# How effective was chain mail?



## TheokinsJ (May 6, 2013)

I've been doing a bit of research for my WIP, as well as starting to make same chain mail in my spare time (It's surprisingly easy, but time consuming) and I've been wondering how effective it actually is compared to, say, plate armour. I've heard different stories about what it can and can't do, and I'm wondering if you guys can help me separate fact from fiction. For example, I've been doing a bit of research and heard that chain mail (if well made) was supposed to be very good at stopping arrows from penetrating, and that arrows and swords couldn't pierce it (Well, not easily any way)- however I've been looking on youtube at people testing chain mail and firing arrows at it, and then revealing it penetrates. So if chain mail doesn't work as well as people say, why would you wear it instead of solid plate armour which provides more protection, and can be made much more easily?


----------



## ecdavis (May 6, 2013)

Chain mail is good at stopping slashing type of wounds, such as if you took a sword and swung it across horizontally.    It was good for thrusts by a sword as well, as the point of the sword usually wouldn't go in very deep.   Arrows tended to separate the rings of the mail and pass through, but the arrowheads had to be much more needle-like rather than the 'normal' types seen in movies.   Usually leather padding was worn beneath the mail and often heavy leather covered it and this also provided some protection.

As to why they wore it; mainly it was due to mobility.   Chain mail does move better with an individual and plate had to be individually fitted to each part of the body.   Sometimes breastplates were worn over chain mail and this is the source of the term 'plate mail'.    Chain mail was typically bulky and coats of it put a lot of weight on the wearer's shoulders, whereas plate armor distributed the weight more evenly, but it took more time to craft and fit plate armor to an individual.


----------



## ALB2012 (May 6, 2013)

It is also cheaper and more generic, or so I have been led to believe. It would not be as effective against bodkin arrows but with the padding underneath was better than nothing.

It was lighter, more mobile and easier to take on and off. 

I saw a mythbusters episode testing the stopping power of paper armour, and believe it or not it is pretty good. MythBusters: Paper Armor? Really? : Video : Discovery Channel as effective as plate until the invention of firearms.

Also found these. Armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History of Armor


----------



## Telcontar (May 6, 2013)

Concerning the weight and flexibility of the armor: ecdavis' mention that  "Chain mail was typically bulky and coats of it put a lot of weight on the wearer's shoulders" is the most salient point. In terms of total weight, mail armor was often comparable to plate because there would be several layers of links. Thus, it was actually harder to move about in large hauberks of mail than in a well-made suit of plate. However, economically speaking mail had a major advantage in that it did not require custom fitting to the user nor so much skill in the creation.

As far as protection goes, good chain mail is exceedingly effective at stopping slashing attacks or thrusts from wide-bladed weapons (which many infantry spears were). Projectiles fired from heavy war bows or crossbows had a good chance of penetrating. This is not surprising, of course, as weapons such as longbows, crossbows, cavalry lances, and many other thin-pointed stabbing weapons post-date the creation of mail armor (which is very old) and often were _specifically designed to defeat it._


----------



## psychotick (May 6, 2013)

Hi,

Actually without having done any measuring at all I would assume that chain mail was much lighter than full plate. How could it not be when it's full of holes compared with a solid steel plate. It's also easier to fit, you slip it on like a T shirt rather than having to be strapped into it, moves with you allowing you a greater range of motion, and provides a level of protection against sharp things, sword points and arrows etc. Besides weight is important if you're marching long distances or even riding. For example a man in chain would ride a normal horse. However knights in France found that normal horses were not up to the task of carrying a man in full plate long distances, so they had to breed special horses just to carry them - the Percheron - essentially a draft horse.

The level of protection probably depends mostly on the quality of the chain, the thickness of the mesh, whether it has rusted at all etc.

However it's not worn alone. Even if the chain worked perfectly and prevented the tip of a sword from piercing your skin the sheer impact of the sword would cause bruising crushing type injuries. And lets not forget blunt weapons like hammers,against which the mail would be completely useless. So normally it would be combined with some sort of padded jacket / vest, perhaps even woven into one as in a gambeson. It would also be worn with leather armour.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## ecdavis (May 6, 2013)

One important thing is that even a well-made chain mail shirt does NOT flex like cloth at all.   You can't stretch it out and if you gained weight you were really screwed because it would not fit, unless it was tied with straps in the back.  It was, of course, easy to move in, except for the weight, but you can't think of it like cloth or even leather.


----------



## Nameback (May 6, 2013)

Chain was lighter than plate. A suit of plate was typically around 15-20kg, chain about 6-10kg. However people are correct in pointing out that the shoulders bore more of the weight of chain mail than with plate--but if we're talking about endurance and exhaustion, then plate is certainly a more hampering form of armor due to the extra weight. 

As to the effectiveness of chain--well, that depends quite a bit on what it was made of. Chain armor is a very old concept, and many of the more ancient societies that used it would have often made it out of steel that was more variable in its carbon content and less useful than modern steel, either being more ductile or more brittle than ideal. 

In any case, it seems that certain arrow types (especially bodkin-tips) would have been able to penetrate chain fairly easily, as would spears/lances/etc with finer points. 

Chain was primarily useful in stopping slashing or cutting blows--and to some extent, wider-tipped piercing weapons. Many types of cloth armor (which would be worn under the chain) were actually quite respectable throughout history, and capable of stopping piercing blows with some efficacy. However, they tended to be vulnerable to cutting blows. Thus, by layering chain over cloth, one could get some protection from both types of attacks.

An important advantage of plate over chain, besides its superior resistance to penetrative weapons, was that it redistributed force. Thus, when a slashing blow is made against plate, the force is distributed across the entire piece of armor that was struck, and the weapon may be deflected outright and fail to make a proper strike. Chain, however, while it would protect you from being cut, would not protect you from the force of the blow. 

To think about this, imagine the Celts of the 3rd-1st centuries BC. These are the people who, it seems, invented chain armor. Interestingly, by the time the Romans fought the Celts with any regularity, the Celts used weapons made of very ductile iron (perhaps not even containing enough carbon to be called steel). They failed to hold an edge very well because they would be quickly blunted in battle--Romans even write of the Celts needing to step on their blades to bend them back into shape during battles. Why would the Celts use such ductile blades? Well, if chain proliferated, cutting edges would be rendered far less useful, and swords become more like clubs than blades. If you can't cut someone wearing chain armor, then instead break their bones and make them bleed internally.


----------



## Shockley (May 7, 2013)

> To think about this, imagine the Celts of the 3rd-1st centuries BC. These are the people who, it seems, invented chain armor. Interestingly, by the time the Romans fought the Celts with any regularity, the Celts used weapons made of very ductile iron (perhaps not even containing enough carbon to be called steel). They failed to hold an edge very well because they would be quickly blunted in battle--Romans even write of the Celts needing to step on their blades to bend them back into shape during battles. Why would the Celts use such ductile blades? Well, if chain proliferated, cutting edges would be rendered far less useful, and swords become more like clubs than blades. If you can't cut someone wearing chain armor, then instead break their bones and make them bleed internally.



 They used the same method to forge their iron weapons (I've never heard of Celts using proper steel) as they did bronze and copper. Thus, the problem. More often than not, the sides of the Gallic blades were not sharpened - just the points, and the rest of the sword was expected to flop like a mini-flail. Works great if you're fighting Celtiberians or Belgians, but Plutarch's Life of Camillus has a great example of how pathetic that was against the Romans. 



> Knowing that the prowess of the barbarians lay chiefly in their swords, which they plied in true barbaric fashion, and with no skill at all, in mere slashing blows at head and shoulders, 4 he had helmets forged for most of his men which were all iron and smooth of surface, that the enemy's swords might slip off from them or be shattered by them. He also had the long shields of his men rimmed round with bronze, since their wood could not of itself ward off the enemy's blows. The soldiers themselves he trained to use their long javelins like spears, — to thrust them under the enemy's swords and catch the downward strokes upon them.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...



 So yeah, the method used to make your weapons and armor, and the quality of the metal, is a hell of a lot more important than what kind of a weapon/armor it is.


----------



## skip.knox (May 7, 2013)

Chain mail was highly effective, which is why it was around for so long. The historians of the First Crusade talk about how the arrows from the Turks were stuck all over the Latin warriors. You should note that it wasn't just the chain mail, it was the linen underneath as well. Rolled linen can be surprisingly tough.

Someone mentioned ballooning out of one's chain mail. It's possible, I suppose, but nearly all chain mail was held together with leather fasteners. Those fasteners were in fact a weak point of the system--the leather got old and cracked. Happened with greaves as well.


