One-Handed Spear Reach and Reversed Grip

[AlexanderHowl]

We have plenty of examples from battlefields of mail failing, from archeological accounts and from historical accounts, and it usually involved failure of the links. Since the links were handmade, the quality of mail could vary quite a bit, from mail as supple as silk to something that might as well have been air with holes in it, but even the best quality mail was not perfect. If it had been perfect, no one would have developed plate armor.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

We have plenty of examples from battlefields of mail failing, from archeological accounts and from historical accounts, and it usually involved failure of the links. Since the links were handmade, the quality of mail could vary quite a bit, from mail as supple as silk to something that might as well have been air with holes in it, but even the best quality mail was not perfect. If it had been perfect, no one would have developed plate armor.

Here is my evidence.
https://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

Where is yours?

I'd love to see an eyewitness account of someone stabbing a spear through mail armour and wounding the wearer. I've been looking for two decades and can't find any.

FWIW plate armour became widespread because it was cheaper and faster to produce than mail.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The only examples we have of mail failing to a spear thrust is when the spear was rammed into them from a charging horse - i.e. mounted lance. There is no evidence of a one handed spear thrust ever compromising mail. I'm sure it must have happened to someone but the chances are so low as to have no influence on the outcome of a battle.

Cited from your article:

"Various experiments also indicate that blunt trauma could be an effective means of inflicting injury through armour, but bruising and cracked bones were preferable to a fatal sword cut. No armour guaranteed invulnerability, but it greatly lessened the chances of getting injured and often reduced a potentially fatal blow to an injury far less serious.

Regarding sword and knife stabs, Dr. Williams presents a convincing argument that it was far more difficult to thrust a blade through mail than many assume.95 He tested two samples of mail (placed over padding) and found that the energy required to compromise either sample exceeded the maximum amount of energy that a person can generate with a one-handed thrust—even over-handed. He tested the amount of energy required to penetrate his samples with a simulated halberd blade, a lance head, and a bodkin arrowhead. The halberd and lance required more than 200J to penetrate the first sample; the bodkin required only 120J to penetrate. Against the second sample, the halberd required 170J, the lance 140J, and the bodkin 120J. From this, it would seem that a bodkin-shaped spike is the most efficient design to compromise mail, which is consistent with other experiments."

Now, the lance required 140J to penetrate both the second mail sample - which was a historical sample taken from an arming doublet - and a linen padding which was at least 26 layers thick - Williams in the halberd test wrote that the 26th layer got cut at 180J but he also wrote that the needed energy to cut the entire armour was 200J. The experiment says that the lance required 70J to pierce the mail and other 70J to pierce the padding. 70J is an amount of energy that a man armed with a one-handed weapon can generate. Unfortunately we have not yet experiments with riveted mail having rings of a certain thickness and density (the same kind of mail used as primary defense by most of European knights before the XV century) combined with padding. In any case, "light" mail with light padding isn't invulnerable to spear and sword thrusts, particularly if the weapon has a good quality steel tapered point optimized to piercing (which would be useless if spears and swords with these acute points wouldn't had any possibility to penetrate mail and textile armor, because a broader blade point is more effective than an acute point against unarmored opponents as it left a larger injury on the target).

"Light" mail armor combined with not very thick padding wasn't common in Europe (except for gaps of plate armor protected only by the arming doublet), but it was common in India, Indonesia, Japan and other places. On the other hand, conspicuous padding worn under mail wasn't common in Europe until the XI century, although European mail in the Classical Era and in the Dark Ages wasn't usually of the "light" type. Interesting the fact that the modern reproduction of mail performed better than the historical mail sample in William's tests.

