Chain mail, plate mail, lamellar and everything in between

[Argeus the Paladin]

In video games, plate mails are often classified to be more advanced than chain. The shinier, the better, usually. Under chain mails lies an assortment of scale/lamellar/ring mails, before we get to studded leather armor, leather armor and rag. However, it seems that this, historically, is not correct - the Romans did switch from using Greek muscled plate armor to the Hamata, which is seen as an improvement of sort. And sometime lamellar armors seemed far more resilient than they are given credit for.

So, I'd like to set up a discussion here. Lamellar, chain, plate, scale, which one is the best type of protection one could get on the battlefield, as in highest resilience, and why?

[hellheaven1987]

Full plate - what type of question is that?? It is such an obvious choice...

By the way. what is plate mail?? You mean partial plate??

[Pious Agnost]

Well, normally two or more were combined, so it's not necessarily 'one or the other'. Boiled leather and chainmail would be more useful than one or the other for example.

Also, the types of armour varied on what they were protecting from. e.g. chain-mail would usually absorb the impact and take the energy out of slashes, but against arrows it may as well be cloth.

[hellheaven1987]

Also, the types of armour varied on what they were protecting from. e.g. chain-mail would usually absorb the impact and take the energy out of slashes, but against arrows it may as well be cloth.

That depends. Thicker, larger rings generally offer better portection, but at the expense of weight and flexibility.

Overall full plate is the best, but 15th Century knights would wear reinforced mail outside or inside their plate armor - a double layer protection.

[Timefool]

Also, the types of armour varied on what they were protecting from. e.g. chain-mail would usually absorb the impact and take the energy out of slashes, but against arrows it may as well be cloth.

This exactly. Armors changed with the weapons. Soft weapons? Soft armor. Swords? Chain mail. Arrows? Hardened leather or plate armor. Every armor has its benefits and weaknesses that were designed to be used against a specific weapon type.

But overall, the plate armor obviously has the most defense. The Europeans used it all the way up until the introduction of the gun. The British countered the French knight in the heavy armor with brutal tactics during the 100 years war, pinning them down and slicing at them where their armor was weakest(at the joints). Then armor was phased out and didn't return practically until WW2 in flak jackets and practically for ground troops in the Vietnam war.

[hellheaven1987]

But overall, the plate armor obviously has the most defense. The Europeans used it all the way up until the introduction of the gun. The British countered the French knight in the heavy armor with brutal tactics during the 100 years war, pinning them down and slicing at them where their armor was weakest(at the joints). Then armor was phased out and didn't return practically until WW2 in flak jackets and practically for ground troops in the Vietnam war.

Na.

1. French lost several important battles largely because serious tactical errors and lack of coordination, not because the problem of their equipments.

2. Plate still used up to early 17th Century.

[alhoon]

Soft weapons? Soft armor. Swords? Chain mail. Arrows? Hardened leather or plate armor. Every armor has its benefits and weaknesses that were designed to be used against a specific weapon type.

But overall, the plate armor obviously has the most defense.

Plate armor was almost imprevious to swords, where chainmail was just softening the blow for the padded cloth under it to absorb it.

The saracen chain mail I have seen in museums is laughable. Other chain mails I have seen also doesn't seem effective. I can't understand how it actually worked because we all know for a fact that it did.
How could thin wire protect against a strong blow? I'm considered a weak person but I'm confident that with my sword (and I have one in my house) I could break through it if I hit it with the point.
If I hiting the chain with the broad side I would propably break a couple of links assuming the person wearing it would react in time to move with my blow. Also, the blow would be painful even if not seriously damaging. If I placed the saracen chain mail on a chair, even with padded and hit it, I would destroy the links where I hit them
And I'm not strong.
Now, if I used the small axe we use for cutting branches etc, I would break through the chain links as if they weren't there. And if I could swing those heavy fire axes used for breaking doors fast enough to get someone with the chainmail, neither the padded nor the thin wire would help.

On the other hand, the scale armor a friend is making seems far better for axe blows. Admittedly, he uses thick steel scales. The whole thing when he finishes it will propably weight 10+kg.

Since he made it in a strange way, tying it with thick wire, I believe it would be very good against glancing blows turning them completely aside. A strong direct blow from an axe would break through but would lose much energy (propably not enough to save you though). I wore the part he had finished and he hit me with a hammer, and since I didn't wear padded I felt the blow. A spear tip would also break through.

[Rapax]

Plate armor was almost imprevious to swords, where chainmail was just softening the blow for the padded cloth under it to absorb it.

