The effectiveness of Riveted Maile Hauberks, c.a. 1st-5th centuries

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Roman Riveted maile hauberks seem to be impenetrable against everything short of a stabbing attack from a mounted lancer. Now a blow from an axe or Spatha was still very likely to break a sterunum or kill, without penetrating the maile, but the question is how effective was it in combat?


As a re-enactor I have not had the chance to wear or test authentic maile, I use the rentals until I have enough to get my own.

[Rolling Thunder]

Go at it with a taper-pointed sword/spear, an axe, a mace or a poleaxe of some breed and you'll get through it. Bashing away with a sword edge won't work.

- Also, the edge of a Spatha won't do much. There's sufficient padding under the armour to absorb the blow.

[hellheaven1987]

Be honest, with a shield you can block most of attacks save a stab... Slice and cut should most time concentrate on lower body, which generally has less protection.

[Rolling Thunder]

Be honest, with a shield you can block most of attacks save a stab...

I'd say that it's the thrust that shields protect against best. Slashes can get around the sides and hit the extremities.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I've seen what a thrust from a Spear will do to quality, historically accurate riveted mail, and it'll break ribs, but won't punch it. A ballista will knock through 3 suits of it, but anything short of putting all your force into it with a Kontarion or Hasta won't punch through it. Damage it, sure.

Yeah, you hit full force with a spatha, and it'll crack ribs. Without padding it'll break a sternum or kill.

[hellheaven1987]

I'd say that it's the thrust that shields protect against best. Slashes can get around the sides and hit the extremities.

Nope, most people would not hold their shield too close to their own body and would use shield to push enemy's weapon to a safe distance. Stab is, on the other hand, a difficult movement to predict and defend, hence it is most difficult to avoid.

[Rolling Thunder]

Nope, most people would not hold their shield too close to their own body and would use shield to push enemy's weapon to a safe distance. Stab is, on the other hand, a difficult movement to predict and defend, hence it is most difficult to avoid.

A thrusting attack is generally directed towards the centre of mass of the body in a relatively straight line - i.e. usually through where the shield will be, whereas with a slash you can more effectively target the extremities.

I've seen what a thrust from a Spear will do to quality, historically accurate riveted mail, and it'll break ribs, but won't punch it.

So I'm assuming your spears have quite broad heads rather than narrow, tapered points?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah I'm talking about Hasta or Kontos, with the leaf shaped blades. Not the Lancea or Pilum. Those are javelins.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

In combat conditions it is nearly impossible to land a solid thrust. One quality of maille is that they usually glance off.

[neoptolemos]

The mail offers a protection which is under the influence of so many variables to predict its efficacy.
Thrusting hits is the weakness of the chainmail but against slashing hits reacts efficiently.
And here lies the advantage Romans had with the use of gladius against celtic warriors.
Both used chain mail but the Romans with the thrusting excellence of gladius had an advantage against the big slashing celtic swords.

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah I'm talking about Hasta or Kontos, with the leaf shaped blades.

Ah, well, yeah. A leaf-shaped blade is a pretty crappy means of punching through armour. A tapering spike point would do much better.

[neoptolemos]

Ah, well, yeah. A leaf-shaped blade is a pretty crappy means of punching through armour. A tapering spike point would do much better.

This is really odd, it makes you wonder about the actual utilization of the leaf-shaped blade.The shape predisposes for slashing hits isn't it?I am really puzzled about it.Unless the central cord acts as stabilizer for the thrusts.



For example this blade is better for slashes:



while this is better for stubbing...

(Both are reconstructions of Mycenean swords)

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It seems better for slashing (like spears were used in eastern states like china and japan) but it is a thrusting spear. Maybe it's a both, as the blade, if your spear breaks, could be utilized as a dagger for defense.

[StealthFox]

The mail offers a protection which is under the influence of so many variables to predict its efficacy.

I think this is the biggest problem. I don't think we will ever know with 100% certainty. There are simply too many variables. Quality of the metal, thickness of the chains, spacing of the chains, type of rivets, method of riviting, type of penetrating weapon, strength of wielder, angle of attack, etc....

I think you can only say that generally, chain mail is vulnerable to thrusting attacks and protects well against slashing attacks. Was it impregnable? Probably not. Did some thrusting attacks break the chains or did some thrusting attacks glance off? Probably yes to both.

[neoptolemos]

It seems better for slashing (like spears were used in eastern states like china and japan) but it is a thrusting spear. Maybe it's a both, as the blade, if your spear breaks, could be utilized as a dagger for defense.

Good point.

I think this is the biggest problem. I don't think we will ever know with 100% certainty. There are simply too many variables. Quality of the metal, thickness of the chains, spacing of the chains, type of rivets, method of riviting, type of penetrating weapon, strength of wielder, angle of attack, etc....

Exactly!

I think you can only say that generally, chain mail is vulnerable to thrusting attacks and protects well against slashing attacks. Was it impregnable? Probably not. Did some thrusting attacks break the chains or did some thrusting attacks glance off? Probably yes to both.

Indeed but the legionnaire held a massive shield in front of him in order to avoid that from being tested on him.
Another point is that despite the innovation of lorica segmetanta (plate) and the indirect acknowledge* of some weakness of the lorica hamata (mail), Romans preferred en mass the use of mail showing that direct protection is not always the first priority concerning armor.

