03-22-2004, 06:02 AM
Not all of my post consisted of ancedotes. It is fairly conclusive that "hauberts de joute" were considered proof against lances. Nobody is certain how this mail was manufactured though. Some sources also mention "double mail" and it is fairly certain that this was proof against arrows. Again, nobody knows for certain what "double mail" was. It is also certain that there were different grades of mail and they were considered proof against certain weapons. There is little doubt that higher grades of mail was considered proof against arrows. The probem is that we don't know what the differences were between the various types of mail. It is foolish to claim that all mail was completely resistant against arrows. It is equally foolish to claim the opposite.<br>
<br>
There have been two recent sets of tests done by the Royal Armouries. Both involving accurate replicas of longbows and contemporary arrows. One involved testing the penetration of plate armour. The other involved testing the penetration of mail. Hardy's recent publicaton of "Longbow" and Dr. Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" both have details of these tests. The mail test involved firing a Mary Rose replica against a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination in the 14th century). The conclusion was that this combination was proof against Mary Rose longbows.<br>
<br>
It became a medieval discussion because there is little functional difference between medieval mail and Roman mail. The main difference is that medieval mail covered more of the body. Many of the conclusions one can draw about medieval mail can be applied to Roman mail.<br>
<br>
As Matt has already said, arrows do not need to penetrate armour to be effective. The majority of soldiers did not wear much in the way of armour and it is possible to destroy an army without scratching a decent piece of armour. Arrows are also good for neutralising cavalry charges, and as an "area denial" weapon. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 7:15 am<br></i>
<br>
There have been two recent sets of tests done by the Royal Armouries. Both involving accurate replicas of longbows and contemporary arrows. One involved testing the penetration of plate armour. The other involved testing the penetration of mail. Hardy's recent publicaton of "Longbow" and Dr. Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" both have details of these tests. The mail test involved firing a Mary Rose replica against a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination in the 14th century). The conclusion was that this combination was proof against Mary Rose longbows.<br>
<br>
It became a medieval discussion because there is little functional difference between medieval mail and Roman mail. The main difference is that medieval mail covered more of the body. Many of the conclusions one can draw about medieval mail can be applied to Roman mail.<br>
<br>
As Matt has already said, arrows do not need to penetrate armour to be effective. The majority of soldiers did not wear much in the way of armour and it is possible to destroy an army without scratching a decent piece of armour. Arrows are also good for neutralising cavalry charges, and as an "area denial" weapon. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 7:15 am<br></i>
