight
would be comparable to full plate (not tilting armor, of course). I'll
check with Master Roberto next time I see him, for opinions on weight,
time, and why plate came in so late.

David/Cariadoc
DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

From: tracker at bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 4 Nov 1993 19:45:34 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Responses to two postings! (Figured I'd save bandwidth.. well, sort
of)

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:
>
>I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are
>fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in

 According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the
armourer and his craft), they are circa 11th C.

[timimg stuff deleted]
>I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think
>you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you
>think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four
>seconds, starting with an ingot? 

 You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. You do
_not_ rivet each open link as you put it together. That's silly. You
prepare the rivets and rivet all the open rings at once. Riveting them
individually would be like cutting one link at a timne, then attaching
it. You cut a bunch, then go from there. Repetition vs task-switching.
And I wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no.
Since I can cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster (I cut
several at once using good cutters), a cold chisel going through soft
iron would easily be as fast in skilled hands. Remember, all the iron
is soft until you quench it. You do not have to draw a bead on the
rivets, or anything like that. Shove them in place, one shot, move on
to the next. When you dunk the shirt to quench it, you harden the
rivets.

>>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers
>> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,
>> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of
>> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.
>
>But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that
>twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make
>plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the
>distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you
>have any evidence for that argument?

 That's not what I'm arguing. Romans did not make tempered steel
armour of comparable quality to that of the Gothic and later periods.
They, in many cases, did not use iron at all, when bronze was easier
to play with. Twelfth century armorers were able to create a tempered
steel which was more effective against the weapons. Bronze versus
hardened steel is not a contest, nor is untempered steel versus
tempered steel weaponry. Since the Romans could not uniformly temper
steel in flat plates from blooms, maille (which was quenched and
therefore hardened)(quenching is much easier than tempering a flat
plate to unifrom hardness) was tougher. Since the longbow was not in
the developed use of say, Agincort, all they really wanted was better
protection against the steel weaponry, which was slightly (though not
much) easier to temper evenly, since it was a smaller amount of metal.

 Note that the Romans _could_ make steel/iron plates, the lorica
segmantata is witness to that. But it was not a _tempered_ armor.

>>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and
>> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :) 
>
>Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that

 Full gothic plate weighs approximately 75 pounds for a 5'10"
individual, including vambraces, et.al. A long mail hauberk, with
rings of an inside diameter slightly larger than your average crayon,
weighs in at about 40 pounds, long sleeves and all. Toss in light
protection for legs, and you're up to about 50.  
 
 Prices? Check out FFoulkes' inventory listing of the Armouries at the
Tower, including wages paid, and such like that. In there you will
find prices for quite a number of things. 

 Want a better example? Ask someone in the SCA how much they would
charge you for a long hauberk, with sleeves and coif. Now ask someone
else how much it would be for a suit of Gothic plate, with all pieces
sans helmet. Not plastic armour, mind you, full steel, elbow cops,
pauldrons, the works. If you can find someone who will make a good
suit of the latter for the price of the former, PLEASE send me their
address.. I would be forever greatful. (Heck, I'm serious, I've always
wantd a suit of plate..  :)

 As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes
in mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a
breastplate? Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix
their own maille. 

In article <2b9rjt$i3j at cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn at AXP3.ACF.NYU.EDU writes:

>Wait a minute. All I've seen seems to indicate that armour was essentialy the
>same as our cold rolled steel with a small number of the very late stuff being
>case hardened. Nothing about tempering.

 Nopers, not the same. At least, not normally. There are, as always,
exceptions in quality, but many of them were done by mistake, and not
as a result of scientific tempering as was done in later periods. 

>You have something that says otherwise?

 Yuppers.. fragments of a Lorica Segmantata taken from the excavation
at Dura-Europos. All the 'tempering' of them is just the result of
them being bashed into plates.

>> Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander
>
>Cool! Which museum? Do you work there? Can you get access to the stuff?

Higgins Armory Museum, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ed. Staff/Gallery
Interpreter/Outreach program staff. Yes. :) (Though not as much of the
last one as I'd like... _you_ go ahead and tell the curator you want
to play with the gold-edged close helm... _I_ value my life. ;)

Blatant plug (Aoogah! Aoogah!): If you're anywhere near Boston, it's
pretty nifty. Solely dedicated to Arms and Armor, which makes it the
only one on this side of the Mississippi (Someone said anywhere in the
US, but I could swear there's one or two out west-ish...) (And the Met
doesn't count, they've got other stuff. ;) Current Collection.. I'd
say around 65 suits displayed, plus several hundred weapons, other
such fun accoutrements. Lots more in storage... which is normally
off-limits.. sniff, sniff.. though I got to root around for 3 hours
once during training. Grin.

Poof!

