# Armor through ages. As as anything.



## Bortasz

Hello. I was in medieval brotherhood and I was fighting in several battles with armour on my  body. Both Chainmail and plate. My knowledge is not big but I'm happy to share it with everybody. especial to debunk stupidity from Hollywood. 

I apologies in advance. I have dyslexia and English is not my native language. So if you have problem understanding anything ask. 

First and most important Mythbusting. 


Spoiler: Metal on bare Skin



Gambeson
http://s1.gambeson.pl/pf/2728/przeszywanica-piechoty.jpg
Aketon
http://steel-mastery.com/images/products/full/woman-gambeson-1.jpg
Padded Jack
http://www.museumreplicas.com/image...-gambesons_robin-of-locksley-gambeson_429.jpg
Armed doublet
http://home.messiah.edu/~gdaub/armor/pictures/valentin/gussets.jpg
Or like is called in Poland Przeszywanica
http://www.wojmir.pl/gambeson007p.JPG

All this is different name for one simple item. Jacket that goes UNDER the metal. 
And it is ALWAYS there. 
Ancient Roman Legionaries wore under the armor subarmalis
https://www.google.pl/search?q=suba...6I7AaBy4CoCg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1400&bih=761
Like you see it can be made from leather. 
There are evidence that gambeson can be trace back to 4 b.c. where Scythian use them. 

The main purpose of all this jacket is simple. Amortization. 

Imagine that you are in your kitchen.
Putting hand on the table. Now On the hand you put a desk that you use to cut vegetables and meat. 
Now Imagine that somebody strike that desk with hammer. 
Result: Broken bones. 
Now imagine that you take you winter padded jacket and put it between the desk to cut meat, and you hand. 
Now if somebody strikes with hammer you have a chance, how big it depend on the jacket,to have whole bones. You still will be hurt. But amortization that jacket gives you saves you from the real harm. 

The gambeson have also other benefits. 
- It protect from abrasions done by metal that was rubbing you skin for all day long. 
- It protect metal of you armour from contacting you sweat. And by that from corrosion. Yes human sweat is acidic. 
PH that deodorant commercials talk is not a myth. One guy from my brotherhood have complete ban on toughing the metal with bare hands because ALWAYS in matter of hours there was corrosion. 
- It protect you from cold. This I quarantine you. Good gambeson is practically a winter jacket, and can be use as a counterpane. 
If you have full gambeson (Head, body, legs) you will be always warm in the night.

Now biggest problem with gambeson is heat. If you fight in the middle of spring for hours you can extremely quickly raise body temperature. That will cause sweating. I remember that when I take off my gambeson it stick to me like second skin. That wet it was. You practically have portable sauna on you. 
Dehydration is dangerous. I know three idiots that play "Who lost conscious first" game on the fields of Grunewald. They stand on top of the hill for several hours. It end with ambulance. 

Some people were using a gambeson not as a part of armor, but as a armor. 
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f74/HRG2006/pikemensm.jpg

Gambeson is not perfect armour. But it is cheap, and to be honest it can be worn all day. It is like going through the day with winter padded jacket on you. 

When arches and crossbowmen shoot ad you, the arrows and bolts maybe get through metal, but gambeson have big chance of stopping them. 
That arrows and bolts lose big chunk of energy getting through metal, now they lose more going through gambeson. Stories about knight that look like porcupine with arrows being in them, came from this. Some of the knight could be lucky enough to have no wounds from arrows. Just bruisers. 

As person who have on my back several types of armour I cannot imagine going in to battle without gambeson on me. I can imagine going without metal armour, but gambeson is a must. 

Sadly many writers forget about gambeson. They use rule of cool and I'm banging my head of the wall when I read that somebody put metal piece on his bare skin and it protected him from anything. This is pure stupidity. Metal contacting you bare skin is dangerous. It will only prevent cutting, but every hit have some blunt energy and that will crush you bones. 

The thickness of gambeson can go up to 2,5 centimetre or 1 inch. 
It is made from flax
http://armstreet.com/catalogue/full...l-gambeson-with-flax-linen-exterior-sca-4.jpg
and leather.
https://www.google.pl/search?newwin...0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.52.img..7.0.0.vt2kLC5VWJo
Some use layers of flax, adding them one ad a time. 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oCb6tzpMztk/S76xyzlFyAI/AAAAAAAAAD0/xKex2kdvPRA/s320/shoulders+front.JPG
http://steel-mastery.com/images/products/full/ordinary-gambeson-7.jpg

Others forcibly pack sheep fleece in tubes made from few layers of flax
http://www.wojmir.pl/gambeson006p.JPG

In all goal is to maximize amortization without reducing the movement. 

Weight is between 8 - 10 kilograms.

Lastly remember that this is not only jacket. But also:
Protection going under the helmet. 
https://www.google.pl/search?q=Piko...2h7AbY9IH4Bw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1400&bih=761
leg protection:
https://www.google.pl/search?newwin...8.0....0...1c.1.52.img..12.5.1099.yrRFnIMl45Q
And of course hands:
https://www.google.pl/search?newwin...10.0....0...1c.1.52.img..11.6.478.EO-eMuLpayM



No if you have any question about armours pleas put them here. I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

PS can somebody edit the Thread?


----------



## Jesse Booth

How quickly does armor corrode when exposed to sweat?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Jesse Booth said:


> How quickly does armor corrode when exposed to sweat?



The rate of corrosion would depend on the type of metal and the composition.  

