lorica hamata real weight

[Crispianus]

Sure, a part from the weight, which is the most interesting feature in my opinion and which you already know, here informations about rings:
- assembled with 4 in 1 technique
- the "1" is rivetted, the "4" are solid rings
- diameter outer 6 mm., inner 4,5-5 mm
- thickness of the wire, 0.8-1.0 mm
- rivets to close rings very small, I guess they are +\\- 0.7 mm (thickness) but is hard to say. Rounded head.
Let me know if you want to know more.

This may be of some help, Bronze mail from Vindonissa, size is said to be around 5mm wide with wire 0.5mm thick(but original may well be around 1mm... although looking at the pic its worn and varies both in size and thickness... although I think some is likely approaching the original in thickness, it seems to be made from round riveted wire with a lenticular overlap with a round head rivet and slightly broader flat punched links but its difficult to tell.....


[attachment=11001]MailVindonissa.jpg[/attachment]

Source: Das Leder und seine Verarbeitung im Römischen Legionslager Vindonissa, 1942 A.Ganser- Burckhardt.

In any case it should not be to difficult to estimate the weight overall with a few pieces of mail of different wire thickness........ at a rough guess I would say IF a 0.5mm wire mail shirt weighed 3kg, a 0.75mm wire mail shirt would weigh around 6kg +/- and a 1mm wire mail shirt 12kg +/- assuming that the same number of rings covered the same area....
my mail shirt weighs about 12kg but its made from round split rings 10-11mm(outside dia) x 1.6mm thick, if it were made of 1mm wire it should be about 5kg +/- (a factor of 2 to 0.8 or a ratio of 2.5, based on cross sectional area = mass).... so wire thickness is everything as far as weight is concerned....

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who can weigh their mail shirts and include the thickness and size of the rings, we'd soon get a table of weights for mail....

my 2 cents ;-)

[Dan Howard]

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who can weigh their mail shirts and include the thickness and size of the rings, we'd soon get a table of weights for mail....

Pretty much all of the modern riveted mail imported from India use links that are way too thin. They can't be used for this. You need mail made from accurate links such as the one Erik made for John.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Ah, there is the moment I finally once have to disagree with Dan. I think one needs one single ring made by Erik, or maybe, better this single ring´s weight. Then you need nothing but rather simple maths.

[marcos]

[quote="marcos" post=360719]

This may be of some help, Bronze mail from Vindonissa,

Bronze?

I have access at three other hamata fragments, I want ot check their thickness and width. Also I want to more deeply check the thickness I told you but in a large number of rings to get a reliable media.

[marcos]

Ah, there is the moment I finally once have to disagree with Dan. I think one needs one single ring made by Erik, or maybe, better this single ring´s weight. Then you need nothing but rather simple maths.

Fine, but if you weight a single ring you previously need an extremely precise scales, in order to weight also centigrams, otherwise the result may be far incorrect.

[Crispianus]

"Pretty much all of the modern riveted mail imported from India use links that are way too thin. They can't be used for this. You need mail made from accurate links such as the one Erik made for John"

Dan, Of which I have no doubt, however the diameter of the links is related to the mass and the therefore the weight and this is really what I'm after, it matters to me not at all if the mail is useless as a defence if the rings are too thin as this is subjective, in other words depending on the attack.
In fact I've handled antique mail that was very light with small thin links, all though the shirts were not very large or as old only perhaps 200 years and most likely of middle eastern origin, but if I said 2kg +/-would you believe me? ... would they have protected against a thrust from a gladius? I doubt it but perhaps a slash from a light sword or large knife ...
If Erik makes accurate links perhaps he has info on this and would be prepared to post on it, or perhaps John can post his weights and measures ;-)

Really I think how much weight could a Roman soldier carry and still function, for me at least my limit was anything over 15kg for torso armour... but it significantly tired and slowed me down, but on the other hand I didn't use to wear it every day, which is the reason why my mail shirt accurate or otherwise weighs 12 kg, had I been able to get thinner rings at the time and reduce the thickness to 1.4mm and hence the weight to say 8-9kg I would have taken that option....

Marcos,

"This may be of some help, Bronze mail from Vindonissa,

Bronze?

I have access at three other hamata fragments, I want ot check their thickness and width. Also I want to more deeply check the thickness I told you but in a large number of rings to get a reliable media."