-Tracker

From: cav at bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 5 Nov 1993 16:24:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <2bbm4u$u3 at bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker at bigwpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger) writes:
|> 
|> Responses to two postings! (Figured I'd save bandwidth.. well, sort
|> of)
|> 
|> DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:
|> >
|> >I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are
|> >fourteenth or fifteenth century. My library is in Chicago and I am in
|> 
|>  According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the
|> armourer and his craft), they are circa 11th C.
|> 
|> [timimg stuff deleted]
|> >I think, if you calculate it out, the fraction is one half. Do you think
|> >you can put in two rings and rivet one of them every eight seconds? Do you
|> >think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring every four
|> >seconds, starting with an ingot? 
|> 
|>  You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. You do
|> _not_ rivet each open link as you put it together. That's silly. You
|> prepare the rivets and rivet all the open rings at once. Riveting them
|> individually would be like cutting one link at a timne, then attaching
|> it. You cut a bunch, then go from there. Repetition vs task-switching.
|> And I wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no.
|> Since I can cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster (I cut
|> several at once using good cutters), a cold chisel going through soft
|> iron would easily be as fast in skilled hands. Remember, all the iron
|> is soft until you quench it. You do not have to draw a bead on the

Uh, sorry, but I believe that all iron is soft *period*.  Quenching does
NOT harden iron to any appreciable degree.  The iron must be alloyed with
a minimum amount of carbon for quenching to harden it.  Iron that has been
alloyed with carbon is called steel. Even mild steel
remains largely unaffected by quenching.  This may sound like nit picking,
but you're speaking with a certain degree of authority, and I'd hate for
someone to come away with misconceptions about the terminology.  For the
shirt to be hardenable, the iron would have to have been carburized at some point.  This could theoretically be done after the shirt
is made.  Even if the quenching was performed in oil or some other carbon
containing bath, I doubt that the amount of carburization that would occur
would be enough to convert wrought iron to (hardenable) steel.  In any case,
changing the carbon content of the iron/steel is not typically performed in this
way (to my knowledge).  Significant carburization would require prolonged
exposure to carbon at high temperatures (preferably in the absense of oxygen).

Do you have any evidence that the iron used for mail shirts was ever
carburized/hardened?  (I'd be really interested to know if they did this)

|> rivets, or anything like that. Shove them in place, one shot, move on
|> to the next. When you dunk the shirt to quench it, you harden the
|> rivets.
|> 
|> >>  The romans did not temper the steel in the same way as the armourers
|> >> of the Gothic period and later. Dorothea is correct in her assessment,
|> >> since the plates you refer to the romans making were generally of
|> >> softer metals, and definitely not armour-quality steel.

Probably just wrought iron in the case of Lorica Segmentata.

|> >
|> >But mail is being used long before the Gothic period. Are you arguing that
|> >twelfth century armorers could make mail out of steel but could only make
|> >plate out of iron (for simplicity, I am ignoring the imprecision of the
|> >distinction--iron and steel are not one well defined thing each)? Do you
|> >have any evidence for that argument?
|> 
|>  That's not what I'm arguing. Romans did not make tempered steel
|> armour of comparable quality to that of the Gothic and later periods.
|> They, in many cases, did not use iron at all, when bronze was easier
|> to play with. Twelfth century armorers were able to create a tempered
|> steel which was more effective against the weapons. Bronze versus
|> hardened steel is not a contest, nor is untempered steel versus
|> tempered steel weaponry. Since the Romans could not uniformly temper
|> steel in flat plates from blooms, maille (which was quenched and
|> therefore hardened)(quenching is much easier than tempering a flat

I'm not sure you are using the terminology correctly.  Tempering is a 
process of *softening* a piece that has been hardened (by quenching)
ie. you are tempering the hardness to prevent cracking.

Steel (alloy of iron and carbon) can exist in several different crystaline
forms.  With higher carbon steels, the crystaline structure is altered
radically when it is heated beyond the 'critical' temperature.  If allowed
to cool slowly, the crystaline structure reverts to it's normal (soft)
morphology.  If you cool it quickly (quenching), the structure is locked
in the hard form.  This is a very simplified description without getting
into the different structures involved (which I always have to look up
anyway).  High carbon steels hardened in this manner will be VERY hard,
but also VERY brittle, often to the point of being useless.  In order to
soften the steel a little to make it useable, you 'draw the temper'.
To do this you reheat the steel (the degree to which it is heated
depends on the purpose to which it will be put - it is judged by the
colour of surface oxides).  When the desired amount of temper is drawn,
the piece is rapidly cooled (quenched) to prevent further softening.