*A typical response of the Roman army during the Dacian war was the introduction of segmented plate as a heavy protection as shown in the image:

[Rolling Thunder]

This is really odd, it makes you wonder about the actual utilization of the leaf-shaped blade.The shape predisposes for slashing hits isn't it?I am really puzzled about it.Unless the central cord acts as stabilizer for the thrusts.

Yeah, it is odd. Though I've read some bits and pieces that suggested hoplites did use their spears to slash at each other, the main reason for the leaf shape of a spearhead was that a thrust with it would inflict far more tissue damage on an unarmoured target than a tapered spearhead. This is true, but surely the additional armour-piercing utility is more valuable?

Might have been a technological thing - forging tapered-pointing spearheads with the sufficient hardness to thrust through mail was too expensive/complex to justify the expense?

*A typical response of the Roman army during the Dacian war was the introduction of segmented plate as a heavy protection as shown in the image:

LS, greaves, and what looks like an adapted Persian "Cheries" laminated arm guard with a steel mitten. Only way you're getting through that is some kind of poleaxe.
Or a decent mace.

[hellheaven1987]

A thrusting attack is generally directed towards the centre of mass of the body in a relatively straight line - i.e. usually through where the shield will be, whereas with a slash you can more effectively target the extremities.

A slash, however, is useless if the strike power is too little, which generally happen when a shield block and deflect the attack. Furthermore, to produce enough power for the strike the preparing movement generally requires longer time and certain amount of distance (strike cannot be used in very close distance), which allows opponent enough time and distance to avoid coming attack easily.

A stab, however, can be conducted even face to face distance (that is what half-sword technique used for), and in such distance to block such attack is very difficult. Furthermore, stabbing requires less power and preparation, allows the attack to be conducted in very quick pace.

[neoptolemos]

Yeah, it is odd. Though I've read some bits and pieces that suggested hoplites did use their spears to slash at each other, the main reason for the leaf shape of a spearhead was that a thrust with it would inflict far more tissue damage on an unarmoured target than a tapered spearhead. This is true, but surely the additional armour-piercing utility is more valuable?

Indeed and i have read something similar.

Might have been a technological thing - forging tapered-pointing spearheads with the sufficient hardness to thrust through mail was too expensive/complex to justify the expense?

Good point.

LS, greaves, and what looks like an adapted Persian "Cheries" laminated arm guard with a steel mitten. Only way you're getting through that is some kind of poleaxe.
Or a decent mace.

And above all it is freakin cool...

[Rolling Thunder]

A slash, however, is useless if the strike power is too little, which generally happen when a shield block and deflect the attack.

Not at all. Hit an unarmoured part, on the arm or leg, and you'll cut your opponent. Cut your opponent and it will hurt him, and he will start to bleed, weakening him. And the point is that it's harder to block a slash with a shield (as you have to move your shield to counter the angle of attack) than a thrust, as the thrust will come at you from a frontal arc.

Furthermore, to produce enough power for the strike the preparing movement generally requires longer time and certain amount of distance (strike cannot be used in very close distance), which allows opponent enough time and distance to avoid coming attack easily.

Both movements rely on straightening the arm motion using the arm, shoulder and core muscles, and both will generate equal quantities of force. The difference is that a slash can build up momentum (though usually this is fairly irrelevant in as light a weapon as a sword) as it travels, whereas a thrust generally will not. The difference is not in force but in the concentration of it and the target areas. A slash has somewhat less concentrated force as it strikes with an edge rather than a point, and moreover it will usually strike against bone and muscle (shoulders, skull, arm, leg). Thrusts, on the other hand, concentrate their force into a single point and will usually be delivered into an area of soft tissue - usually the stomach.

A stab, however, can be conducted even face to face distance (that is what half-sword technique used for), and in such distance to block such attack is very difficult.

Firstly, half swording was used for both slashing and thrusting attacks. The primary mode of the technique is to shorten the blade of a two-handed sword to make it more manageable at close quarters, which does produce a stronger thrusting blow (but it is not exclusively used for thrusting). A stab, however, will usually also need some room (much like a slash, you need to position the blade), and without enough space will have a hard time developing enough velocity to properly piece the body (let alone armour) unless it strikes a relatively soft area.

Furthermore, stabbing requires less power and preparation, allows the attack to be conducted in very quick pace.

Multiple rapid stab attacks can be carried out faster, but also have the disadvantage of having to be carried out frontally, rather than being able to attack from any angle against the target - a frontal position where the target in question is more likely to be on guard, and will definitely be holding their shield! You cannot effectively reach about to thrust at a foe from the side without repositioning one's body.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The mail offers a protection which is under the influence of so many variables to predict its efficacy.
Thrusting hits is the weakness of the chainmail but against slashing hits reacts efficiently.
And here lies the advantage Romans had with the use of gladius against celtic warriors.
Both used chain mail but the Romans with the thrusting excellence of gladius had an advantage against the big slashing celtic swords.

Most Celts were unarmored, most Romans had LH's. That was a giant advantage as well. Oh, and formation.


Mail can survive all but the most powerful thrusts if it is padded. Tests which use butted mail or a hard backing (or both) are unscientific. There are records of mail hauberks stopping lances - like before Daras, where neither champion was harmed by the opponents lance, and in Usama ibn-what'shisname's memoirs there are several cases of mail withstanding couched lances.