Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ham · 29th July 2005, 07:35 PM

Gentlemen,

Those of us who grew up in Western Europe or America learned from museums, books and films that European mail was stronger than that used in the Islamic and Hindu East, as were the swords. That isn't true unless, as I believe has been stated above, one is comparing European mail from the period when it represented a primary defense-- say 11th- 13th c., and Indian or Persian mail of the 19th century, by which time it hardly represents armor at all anymore, with rings often made of soft iron wire that have been butted together to close them-- a classic case of apples and oranges.
Worthier of comparison with the finest European mail was a coat of Mamluk mail which I had the opportunity to examine recently, dating between the 14th-15th century. A conservative group, the Mamluks maintaned arms and methods of warfare from at least the mid 12th c. down to the 16th, including the use of straight, double-edged swords and rather distinctive coats of mail (this is not of course, to ignore the introduction of sabers as well as occasional variations in armor apparent during the course of Mamluk history.) The coat I examined had rings 5/8" or 1.5 cm in diameter. These rings were relatively thick (approx. 2 mm) and stamped with 2 concentric lines which I suspect served to flatten as well as harden them. Each ring was closed with a rectangular rivet which was peaned on both sides. The shirt had a high collar laced with leather to stiffen it, a short overlapping opening at the neck which ran down about 20 cm and a hem with a single vent front and rear, which would reach to about mid-thigh on a man of average height. It had 3/4 length sleeves. It weighed roughly 25 pounds (12 kg.)
This coat, worn by a well-trained man who was likewise protected by a shield and helmet, arm- and legguards, could stand up to considerable force, by lance, bow, axe or hammer/mace or even katar. But I must stress that training, particularly for a horseman, would be at least as important in protecting a warrior as the quality of his mail, as was also true for the European knight. Such coats were likewise worn in Russia up to the 17th century, usually over yet another coat of smaller rings-- this may be a particularly Russian affectation or may provide some indication of how mail was used as protection in the Near East as well.
In all cases but the Japanese, the material record of Eastern weapons is far outnumbered by the European-- this inequity has led arms historians to make many errors in the past 150 years, particulary when drawing comparisons between the two. Such errors, sometimes so obvious as to be funny, should really remind us to be sure of our own comparisons... and comments.
Sincerely,

Ham

29th July 2005, 07:35 PM	#12
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, Those of us who grew up in Western Europe or America learned from museums, books and films that European mail was stronger than that used in the Islamic and Hindu East, as were the swords. That isn't true unless, as I believe has been stated above, one is comparing European mail from the period when it represented a primary defense-- say 11th- 13th c., and Indian or Persian mail of the 19th century, by which time it hardly represents armor at all anymore, with rings often made of soft iron wire that have been butted together to close them-- a classic case of apples and oranges. Worthier of comparison with the finest European mail was a coat of Mamluk mail which I had the opportunity to examine recently, dating between the 14th-15th century. A conservative group, the Mamluks maintaned arms and methods of warfare from at least the mid 12th c. down to the 16th, including the use of straight, double-edged swords and rather distinctive coats of mail (this is not of course, to ignore the introduction of sabers as well as occasional variations in armor apparent during the course of Mamluk history.) The coat I examined had rings 5/8" or 1.5 cm in diameter. These rings were relatively thick (approx. 2 mm) and stamped with 2 concentric lines which I suspect served to flatten as well as harden them. Each ring was closed with a rectangular rivet which was peaned on both sides. The shirt had a high collar laced with leather to stiffen it, a short overlapping opening at the neck which ran down about 20 cm and a hem with a single vent front and rear, which would reach to about mid-thigh on a man of average height. It had 3/4 length sleeves. It weighed roughly 25 pounds (12 kg.) This coat, worn by a well-trained man who was likewise protected by a shield and helmet, arm- and legguards, could stand up to considerable force, by lance, bow, axe or hammer/mace or even katar. But I must stress that training, particularly for a horseman, would be at least as important in protecting a warrior as the quality of his mail, as was also true for the European knight. Such coats were likewise worn in Russia up to the 17th century, usually over yet another coat of smaller rings-- this may be a particularly Russian affectation or may provide some indication of how mail was used as protection in the Near East as well. In all cases but the Japanese, the material record of Eastern weapons is far outnumbered by the European-- this inequity has led arms historians to make many errors in the past 150 years, particulary when drawing comparisons between the two. Such errors, sometimes so obvious as to be funny, should really remind us to be sure of our own comparisons... and comments. Sincerely, Ham