Dood. NEET! I'd love to know where you got your information, especially the stuff about the rise of plate and use of maille through the medieval period with regard to economics, cost of labor, etc. As for a nice ballistics test with maille and arrows approximating those with bodkin heads: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
Looks like a reasonably well done test, although energy really shouldn't be used to compare arrow effectiveness. Not sure of the exact dynamics involved with mail armor, but with bulletproof vests at least, velocity, diameter, and bullet integrity are the main things, and weight doesn't really matter at all (within realistic constraints). I really couldn't estimate if a more period accurate war arrow would have done better or worse.
That probably is about the right draw weight, arrow weight, and velocity for a shortbow, though, indicating that a shortbow with bodkins had a chance of piercing mail armor on a well-aimed shot at close range. Probably why they went to the extra trouble of using almost nothing but broadheads, until after the black plague.
That test also illustrates nicely why swords during the "age of mail" had very broad, blunt tips, and why spears and lances were quite broad. Also why an additional torso piece over top of the mail was one of the first things that was added, when combat became more lethal.
Also, is the 4 to six inches of padding you suggest being under the maille a little bit of an exaggeration, even at the thickest parts? I could certainly see an inch of padding (20 layers of linen or something), but 4 inches???
Since there are no surviving medieval examples I know of, it's just a guess. I'm fairly sure I remember seeing a reference to padding under mail being "1 to 2 hands thick" in one (translated). Gambesons under mail were usually stuffed with rags, wool, horse hair, or anything else they could get their hands on. They weren't multiple layers like the later padded jacks. 4-6" would also be the thickness if they were completely "fluffed out," also. Compression would make it more like 2-3 inches thick with mail over top.
The Spanish conquistadores also referred to Aztec padded armor as being 1-2 hands thick, and surviving examples are 3"+ in thickness, stuffed with cotton. And that was to protect against relatively light, wood-bodied slashing swords (though it was effective enough against steel swords that quite a few Spaniards started wearing the same armor, whereas there are no accounts of Aztecs using captured Spanish armor, much as they loved using captured swords).
One more thing, though, about plate and maille and when it came up and was used and stuff. I heard about the use of maille vs. plate in Roman times from a well-read armorer where I live. I was told that the lorica segmentata was the stuff mass produced and that it required less skill to produce than the chainmaille, and the chainmaille was made for and worn by officers and the higher-ups.
Lorica was reasonably effective stuff, and if you look at how it's constructed, it would be pretty easy for a smith to bang out sets of the stuff very quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorica_segmentata_from_inside.jpgBut the flaws are also pretty obvious. It's 100% adequate if you're relying on a shield for most of your defense, but in close combat, it'd be far too easy for someone to force a dagger in between the plates. So it's really not comparable to later plate harnesses. Post-12th century European martial arts used a lot more grappling, throws, and close combat than they're given credit for. One of my favorite series' of clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPPGOZenof0-----------
You wouldn't happen to be a medieval re-enactor would you Arrkhal? Most of the guys I've spoken to at medieval festivals speak about history with a similar take as yours.
Nah, but I do listen to their opinions a fair amount. I mainly just try to figure out which parts of which statements are most likely to be correct, from different sources.
Re-enactors and re-constructors tend to have really good grasps of what would work in combat, what wouldn't, and why. Historians tend to know a lot about the social factors involved, but get their combat data from illuminated manuscripts ("This picture shows a sword piercing a breastplate!" Yeah, it also shows guys 50 yards in the background being the same height as the guys in the foreground. They're taller than the castle they're defending!).
A tiny bit of analysis goes a long way, like the modern fencing score zones fallacy I mentioned. Combine historical and reconstructed data, and the reason for a torso-only foil score zone sort of jumps out at you.
Author
Topic: Community Combat Balance Overhaul: Removed unkillable Undead! new links. (Read 52866 times)