Login

03-22-2004, 02:27 PM

Daniel, 
 
You're saying then that there is no difference in mail during the medieval period and in antiquity? How about forging processes? Carbon content in the iron? Quality of iron? 
 
To keep this discussion rooted in Roman times, I am not sure this "hauberts de joute" being proof against lances has any bearing here. While it makes an interesting story, perhaps some tests or evidence in the scripture about hamata or segmentata vs weapon impacts would be more fitting. 
 
I also don't see the relevance of you posting the testing done by Royal Armouries. Did they test Persian style bows against hamata or Segmentata? Nope. Were the Romans faced, at any point that we know of, against the long bows of Crecy? No. Some of your points have some validity, but perhaps in a different discussion. The manner in which roman segmentata varied in manufacture from medieval plate makes any comparison between the two very difficult anyway. As to drawing similar conclusions regarding medieval mail and hamata, how can you do this? The weaponry was quite different that was employed against the armour in their respective times, not to mention the tactics and so forth. 
 
Let's try to keep this topic secured in ancient times. That's why we're here on Roman Army Talk, right? Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

Nathan Ross · 03-22-2004, 05:22 PM

More anecdotal stuff, and again mainly medieval I'm afraid, although it does start with the siege of Amida - this is a collection of source quotes on 'arrows piercing mail': 
 
www.capnmac.com/archery/m...apter3.htm 
 
I'm not sure about some of it, and I know next to nothing about the medieval field, so no comment as to the conclusions reached - It does seem that most of what we have to go on is anecdotes and speculation. Only the analysis of wounds on surviving battlefield bones gives another angle, and I don't think any of that is Roman. 
 
As for the 'anecdotal' evidence, the Plutarch I quoted earlier clearly states that Parthian arrows could penetrate Roman mail. Then again, Plutarch wasn't there at the time... Ammianus implies the same, but not so clearly. 
 
With segmentata there's even less to go on - unless somebody actually does get a set of this armour, packs it with meat (or a volunteer with some carefully worded legal agreement!) and fires arrows/jabs swords at it, I doubt we can ever be sure.

03-22-2004, 09:11 PM

Hi Antonius, 
 
Yes, I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but we can still only rely on the evidence that does exist. Unfounded speculation is useless. Considering the huge amount of mail that has been discovered (it is an ongoing process to document it all) and considering that all medieval mail so far documented has turned out to be 4-in-1, the likelihood of the existance of other weaves is increasingly unlikely - as usual though, if an example turns up in the future then existing theories need to be revised. 
 
We have absolutely no idea what "double mail" means and there are certainly more than two plausible theories. Here are 5: 
 
1. Wearing two hauberks 
 
2. A weave in which two layers of mail are linked to one another. 
 
3. A hauberk with a denser weave - 6-in-1, 8-in-2, etc. 
 
4. A hauberk with denser weave - smaller links (twice as many). 
 
5. A hauberk with heavier links - weighing twice as much 
 
 
Regarding the armour which involves a "system of scales --or rings, the jury is out on this-- laced horizontally and overlapping". This armour is described in Ffoulkes and was first proposed by Victorian scholars (I think Meyrick was the culprit) as an interpretation of some contemporary illustrations. You seem to be relying on some very outdated information because even Ffoulkes doubts the validity of this armour and his work was published a century ago: 
 
"but a practical experiment will prove that such an arrangement would be impossible, as the weight would be excessive and the curve of the body would cause the rings to 'gape'." [The Armourer and his Craft, p48] 
 
I don't think you could find even one reputable armour authority today who would support the existence of this armour. If you could provide some recent sources that contradict this I would be grateful. 
 