|> plate to unifrom hardness) was tougher. Since the longbow was not in
|> the developed use of say, Agincort, all they really wanted was better
|> protection against the steel weaponry, which was slightly (though not
|> much) easier to temper evenly, since it was a smaller amount of metal.
|> 
|>  Note that the Romans _could_ make steel/iron plates, the lorica
|> segmantata is witness to that. But it was not a _tempered_ armor.
|> 
|> >>  For the same reason some people use plastic armour; it's lighter, and
|> >> for many people it's a lot cheaper. :) 
|> >
|> >Do you have evidence on price? Or, for that matter, weight? Remember that
|> 
|>  Full gothic plate weighs approximately 75 pounds for a 5'10"
|> individual, including vambraces, et.al. A long mail hauberk, with
|> rings of an inside diameter slightly larger than your average crayon,
|> weighs in at about 40 pounds, long sleeves and all. Toss in light
|> protection for legs, and you're up to about 50.  
|>  
|>  Prices? Check out FFoulkes' inventory listing of the Armouries at the
|> Tower, including wages paid, and such like that. In there you will
|> find prices for quite a number of things. 
|> 
|>  Want a better example? Ask someone in the SCA how much they would
|> charge you for a long hauberk, with sleeves and coif. Now ask someone
|> else how much it would be for a suit of Gothic plate, with all pieces
|> sans helmet. Not plastic armour, mind you, full steel, elbow cops,
|> pauldrons, the works. If you can find someone who will make a good
|> suit of the latter for the price of the former, PLEASE send me their
|> address.. I would be forever greatful. (Heck, I'm serious, I've always
|> wantd a suit of plate..  :)
|> 
|>  As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes
|> in mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a
|> breastplate? Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix
|> their own maille. 

No argument there.  If you're on campaign, far from home/armourers, these
things are important considerations (until you start bringing armourers
along in your entourage).  

|> 
|> 
|> 
|> In article <2b9rjt$i3j at cmcl2.NYU.EDU> fnklshtn at AXP3.ACF.NYU.EDU writes:
|> 
|> >Wait a minute. All I've seen seems to indicate that armour was essentialy the
|> >same as our cold rolled steel with a small number of the very late stuff being
|> >case hardened. Nothing about tempering.

Tempering *softens* steel.  That's why it's called that.  The term is commonly
misused to mean hardening (until I learned a bit about Blacksmithing, I did so
too). To case harden a piece, you pack it in a sealed
iron box with carbon powder and bake it in a furnace for a while.  The depth
of the carbon absorbtion depends on temp/duration of the baking.  When it
comes out, you heat it up to the critical temperture and quench it to harden
the outer carburized layer of the piece.  Since the core is still soft iron,
you may not have to temper it to prevent reduce brittleness and prevent cracking.

|> 
|>  Nopers, not the same. At least, not normally. There are, as always,
|> exceptions in quality, but many of them were done by mistake, and not
|> as a result of scientific tempering as was done in later periods. 
|> 
|> >You have something that says otherwise?
|> 
|>  Yuppers.. fragments of a Lorica Segmantata taken from the excavation
|> at Dura-Europos. All the 'tempering' of them is just the result of
|> them being bashed into plates.
|> 

In the case of Roman era gear, I don't know.  It wouldn't surprise me if
the lorica was simply wrought iron since I'm under the impression that
they were mass produced.  
In early period, iron plates were certainly being made, for helmets if
for nothing else.  Iron was being carburized into steel for sword edges,
knife edges, etc.  I can think of no technical reason for them not being
able to make hardened steel plate armour.  If they did carburize/harden
mail (don't know for sure one way or t'other), they could certainly carburize/
harden plates.  Was it considered practical?  Was it deemed worth the
expense?  I think that would be the important question.  How closely does
the widespread proliferation of plate armour coincide with the advent
of water driven trip hammers?  

|> >> Swing by the museum sometime, and I'll be more than happy to wander
|> >
|> >Cool! Which museum? Do you work there? Can you get access to the stuff?
|> 
|> Higgins Armory Museum, in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ed. Staff/Gallery
|> Interpreter/Outreach program staff. Yes. :) (Though not as much of the
|> last one as I'd like... _you_ go ahead and tell the curator you want
|> to play with the gold-edged close helm... _I_ value my life. ;)
|> 
|> Blatant plug (Aoogah! Aoogah!): If you're anywhere near Boston, it's
|> pretty nifty. Solely dedicated to Arms and Armor, which makes it the
|> only one on this side of the Mississippi (Someone said anywhere in the
|> US, but I could swear there's one or two out west-ish...) (And the Met
|> doesn't count, they've got other stuff. ;) Current Collection.. I'd
|> say around 65 suits displayed, plus several hundred weapons, other
|> such fun accoutrements. Lots more in storage... which is normally
|> off-limits.. sniff, sniff.. though I got to root around for 3 hours
|> once during training. Grin.
|> 
|> 
|> Poof!
|> 
|> -Tracker
|> 

Cheers, Balderik

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 8 Nov 1993 23:44:19 GMT
Organization: Cornell Law School

I wrote, responding to an earlier posting by Tracker, in which he described
woodcuts showing armor makers with draw plates:

"I think if you check the dates of those woodcuts, you will find they are
fourteenth or fifteenth century."

