|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Nov 1, 2007 14:05:00 GMT
And why is it historically inaccurate?
Also, I have heard people on their sites and forums saying how it is inferior in terms of the protection it affords compared to other styles of Maille. Is this true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2007 17:44:26 GMT
I don't profess to have alot of knowledge of chainmaille, but here's what I know. Butted maille is when the ends of the rings are squeezed past each other, then pulled back so the two ends of the ring click nicely together. Understandable, hopefully. Like this: www.mwart.com/xq/ASP.productlg/pid.2732/qx/heros-mail-coif.htmRiveted Mail is where the two ends of a ring, each with a tiny hole in it, are pushed past each other. Then a tiny nail is place through the holes. The whole thing is then pounded flat , making it into a rivet. Butted mail has nothing holding it together other then the pressure of the ring, so if it's hit too hard, the rings will pop open, and the thing will fall apart. Riveted is much more solid, and is harder to pop open under pressure. As for why it's historically inaccurate, I'm not really sure. Ask Ramm, he'll know.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 1, 2007 19:21:25 GMT
DI is spot on, I believe. Only thing I can add is that protection was needed, and butted maille just doesn't provide all that much. If the links are put together poorly, it doesn't matter the strength of a the steel, a sword will sheer through it because of the weak link. The link needs to be the strongest part, not the weakest. I've seen butted maille literally rip itself apart just by hanging up - it's fast, cheap, and decent enough, but not historically accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Nov 2, 2007 11:15:29 GMT
Thats a shame. I was just looking at a hauberk from that new casiberia GDFB jobby. I can only afford the butted variety
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 13:39:06 GMT
- it's fast, cheap, and decent enough, but not historically accurate. Well fast is a relative term. Fast for chainmaille, but damn slow for anything else. I looked into making my own, but spending a year making a butted chainmaille hauberk is not my cup of tea. And that's about 5X faster then making riveted. Theres a reason that they were produced by a team of craftsmen instead of one guy.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 2, 2007 19:42:07 GMT
I knew a few people who EACH built one in a couple of weeks.
It's not really that slow... of course I'm like you - I'd take a damn long time ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 21:30:49 GMT
I believe that there was also an earlier method where they twisted wire into loops to form the rings. The twisting gave the rings some strength.
Matt, its my opinion that if your are gona spend the money to get riveted mail, you might as well get plate. I find that mail is too top-heavy anyway and worthless without a gambeson.
If you use riveted mail for actual fighting you will find that the rivets do eventually start to break too. Getting that repaired is a pain.
It might be worth it to get the cheep butted ones and do some drills so you can get a feel of what it was like to fight in it.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 2, 2007 21:40:36 GMT
That's a rather misguided statement tsafa....imagine a viking reenactor who wants rivited maille, but you seem to think that plate would fit his character better. Rivitted maile is for portraying different time period. ONLY if you intend on using it for fighting would I blindly recommend you to skip rivetted maille and buy plate.
Besides, maille is SO much cooler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 21:45:39 GMT
Yes, no argument there. Also plate was only around for about 200 years, mail may date back as far as Ancient Greece and was definelty used by Romans.
Reason I recommened plate is becuase Matt is cost conscience on this issue. I think a gambeson with some plate is a better option for him.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 2, 2007 21:48:43 GMT
It still would depdn on the time period he's trying to portray. a 14th century knight could use maille or plate, so that would be k. a 16th c. knight would probably be in plate. an 11th c. one would steryotypically be in maille.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2007 0:45:07 GMT
If he was looking for an earlier period armor, (ie.13th century) he could always go with a coat of plate. I think they began to appear around the 1200's. I don't know of any place that sells the earlier versions though. All I've seen are brigadines, which appeared later, around the beginning of the 1400's. Usually, a brigadine was over maille though, so it actually raises the cost.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 3, 2007 0:47:16 GMT
I believe (and don't quote me on this) they started appearing toward the end of the 13th c. I could be wrong though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2007 0:50:05 GMT
The 13th c. was the 1200's. Or are you just confirming my answer?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 3, 2007 1:05:23 GMT
Confirming
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2007 5:13:35 GMT
Its kind of funny, but solid breastplates, greaves, vambraces and other body armor date back to Ancient Greece. Perhaps that is marginal because they did not use enough of it but the Romans definetly used what I think would pass as platearmor. The only thing they did not have is joint-ariticulation and I don't think that is the deciding factor. It seems to me that plate was actualy rediscovered in the hight middle ages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2007 16:32:24 GMT
Yeah, Lorica Segmentata, i would consider plate. Well, splint plate. And the Romans adopted the Musculata breastplate early from the greeks. All were usually worn with maille though.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 3, 2007 17:10:32 GMT
The older version of "plate" were discarded n favor of maille. Remember, these people sued what worked, and heavy 40 lb breastplates that offered little protection were deemed worthless by the romans fairly early. The roman lorica segmentata, while offering better protection still was relatively poor - it was heavy, uncomfortable, and very prone to malfunctions (like the leather holding it together failing during the elements or being easily cut). Lorica Hamata (maille) was used before and after lorica segmentata. And it left huge portions on the body exposed. After the fall of the Roman Empire, maille became the armour of choice because it was more manueverable, could be made to cover a larger portion of the body, could be worn under clothes, and was immensely protective. It was also able to be fixed by oneself. Plate from the later middle ages and early renaissance was't actually "rediscovered." A better term would be "improved."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2007 17:31:22 GMT
Remember, these people sued what worked, How can you sue something that works? Or even why? ;D Anyway, wasn't most of the technology of the roman empire lost during the dark ages, only to be rediscovered later? I think plate armor could have fallen into that category. Ex. We still don't know how the Greeks made Greek fire.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 3, 2007 23:04:57 GMT
Used, sued, same difference. Most? Certainly not. Some? Maybe. My theory is that things were passed down through physical experience rather than recording it. So if something is no longer useful, why bother remember it and passing it down through generations so 21st century historians could study it ? I doubt that plate would have been something "lost." It was just impractical for the time period. The romans themselves abandoned it in the later half of the empire. I wouldn't be surpised if maille was actually harder to make than a breastplate. It could also be that plate used too much steel to be worthwhile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2007 0:39:14 GMT
Yeah, I guess. I didn't really mean most technology was lost. Certainly you'll agree that during the dark ages, literacy was only kept alive through the work of scattered monks in isolated monestaries.
However. now that I think about it, if they could make helmets, they could certainly make plate armor.
|
|