There are so many possibilities in the modern era, but in medieval times most armor was made of iron (I think). 

Corrosion rates will depend on many factors to include environment & maintenance. There's a reason warriors polished armor, and it wasn't to look beautiful on the battlefield. They polished armor because a polished surface, being smooth, has less surface and crannies for oxidation to grab hold.  

Another thing to consider is the finish. I'm not sure if this method has been around since medieval times, but black oxidation is a process of controlled rusting and infusion of minerals. This was done by rusting metals in salt water, scrubbing the red oxide (rust) off with a brush, & submersion in mineral water. This leaves a coating of black oxide which protects the metal from red oxide...it's already rusted, but being black, it won't corrode further (and it looks nice).   

Your question has too many variables to answer specifically, but metal corrodes slower than most think. This is especially true of metals that receive regular maintenance. I have a lot of blades. Many of them are carbon steel (1095 steel). It isn't stainless. If not cared for,  it will rust and pit. If it gets wet, all I need to do is dry it with a cloth. If I see rusting on the blade, I'll just scrub the rust off, and oil the metal. Over time, a patina develops (staining) which turns the metal darker (grey or in some cases brown). A patina is a natural protective coating that resists corrosion, to a point. Don't like a patina? Scrub it off with some oil & polish.  

I hope that helps. I can't answer your question better than this...  Sweat won't do much to good metal. It wouldn't be any concern at all with regular upkeep.


----------



## skip.knox

I can add a bit to this. I don't think sweat is a factor at all because nobody wore armor against flesh. There was always padding, usually pretty substantial padding, usually linen and usually thick. I usually don't say usually so often, but this case was unusual.


----------



## Bortasz

Jesse Booth said:


> How quickly does armor corrode when exposed to sweat?



Allen already answered quite good. 

I only add that it also depend from sweat it self. 
In my brotherhood some can touch the metal and it was oki. Nothing happen. 
Guy that I mention Always life fingerprints on the metal. 
So it depend from the person sweat. It depend on maintenance,weather, alloy that make the metal part. Variables are quite big. 

The quickest fingerprints show up after several hours. 3-4. But I don't remember much more. 



About when they start using Black Oxide. I cannot find anything when this technique started. 
There are some iconography with dark armor:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/DeathWatTylerFull.jpg
So it is possible that black oxide was been use in the medieval times.


----------



## Ruby

Hi Bortasz,

Thank you for posting this very useful thread.

I didn't know that knights wore padding under their armour or how the iron rusts.

I have a couple of questions about armour. I'm writing a fantasy set in a kind of parallel medieval world.

1 One of the characters is called the Green Knight and he wears green armour. What would he have used to turn it green?

2 A princess is going on a quest and has had a suit of armour made. It is heavy and the Green Knight suggests that she wear partial armour. Would the armour be too heavy for a young woman to wear? 

Btw 'armour' is the English spelling and 'armor' the American one.


----------



## Bortasz

Ruby said:


> 1 One of the characters is called the Green Knight and he wears green armour. What would he have used to turn it green?



The simplest way is to paint armour with green paint. 

Other option is Bronze patina that will give green/blue color
https://www.google.pl/search?q=Colo...2F06%2F04%2Fa-patina-recipe-book%2F;1936;2592

Other option is that his armour was not a green but his vapenrock and his heraldic colors are green. (Vapenrock is material that goes above the armour. It have heraldic colors. to recognize friends from enemies.) 
http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.7950452.5003/flat,550x550,075,f.u4.jpg

The most important about colors is that in medieval times is that they did not have intense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-lNUYnljFY
This commercial show it. The New red shirt was not available. And if it will be worn by rich. 



Ruby said:


> 2 A princess is going on a quest and has had a suit of armour made. It is heavy and the Green Knight suggests that she wear partial armour. Would the armour be too heavy for a young woman to wear?



I try to give you answer but need more information. 
What type of armour?
http://www.thortrains.com/uniforms/fullarmor1.jpg
What her age is? 
Does this armour was custom made for her? 
Does she wore armour before? 
What sheis suppose to do in the armour? There is no armour for swimming or mountain climbing 

In short. Armour for everybody who never where them will be to heavy after some time of using it. 
Add beginning modern day people are surprise how light they are, but since they did not have stamina, and wore them for the first time they will get tired very quickly.
It can be simple that she is did not train in the armour, or if she dress it up alone for the first time that she put it wrong. To many variables. 
I can give you this video how ma is dressing up in to armour. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ybgJF02WdE
But without more information it is hard to answer this question.


----------



## Ruby

Thank you, Bortasz,

I've been writing this story via a recent 14 day challenge on this site. Here is a link to it

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/challenges/12662-writing-prompt-blitz-o-rama-ii-entries-3.html

My stories are posted on there as by Ruby. They are also on my blog.  jmbakingbread | Writing books, drawing illustrations and cartoons

If you have time to take a look that would be great!

I can summarise the story as: The Princess Fenella is 18 years old. She's an accomplished horse rider and has trained as a warrior. As she's rich, she has had fine armour custom made for her.

Her quest is to rescue her lover, a knight who has been captured by goblins and imprisoned in a dungeon. She will need to travel over dangerous terrain and fight battles.


----------



## Bortasz

I'm currently at work so I just give quick. 

We have here typical RPG player dilemma. What Armour choose.
My advice. 
Show that they actually do a research on what they will face and than gather group and equipment to counter it. 
Fulll plate armour I will take when they will be a battle. Real big battle in this day. But for the most time I will be in the something lighter so I will not get tired by the journey. For dungeon crawling and generally traveling I will take leather armour and shield. The full plate will  be worn only if I'm really certain that to day will be battle. 

