How effective was chain mail armor?

Discussion in 'Western Martial Arts' started by slipthejab, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. adouglasmhor

    adouglasmhor Not an Objectivist

    A bit of topic but at college a friend was making a set of Norse chain mail and a quilted undercoat (aquiton or akerton) but as we were doing practical smithing he went up in chest size a bit during the time it took to make it (all that heav hammer work and sheet bending) and got stuck in the quilted undercoat. 2 of us had to stand on workbenches and swing him to get him out, he squealed like a stuck pig, the armour is still on display in the Orkneys in a museum though.
  2. Raven Wing

    Raven Wing Valued Member

    Thats interesting, I found with using fur padding (it was handy) underneath arm and leg plates it made the rusting worse (maybe it made channels for moisture or something?). Your idea is much better if it works like that.
  3. Louie

    Louie STUNT DAD Supporter

  4. Stolenbjorn

    Stolenbjorn Valued Member

    Again, I must thank for cool links!
    I think the demoes shown on theese clips presents a fairly balanced presentation of weastern swords vs. different weastern kinds of armor. I especially likes how they moderates their results, regarding aspects like medieval steel qualities vs. the modern replicas + combat related test environment.
  5. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Louie thanks for the links... very cool. Peeping them now. :)

    Ok watched a few. wow.

    The clip where he cleaves that mule carcass in two. Ouch.
    I'm guessing that mule muscle is far more dense and tough than human muscle would be by comparison.

    The thing I was curious about.... whether or not if the entrails and innards been left in the carcass if it'd have made any difference in regards to the ease with which the carcass was cleft in two... or would it have just made a mess of the cutter and the patio floor? :confused: :D

    The clip where he shows why short chopping strokes downward may have not had much effect on an opponents hand.

    Hmm... interesting. Would European swords have been as sharp towards the ends as say Japanese samurai swords? :confused: This is a technique I've seen highlighted many times using a Japanese sword... where a simple movement is said to have severed the hand. But in the video we see it doesn't quite work like that with western swords. Or are there still way to many variables to be able to draw that sort of conclusion? :confused:

    Even if it didn't cleave the hand... I can't imagine that the hand would be in any great shape to hold onto a sword after that whack. Ouch! Broken bones come to mind.. perhaps dropping the sword. :confused:

    Surely those who didn't come off the battle field in two separate pieces must have come off the battlefield with sever bruises and many times suffering all manner of blunt force trauma and broken bones. :eek:

    Watching these vids was good food for thought.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2007

Share This Page