 
Hi Tiberius, 
The following site has several useful articles on Roman and medieval mail manufacture. 
 
www.erikdschmid.com/TMRS_2.htm 
 
These papers (among others) strongly suggest that the differences in mail between the Roman, Migration, and Medieval periods is largely cosmetic. Functionally and materially they are very similar and it is possible to draw general conclusions about Roman mail from examining medieval mail. Of course the best results will be had by narrowing one's focus to Roman mail but there is not enough literature available to draw any reasonable conclusions. Physical tests using accurate Roman reconstructions would be the best solution. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 10:16 pm

03-22-2004, 09:42 PM

Thanks for the link Daniel! I know little of medieval armour and weapons, thanks for the good read. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

03-23-2004, 11:09 AM

The references on "quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e" mail (the exact term is "besoigne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e") is F. Buttin - Du costume militaire au Moyen-ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ge et pendant la Renaisssance.(Of military costume in the Middle ages and the Renaissance). Published in 1971. 
See also the very detailed big medieval copper plate engravings. They clearly depict both the ring mail and the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e. In the latter the rows could also be laid vertically, as shown in several medieval miniatures (enluminures) --Illuminations (??). 
I Don't know if it's the right word. 
The link below will take you to a brilliant explanation of the Byzantine lamellar system which is in some ways similar to the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e. 
 
[url=http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~tdawson/levantia/KKK.html" target="top]www-personal.une.edu.au/~tdawson/levantia/KKK.html[/url] 
 
There is also a site called "Silk Road Armoury" dealing with central asian arms and armour. Very interesting but often unavailable because it regularly exceeds the bandwidth limits. 
 
Regarding Sind armour there is an indian site, very, very rich in images, including a full set of the said Sind armour looking strikingly similar to the famous graffito of a clibanarius at Dura Europos. This armour shows the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e system used for some parts of the cuirass. 
Warning: it is very image rich and maybe slow to load. 
[url=http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm" target="top]www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm[/url] 
 
If you manage to get the whole page open, you are in for a real threat as far as oriental weapons go.. I highly recomend it. And double mail is mentioned. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/23/04 12:36 pm

03-24-2004, 10:22 AM

Hi Antoninus, 
 
I was hoping you could provide a source more recent than 1971. The book is a reprint because Buttin hasn't written anything since WWII. I'd be extremely dubious of anything written more than 20 years ago. The vast majority of these texts do nothing but repeat the drivel written duing the 19th century. Buttin drew directly from Meyric and Violet le Duc. Medieval armour research has advanced dramatically in the last 20 years - mainly because reputable scholars are actually attempting to build the stuff. 
 
This site perso.club-internet.fr/a1...M0101.html shows many of the Victorian interpretations of "banded mail" (although the author's conclusion is dubious at best) and all of them have been soundly discredited decades ago except for the one regarding leather strips woven through every alternate row. There is apparently some evidence from Austria suggesting that this construction may have been utilised in Europe and a 16th C Indian mail collar has survived with leather thongs woven through it. Today the general consensus is that the illustrations to which you refer are all methods of depicting standard 4-in-1 mail. The "banding" effect is caused by the alternating rows of solid and riveted links. This image www.legionxxiv.org/lorica...crean2.jpg I found on Matt's site demonstrates the effect perfectly and if you compare this to contemporary illustrations you'll find a remarkably similar likeness. 
 
I am aware of the Silk Road site and the Indian site to which you posted links (but I can't find any mention on the Indian site regarding double mail). Both sites are wonderful resources. The Indian Sind armour on this site does resemble the clibanarius graffitto but it is not the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e of which you speak. The Sind armour is a typical mail-and-plates arrangement that was common in Persia, India, Asia, and Eastern Europe. It is described in some detail on the Silk Road site. This type of armour was never adopted in Western Europe and is unrelated to the so-called quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e. The only difference between typical mail-and-plates and your Sind example is the scalloping on the bottom edges of the narrow chest plates. I assume that you have misinterpreted this scalloping for individual overlapping scales covered in fabric. There are no individual scales and there is no fabric. I have personally constructed this type of armour and the mail links hold the plates in place without any need for a backing. The assembly is worn over some sort of padded garment just like mail. 
 
Regarding Byzantine lamellar. I found the site you posted about a year ago and agree it is excellent. However, the construction of Byzantine lamellar has nothing to do with "besoigne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e". All lamellar was laced together in such a fashion that it had no need of a backing material. Byzantine lamellar was no exception. If the plates need to be fastened to a foundation then it is defined as scale. The shape and alignment of the plates are irrelevant. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/24/04 12:50 pm

03-24-2004, 12:19 PM

I don't know much about FranÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â§ois Buttin but "Du costume militaire...etc" was published in 1971 by the royal academy of arts and literature in Barcelona, Spain. 
You may have mixed FranÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â§ois with his father whose first name was Charles, if I remember. 
The Sind armour: the construction can be seen on the upper thighs. As for the reference of double mail it's out there in one of the captions describing another full suit of armour (Turkish or Persian, can't remember). I think it's an arming doublet reinforced with "double mail" at the sides. 
Yes, that photo of mail is interesting. However the scuptural evidence clearly shows a difference, not only in the depiction but also in the way the protection "hangs". The quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e seems a trifle more rigid. 
Has anyone tried reconstruct the Buttin/Funcken solution? 
The byzantine lamellar has little to do indeed with the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e as far as construction is concerned but the principle is the same: the separation of the rows of scales/rings by leather or fabric in order to provide flexibility with a protection not as "porous" as mail. 
Which takes us back to vocabulary and arrows. Maybe this was this kind of "mail" -- the quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e-- that was arrow proof.. 
As for Viollet le Ducn, well after having been covered in mud during close to a century the poor man is being rehabilitated nowadays... 
fashions change..

03-24-2004, 12:46 PM

Unless there are different sculptures done by the same artist demonstrating these so-called differences then it means nothing. Every artist used a different method to represent mail. There are thousands of illustrations and unless you can post specific examples we will continually be talking past one another. Again, please cite a *recent* source supporting the case for quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e. My first year Uni lecturer would have smacked me in the head if i tried using a book published in 1971. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/24/04 1:55 pm

03-24-2004, 10:45 PM

I guess I could do that but I am too lazy to look so I'll leave what is apparently a hot debating issue to the medievalists. 
However I tend to be very suspicious of people dismissing other peoples' theories without coming up with one of their own.. 
Every artist used a different method to represent mail. Fine. I'll accept that. 
But then the question remains: what is besongne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e?? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/24/04 11:52 pm

03-25-2004, 05:37 AM

It is not a hot debating issue. Nobody has seriously considered it a valid type of armour for decades. The term "besongne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e" doesn't exist in any text before the 19th century. It was a term invented by Victorian scholars in an attempt to define the armour represented in some contemporary illustrations. It is the overwhelming consensus of the armour community today that it never existed and that those sculptures and illustrations represent nothing more elaborate than standard 4-in-1 mail made of alternating rows of solid and riveted links. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/25/04 6:52 am

03-25-2004, 12:09 PM

Sorry about this, because it has very little to do with arrows and ancient armour.. 
But well.. 
From what I've read the term "besongne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e" was found on the statutes of the Parisian master armourers dating from the XIV th century. But the people who wrote this could be wrong. 
But anyways, I found this image in L. and F. Funcken "Le costume, l'armure et les armes au temps de la chevalerie". 
 
<img src="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Quasi.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
The two systems on the right illustrate the Viollet le Duc method --the rings-- and the method suggested --not imposed-- by FranÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â§ois Buttin with the solid roundels. 
The little crossbow man has an armour and I'm pretty sure it's not ring mail. It may be studded leather german style, however. 
The drawings of the copper plate engravings show ring mail on the right and on the left something that does not look like anything I've seen so far, including the photograph of the flattened ring mail. 
There is clearly a double line between the rows of "rings". 
Had it been the flattened ring mail like in the photograph, I don't see the reason why the engraver would have bothered with the double line between the "rings". 
Yours puzzled.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/25/04 1:25 pm

03-27-2004, 12:25 PM

The crossbowman (A) is wearing mail. B and C were not done by the same artist. 
 