----------



## Nameback (May 7, 2013)

Shockley said:


> They used the same method to forge their iron weapons (I've never heard of Celts using proper steel) as they did bronze and copper.



Yeah, it's always a bit confusing discussing iron and steel as it relates to pre-modern history. Certainly the Celts didn't use pure-iron; almost all iron produced in the ancient world was an iron/carbon alloy with significant amounts of carbon. Pure iron (wrought iron) was never used for tools or weapons because it was far too soft--much softer than bronze. However, it was useful in architectural purposes.

Still, you're right that the Celts, unlike other Western societies (such as the Romans) did not quench-harden their iron, but instead hardened it by cold-working it (like bronze), rather than the hot-working that other societies used to forge their iron. 

Often, Celtic iron (and other types of early Iron-Age tools) did have carbon content at or approaching that of modern steel--however, because of inferior manufacturing procedures, these tools were much softer than steel produced with a quench-and-temper technique that developed later. 

So, whether you call it steel or not is up for debate. On a chemical level, some of it could have qualified. However, it was certainly more ductile and softer than good steel. 

Interestingly, Noric (from Celtic Noricum, in modern-day Austria) steel became the most prized in all of Rome from about the 2nd century BC onward, and supplied most of the steel of the Roman army, so clearly the Celts got their act together eventually (well, maybe not the Gauls or Britons, but the more easterly Celts). It was widely regarded as excellent for weapons and armor by everyone in the region. Rome produced a truly insane amount of iron (of all types and carbon contents) throughout its history. Around the turn of the millennium, Rome produced about 85,000 tons of iron annually. Compare this to Han China (with a similar population), which produced 5,000 tons. Conquest is expensive! 

Another interesting iron-working tidbit: blast-furnaces capable of melting and casting iron didn't exist in the West until the Middle Ages. Iron could be smelted and forged, but not actually heated to the point of melting. However, blast-furnaces capable of melting iron were invented in China by at least 300 BC, and in Tanzania by 100 BC. However, the skill never migrated beyond either of these places, and was developed independently in the West around 1000 AD.


----------



## Shockley (May 8, 2013)

I was actually looking at the iron production numbers the other day, as I was having a discussion on Celtic metallurgical techniques versus Roman ones. That said, it shouldn't be surprising that Han China had a low iron output - the majority of their weapons were bronze. 

 Which leads to another interesting point about weaponry. While the Iron Age is a later development than the Bronze Age, the transition marked a sharp decline in the quality of the average weapon. This was not the case in the later Iron Age, certainly not when the Romans were doing their thing, but it was the situation at the start. Iron weapons did not beat out bronze weapons because they were better, but because they were quicker and easier to produce. So as soon as groups like the Persians and Hittites start fielding these large armies because of iron, other countries had to transition to iron in order to remain competitive in the size arena.

 If you compare officer weaponry to regular soldier weaponry, even into the very late Iron Age, you tend to find that officers preferred the superior bronze weaponry to iron weaponry.


----------



## Devor (May 8, 2013)

Chain mail is a D&D term.

Mail was as effective as the labor and materials which went into it.  It wasn't factory made.  Every suit was different.  It could have thin wide links that were loose and pierced easily, or tight thick rings that held together through most attacks.  You could have layers of mail links, leather padding underneath, metal plates affixed to the outside, and so on.  Cheap mail will even break against slashing weapons, while expensive mail will survive most piercing attacks.

In a nutshell, you could make it as tough as you need it to be.  But effective mail really becomes heavier and more cumbersome than plate at a certain point.

Consider:  A mail shirt hinders everything it covers equally.  Your elbow bends fighting the friction of the links rubbing against each other.  A plate is inflexible, but the gaps are positioned for minimal interference with your movement.  Nothing fights the bend of your elbow at all.


----------



## Nameback (May 8, 2013)

Shockley said:


> I was actually looking at the iron production numbers the other day, as I was having a discussion on Celtic metallurgical techniques versus Roman ones. That said, it shouldn't be surprising that Han China had a low iron output - the majority of their weapons were bronze.
> 
> Which leads to another interesting point about weaponry. While the Iron Age is a later development than the Bronze Age, the transition marked a sharp decline in the quality of the average weapon. This was not the case in the later Iron Age, certainly not when the Romans were doing their thing, but it was the situation at the start. Iron weapons did not beat out bronze weapons because they were better, but because they were quicker and easier to produce. So as soon as groups like the Persians and Hittites start fielding these large armies because of iron, other countries had to transition to iron in order to remain competitive in the size arena.
> 
> If you compare officer weaponry to regular soldier weaponry, even into the very late Iron Age, you tend to find that officers preferred the superior bronze weaponry to iron weaponry.