Beside that 18 + Custom made amour + training = No weight problem it term that she cannot handle it. Ad worst she will need extra using/training in the armour to build up little extra stamina, and generally adjust to it. And this is for the majority of types of armour. 
The biggest problem maybe a long rider chainmail because it is going little below the knee and all that weight will be on shoulders. Belt will help but just a little. This is like having heavy backpack. 
She will have normal problem when you have armour. Quicker getting tired, little slower. But this is normal. 

The most important is Pain resistance of you princesses. The Knight were tough bastards. Bruisers, broken bones, arrows that get through the helmet and you nose. This guys were train like man. No holding back, no consideration "But she is a women, this will damage her beauty. She is princess we cannot harm princess." 
It is more like: You have Bruisers? O that a shame, now get up and fight you little whiner. Men cry only when beer spills. 
That allow them to fight even when they get wounded, and by that they survive. Armour lower thee damage. Sometimes it completely reduces it, but more often some damage will get through. 

I will do little extra research when go back to home. 

I hope this help.


----------



## Butterfly

Ruby said:


> 1 One of the characters is called the Green Knight and he wears green armour. What would he have used to turn it green?



Other than painting, it could be a natural colouration especially if his armour was forged from copper, or even a copper alloy, or even if it was made with copper decorations attached to it and he hasn't been able to keep them burnished. Over time, copper reacts with oxygen, and turns green. Take a look at the statue of liberty for the hue you can expect.


----------



## Bortasz

Ruby said:


> Thank you, Bortasz,



Little extra for you:
Real Women in Real Armor on Pinterest
Remember that breasts in breastplate is not good idea.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Time to Retire Ã¢â‚¬Å“Boob PlateÃ¢â‚¬Â Armor. Because It Would Kill You. | Tor.com

I don't know why by I hate Asian medieval times except female armor 
Pin by Ben Rose on Real Women in Real Armor | Pinterest
Usually women that wore armour, will have enough money to buy solid good and beautiful armour. And sadly the majority of our female fighters armours are very ordinary. 
But this is just my taste. 

Beside that... I only have the basic. 
Heavier armour is for real big battles. But you don't use it when travel. 

Tell me what you decide best suits you story.


----------



## Guy

Concerning sweat and corrosion:  I have a shirt of mail made from mild steel. I live in southern Louisiana, a very humid and warm climate. I had to enlarge the neck to accommodate my freakishly bulbous head, so I have a small section of mail just sitting on my shelf, no oil or any other protection. It's been there for over a year and it still hasn't rusted, which surprised me. I'm usually finding little spots popping up on my sword blades, despite maintenance, yet the mail has been fine. I don't wear padding underneath it, largely because most of the year it's just too damn hot. I wear a long sleeved tee shirt and jeans. Due to the high heat and humidity, I sweat excessively when I wear it, as in sweat running and dripping off my body (basically as wet as I'd be standing under a shower) and saturating my clothes. I scrupulously keep the mail shirt coated in WD-40 because I've heard it rusts easily due to the small surface area of the individual rings. It hasn't rusted yet, and I've had it for more than a year.


----------



## skip.knox

Bortasz has it right. Full armor, whether chain or plate, was for combat. That is, you wore it when the enemy was right there, across the field. If just traveling, you wore something much lighter, or just ordinary clothing.

And, as for color, paint. There were other possibilities, but the historical practice (as near as we can puzzle out) was use of paint. Plate armor and even chain mail was regularly cleaned, so no sort of patina would develop, because any sort of patina meant some sort of lessening of the metal's intrinsic strengths.

FTR, we have no clue about the famous Green Knight. Plenty of speculation, but that's all. The poem offers nothing.


----------



## Jabrosky

Does anyone know what the breastplates worn by Roman leaders were made of? By "breastplate", I don't mean the standard legionary's _lorica segmentata_. I mean something more like this:








I always pictured those as being forged from bronze, but I've seen artistic portrayals of them as leather instead of anything metallic. Did anyone along the Mediterranean in Greco-Roman times ever wear bronze breastplates?


----------



## Bortasz

Jabrosky said:


> Does anyone know what the breastplates worn by Roman leaders were made of? By "breastplate", I don't mean the standard legionary's _lorica segmentata_. I mean something more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always pictured those as being forged from bronze, but I've seen artistic portrayals of them as leather instead of anything metallic. Did anyone along the Mediterranean in Greco-Roman times ever wear bronze breastplates?



RedRampant.com: Ancient Roman Armor



> Lorica Musculata (breastplate)
> In Rome’s very early history men wore fitted *bronze* plate armor in the Greek hoplite style.



If this are for battle than only bronze is possible. Rome did not have technology to produce any other useful breastplate. Golden one yes, but it will be only for parade. And far more likely that it will be Bronze under, and gilding above. 

Leather is amazing material
https://www.google.pl/search?q=Leat...A-Knight-in-Leather-Armor-284122792;1280;1707
But if you are rich enough to buy something that fancy from leather, way not buy a metal one?


----------



## Ruby

Thanks for the useful links.

So, would the princess be better off wearing leather rather than metal?


----------



## Bortasz

Ruby said:


> Thanks for the useful links.
> 
> So, would the princess be better off wearing leather rather than metal?



It depends. 
I try say to you that all is about trade offs, 

She take Full Metalic Body Armour, she will need somebody to help her put it on,and time for it. Place to correctly store it, minimal maintenance to preserve it. Mule to transport it.
Walking around with full body armour will tired her quickly. Even Riding on the Horse with it can be tiring. Climbing, descending, swimming in it is highly stupid think add best it can kill her ad worst. 
On the other hand she will have the best protection against enemy blows. She will be able to survive hits that will disfigured/crippled/kill her otherwise. 

It goes like this: 
Better protection: More Logistics is needed. 
Less Logistic problems: Smaller Protection. 

If you want that you princess constantly worried about:
- Does I have time to put on my armour
- Does I will have somebody to help me put the armour
- How I will transport my armour? 
- I mass protect my armour from rusting
- I will get tired quickly. 
- I better do not go in the some dungeon where I will be need to climb or descend over the stone wall. 
Go with Better protection. 
If you want go instead with:
- I must avoid big fights, and strong blows because it can kill me, and certainly it will cause serious injury. 
Go witch lighter armour. 
Not a Leather Body armour. Leather can go on arms, legs. But not body. There either Mail or breastplate. 

You must decide what will be better for her. We do not know what you put in front her.


----------



## Guy

Armor could assume a naturally dark finish, hence the "Black Prince" part of Edward the Black Prince.


----------



## FatCat

I find it odd that the majority of posts in aspect to realistic arms/armor/politics/trade exist. This is fantasy writing, what exists in your world does not exist because of what was, but because of what should be in terms of story-telling. The idea that conceptualized realization is the backbone of modern fantasy in the terms of what happened and what should happen scares me. Historical fiction is a genre that embraces accuracy, while fantasy embraces, as I see it, a notion of what the author deems to reveal inside the human condition. Elves exist, inside our world if your able to see them, as do dwarfs. Why? Because they're preconeived notions of an evolutionary scale. So why does the question of legitimate armor/arms exist in this space, if not to cloud the reality of what should be expected? 


An understanding of this notion is a material unavailable in this world, lets call it ubertanium. This metal bends as low-carbon steel does, but does not break. How does this mineral effect your word? Now let's extrapolate that theory beyond historical reference, and disregard the historical fact that plagues the world-building of most writers. This metal never existed, but you can plot how new smithing techniques infulenced cultures in any historical work. 

So you have this new thing, and if you're good, you can relate to all new things introduced to humanity, because the world was once flat. This ubertanium changes the way your world works, because those who know how to smith it are relevatory and those who aren't are disregareded (bronze vs. iron). What then makes armor superior to arms? 

More importantly, why does this effect your story. I sincerely doubt that many of you will drop their WIPs because the field of arms/armor isn't cold-cut. 

So, then, why is it important beyond a personal satisfaction of knowing? Does this question effect your story in a real way, in terms of plot and character develpment, or is it a personal idealogy of what should be? Arms and armor have no real place in a fantasy setting beyond the ability to reference the historical change in industry. If your writing doesn't directly acknowledge this fact in a craftsman's eyes, then its irrevelevent, in my opinion.


----------



## Bortasz

FatCat said:


> I find it odd that the majority of posts in aspect to realistic arms/armor/politics/trade exist. This is fantasy writing, what exists in your world does not exist because of what was, but because of what should be in terms of story-telling. The idea that conceptualized realization is the backbone of modern fantasy in the terms of what happened and what should happen scares me. Historical fiction is a genre that embraces accuracy, while fantasy embraces, as I see it, a notion of what the author deems to reveal inside the human condition. Elves exist, inside our world if your able to see them, as do dwarfs. Why? Because they're preconeived notions of an evolutionary scale. So why does the question of legitimate armor/arms exist in this space, if not to cloud the reality of what should be expected?
> 
> 
> An understanding of this notion is a material unavailable in this world, lets call it ubertanium. This metal bends as low-carbon steel does, but does not break. How does this mineral effect your word? Now let's extrapolate that theory beyond historical reference, and disregard the historical fact that plagues the world-building of most writers. This metal never existed, but you can plot how new smithing techniques infulenced cultures in any historical work.
> 
> So you have this new thing, and if you're good, you can relate to all new things introduced to humanity, because the world was once flat. This ubertanium changes the way your world works, because those who know how to smith it are relevatory and those who aren't are disregareded (bronze vs. iron). What then makes armor superior to arms?
> 
> More importantly, why does this effect your story. I sincerely doubt that many of you will drop their WIPs because the field of arms/armor isn't cold-cut.
> 
> So, then, why is it important beyond a personal satisfaction of knowing? Does this question effect your story in a real way, in terms of plot and character develpment, or is it a personal idealogy of what should be? Arms and armor have no real place in a fantasy setting beyond the ability to reference the historical change in industry. If your writing doesn't directly acknowledge this fact in a craftsman's eyes, then its irrevelevent, in my opinion.



It is you opinion. 
I see many advice to writers. Write about stuff you know. Do the research. This is Research sub-forum. So we share our knowledge. 
My opinion is that I see no sense in you post here. You are more likely in World Building section where we discuss how changing the reality affect the world.


----------



## Ruby

Hi,

Although it's a Fantasy, I still need to know what's feasible and whether a reader would believe it.

For example, I recently wrote a story where a knight in armour flew on the back of an eagle and landed, by mistake, on top of a mountain, in order to take part in a quest. I needed to find out how a knight in full armour would be be able to climb down a mountain.

Admittedly, this was comedic writing, but I asked questions here.  The solution was to let him swing on a rope and avoid a dragon emerging from a cave below, before walking down a mountain pass.


----------



## Bortasz

I have request. Does any moderator can Put this in to my first Posts? This is another Mythbusting from me, and I prefer to keep them in one place. This Time I take on workshop Chain Mailes. 



Spoiler: Chainmail



The most early mention of Chainmail comes from 500 BC when Celt start using it. 
The best picture of Celtic chainmail I was able to find was this:
http://media.indiedb.com/images/articles/1/29/28115/auto/celtic_hauberk.JPG
Then Roman adopted it and create Lorica Hamata:
http://ep.yimg.com/ay/yhst-42417777999735/lorica-hamata-2.gif
The Viking era chainmail was T-shirt without extra protection on shoulders that Lorica Hamata have. 
http://www.theknightshop.co.uk/catalog/images/SNC113.1.jpg
In age of crusade Chainmailget even bigger. 
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m67y717imj1qk1uvh.jpg
Pleas notice the cut. Since this chainmail was use by someone on the horse back it have to be longer, little below the knee. To be able to sit in the saddle that cut was needed. 
The legs have mail on its own. 
http://www.toyanxietypixs.com/images/products/ignite/waltervongeroldseck/chainmaillegs.jpg
Chainmail gloves
https://www.google.pl/search?newwin...3.3.0....0...1c.1.53.img..3.3.512.micaIXkhruc
and Chainmail Coif
https://www.google.pl/search?newwin...HgCg&ved=0CB0QvwUoAA&dpr=1.2&biw=1400&bih=761
Pleas notice that Chainmail Coif should not be use as a substitute of Helmet. Helmet must be extra added. The chainmail coif was mostly to protect neck and shoulders.

Even after Plates show up on the battlefield the chainmail was part of armor since it is flexible it was covering moving parts
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o4FKnnXmPoA/S7XtvkKrC8I/AAAAAAAAIDE/hEc-u0OYWq4/s1600/Leeds2009+234a.jpg
Chainmail Probably is THE metal armour. It was use to ad least 1400 so it give almost 2 000 years of service.  
When you imagine Crusader he will be in full Chainmail Body Armour
http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/236x/27/6e/e4/276ee47143c7f42428758d2c88f77e60.jpg

Now what you probably did not know that there are Different patterns for Chain mails. 
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3588130_f520.jpg
The most widespread is first that you see 1 in 4. It require the lowest amount of resources. That make him the lightest of all patterns. The total of three facts(weight, little resource, little work) are the most important reason behind it popularity. 
The 1 in 8 is also called the Kings Mail. It practically double the mass of Chainmail. But you can see for yourself how thick is the tangle from this mail. It is twice as heavy as 1 in 4. 
This were European patterns. 
And this are Japanese:
http://i.imgur.com/OK9E1jo.jpg
http://jewellerymaker.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hana-gusari-hex.gif
Like you see there are differences. 

The second think that many people don't know about Chainmails is that ALL rings are either Welded or Riveted 
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img855/9541/12thcenturyreproback.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RviWEXxxN1k/Ugb928Mv-VI/AAAAAAAAAGs/FePxepvVJMg/s1600/weldchain.JPG
And this is crucial to the strengthens of Chain mail. Every time you watch somebody destroying a Chain mail is almost certain that this is not Riveted or Welded Mail. 

Here I stop for the moment. One of my friend ask me does it is possible that there were created cheap Chain mails were rings were not riveted/welded?
No. This is impossible. 
Pleas look ad this. 8 in 1 not welded or riveted. How easily is to destroy this amour. Nobody with there right mind will buy this. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxhbSIGDf8s
Also the welding/riveting is not the most hard work of assembling the chainmail. 

Here you can clearly see that rings are not whole. 
http://fc02.deviantart.net/images/i/2003/42/8/0/Chain_mail.jpg
And here you can see how more stronger are Riveted mail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHdD_ngUps&index=5&list=WL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_yTQUvJRf0&index=6&list=WL
And here they try to pierce through the Riveted chainmail with a sword. Pleas notice how powerful are this hits. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM

Arrow have hard time to get through this. But the fact that it will not penetrate Armour don't means that you are protected. 
This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi5pdd7xHNI
Is completely nonsense. 
The share blunt power will smash his ribs, turn his lungs and heart to mush. And it is a reason why people Prefer Plate Armours over the mails. 
Plate spread force of impact on bigger surface with allow gambeson to amortize bigger chunk of energy. Mail is not very good add it because it is flexible. The damage you take in mail is transfer to you body. It can brake you bones, cause internal bleeding, collapse a lung. 
Pleas visit hear to see more about Blunt Trauma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

Also one another reason for wide spread of Chainmails. It require the least amount of metalworking skills with iron. You simple must create the wire, and fold it in to springs. Than goes the cutting springs in to ring. 
How make a Rings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WcaAdL41m8
How make Riveted Rings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjwsalUx7UM
Some points about Chainmails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIl2v0C1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahyhBeBsys

Extra info for curious one:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/armour/mail/mail.html


----------



## Bortasz




----------



## WPT

I was thinking the same way as I was reading this.  To get some ideas of superior materials that might have to be produced magically, look at modern materials produced with modern technology.  In a fantasy world, don't worry about how the material was made, just be sure a mage was involved in the process to let you do a bit of hand-waving without explaining.  Or avoid discussing fabrication altogether.  Knights didn't understand the metallurgy of their armor, and neither do Abrams tank drivers understand, or know, the process for making the armor on their tanks.  They just drive them.  A little research on materials and a light introduction to material properties might make it easier to imagine the properties of magical, or semi-magical armor.


----------



## Bortasz

WPT said:


> I was thinking the same way as I was reading this.  To get some ideas of superior materials that might have to be produced magically, look at modern materials produced with modern technology.  In a fantasy world, don't worry about how the material was made, just be sure a mage was involved in the process to let you do a bit of hand-waving without explaining.  Or avoid discussing fabrication altogether.  Knights didn't understand the metallurgy of their armor, and neither do Abrams tank drivers understand, or know, the process for making the armor on their tanks.  They just drive them.  A little research on materials and a light introduction to material properties might make it easier to imagine the properties of magical, or semi-magical armor.



I don't think that knowing properties of material is needed. And I do not have knowledge to actually do this. 

But knowing on what principles armour works is something that can help with creating magic armour. This I can write. Interest?


----------



## TheokinsJ

Out of Curiosity, how effective are arrows against plate armour- would arrows penetrate deep enough through the plate and gambeson to cause serious injury? I know war bows are pretty powerful, but will the arrows deflect of the armour or will they penetrate?


----------



## Bortasz

TheokinsJ said:


> Out of Curiosity, how effective are arrows against plate armour- would arrows penetrate deep enough through the plate and gambeson to cause serious injury? I know war bows are pretty powerful, but will the arrows deflect of the armour or will they penetrate?



There is chance for penetration of plate. BUT this don't mean that person that wore plate will have life threatening injuries. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk 

Here is full episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqoh0okQ6Ho

If I remember correctly Crossbow have only 40 meter range to penetrate full plate armour. After this they lose to much energy to archive penetration. So the Longbow even powerful ones are not as dangerous as you may think. 

On the other hand pleas remember that if arrows hit multiple times, they may get through. And for 100% they will harm you. 
Longbow have fire rate of 8 arrows per minute.
Agincourt have minimum 5 000 archers. let's assume that you are hit by 5 arrows every volley. 
After just 1 minute you will be hit by 40 arrows. From total of 20 000 shot. 
After 5 minute it will be 200. From total of 100 000 shot. 
France have MAXIMUM 36 000 people total on the battlefield. That give 3 arrows per person. 
Assuming that every archer have 60 arrows they will need 7 minute to shot them all, and assuming the lowest number of 5 000 on the battlefield give us total of 300 000 Arrows shot. This is almost 10 arrows per person assuming the largest number of French. 
And every bruise add up to you exhaustion. And for the end score doesn't matter if you are dead, or simple to tired to move. 
Also you get closer and closer to archers position with means that every shot is more and more powerful. 

On the final note. Horses for the most part of history are not armoured. So killing you horse when you gallop add full speed. Some broken necks, ribs, smashed people by horses that fall on them. Generally large number of people die just because of this. 

So in summary in battle Longbow archers use quantity in terms how many time they shoot you to archive disabling blow (Incapacitate for further fights, regardless if this means death, exhausted, or unconscious. ) 

But they actually have little chance to cause you injury in terms that they will penetrate you plate armour and reach any vital organs. 

Does this fully answer you question?


----------



## chrispenycate

Shields were blazoned with heraldic devices in brilliant colours that would not be generally available for cloth dyes by enamelling - which is basically coloured glass fused to the metal, and probably required fairly regular replacement (at the least when hammering out dents). I've never seen it but at least ceremonial armour could have used the same technique. I have seen some lovely inlay work with brass, silver and gold, so you could do gold plated armour for over-important knights. 'Course, in battle it'd get scratched and rust faster, but at processions and troop inspections, very impressive.

I notice we've concentrated on steel armour, not the earlier bronze version, slightly lighter and a lot less corrodable.

So, to question. That lovely full articulated armour, renaissance, so there were already firearms. How did that hold together? Could you ride breast and back, and maybe mail under it, and save the steel shoulder pads, trousers and sleeves for actual combat, or is it all or nothing? And do you, when questing, have a separate pack horse for your armour and accessories? Wearing it all all the time doesn't seem all that practical.

J'aimais bien les films, mais ils auraient pu donner une commentaire sur ce qu'on Ã©tait en train de voire


----------



## Bortasz

chrispenycate said:


> Shields were blazoned with heraldic devices in brilliant colours that would not be generally available for cloth dyes by enamelling - which is basically coloured glass fused to the metal, and probably required fairly regular replacement (at the least when hammering out dents). I've never seen it but at least ceremonial armour could have used the same technique. I have seen some lovely inlay work with brass, silver and gold, so you could do gold plated armour for over-important knights. 'Course, in battle it'd get scratched and rust faster, but at processions and troop inspections, very impressive.
> 
> I notice we've concentrated on steel armour, not the earlier bronze version, slightly lighter and a lot less corrodable.
> 
> So, to question. That lovely full articulated armour, renaissance, so there were already firearms. How did that hold together? Could you ride breast and back, and maybe mail under it, and save the steel shoulder pads, trousers and sleeves for actual combat, or is it all or nothing? And do you, when questing, have a separate pack horse for your armour and accessories? Wearing it all all the time doesn't seem all that practical.
> 
> J'aimais bien les films, mais ils auraient pu donner une commentaire sur ce qu'on Ã©tait en train de voire



This require from doing little research. Give me some time. 

Also you question are: 
1. Armour in Renaissance versus muskets of that period. XV-XVI century. 
2. Could you wore:
http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images/AB1018_Gothic_Breastplate_Harness.jpg
403 Forbidden
http://www.fantasy-armor.com/images/pauldrons/AE1503.jpg
Together? 

And what you mean by Questing? 

I do not speak french. But Google Translate tell me that you like movie


----------



## Guy

chrispenycate said:


> I notice we've concentrated on steel armour, not the earlier bronze version, slightly lighter and a lot less corrodable.


Bronze is heavier than steel and softer, easier to penetrate. 


> So, to question. That lovely full articulated armour, renaissance, so there were already firearms. How did that hold together? Could you ride breast and back, and maybe mail under it, and save the steel shoulder pads, trousers and sleeves for actual combat,


Sure, if you wanted to.


> And do you, when questing, have a separate pack horse for your armour and accessories? Wearing it all all the time doesn't seem all that practical.


Ideally, a knight had three horse - one for war, one for general riding, and one pack animal. While armor wasn't as heavy as many people think, it was a pain to wear for a long time.


----------



## Guy

TheokinsJ said:


> Out of Curiosity, how effective are arrows against plate armour- would arrows penetrate deep enough through the plate and gambeson to cause serious injury? I know war bows are pretty powerful, but will the arrows deflect of the armour or will they penetrate?


It depends on a number of things. One very important thing to keep in mind is that the arms and armor of the period were hand crafted, so there was a huge variation in quality. It wasn't like today where one assembly line-made M-4 will shoot pretty much like another. So there was a significant difference in performance of bows. did the arrows have iron or steel heads? Was the plate armor made of iron or steel? Steel plate wasn't around until the fifteenth century, and making a huge piece of iron, like a breastplate, into steel was a hit or miss process. Consequently, part of a breast plate might be high quality steel, but another area would be softer steel or iron. If a steel tipped arrow from a powerful bow hit a softer spot on the breastplate, it might go through. Armor varied in thickness - the front of a breastplate was thicker than the sides. The helmet visors were thinner, as well, and there are accounts of archers deliberately aiming for the visors for this very reason. Armor tends to be curved for two reasons - to conform to the shape of the human body and curved surfaces are more likely to deflect a blow than a flat surface, so a head-on shot to a breastplate would likely skim off because a lot of breastplates either came to a point or had a crest running down them. And full plate armor was expensive, especially if it was steel. As a result, most people didn't have it.


----------



## wordwalker

One thing about a battle like Agincourt: you didn't have to kill all the knights, just the first ranks of them, or their horses. Then all the rest slam into the bodies in front, plus they're charging through mud that's been further churned up by hooves. And the archers had defensive stakes set up too.


----------



## FatCat

Does anyone have any links/information on non-metallic armors?


----------



## Jabrosky

FatCat said:


> Does anyone have any links/information on non-metallic armors?


I was going to say, tough animal hides might come in handy as armor for any culture that coexists with big scary monsters.

Such armor might resemble the suits of crocodile armor that have been recovered from Roman-era Egypt, such as this:


----------



## Bortasz

chrispenycate said:


> Shields were blazoned with heraldic devices in brilliant colours that would not be generally available for cloth dyes by enamelling - which is basically coloured glass fused to the metal, and probably required fairly regular replacement (at the least when hammering out dents). I've never seen it but at least ceremonial armour could have used the same technique. I have seen some lovely inlay work with brass, silver and gold, so you could do gold plated armour for over-important knights. 'Course, in battle it'd get scratched and rust faster, but at processions and troop inspections, very impressive.
> 
> I notice we've concentrated on steel armour, not the earlier bronze version, slightly lighter and a lot less corrodable.
> 
> So, to question. That lovely full articulated armour, renaissance, so there were already firearms. How did that hold together? Could you ride breast and back, and maybe mail under it, and save the steel shoulder pads, trousers and sleeves for actual combat, or is it all or nothing? And do you, when questing, have a separate pack horse for your armour and accessories? Wearing it all all the time doesn't seem all that practical.
> 
> J'aimais bien les films, mais ils auraient pu donner une commentaire sur ce qu'on Ã©tait en train de voire



Okey after doing some research. 
Armour in renaissance was bullet proof. According to my research 


> a 1.9mm wrought iron plate requires 900J from a steel ball or 1500J from a lead ball to defeat it. Good quality steel can resist about double this energy.


 
So yes the Armour in renaissance was bullet proof. But. This not mean that knights could advance under fire from muskets like a tank. 
Blunt trauma from that kind of hit will be transfer to there body and could cause serious injuries. 
After several hits the chance of penetration was increasing. 

SCHOLA FORUM Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ View topic - Muskets vs. cuirass
Is the armor worn by knights bulletproof

On the terms of number of horses. 
The 3 horses that Guy mention is absolute minimum if you go to war. 
You must have: 
Primary war horse. 
Horse that carry you equipment. If not two horses that carry you equipment. 
Minimum 1 extra war horse. But this can go up to even 4. Horses have greater chance of dying in the battle than the rider. 
I know that loses in Horses could easily go up to 60% but loses in humans barely go above 10% and they were winning side. 

About using all this armours together. Yes you can but. 
It is completely impractical. It increase the weigh without giving you any true extra protection. If you want extra protection and don't worry about extra weight that simple increase the thickness of breastplate. 
After plate armour was cheap enough people start using male only on moving parts. But in time even dhows parts were removed and replace with plate.


----------



## Bortasz

FatCat said:


> Does anyone have any links/information on non-metallic armors?



