What I heard about on the history channel

[Steakslim]

BTW A guy said that this reenactment group doesn't use them on horse back because the shoulder plates hurt their neck due to the motion of the horse along with the shock of the charge. Can anyone tell me anything about that?

[Donciorate]

I've been riding for a while in modern and historical situations and I think I could shed some light on the situation. I am not saying anything about the strength of either armor but having riden in both I will talk on the physical advantages to chainmail on horse back because I have come to the conclusion that it is a far superior armor while in the saddle.

First the position of the armor, while mounting a horse in a Hamata you discover one of the problems with the armor, its length, because it falls below the hips it must be adjusted to sit in the saddle. But this problem actually helps fix another, when I ride I bunch the armor up over my hips so that I don't end up sitting on it, this places the bottom 10-12 inches of the armor in a bunch around my waist that rests on the saddle, this bunch acts much like a waist belt for infantry, it takes some of the weight off of my shoulders and transfers it into the saddle and therefore into the horse. Another advantage to this bunch around your waist is that it acts like a shock absorber, when you bounce up in the saddle armor is pulled out of the bunch to allow the extension and when you sink down the armor falls into the bunch so it doesn't push up uncomfortably into your armpits and chest. This bunch also provides assistance in controling the horse, when you ride without stirrups your legs wing free and you need to use your knees to hold on, with a large bunch of armor on you legs it helps to keep you legs down and gives you a slight advantage in control.

In combat Hamata has its advantages too, for one it is heavier, and when you are using a horse in combat one of your biggest advantage is their sheer size and weight, if you can add weight to the horse it only enhances its charge capabilities. Also it is mor flexible around the arms and shoulders, this becomes and advantage when you are fighting on horse bacdk mainly because of a difference in weaponry. When fighting with a spatha or a spear of some kind a much wider range of motion is required, you need to be able to hack and slash, aswell as twist and stab and do many different things than you would do with a gladius in an infantry formation. (If you don't believe me, just try to fight with a long spear or a spatha and swing it about like you would need to on horse back while wearing a seggie then try with hamata there is a big difference, why do you think the hack and slash barbarians wore chainmail?) Other advantages in combat are chainmails resistance to slashing attacks. I will admit chainmails has serious fault when it comes up against arrows and javelins but in the furious melee of close quarters combat you don't really have to worry about that. When cavalry charge and infantry line they are the most vulnerable during the charge, they are out in the open and are fair game for archers and pila, but that is why they have such big shields. Their large shields would protect them in the charge and once they clash with the infantry their chainmail would provide more protection against the attacks of the infantry men around them.

Thats all for now.

[Dan Howard]

Wonderful post Justin, laudes awarded. Your last paragraph brings up a question I've been meaning to ask. Does the segmentata inhibit overhanded spear thrusts? Xenophon commented on cavalry having to modify the right shoulder of the Greek breasplate in order to facilitate javelin throwing.

[Urselius]

Mail is still used in the dress uniforms of some soldiers, especially in former cavalry units, as a form of epaulette.

I thought that some academics disliked the term chainmail because chains are one dimensional whereas mail armour forms a two dimensional surface, and when completely tailored and worn a three dimensional structure. :roll: