Jumping Back to...

[ZenDog]

ZenDog, I don't know anything about the program you were watching, but I don't think and Viking-era mail survives in any kind of condition to be accurately tested for protective quality.

Sorry I should have mentioned they used a series of small square 'reconstructions'  of Viking mail  about 12" by 12" (by reconstuction I mean it was made with the same materials and techniques as Viking mail).

[spunky]

...but I believe armour must have been penetrable, for there seem to be too many accounts of severe injuries inflicted despite armour, IIRC.

Much depends on the tone of your campaign.  Many of the posts here deal with historical accuracy.  However, if you are trying to catch the spirit of THE SONG OF ROLAND, where Bishop Turpin is cleaving armored men from breastbone to pelvis, the armor rules work well as they are.  

I know almost nothing about lamellar or brigandine (except for what it looks like), but from the descriptions, it seems to me it would have an Armor rating of 3 and not impose penalties on stealth rolls...

[Salamander]

On the other hand, invisible armor -like a suede doublet lined with chain or a brigandine- could be *very* effective. A surprise attack would most likely aim for vital organs and then harmlessly hit the armor, while obvious protection would be worked around.

Indeed Richard, but you and I both know one does not stop until the opponent is lying twitching in a pool of his own blood.

[Richard_Strey]

True. But that "ineffective" attack might well give you the opportunity to fight back or evade in the first place, while a hit on an unarmored location would have you on the ground directly.

[contracycle]

Much depends on the tone of your campaign.  Many of the posts here deal with historical accuracy.  However, if you are trying to catch the spirit of THE SONG OF ROLAND, where Bishop Turpin is cleaving armored men from breastbone to pelvis, the armor rules work well as they are.  

Yes indeed, historical accuracy.  As I said, there are too many accounts to simply dismiss; it seems inconceivable that so much fighting would have gone on if neither party could hurt one another, no?  If armour is so good, one wonders what causes the many casualties found in medieval accounts of battle.

"Next, one of the "Immortals" with Alexius, a hot-headed, venturesome fellow, spurred on his horse, and out-riding the others, dashed at full gallop straight at Bryennius, and thrust his spear with great violence against the latter's breast. Bryennius for his part whipped out his sword quickly from its sheath, and before the spear could be driven home, he cut it in two, and struck his adversary on the collar bone, and bringing down the blow with the whole power of his arm, cut away the man's whole arm, breastplate included." - Anna Comnena

"In this combat the Lord Emperor is said to have performed a feat which will be remembered through the ages. It is related that one of the enemy was resisting manfully and vigorously and that the Emperor with one blow cut off this enemy soldier's head and neck with the left shoulder and arm attached, together with part of his side-despite the fact that the foe was wearing a cuirass. At this deed the citizens, both those who witnessed it and those who learned of it from others, were thrown into such a fright that they despaired of resisting and even of life itself."  - William of Tyre

"At last, Thekedin, the nephew of Saladiia, took Guido, king of Jerusalem, while flying, and the wood of the Cross of our Lord, after slaying Rufinus, bishop of Acre, who was carrying it. And this was done through the righteous judgment of God; for, contrary to the usage of his predecessors, having greater faith in worldly arms than in heavenly ones, he went forth to battle equipped in a coat, of mail, and shortly after he perished, being pierced by an arrow" - Roger of Hoveden

"Well did they keep guard during the night; and on the morrow, at the hour of tierce, those who were in the tower of Galata made a sortie, and those who were in Constantinople came to their help in barges; and our people ran to arms. There came first to the onset James of Avesnes and his men on foot; and be it known to you that he was fiercely charged, and wounded by a lance in the face, and in peril of death. And one of his knights, whose name was Nicholas of Jenlain, gat to horse, and came to his lord's rescue, and succoured him right well, and so won great honour. "
- Geoffrey de Villehardouin

Now, I don't claim that all of these are exactly everyday events.  The most spectacular are recorded - or exagerated - becuase they are spectacular.  But equally, the sheer numbers of dead and wounded mentioned in most accounts of medieval wars seems to imply that armour is certainly not proof against everything, and the combatants were routinely wounded despite their armour.

[toli]

Yes indeed, historical accuracy.  As I said, there are too many accounts to simply dismiss; it seems inconceivable that so much fighting would have gone on if neither party could hurt one another, no?  If armour is so good, one wonders what causes the many casualties found in medieval accounts of battle.

My take on lots of history reading is that it was pretty hard to actually kill a fully armored knight.  There are some accouts where only 3 knights are actually killed in large battles.  This would in part be due to good protection, but also due to randsom.  If you KO the knight, or stun him you capture him and random him.  Knights started getting killed when they fight groups who didn't randsom them (the swiss etc).

My interpretation is that it was pretty hard to kill a fully armored knight outright, but that stunning or disabling and then killing was more likely.  Suffocation and heat stroke were also common....

NT

[Salamander]

True. But that "ineffective" attack might well give you the opportunity to fight back or evade in the first place, while a hit on an unarmored location would have you on the ground directly.