Claude Blair, "European Armour: C.1066 to C.1700" 1978 , page 35-36. 
 
-------- 
"Before concluding this chapter some reference must be made to the once highly controversial problem of "banded" mail. It is unusual to find a naturalistic representation of mail in medieval art. To save time and trouble the artist usually adopted one or other of a number of conventional methods of presenting the general impression of a structure of interlinked rings. The most common of these consisted simply of a series of short, vertical, curved strokes arranged in parallel rows which were occasionally separated by a single line; all the strokes in any one row curved in one direction, all in the next row in the opposite direction. There are, however many illustrations of mail dating from between the 2nd quarter of the 13th C. and the third quarter of the 14th which have the rows of strokes divided from each other by pairs of parallel lines or again, on a very small number of English effigies, by narrow ribs. Where the inside of the mail is shown it is invariably depicted the same way. The general effect is of a series of narrow horizontal bands threaded through the mail at regular intervals, hence the term "banded-mail." 
 
"Many attempts have been made to reconstruct banded-mail but there is no space to discuss them here. Most of them are wildly impractical or else fall down on the essential requirement that they should present the same appearance on both faces. The most feasible suggestion, made by the late JG Waller, is that banded-mail was simply ordinary mail reinforced by thongs threaded through alternate rows of rings. In support for his theory Mr. Waller pointed out that the collars of certain comparatively modern Oriental hauberks are treated in this way. But the purpose of this is to make the collar sufficiently rigid to stand up round the neck, and there seems to be no reason why such qualities in the rest of the hauberk should have been thought desirable. The thongs would not have made the hauberk any stronger, and their tendency to stretch or contract by varying amounts would hardly have been conducive to a satisfactory and comfortable fit. 
 
"No reference to anything that can be interpreted as banded-mail has yet been noted in any contemporary document and no examples are known to survive. It seems likely, therefore- and this is the view now generally held- that it was simply another conventional method of representing ordinary mail. In support of this view it is worth noting that when a piece of ordinary mail is stretched, as it would be when worn, the effect produced is that of horizontal rows of links divided from each other by narrow bands." 
-------- 
 
 
No scholar since Blair has seriously considered "besoigne quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e" to be a valid type of armour. Unless you can produce an equally reputable armour scholar (not a writer of costume books), from the same time or later, debunking Blair's work, we should probably end this. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/27/04 11:45 pm

03-27-2004, 01:07 PM

Another thing. Studded leather armour never existed. Adding studs alone produces no discernable effect on incoming attacks. Again you are relying on info that is a century out of date (or a certain Fantasy Roleplaying Game). Historically, studding was used either for decoration (to create the fashionable "faux" brigandine), as rivets to join sections of fabric together, or to attach metal plates under the material for reinforcing. It is easy to mistake a coat-of-plates or brigandine for studded armour since the metal plates are concealed under the material and only the rivets are visible. The German leg armour to which you refer is a type of splint armour - a fabric or leather guard upon which metal strips are riveted. Sometimes to the outside, sometimes to the inside, and sometimes alternating. The earliest reference I know of is the Strategekion (sp?) of Maurice. In it he also suggests wooden splints as a substitute for iron. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/28/04 12:22 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Technological studies on Bronze Age metal body armour	Steven James	0	899	12-28-2016, 12:21 PM Last Post: Steven James
	Men of Bronze: Experimental approaches to the first body armour in the Aegean and Eur	Steven James	0	1,052	09-25-2016, 05:59 AM Last Post: Steven James
	Arrows Against Linen and Leather Armour	Steven James	1	1,848	09-21-2016, 07:41 AM Last Post: MonsGraupius