Testing daggers vs historical chainmail
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Today we take a look at several pieces of historical chainmail from The Oakeshott Institute Collection as well as a couple of pieces of modern reproduction mail, and reflect on how the diversity of authentic mail influences how we think about weapon vs armor testing. In a recent video we responded to post by Tod (of Tod's Stuff) and Matt Easton in which they found different results than we did when challenging modern mail with historically accurate rondel daggers.
Now, we want to stress that we have big respect for both Matt and Tod, and for their testing videos, which made us really reflect on why we've seen different results. We really try to do tests that contribute to our understanding of historical arms and armor rather than just trying to sell our products (which you should totally buy because they are awesome). One of the really interesting things about this whole situation is that two makers of high quality historical reproductions got really different results in similar tests. This begs the question of why...
This video is the first of several in which we explore why it is that tests of historical arms vs. armor tests get such divergent results. Check it out!
This is why you need to wear a sturdy gambeson under your mail.
Sticking blades into 400 year old armor. Even gently. You are a mad lad.
But this is more informative than many hour plus videos.
Interesting to see just some of the variation in size and geometry. Factor in metallurgy and heat treatment and there must have been a huge range in effectiveness, with trade offs in cost, weight and mobility. Thank you!
Todd with his Rondel dagger had different steel, edge geometry, quenching/tempering,...etc.
He did state he used 'homemade' steel that turned out softer than he usually puts on his knives. So its arguably worse than one made in modern steel. Just saying :)
@@dan_the_dj yes, probably worse. you're right
Always love your vids! Yeah I was going to make a video on this as well but you guys have it covered. I was going to say the variability is so high, that you could have a hundred tests with a hundred different outcomes.
Love the thoroughness !
Very great video to further the discussion in this little section of experimental archeology, it's amazing to see multiple channels like this working together to get closer to the truth on how effective these weapons were against certain pieces of armor. Another thing that also adds into the variable, besides the way the mail is riveted or the thickness of the rings or wiring, is the quality of the steel used, as you said, historically there was so much more variation, that there are probably multiple right answers to this question.
Yep!
Ohhhh WOW... I wanna know soooo badly how hard it is to defeat EACH ONE OF THOSE kinds of mail...
Or at least everyone that you can test... Not the super old ones obviously
I would like to know more about that period welded ring technique.
Its probably done with tong welding, ie getting links hot enough then squeezing them to stick.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 I understand the theorybut how would one squeeze a wore so thin that is also so hot?
It would require a true master for sure, as its impossible to me 😅
@@dan_the_dj I would guess it was a very specialized production set up with just the right tools and heat sources. Probably shaped tongs and lots of experience. I've seen it done but not in any kind of functional production ay just the demo to prove the concept. It's a better way than the description given that was being responded to about using a hammer and anvil to do it.
@@dan_the_dj Ya can you imagine working on the mail, trying to control it while also handling the hot rings and trying to fit them on properly THEN squeezing them together? It's difficult enough to work on cold mail.
Thanks for being who you are, guy's. You have my patronage and gratitude.
Wow, thank you
What is the origin of the welded ring shirt? First time I've seen that.
I also would love to see different blade kinds.. and which kinda do better to break through which kind of mail..
Like your Rundle.. and that Bullock one.. and Todd's Rundle...
I just gotta know
rondal not rundal
Roundel, Ballock !!
We have plans, given the time to do it.
I think those are great pieces you show off. The mail pieces at my local museum are all so different from these... it really puts it into perspective just how large the armor spectrum was. No two pieces are the same. I'm curious... are the rings on the armpits of those shirts and on the torso a slightly different (inner) diameter and thickness than on other parts of the shirt?
In some cases we do variation n the same garmet.
Do you think it would stop a pocket knife stab?
This is a good reminder there isn't one "historical maille".
Lots of break out videos!
Man, I really feel compelled to stab my own mail. If someone came up with a testing methodology, I think I'd do it.
I'm not a physicist, but I wonder if mail with larger holes might better stop a dagger because there is more surface area to distribute the incoming force.
Yeah, but that also the point has a higher likihood of just bypass the strength of the links.
I wouldn't say larger holes. The larger they get, the less surface area of the blade edges will make contact and the less the ring needs to deform before it fails. However......if the thickness of the wire used in the rings is larger that will also have an effect as it's less likely to deform at all. I suspect that's why most of the historical rings fall within an "average" range. They found the optimum sizes and ring thickness ratio that was the most effective. They also knew the effectiveness to cost ratio as well. ;) I suspect most quality full shirts and perhaps mail breeches(depending on the time period) could have used varying ring sizes and thicknesses in different areas.