Tracker replied:

"According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the armourer and
his craft), they are circa 11th C."

It is unclear from this whether you are referring to one book (_The
Armourer and his Craft_, by Ffoulkes) or two books (that one and Ffoulkes'
other book, _Arms and Armour_). I have neither here, but Robert Macpherson
(Master Roberto di Milano) has both, so I asked him to look through them.
According to him, there is only one woodcut (in _The Armourer and his
Craft_) that has anything to do with mail making. It does not show a draw
plate and is dated to the sixteenth century (1590 according to the book,
but Mac thinks it is really from 1540). There is nothing in either book
that comes anywhere close to your description. There is a figure showing
wire being wound to make mail, but it is a drawing by the author, not a
period picture.

Furthermore, Ffoulkes says (p. 44 in the Dover edition of _The Armourer and
his Craft_) that mail was at first not made from drawn wire, that the
invention of the drawing of wire is credited to Rudolph of Nurenburg in the
mid 14th century, but that there is evidence that two corporations of wire
drawers (he does not specify what kind of wire they were drawing, and may
not have considered the possibility that they were drawing silver and gold
wire for jewelry rather than iron for mail) existed by 1260.

Or in other words, the evidence you cited does not seem to exist and the
authority you cited agrees with my claim (that the use of drawn wire for
making mail only comes in after plate has begun to replace mail) not yours
(that mail was made from drawn wire from an early date). Perhaps you could
check your source again, and describe exactly where the woodcuts you
describe are to be found in the book. I would find 11th century woodcuts
from Europe about as surprising as evidence of the drawing of iron wire in
the 11th century, so if you have both ...   .

Incidentally, Mac says there is an article by Cyril Stanley Smith in Volume
1 nbr 1 of "Technology and Culture" describing the results of a
metallurgical analysis of various links of mail. Mac's memory is that some
but not very many turned out to be from drawn wire, with more from strips
cut from sheet, in some cases then rounded. He thinks the links were not
dated. You might want to check the article--Mac was going by memory on it.

I wrote:

"Do you think you (or your apprentice) can forge at the rate of a ring
every four seconds, starting with an ingot?"

Tracker replied: 

"You seem to have missed the paragraph surrounding that one. ... And I
wasn't talking about forging... quenching, yes, forging, no. Since I can
cut a ring off a coil every second, or faster ..."

I don't think I missed anything. I was talking about the time to forge the
links from an ingot since, as I had maintained (and still maintain--see
above), they did not have drawn iron wire to make their links out of. So
you start with an ingot, make that into sheet (I suspect by forging in the
11th century--when did rollers come in?), cut the sheet into strips,
perhaps round the strips either with a hammer or by tumbling, make the
strips into coils--and are now ready to start the process you described.

 Tracker also wrote:

"As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes in
mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a breastplate?
Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix their own maille."

This applies to plate vs mail but not to lamellar vs mail--which is another
part of the same puzzle, since lamellar exists at the time when mail is
dominant. 

Tracker also, responding to my question about relative price of mail and
plate, refers to inventories from the tower cited by Ffoulkes. Inventories
from when? I would expect the relative price of mail to be a good deal
lower after they started drawing iron wire, for the reasons discussed
above.

David/Cariadoc
DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: gregsta at microsoft.com (Gregory Stapleton)
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 16:52:13 GMT

The Wisby dig is definately 11 Century A.D.  Just checked 3 different sources.

My 2-cents worth.

Gawaine Kilgore

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 20:49:30 GMT

In article <CG8HJ2.v1 at microsoft.com> gregsta at microsoft.com (Gregory Stapleton) writes:

>The Wisby dig is definately 11 Century A.D.  Just checked 3 different sources.
>

	Then your books are wrong. The battle of Visby was fought
between the Gottlanders and the Danes in 1389 near the city of Visby.
This doesn't mean that there might not have been earlier battles near
the same town, but the battle that produced all the skeletal remains and
bits of armor is DEFINATELY late 14th c. That's the reason that it
appears in books on 14th c. armor, rather than books on 11th c. armor. 
	    
	 Lothar \|/
		 0

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 11 Nov 1993 15:57:04 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman) writes:
>Tracker replied:
>
>"According to the caption (this is from Ffoulkes' book and the armourer and
>his craft), they are circa 11th C."

 Today's lesson: GO to the primary source. This is directed at me, not
Cariadoc. I did indeed check the book, and you are indeed correct.
I've since thrown out the mislabeled photocopy that said at the bottom
that it was a) from Ffoulkes' book and b) from the 11th c. I'm
certainly now in agreement as to the non-presence of it in Ffoulkes,
and since I have nothing that says otherwise, I won't dispute the
mention you made earlier of the dates of the plates.

