A History of Lamellar and Scale Armour in the West

[Dan Howard]

I have to agree with mark george here, Byzantine lamellar was much better

How do you know this? AFAIK we don't have any surviving examples and the available reconstructions are based on pretty flimsy evidence. There are only two ways to judge the effectiveness of historical armour - either you physically test a replica of an existing example or you surmise its effectiveness from eye witness accounts of battles.

[Kai]

Byzantine lamellar was much better

Based on what? There have been no sufficiently academic tests with lamellar armour remotely comparable to Cameron’s (Knight and the Blast Furnace) tests with mail - real mail, not the cheap online store mail. In fact the theoretical lamellar cuirass proposed by Timothy Dawson has not even been found and is the result of interpretation of artworks. Does one really have to say that this is methodologically highly problematic?

And I have not come across a single western source being in awe of the Byzantine or Arab or other eastern armour. On the reserve though, Arab and Byzantine accounts on the shocking effectiveness of the western knights’ armour are known. Technology transfer during the crusades is also pretty one sided. The Komnenian army, after being beaten, transformed into a more western way as J. Birkenmaier demonstrated.

By the way I do not think the one or the other is super superior in protective value: one cannot easily penetrate mail or lamellar well with one-handed weaponry short of the couched lance charge (although this statement goes in dubio pro reo favouring of the lamellar since it has not yet been tested properly; it may turn out that it does not protect as well...). In terms of possible coverage and flexibility on the one hand, and maintenance plus other non-combat factors on the other however, mail is quite a lot better.

I am totally willing to reconsider if a) a cuirass as proposed by Timothy Dawson has been found and b) academic tests (on Cameron's level) have been done.
If both is the case already and I just missed it, I apologize and would like to know more.

[Macedon]

I do agree with Dan, that the Byzantine sources praise the Latin chain armor excessively and strongly suggest that it offered better protection than what armor their troops would usually be wearing. I leave technical details to those who are proficient working with materials that make an armor but the Byzantines did admire Latin armor and there has to be a reason for it. Maybe, assuming that a lamellar or scale armor could under circumstances be as effective, they could produce non-chain armor of even better quality in small numbers but not en mass, it truly seems that in later years, the Byzantine army was not as uniformly well-armored as in older times, possibly because of financial and organizational reasons, so maybe the comparison is intended to be at unit instead of at an individual level.

I would also add that there are many instances in which the Latin horses were attacked rather than their steed by archers (I have 8 examples from 3 sources atm), although, to be fair, I have another 2 regarding Turks attacking the Byzantines in that manner and even one regarding Byzantines attacking Turks.

[Jori]

I've preordered the book. I think only a reconstruction of it could tell us what was most effective.
Why do you think the armor choosed by the artists of the Divine Triad was the lamellar, if it was a cheap low cost one?

[Dan Howard]

I've preordered the book. I think only a reconstruction of it could tell us what was most effective.
Why do you think the armor choosed by the artists of the Divine Triad was the lamellar, if it was a cheap low cost one?

No metal armour was "cheap", but lamellar was cheaper than mail. Mail was the most expensive and time consuming type of armour ever invented.

[Kai]

Why do you think the armor choosed by the artists of the Divine Triad was the lamellar, if it was a cheap low cost one?

Such questions do not lead anywhere: the old games of "why did not they do x if y" can be played with any result one wishes... There are hundreds of possible reasons why an artist chose this or that armour in this or that artwork. Associative guessing does not help.
That is why it is so important to unearth actual examples of the armour we are talking about and that is not the case with the Byzantine super-Lamellar of Timothy Dawson irrc. Then an academic test with a well made replica may be possible and only then, after all this we may infer on its protective value.

[Jori]

I agree with you. My question is to know why in Orient, mail armour wasn't systematically choosed if it was so much better. At least for those who could afford it. Even gods couldnt afford it?

Or maybe it's a story about the metal used. Maybe a good iron used on lamellar is best than a crappy iron used on a mail. Maybe this good iron can not be transformed into mail.

Juste guessing.

[Dan Howard]

I agree with you. My question is to know why in Orient, mail armour wasn't systematically choosed if it was so much better. At least for those who could afford it.

It was. The only real exception was in China and the Asian steppes, and in the latter, metal armour of any kind was rare. No idea why China never developed a mail-making industry. Most of their mail came from Persia.

[Macedon]

I would actually love to know the quality difference between earlier Roman and Latin mail. Why was it replaced in the first place? Was Latin mail that sturdier or was it only the fact that it covered the whole body of the trooper that may have made it more effective?

[Dan Howard]

I don't think there was much difference in its construction. A lot of Roman mail was pretty heavy and perfectly capable of stopping arrows. Mail continued to be made of alternating rows of solid and riveted links. The only real difference was in coverage. By the end of the 11th century, Western European and Middle Eastern heavy cavalry wore mail that covered pretty much all of the body.

[Sean Manning]

Kai: still lamellar was favoured in the east for some reason, and modern bohurt-fighters massively favour any kind of lamellar opposed to mail.

Modern fighters face completely different threats though: large men with clubs or blunt swords who win by making a certain number of strong blows or knocking their opponents down. Ancient and medieval soldiers were most worried about being pierced with spears and arrows or cut with swords and axes. Mail is very bad against the first threat, and very good against the second.

I might pick up this book when it comes out.

[Dan Howard]

Mail was the preferred type of armour by virtually every metal using culture in the world for the best part of two thousand years. During that time the most common threat on a battlefield came from spears and arrows. Mail was more than capable of dealing with those weapons. It wasn't invulnerable but it was at least as protective as any other alternative.

[Dan Howard]

Or maybe it's a story about the metal used. Maybe a good iron used on lamellar is best than a crappy iron used on a mail. Maybe this good iron can not be transformed into mail.

The opposite was actually true. We know that the majority of mail was made from drawn wire. It isn't possible to draw poor quality iron through a draw plate. You need highly refined iron with few or very finely distributed slag inclusions to make drawn wire. Metallurgical studies of extant examples over the entire two thousand year history of mail support this. The crappy iron you speak about was used for making other armour, not mail.

Mail required better quality raw materials than any other type of metal armour.
Mail required more time to produce than any other type of metal armour.
There is no credible argument that anyone can make that doesn't lead to the conclusion that mail was the most expensive type of metal armour.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You guys are right, I should have looked up more about Lamellae armors first. Although I agree Chainmail offered the best protection, at least until the 15th century.

I always thought Scale was more expensive? Maybe it was easier to make decorative?