While my experience may be more related to contemporary armour, I do believe it does bear upon the use of armour in the days of old. Even if one were wearing armour, when on gets hit, the blade does not merely skitter off harmlessly as we may believe. Even if the armour keeps the weapon from cutting there is still the force of the impact to contend with, which according to some theories would still cause broken bones, possibly even in harness. The objective of armour was/is to keep you from getting killed, not injured.

Granted I also have to consider that the weapons the "hidden brigandine" was intended to counter was most likely the rapier or other thrusting weapons, as a brawl involving longswords was definitely not too worried about the chest, as we have seen in our studies of the longsword. Just to put it in context.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Greetings,

I was told that I should take a look at this forum since my name was brought up recently. After reading the manner in which it was referred to I have to admit that I am a bit flattered. Let me say thank you to Crusader and Salamander. However I will be the first to tell you about my shortcomings pertaining to mail. The only reason I have reached the level so many of you seem to feel I have is simply because I know of no other person who would devote their existence to this mind numbing endeavor. Of course being completely obsessed with the subject does tend to keep you focused though and allow one to see things others with only a passing interest may miss. Because of this passion I hope to be able to get more quality information about mail out to all of you who have a genuine interest in the subject. Now if I could just get my wife to understand that I am providing a much needed humanitarian service... ;)

I would like to address some of the things mentioned here about mail, the weapons used against it, and how well it may or may not have faired.

ZenDog, you mentioned a test using Viking mail. I am quite sure that what they were using was a modern version of it. There are very few surviving fragments that we know of. One of the best known pieces is the Gjermundbu shirt. This piece is in a fragmentary condition, but much can be gleaned from what is left. When new it would have been a very stout defense. That is, provided it had a decent foundation garment in which it was worn over. Now whether this was padded in the sense that we tend to think of padding we can not say. Much more research is needed in this area.

You are correct when you say that mail underwent upgrades and improvements. However, it apparently stayed much the same in terms of link design for well over a millennia before undergoing a large transformation. The mail used during the Roman Empire was for all intents and purposes much the same if not identical to that used by the Vikings centuries later. Milanese mail from the 14th century looks almost identical to the mail of the Gjermundbu shirt which is several centuries older. The riveted links are of round section and are closed with round rivets. The main change in mail link design, other than link size, happens around the 13th-14th centuries around Germany. Now we start to see links being manufactured with flattened sentions and having wedge shaped rivets. This type seems to dominate the mail world in Europe. Of course we also see round section mail changing from round rivets to wedge shaped ones as well. The thing to remember here is that there is still round section mail around and will remain in use into the 16-17th centuries.

Also, I do not think that the mail used in the test you spoke of was made in the same fashion as Viking mail. More than likely it was made with the cheapest materials available. I have recently had a good deal of experience with these production companies and I must say that it is a wonder anything ever makes it to the screen let alone anything with substance. Their research leaves much to be desired.

Salmander, you are quite correct about the wonderful thing that is "blunt trauma". This is why we start seeing heavily padded garments such as gambesons and jacks. Each of these was fantastic at distributing the force of the blow over a wider area thus minimizing the force of said blow. Mail is absolutely no defense against this type of attack, which is why it was usually worn in conjunction with some sort of textile defense.

The hidden brigandine would indeed have been employed as and anti-assassin type defense. There are accounts of mail being used in the same fashion. I believe it was one of the DeMedici's that was saved from a stiletto by the use of a mail shirt worn under his normal clothing.

Contracycle, I too have seen many of the accounts you mentioned. What you have to keep in mind is how they can be exagerated over time into stories that simply defy logic. Also, they do not go into great detail of what exactly happened either. The account of Anna Comnena may be just that the mans arm was severed and in doing so cut the strap holding the breastplate on which caused it to come undone. You see we are looking through a very small window and as such cannot see the whole picture of what was really taking place. Also, these tales are meant to boost the image of certain people, which you allude to.

It is true that not everyone had armour, but the ones who did were for the most part well protected to a certain degree. Sure there were many killed in battles, but we do not know the particulars surrounding their deaths and probably never will, so speculating about the quality of armour based solely on the sheer number of people killed may not be the best approach. Do you see what I mean?

I hope I have not rambled on and bored you all to death.

Cheers,
Erik

[Caz]

Hey, cool info, thanks for the post.  I have to disagree out of personal experience about mail providing no protection from blunt force though.  Of course it's not really designed to help against that, but it does, to a degree.
  And what attack vs. mail isn't a blunt force attack?  It converts whatever doesn't pierce it into a blunt force attack, be it a swords edge, axe, spear, whatever.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Yes indeed, historical accuracy.  As I said, there are too many accounts to simply dismiss; it seems inconceivable that so much fighting would have gone on if neither party could hurt one another, no?  If armour is so good, one wonders what causes the many casualties found in medieval accounts of battle.

easy answer: NOT EVERY ONE WAS ARMORED!
The bulk of your medieval and ren soldiery was neither professional or well equiped and most died like suckers.

Moderate answer: Weapons, weapons, weapons. Swinging a longsword into an armored foe was not as effective as halfswording and neither were as effective as a pole axe. Weapons changed to meet the evolving problem of opening tin cans.