Hmm? Chain Mail is primarily meant to protect against cuts and piercings from slashing and stabbing weapons, not soften or absorb blows, that's the point of the padded cloth underneath. Which means that while a sword slash will probably not cut through chain mail, the force of it could still leave a bruise or broken bone.

[Mangalore]

...

Anyone know the documentaries where this fella is in? He's quite funny.

[alhoon]

Hmm? Chain Mail is primarily meant to protect against cuts and piercings from slashing and stabbing weapons, not soften or absorb blows, that's the point of the padded cloth underneath.

Yeap. That's what I meant. I thought it was clear that I meant the combo "chain + padded cloth"

Oh dude. Your assumptions are waaaay too far fetched I suggest you to participate in a reenactment event.

Interesting. I wouldn't participate since there aren't any near me but I would like to hear more about it. What was far fetched in my assumptions from your experience? Are you a re-enactor? What kind of armor have you used?

[intel]

Plate armor was almost imprevious to swords, where chainmail was just softening the blow for the padded cloth under it to absorb it.

The saracen chain mail I have seen in museums is laughable. Other chain mails I have seen also doesn't seem effective. I can't understand how it actually worked because we all know for a fact that it did.
How could thin wire protect against a strong blow? I'm considered a weak person but I'm confident that with my sword (and I have one in my house) I could break through it if I hit it with the point.
If I hiting the chain with the broad side I would propably break a couple of links assuming the person wearing it would react in time to move with my blow. Also, the blow would be painful even if not seriously damaging. If I placed the saracen chain mail on a chair, even with padded and hit it, I would destroy the links where I hit them
And I'm not strong.

Oh dude. Your assumptions are waaaay too far fetched I suggest you to participate in a reenactment event.

Now, if I used the small axe we use for cutting branches etc, I would break through the chain links as if they weren't there. And if I could swing those heavy fire axes used for breaking doors fast enough to get someone with the chainmail, neither the padded nor the thin wire would help.

But chainmal wasn't made to provide protection against such kind of weapon- it's like complaining that bulletproof west can't protect you from 12.5mm calibre bullets

[hellheaven1987]

But chainmal wasn't made to provide protection against such kind of weapon- it's like complaining that bulletproof west can't protect you from 12.5mm calibre bullets

That actually depends on how thick the rings are... Either way, sword is not too effective against plate armor, hence 14th Century knights generally used polearm as main weapon.

[Lysimachus]

2. Plate still used up to early 17th Century.

Actually, Cuirasses were worn all the way in to the 20th century unless you're on about full plating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass

[hellheaven1987]

Actually, Cuirasses were worn all the way in to the 20th century unless you're on about full plating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass

Hmmm, either way, modern body armor was appeared during WWI both by Allies and Central Power. I have read somewhere that British experiment such thing during 1917, and German Storm Troopers had such equipments during 1917 too.

[Lysimachus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Loades

Funny? I see it as him being more "hands on" rather than just explaining everything with words all the time.

[Visarion]

chainmail

[Mangalore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Loades

Funny? I see it as him being more "hands on" rather than just explaining everything with words all the time.

Whatever he explains he gets all worked up and excstatic. It's kinda funny though it also seems he has a lot of fun with his job.
@konny: I find him entertaining. Don't think in real infantry battle anyone would waste his time with a longsword though. Anything from a spear to a halberd would be more useful to get at your enemy without he getting to you.

[Lysimachus]

Whatever he explains he gets all worked up and excstatic. It's kinda funny though it also seems he has a lot of fun with his job.
@konny: I find him entertaining. Don't think in real infantry battle anyone would waste his time with a longsword though. Anything from a spear to a halberd would be more useful to get at your enemy without he getting to you.

I think he's explaining things theoretically rather than how it would be in practice. Everyone knows you can't swing a huge sword around when you have thousands of men tightly packed fighting one another.

[konny]

I think he's explaining things theoretically rather than how it would be in practice. Everyone knows you can't swing a huge sword around when you have thousands of men tightly packed fighting one another.

Yes, that's what I meant. "nonsense" probably was to hard, "pointless" would have been better. In this example, the demonstration would have not shed any light on how Medieval combat worked and what role chain mail would have played in it.

[Rapax]

I think the demonstration made it quite clear that chain mail will protect against cuts from slashing weapons but whether it holds or not, it won't protect against the kinetic energy of a direct hit. That is a pretty clear statement on what chain mail can and can't do.

Yeap. That's what I meant. I thought it was clear that I meant the combo "chain + padded cloth"

Yes but you still argued like you thought chain mail was supposed to be able to take full on hits from swords and axes and somehow protect the wearer against them. That's just not gonna work.