True. Not only were they easier to produce though, but iron ore was far more plentiful. There seems to have been a tin shortage at some point during the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age that may have been a precipitating factor. Iron smelting was known and occasionally practiced as early as 2500 BC, but it was sporadic and rare until the Hittites really kicked things off. 

However, competently made steel, with good carbon content that was quench-hardened and heat-tempered was far superior to bronze. This was another advantage of the 1st-century-BC-and-onward Roman army against many of its enemies--average soldiers typically had pretty good equipment, since they were professional soldiers and served 16-year tours. It was worth the investment to get a sword and chain shirt made from good steel.


----------



## wordwalker (May 8, 2013)

Nameback said:


> However, competently made steel, with good carbon content that was quench-hardened and heat-tempered was far superior to bronze. This was another advantage of the 1st-century-BC-and-onward Roman army against many of its enemies--average soldiers typically had pretty good equipment, since they were professional soldiers and served 16-year tours. It was worth the investment to get a sword and chain shirt made from good steel.



So Romans that early had not only iron but good steel. And a common Roman soldier could get chain armor if he made an effort? We've said chain was out there, but available to regular legionnaires? And then, how much richer or more noble would you have to be to afford it in other lands or later ages?

That's something I keep trying to get a handle on: not only how good different armors were, but who had them.


----------



## Shockley (May 8, 2013)

It's hard to say that the Romans had steel, at least in the since that we use it today. Sometimes, on occasion, the Romans would produce iron of such a quality that we would recognize it as being identical steel. However, the process was far from consistent - you couldn't tell someone to make you steel, but you could get them to use their best iron (which is equivalent, at least at this time period).


----------



## Nameback (May 8, 2013)

Shockley said:


> It's hard to say that the Romans had steel, at least in the since that we use it today. Sometimes, on occasion, the Romans would produce iron of such a quality that we would recognize it as being identical steel. However, the process was far from consistent - you couldn't tell someone to make you steel, but you could get them to use their best iron (which is equivalent, at least at this time period).



Agreed that the consistency was not uniform, but I'm not sure how we wouldn't call it steel? It was both stronger and tougher than bronze, had the ability to bend and snap back into shape, held a sharp edge well, and looked like what we call steel today. 

I mean, they couldn't melt it or cast it or machine it, but they could hot-forge it, quench-harden it, and temper it. Certainly today's steel is far superior, because of modern techniques, but Roman steel was still very much steel. 



> By the time of the Roman Republic, which flourished during the Iron Age, the classical world was well-acquainted with steel and the steel-making process. Pure iron is relatively soft, but pure iron is never found in nature. Natural iron ore contains various impurities in solid solution, which harden the reduced metal by producing irregular-shaped metallic crystals. The Gladius is generally made out of steel.



Gladius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@wordwalker Sorry I should clarify a bit. Roman legionaries were issued arms and armor by the state (after the Marian reforms, at least. Before that I can't remember what the standard operating procedure was). Equipment was relatively uniform, as a result. Every soldier had a shield, a gladius made from steel, javelins with iron points (intended to bend after lodging in an enemy shield, thereby rendering the shield useless), and chain armor that was typically made of bronze or good iron. A soldier could procure a shirt made from good steel if he so chose, and many soldiers did in fact customize their gear as they served very long tours and had relatively decent pay for a regular joe of the time period. Also, they tended to maintain their gear quite religiously, and armor was even passed down through the generations if it was of particularly good quality. 

But, to put it simply, yes, the average Roman soldier had a respectable set of armor.


----------



## Lancelot (May 14, 2013)

Chain is good for armies, as sizing is easier and outfitting can be done by oneself or with a buddy (the same way modern military garb is put on). Plate is great, but you see it was more restricted in use since it needed to have a better fit to be useful and it is much more laborious to put on, especially for a full body. 

Also, repairing chain was easier than plate and that did happen. They weren't leaving that precious armor on the dead bodies of common soldiers. That was taken, darned, and issued.


----------