Hard answer: they got smacked where they weren't wearing armor (knight with a visor up etc)

[contracycle]

Eric, I definately do take these accounts as anecdotal rather than definitive, and I am not by any means claiming that armour is ineffective (ObRPG: in fact I consider TROS to be slightly biased toward unarmoured combatants).  My objection is rather to the disparagement of any claim to armour being penetrable as being the sort of hyperbole that appears in the song of roland.  I also consider people in historical epochs to have been as intelligent as we are, and they don't appear to have been under any illusions that people get killed despite their armour.  Furthermore, speculating that such accounts must necessarily be hyperbolic and propagandist is just as much an asusmption as tat they are not.

It is inadequate to assume tha all accounts of injury are happening to unarmoured people.  In my cursory survey of Crusades writings (all of the above) I specifically tried to weed out these events in which people were said to be surprised in camp or the like.  I agree that not everything is mentioned, and that we only have a small window to peer through, but if mail armour was so effective, the developement of plate becomes inexplicable.  And even then, during the War of the Roses period, I found an indication of the Duke of Essex being wounded twice.  Now it does not seem likely that the Duke of Essex goes into main battle unarmoured, it is more likely that he was very well equipped indeed.

I am not, however, claiming at all that armour was like tissue paper.  Another account I came across was of a man who was killed by a blow that did NOT penetrate his mail, but did break two ribs and drive them into his lungs.  A blow inflicted by a grown man who's been developing his body and sword-arm since early childhood, can inflict an immense amount of force - even more so when adrenaline and hate are taken into account.  I don't think swords cut through armour like butter, but I reckon they will not stop a determined opponent killing you either; what it will do is make that much much harder and you more survivable.  Instead of a single blow being fatal, it may take a frenzy of hacking and a boot planted on your chest before the deed is done.

[julien]

Reading your posts made me think that large blunt weapons such as a Mauler do inflict some shock damage on a hit, even if the wound level is 0.
Maybe this could be generalized to slashing/piercing weapons hitting armor zones as well.
Take a damage level 10 blow against the helmet of a knight (arnor 6) with a toughness of 5. 5 levels are washed by the toughness and the remaining 5 by the armor. Our knight is alive but it's likely he felt something landing on his head ! A simple shock/pain penalty could be applied based on the amount of damage that has been absorbed by the armor. Since the helmet protected 5 levels on a maximum of 6, you could imagine that it was almost pierced. Maybe the knight was stunned by the blow etc...
I yet have to figure how to derive precise shock/pain/BL/wounds in TROS terms.

Julien

[Erik D. Schmid]

Caz, I hate to be nitpicky, but your experiences with modern reproductions is a far cry from what was actually used in period. Although my pieces are probably the closest you can come, they are still not exact due to the metal used and other slight variants.

After reading what you said about blunt force got me to thinking that perhaps there were types of mail designed to protect to some degree against this. Especially during a time when padded undergarments had not fully delveloped in certain areas. I will look into this more thoroughly in the coming weeks and see what I can turn up.

Contracycle, I don't dismiss all accounts of armour being compromised as hyperbole either. However, I do take them with a grain of salt particularly the more fantastic ones. A great deal of these accounts were written by non-combatants decades after the incident being written about took place.

I also do not believe that armour was impenetrable either. It just made the job of killing the other person that much more difficult. Another thing to consider is why go through the armour when you can just go around it? The development of plate is much more complex than people want to believe. Most of those studying this area tend to want a quick and easy answer rather than the more appropriate "we don't know at this time", which is more accurate. Plate defense came into existence due in part to changing attitudes on how warfare was waged, weapons used, comfort etc...

There were many other reasons as well. Also, plate was not a universal armour. Many areas did not employ it, or employed it with equally as much mail protection. Regional styles in everyday clothing fashion also dictated what the armour looked like to some degree.

In your account of broken ribs you can easily see that without anything under the mail to cushion the blow it does not protect from blunt trama. I am not saying that he would not have been hurt, but had he been wearing an appropriate garment that was heavily padded he may have lived. Of course this is all speculation on my part. Could you post the full details of this encounter please?

Best,
Erik

[Caz]

Nitpicking is good.   But, the way I see it, even though modern repro mail is pretty lousy, in regards to it's distribution of impact any differences between it and an antique are negligable.  Simple physics, though it can very quite a lot, mail can make an impact that would've been like this (.) like this (O) which can, depending, be infinitely more bearable by a human body.  It can make a cut that would've struck like this --------- strike like this OOOOO.  Not taking into account the supporting rings of the struck ones, and any padding.  
   Now don't take my comments on this for saying someone couldn't be killed or pulped under his mail, strong blows will do that to flexible stuff, but it can in cases even turn what would've been a broken bone into a bruise.  There's no way it can't spread the impact, even if only slightly.  What were we talking about again?

[Erik D. Schmid]

Hey Caz,

It all depends on what type of mail the modern pieces are trying to take the place of. There were many different variants with regards to link thickness and diameter. So depending on what type it is, there can be a big difference in the way it will react as compared to its historical counterpart.

Cheers,
E