What exactly do you wish to know? Topic is wide. 
General there is reason why all civilisation prefer go with metal armour over leather. 



Jabrosky said:


> I was going to say, tough animal hides might come in handy as armor for any culture that coexists with big scary monsters.
> 
> Such armor might resemble the suits of crocodile armor that have been recovered from Roman-era Egypt, such as this:



If you think of making leather armour from fantasy monster than it can have all properties you wish it have.


----------



## Guy

Leather armor is pretty effective, but it's organic, so it doesn't withstand the ravages of time very well. Consequently, there is very little archeological evidence.Padded fabric armor was also effective and common.


----------



## TheokinsJ

I suppose this is a historical question about armour- perhaps a bit too specific but I'll see how it goes- just wondering if you knew anything about the Vikings and what kind of armour they wore? I know Vikings wore mail, but I'd like to know what the average man wore- mail was ridiculously expensive, so what was a cheaper alternative?


----------



## Bortasz

TheokinsJ said:


> I suppose this is a historical question about armour- perhaps a bit too specific but I'll see how it goes- just wondering if you knew anything about the Vikings and what kind of armour they wore? I know Vikings wore mail, but I'd like to know what the average man wore- mail was ridiculously expensive, so what was a cheaper alternative?



Chainmail is the expensive one. 
Rest use Gambesons and Leather. 
Lamellar armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Viking Age arms and armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CupofJoe

FatCat said:


> Does anyone have any links/information on non-metallic armors?


Apparently the Chinese had paper and stone armour... 
And I  have a link to the Greeks and paper/linen armour...
both Wiki, so make of the what you will.


----------



## Guy

Greek linen armor was several layers of linen glued together. The end result was rather like a thick cloth with a coat of resin and from what I understand pretty effective.


----------



## Malik

Guy said:


> Greek linen armor was several layers of linen glued together. The end result was rather like a thick cloth with a coat of resin and from what I understand pretty effective.



I imagine it would be. It's basically Kevlar. 

As to non-metallic armors, leather armor -- cuir bouilli, not hide -- was very likely the go-to for the budget-conscious warrior. 

When vegetable-tanned leather is submerged in boiling water, the fixed tannin aggregates in the leather begin to melt. Leave it in hot water long enough, and the tannin aggregates create a resin that redistributes itself throughout the fibers of the leather. Upon cooling, the resin-soaked fibers become, for all intents and purposes, a polymer: malleable when hot, and cooling to a hardness that rivals high-impact plastics today. A curved surface of polymerized leather will turn a blade. 

Design-wise, you can do some really cool stuff with cuir bouilli. It wasn't expensive (as armor goes, I'd imagine), it was easy to work with, and it was extremely effective. I believe that it was used a lot more than we realize, but it's not represented historically because it would rot away over the centuries. 

I talked about blade deflection above. Two things to keep in mind, here: First, the main purpose of armor isn't to stop a blow, but to redirect it. Second, a major part of armor's effectiveness, whether it's a mail hauberk or a modern soldier's plate carrier, is that armor primarily protects you from the minor pain in the ass injuries that would otherwise whittle you down and throw you off your game. You can fight longer, and fight harder, in armor because you're not getting the crap beaten out of you every second.

A direct blow with a battlefield weapon -- axe, mace, greatsword, hammer, poleaxe -- into pretty much any armor short of full 15th-Century harness is going to render you horizontal and will very likely kill you without immediate medical attention. Shock, tension pneumothorax, contused organs, spinal injuries, perforated eardrums, dislocations, and brain damage are all perfectly attainable even in full field harness. A horseman's pick, Lucerne hammer, or _bec de corbin_ will perforate full harness; if it does, cancel Christmas. 

In modern-day military armor, you can sustain a 30-caliber rifle round center mass to your chest plate; it won't kill you, but you'll wish it had for a while. When the plate absorbs a round it shatters, which really smarts. It's backed with Kevlar to keep the pieces from murdering you. Meanwhile, your buddies are dragging you to cover because you're sure as hell not going anywhere on your own; you're too busy lying there making little creaking noises and reflecting on your life decisions with dismay.

The point I'm making here is that, when it comes down to living vs. dying on the field, the difference between most types of armor is negligible until you get into the really expensive stuff. If you get hit hard, you get injured. (The difference is, having NO armor is idiotic. Oberyn Martell was a moron. Ditto Legolas.)

That warrior "getting by" with cheaper armor isn't really giving up that much in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## WPT

TheokinsJ said:


> Out of Curiosity, how effective are arrows against plate armour- would arrows penetrate deep enough through the plate and gambeson to cause serious injury? I know war bows are pretty powerful, but will the arrows deflect of the armour or will they penetrate?



The military museum at the Tower of London displays two types of arrows used with longbows.  One type has the conventional rather broad, flat arrow point sharpened along the edge.  The other type has a forged tip that is no larger than the shaft, roughly a third of an inch (about 1 cm), is three to four inches long with a square cross section and tapers slowly down to a sharp point.  I don't know how well the arrows worked.  I would guess they were effective against chain mail, leather armor, and thinner (cheaper?) plate armor.

I was struck by how it resembled modern armor piercing sabots found in anti-tank artillery shells as in this photo:
GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

Sabots are, like the arrows, solid, pointed projectiles.  The materials (the best are tungsten or spent uranium) are new, but otherwise sabots are just very high velocity arrows.  Modern military technology is a lot older than you think.


----------