"Kettenpanzer aus Bronze" is the actual wording...

caiusbeerquitius "Ah, there is the moment I finally once have to disagree with Dan. I think one needs one single ring made by Erik"

Or 20,000 rings or as much as you are taller then ordinary men

[ROMan]

In fact I've handled antique mail that was very light with small thin links, all though the shirts were not very large or as old only perhaps 200 years and most likely of middle eastern origin, but if I said 2kg +/-would you believe me? ... would they have protected against a thrust from a gladius? I doubt it but perhaps a slash from a light sword or large knife ...
If Erik makes accurate links perhaps he has info on this and would be prepared to post on it, or perhaps John can post his weights and measures ;-)

I, too, have handled a lot of mail from Asia, the Kitchener collection here at the Royal Ontario Museum has a number of hauberks of mail acquired in the Sudan and India, the latter including significant Persian material. From the introduction of efficient personal guns the armour becomes much lighter and less rigorously made. The swords had traditionally focused on quality of edge rather than weight, and so mediaeval treatises on fighting will also talk about weapons such as the mace for armoured opponents. Contemporaneously to the lightening of the armour, the swords became more curved, more designed for a cut through flesh than for hacking through armour. Hence, as you say, for a weapon designed for the draw cut, quite thin, and even butted, mail will be quite effective. For the weight of Roman mail, given that examples of the armour itself is so rare while the weapons are relatively well evidenced. I would look at the weapons used against the armour for evidence of its weight.

This is not exactly relevant to this thread, but I once watched one of those videos that self-appointed "weapons experts" post on you-tube to talk about different weapon types. This one was on the pesh kabz, also known as a "Khyber knife". He was claiming that experimental archaeologists are idiots for hypothesizing how ancient weapons were used because the pesh kabz *looks* like a stabbing weapon, but 19th century British physicians who had to deal with the wounds created by them said they were used for slashing. The problem with this man's hypothesis is that it is based on one report made centuries after the weapon was devised, during a time when arms and armour were very different. Early pesh-kabz actually show widening of the tip to support piercing chain armour. That the type became popular, and then traditional, in Afghanistan, where it was used for slitting throats, really has nothing to do with the fact that this weapon was originally designed as an armour-piercing thrusting dagger.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Fine, but if you weight a single ring you previously need an extremely precise scales, in order to weight also centigrams, otherwise the result may be far incorrect.

No problem. We have loads of those in the department of material physics.

[marcos]

I would focus on an overview of the matter, i.e. that all roman (and generically ancient) weapons are extremely light, is easy to guess that is because they actually were made for true war, professional weapons. Just for example, I handled several original gladi (without handle) who weighed only 350-400 grs, or helmets around 600-700 grs. Very seldom to see a gladius blade over 550 grs.
This is why I am not surprised if an hamata weight only 4-5 kgs, this perfectly match all that ancient world.
It simply is very lighter than what we believe.

[Dan Howard]

Ah, there is the moment I finally once have to disagree with Dan. I think one needs one single ring made by Erik, or maybe, better this single ring´s weight. Then you need nothing but rather simple maths.

The margin of error is way too high. These links are hand made and not identical. If the link you selected was 0.01g too light or too heavy, you'd get an answer that is off by 3 kg (assuming a 30,000-link hamata). You'd need to weigh lots of links and take an average (keeping many decimals). In addition, how do you know the number of links needed to make a hamata? We can't know how many links of a specific type are required to make a hamata until a hamata is actually made from them. I have a vest made from 5mm links. It has no sleeves at all and barely reaches my thighs but it has more than 50,000 links in it.

[Dan Howard]

Early pesh-kabz actually show widening of the tip to support piercing chain armour.

This is a meme that constantly rears its head but it is untrue. A weapon designed for piercing mail is long, thin, stiff, and made of hardened steel. Widening the tip makes it a lot more difficult to penetrate mail. The reason for widening the tip is to reinforce it to prevent breakage when it incidentally hits armour or bone.

[Xavi]

I found this place,

http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/a...4:1x3kzp8f

How accurate it looks?

One thing I do not understand is why romans use wire rings instead of stamped ones to make the joining rings. It looks like making double work...

[caiusbeerquitius]

Dear Dan, I still disagree. There are more than enough mathematical models to deal with such problems. As you put it you would expect that in Roman times all rings did have the same weight, which they most probably did not have. So there is a given variety in weight, which can be expressed in numbers. You then could say - depending on the form - that an armor with a given size of surface has about that weight, if the rings are made in such and such a way. I doubt that it is sensible to construct strong absolute normatives here.

Xavi: You are also thinking too normative. We also have extant welded rings / and rings cut of a metal tube.

[marcos]

I found this place,

http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/a...4:1x3kzp8f

At a first glance, what abruptly strikes me is the huge difference (or at least in appearance) between the size of rings of this lorica an the original ones. These look as the "big brother" of the originals :-)
Another noticeable difference is .....how to say..... the surface covered by metal. While in this case the empty space within the lorica looks very few, in a original one is the opposite feeling, you see few metal and more empty.

[ROMan]

Early pesh-kabz actually show widening of the tip to support piercing chain armour.

This is a meme that constantly rears its head but it is untrue. A weapon designed for piercing mail is long, thin, stiff, and made of hardened steel. Widening the tip makes it a lot more difficult to penetrate mail. The reason for widening the tip is to reinforce it to prevent breakage when it incidentally hits armour or bone.

I would like to see the data that shows this has no association whatsoever with the intent of piercing armour. Certainly in the case of the peshkabz it is a long thin dagger which could easily bend if it was thrust into armour unless it was stiffened.