>Incidentally, Mac says there is an article by Cyril Stanley Smith in Volume
>1 nbr 1 of "Technology and Culture" describing the results of a
>metallurgical analysis of various links of mail. Mac's memory is that some
>but not very many turned out to be from drawn wire, with more from strips
>cut from sheet, in some cases then rounded. He thinks the links were not
>dated. You might want to check the article--Mac was going by memory on it.

 Hmm, that would be interesting..  I'll check the consortium library
to see if I can find the article. There are definitely a number of
mail examples that I've seen that would be in agreement with this
theory. It's reasonably easy (I say reasonably, but my own attempts
wouldn't even come close...) to pound a small flate plate of uneven
structure (ie, a generic plate), and that would provide a base surface
to cut the strips from. It would be interesting to find out what
percentage were made in what method in the different periods, and
especially what dates they came into existance. It figures that the
one time that we'd like to see records from was one of the least
documented periods.. ah, the Dark ages. 

>"As has been mentioned, it is also much less costly to make mistakes in
>mail, or to repair it. How can your average soldier repair a breastplate?
>Give them two pliers and a bag of rings, they can fix their own maille."
>
>This applies to plate vs mail but not to lamellar vs mail--which is another
>part of the same puzzle, since lamellar exists at the time when mail is
>dominant. 

 Now this is definitely a puzzle. Lamellar armor was prominent, as far
as I've been able to tell, throughout the same period of mail. The
Romans, with the Lorica Hamata, used lamellar and maille
simultaneously for different troops. Small plates would be easy enough
to replace in the field.. the only reason I can think of for the
dominance of mail is better protection/weight ratio, but I have no
comparisons to base it on at the moment. Maille was very expensive to
produce, so why bother producing it if lamellar armors gave equivalent
protection? 

 If anyone knows of any good research along these lines, especially
technical articles or entries in a reputable book, I would be
extremely greatful for being directed towards them/it. There's a
(large) set of books written by either Ffoulkes or Laking (If memory
serves) that deals with quite a bit of this. It was published in
England, at the turn of the century. Unfortunately I don't have access
to it anymore, and didn't take enough notes when I did. If anyone
knows specifically the name of the series, I'd love to get that as
well. (All these requests..)

>Tracker also, responding to my question about relative price of mail and
>plate, refers to inventories from the tower cited by Ffoulkes. Inventories
>from when? I would expect the relative price of mail to be a good deal
>lower after they started drawing iron wire, for the reasons discussed
>above.

 Hmm, didn't check. Silly me. It would definitely be lower, but the
skill that's necessary for making a good hardened suit of plate is
necessary throughout the entire period of manufacture; from
measuring/tailoring, basic shaping, etc., all the way to the finished
product, with the exception of the finishing done by an artisan, if
any. Granted this does not hold true in later industrialzed periods,
such as the die-stamped Napoleonic breastplate I have, but in earlier
periods it required skill throughout. For making maille, using your
example of cutting strips and then shaping into wire, you would need
less skill, as it is more repetitive. Any apprentice or n'er-do-well
(even I) could join rings in a 4-in-1 pattern to be rivetted later by
a real craftsman, freeing up more of the mail-maker's time to make
more links or to rivet 'finished' suits. Arguably, the apprentice to
an armourer making plate could perform rough shaping, but even that
requires more skilled help than the mere linking (but not rivetting)
of rings.

 On this tangent, could this be the reason for maille being dominant?
If lamellar armor were rivetted to a base material (such as a coat of
plates), or to other pieces, this would require more tools/time than
just hooking rings together. Lining up the plates for lamellar armor
wouldn't do much, unless you held them in place with pitch or
whatever. You'd still have to have someone go through and rivet each
piece, assuming that would be the sturdiest way of connecting them. If
Maille took only slightly longer with the help of 'joiners', and
provided even marginally better protection, that would seem to be a
reason for it's predominance. Again, this is only theory, and any
research (practical or historical) that could shed some light on this
would be appreciated. I'll check some sources to see if I can find
anything...

-Tracker

From: haslock at rust.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 11 Nov 1993 22:35:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering

Greetings from Fiacha,

People have been wondering why mail was used in preference to lamellar armor
give the theoretical ease of construction of lamellar with respect to mail.

Let me suggest that field repair is the answer.

Field repair of mail requires a handful of rings and some pliers. The repairs
need not include riveting the inserted links. Holes in the underlying gambeson
can be ignored.

Lamellar is rather more difficult. If the backing remains whole, one needs a
drill or a cold chisel to remove the old rivet (with some risk of damaging the
backing material. If the backing is torn, it must be patched before the lame
can be replaced. It might be simpler to patch the backing for every repair,
rather that mess around with drills or chisels. Then one needs replacement
lames, rivets and washers and a hammer and an anvil. 

Thus the repair kit for lamellar armor requires more and heavier tools, more
skills and more different spare parts than the equivalent mail repair kit. I
would rather take a company wearing mail on a long campaign than a company
wearing lamellar.

	Fiacha

From: DDF2 at cornell.edu (David Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Chain Mail and other Postal Postings
Date: 14 Nov 1993 13:30:38 GMT
Organization: Cornell Law School

In article <2btncg$b10 at bigboote.WPI.EDU>, tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade
Ranger) wrote:

>  On this tangent, could this be the reason for maille being dominant?
> If lamellar armor were rivetted to a base material (such as a coat of
> plates), or to other pieces, this would require more tools/time than
> just hooking rings together. Lining up the plates for lamellar armor
> wouldn't do much, unless you held them in place with pitch or
> whatever. You'd still have to have someone go through and rivet each
> piece, assuming that would be the sturdiest way of connecting them. If
> Maille took only slightly longer with the help of 'joiners', and
> provided even marginally better protection, that would seem to be a
> reason for it's predominance. Again, this is only theory, and any
> research (practical or historical) that could shed some light on this
> would be appreciated. I'll check some sources to see if I can find
> anything...

I think you are confusing the construction of lamellar with the
construction of scale or brigantine. Lamellar is not attached to a base
material. The lamellae are laced together to each other. I had a T.I.
article a couple of years ago on making hardened leather armor which
includes lacing diagrams for lamellar. Lacing one klibanion takes
substantially less than a day's work.

While we are on the subject ...  . Lamellar seems, quite consistently, to
overlap up--each row of lamellae goes over the row above it. Scale overlaps
down (like a shingle roof). Why?

David/Cariadoc
DDF2 at Cornell.Edu

From: willey at ftp.com  (Richard E. Willey)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: rivetted chain
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1993 17:47:54
Organization: FTP Software, North Andover, Massachusetts
NNTP-Software: PC/TCP NNTP

With all due respect to Tracker, I'm not sure that you've ever tried making
rivetted mail.  You can not simply rivet all the open links together
in one large batch.  I'e been working on and off on some rivetted mail
for quite some time now, and it it virtually impossible to get the mail
to lie properly so that you can rivet more than one ring at once.  
I loose a large amount of time shifting mail around and changing tools.
I can close ad rivet about 1 run every 10 seconds, and this is a
significant gain over what i used to do.  Adding and closing open 
rings is much slower.

                                        hrothgar

From: fnklshtn at axp2.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: decline of plate
Date: 8 Nov 1993 04:25:06 GMT
Organization: New York University, NY, NY

In article <2bcg6fINNaf7 at ua.d.umn.edu>, panders2 at ua.d.umn.edu (patrick anderson) writes:
>
>Concerning not the decline of plate neccesarily, but of scaled armour.
>
>Did scale mail actually exist, and if so how was it constructed??
>
>patrick

Which are you asking about scale or mail?
Romans used scale shirts - the scales where from 1 cm to 5 cm in length. each
had four holes and was attached to each other and heavy fabric.
The Poles used scale - I dont know the size. they had two holes and were
riveted to leather or heavy cloth.
The Chinese used scale - At least some of it circular with one hole, riveted to
cloth - pattern looked like a fish.
Many chinese and Korean shirts were shaped like a Karate gi.
I'm sure others can give you more examples.

Nahum 

From: tracker at wpi.WPI.EDU (The Renegade Ranger)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: rivetted chain
Date: 5 Nov 1993 16:12:35 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

In article <931104174754 at Hrothgar> willey at ftp.com writes:
>With all due respect to Tracker, I'm not sure that you've ever tried making
>rivetted mail.  You can not simply rivet all the open links together
>in one large batch.

 Prithee, tell me, since when am I deserving of respect? If indeed I
am, then I must indeed inform many whom I know...

 Indeed, you're correct. I personally have never tried making riveted
mail, but this is the method I have been told is correct by both
conservators at the Royal Armouries and by the practice of our
Curator/Conservator:

 Insert flat-based rivet into rivet hole (Rivet is, as depicted in
several period woodcuts, triangular) from underneath, point up. Hit
with hammer (one of the tapered ones.. not a forging hammer, but the
one that looks sort of like a pick.. I forget the name..) to flatten.
Insert next rivet somewhere nearby, and repeat. They say it goes
quickly.

>  I've been working on and off on some rivetted mail
>for quite some time now, and it it virtually impossible to get the mail
>to lie properly so that you can rivet more than one ring at once.  
>I loose a large amount of time shifting mail around and changing tools.
>I can close ad rivet about 1 run every 10 seconds, and this is a
>significant gain over what i used to do.  Adding and closing open 
>rings is much slower.

 While I wish I had your level of skill, I'm guessing that the more
practice, the better the turnout rate. I know that's proven true in
leatherworking and in connecting butted links, so I would theorize it
would be true for riveting. 