Regarding textile/leather armor, there is a problem: a textile corselet 4-5 cm thick weights up to 3,5 times a steel cuirass with an average thickness of 2 mm. I don't think that the majority of textile armors were so heavy and thick, and textile limb defenses, at least in the manner they are depicted in contemporary art, usually appear to have a flexible or semi-rigid construction. As I've said before, textile armor was described as "difficult to pierce" by coeval sources, not "impossible to pierce". A thickness comprised between 1 cm and 2 cm doesn't make you invulnerable to the strongest sword thrusts and spear thrusts, particularly if the weapon has a point form optimized to pierce.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

Now, the lance required 140J to penetrate both the second mail sample - which was a historical sample taken from an arming doublet - and a linen padding which was at least 26 layers thick

Williams layered cloth in a stack without adequate quilting. It severely compromises its ability to resist points.

Regarding textile/leather armor, there is a problem: a textile corselet 4-5 cm thick weights up to 3,5 times a steel cuirass with an average thickness of 2 mm. I don't think that the majority of textile armors were so heavy and thick.

The torso section definitely was unless it was layered over another defense. Limb protection was thinner. In any case we don't have a single test against a target that replicates historical textile armour so the results from those tests tell us nothing about the ability of textile armour to resist weapons.

We have plenty of examples in various museums and detailed descriptions in multiple texts so we don't have to guess how they were made. The only person I know who has bothered to examine these armours and attempted to replicate them for sale is Jessica Finley - and she mainly does arming doublets, not standalone jacks/gambesons. As I mentioned up above, there is an upcoming publication from the Tudor Tailor that will give us all the data we need to make some decent reconstructions. Only then can we put together a coherent test to finally begin to understand how these armours performed.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The torso section definitely was unless it was layered over another defense.

Personally I have seen few historical textile armors 4-5 cm thick, but many others 2-3 cm thick. Like this one:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/c5/aa/4...fa7e64e19d.jpg


"589. QUILTED HELMET AND CUIRASS. Worn by Tippoo Sultan. The helmet, which is very large and provided with flaps at the back and sides, is composed of many thicknesses of a coarse cotton fabric compactly quilted together. It is covered with dark green silk or satin, and lined with velvet of the same colour. On the inside of the flap at the back is embroidered an inscription to the effect that the helmet has been dipped in the holy well of Zam-Zam, at Mecca, and is therefore impenetrable.

The cuirass, nearly an inch in thickness {so a bit less than 2,54 cm}, is composed of the same material, covered with green velvet. It is fastened by lacing in front, and provided with armholes and epaulettes at the sides."

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

Personally I have seen few historical textile armors 4-5 cm thick, but many others 2-3 cm thick. Like this one:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/c5/aa/4...fa7e64e19d.jpg


"589. QUILTED HELMET AND CUIRASS. Worn by Tippoo Sultan. The helmet, which is very large and provided with flaps at the back and sides, is composed of many thicknesses of a coarse cotton fabric compactly quilted together. It is covered with dark green silk or satin, and lined with velvet of the same colour. On the inside of the flap at the back is embroidered an inscription to the effect that the helmet has been dipped in the holy well of Zam-Zam, at Mecca, and is therefore impenetrable.

The cuirass, nearly an inch in thickness {so a bit less than 2,54 cm}, is composed of the same material, covered with green velvet. It is fastened by lacing in front, and provided with armholes and epaulettes at the sides."

It is an inch in thickness after it has been compressed with quilting. It starts out 2-3 inches thick.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

It is an inch in thickness after it has been compressed with quilting. It starts out 2-3 inches thick.

But we are talking about the thickness of the armor, not the thickness of the cloth before being quilted. As I've said before, I don't think, until proven otherwise, that a textile armor thickness between 1cm and 3cm is proofed against certain weapons, particularly those with a tapered acute point optimized for thrusting. Spanish conquistadores found difficult, but not impossible, to pierce Aztec quilted armors with their swords; and Macedonian and Epirote pikemen suffered badly against Roman pila volleys, which were capable to pierce through their layered linen corselets.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

Spanish conquistadores found difficult, but not impossible, to pierce Aztec quilted armors with their swords.

Because their armour was designed to stop wood and stone weapons, not steel ones.

Macedonian and Epirote pikemen suffered badly against Roman pila volleys, which were capable to pierce through their layered linen corselets.

Which source says this? We aren't even certain that these fighters wore linen armour.