 Since I haven't made rivetted mail before, what did you find as the
best/fastest way to flatten the ends? Our curator smiled and told me
"A really big hammer..."... helpful, eh? :)

-Tracker

From: gdaub at mcis.messiah.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Period armor thicknesses...finally
Date: 14 Dec 1993 08:44:38 -0500
Organization: The Internet

Greetings,
   I promised so many weeks ago to check the armor thicknesses I had from
_Longbow: A social and military history_ by Robert Hardy.  Well it was
finally returned to our library after being overdue for a long time, so here
it is.  The inches and millimeters are from the book (p.205-206), and the gauge
sizes I added:
                                                     approx
Bascinet, 1380, German         inches  millimeters    gauge
  thickest: top front           .150      3.81         8-10
  thinnest: visor snout         .060      1.52          16
Bascinet, 1370-1380, German
  thickest: top front           .096      2.44        12-14
  thinnest: side                .050      1.27          18
Bascinet, 1370-1380, Italian
  thickest: top front           .120      3.05        10-12
  thinnest: back                .060      1.52          16
Bascinet, 1370-1380, Italian
  thickest: top front           .180      4.57          8?? (my chart doesn't
  thinnest: side and back       .100      2.54        12-14  have this thick)
Pair of cuisses, 1390, Italian
  thickest:                     .070      1.78        14-16
  thinnest:                     .050      1.27          18
Breastplate, 1470, Italian
  thickest:                     .110      2.79          12
  thinnest:                     .080      2.03          14

   "Thus it can be seen that the top of the head was the most heavily armoured
portion of the body (.100-.180 in; 2.54-4.57 mm) {12-8? g} followed, probably,
by the chest (.080-.110 in; 2.03-2.79 mm) {14-12 g} and then the legs (.050-
.070 in; 1.27-1.77mm) {18-14 g}.  At first sight, the level of protection is
proportional to the sensitivity of the target area and the probability of a
direct rather than a glancing arrow attack."

   I hope this is helpful, even though it's been a while.

.......................................................................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Gregory Daub                      |  Messiah College                   |
|  Administrative Programmer         |  Computing Services                |
|  Internet: gdaub at mcis.messiah.edu  |  Grantham, Pennsylvania 17027      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: sherman at trln.lib.unc.edu (dennis r. sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: canine armour
Date: 6 Jan 1994 14:14:56 GMT
Organization: Triangle Research Libraries Network

Greetings to the Rialto from Robyyan.

Blackwolf asks about canine armor.

I've thought about making some for my shepherd/lab mix, (but no time 
for it yet) and looked into it a little.  The only thing I came across 
in a cursory search is some boarhunting armor at the Higgins Armory.  
As I recall, it is primarily a chest/belly plate worn over what is 
essentially a gambeson, with mail here and there.

I'll hunt around and see if I can find a bibliographic reference for 
you -- the pictures I've got are from postcards the Higgins sells / 
sold.

If you find other references, please post!
--
  Robyyan Torr d'Elandris  Kapellenberg, Windmaster's Hill  Atlantia
  Dennis R. Sherman  	         Triangle Research Libraries Network
  dennis_sherman at unc.edu       Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

From: ESRLJHD at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Siohn Ap Govannan)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Excalibur
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 07:48
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

In article <33p0sv$p2c at agate.berkeley.edu>,
djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

>In article <33ovhr$m16 at nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
>Mark A. Cochran <mcochran at nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Obviously the best example being the sex scene between Uther and
>>Igraine in which he somehow manages to couple without removing his
>>armor (when was the fly invented, and has it ever been installed on
>>mail?).
>>I mean, some people think rug burns are bad...
>
>Now, I have been told that late, full suits of plate really did
>have removable plate codpieces--so that the knight could take a
>leak without having to remove the whole suit--and that the rapid
>unbolting of this codpiece was the purpose for which the wrench
>was invented.
>
>Anybody have some real data?
>
>
>Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin                Dorothy J. Heydt
>Mists/Mists/West                        UC Berkeley
>Argent, a cross forme'e sable           djheydt at uclink.berkeley.edu
>PRO DEO ET REGE

As an add on to this,

There is the famous case of Henry VIII's garniture for foot combat that is
displayed at the Tower of London armouries. I read an article on this
armour that used to be displayed near a flight of stairs. The curators
found that they never had to polish the cod piece, which on this
garniture is quite pronounced. One brave curator decided to find out why
by watching the patrons as they passed the exhibit. He noted that many
of the women going up the stairs would touch the cod piece as they
passed. The curator questioned them and learned that it was folklore
among many of the women visitors that it was considered good luck
for having children, a sort of fertility charm.

Why Henry VIII, who had such trouble having children is left to another
discussion.

As to the invention of the wrench, I have no information.

Just my t'pence
Siohn ap Govannan
in the Barony of Altavia
in the kingdom of Caid

From: tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Armour
Date: 22 Jun 1996 07:53:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

A better and more period source for the construction techniques of armour
is "The Armourer and his Craft From the XIth to the XVIth Century" by
Charles FFoulkes, Dover Books. It is available through Barnes and Noble
mail order catalog.

Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach
Canton of the Dragons Aerie
Barony Beyond the Mountain
Eastern Kingdom

From: caradoc at neta.com (John Groseclose)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Armour
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:38:00 -0700
Organization: Yngvi's De-Lousing and Pest Control Center

In article <4qgms3$bab at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)
wrote:
> A better and more period source for the construction techniques of armour
> is "The Armourer and his Craft From the XIth to the XVIth Century" by
> Charles FFoulkes, Dover Books. It is available through Barnes and Noble
> mail order catalog.
> 
> Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach

While the ffoulkes book is rather nice, it's also got some well-documented
errors - banded mail, etc.

Back it up with its own bibliography.

From: tvolkert at aol.com (TVolkert)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Armour
Date: 24 Jun 1996 16:29:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

caradoc at neta.com (John Groseclose) writes:
>While the ffoulkes book is rather nice, it's also got some well-documented
>errors - banded mail, etc.

You are quite right on that point, but for the contruction of latches,
hinges and the basic shapes of the armour plates the illustrations are
very good. The rule of thumb for FFoulkes is: if there's a picture (not a
drawing) to back it up then it's okay.

>Back it up with its own bibliography.

What can I say? Maybe he got tired!

Wolfram Hugo von Gumbach

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:57:27 -0500
From: rmhowe <magnusm at ncsu.edu>
Organization: Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia, and the GDH
To: - Ger Makers <ger-makers at PEAK.ORG>

You might be interested in the following:

Arms and Armour of the Great Steppe in the Times of the Mongol
Expansion (12-14th C) by Withold Swietoslwski.

United by Genghis Khan in the 12th Century, Central Asian NomadicArmies became a force of terror afflicting both the great ChineseEmpire to the East and the European Kingdoms to the West. Theimpressionthat these conquering armies were only lightly armed haas been an accident of historical research. As this ground-breaking book(publishedin English, in Poland) shows, the nomads possessed a technologicalrange of weapons and armour, which at least matched the warriors withwhom they came in contact. Because most of the published studies of this material have been in Russian, and other languages of the formerUSSR, western scholars have lacked access to this information...untilnow.... This concise synthesis covers not only human and horse armor,but also explores literary evidence for explosives and chemicalweapons. With full bibliographic notes, and a number of line drawings,this is a welcome publication on a previously unexplored topic. 144pp., 33 b/w plates. (Studies on the History of the Ancient and Medieval Arts of Warfare (SHAMAW) III. Oficyna Naukowa 1999)ISBN 838587402X Pb $19.95

Arms and Armour in the Medieval Teutonic Orders State in Prussia
by Andrzej Nowakowski. 161pp., 35 b/w plates., pb., SHAMAW II, 1994
ISBN 8385874011 $19/95

Cataphracti and Clibanarii: Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry
of the Ancient World by Mariusz Mielczarek. 145 p., 34 b/w plates,
SHAMAW I, 1993, Pb $19.95. ISBN 8385874003 

Available from David Brown Book Co. 
<david.brown.bk.co at snet.net>

Magnus, GDH

**DO NOT repost to the Rialto or any other NEWSGROUP.**

From: Lord Mikhial <sjclem1NOsjSPAM at hotmail.com.invalid>
Subject: Re: Russian Armor
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 04:11:21 -0700

Sasha,

    I am Lord Mikhial Da'Mianovich, I'm currently living in the Kingdom
of Caid and have been doing this for two years.  Last summer I was
researching for Russian armor like yourself and have found two types
most commonly used.  First type is the chain mail which most people are
familiar with if there is an armorer in the area.  I chose to go a
different direction because it would provide a more personal look. 
Beginning in the 13th century, the Rus created an armor called "KUYAK"
it was basically a long shirt of hide leather with bronze plates
riveted throughout.  I'm leaving two site address, feel free to check
them out, the first is very detailed about Russian armor and weapons,
it has good pictures of the armor I mentioned.  The second one is of my
homepage, but my photographer wasn't the best and my pics are a little
dark so you may not be able to see how I did it.

http://members.aol.com/johns426/partII.htm#Kuyak
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Loft/9623/SCA.html

Subject: a URL you may want to add.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:14:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeff Heilveil <heilveil at uiuc.edu>
To: Stefan li Rous <stefan at texas.net>

This URL was posted on the SIG list, but I thought you might want to add
it somewhere in the florelegium...

The URL is: http://tgorod.go.ru/librar/a033lb_e.htm

It's a nice translation of russian archaeology finds of a IXth cent shirt
made of metal lamellae. (armour)

Bogdan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey Heilveil M.S.                 Ld. Bogdan de la Brasov, C.W.
Department of Entomology        A Bear's paw and base vert on field argent
University of Illinois

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:30:18 -0400
From: rmhowe <MMagnusM at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Higgins Armory

http://www.higgins.org/

<the end>