Chainmail

[.matthew.]

Most would never be able to afford plate armour. Chain mail was more affordable, but then we have to consider that most soldiers on a battlefield were likely to have few possessions and little money, so any protection they had was likely pilfered from the enemy.

The equally poor enemy?

Quality armour belonged to the more professional soldiers and as most armies were levied troops, they sufficed with very little at all.

Their protection came from large groups of people where nobody really went suicidal and skirmishing men would just sort of probe defences rather than pushing for kills, only really attacking when there was a safe opening. So spears and shields made the best defence.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The equally poor enemy?

Quality armour belonged to the more professional soldiers and as most armies were levied troops, they sufficed with very little at all.

Their protection came from large groups of people where nobody really went suicidal and skirmishing men would just sort of probe defences rather than pushing for kills, only really attacking when there was a safe opening. So spears and shields made the best defence.

Yes, most soldiers in battle would have little to no protection. Which is one of the reasons why (in Britain at least) there weren't that many large-scale (or even small scale) battles, as the nobles couldn't afford to lose their workers. Even in 'the Wars of the Roses' , one of Britain's bloodiest medieval periods, there were only 20 major battles spread over more than 30 years.

And as you mention, other than landed folk, the only soldiers likely to have more than basic protection would be mercenaries whose 'tools of the trade' would require a decent level of offensive and defensive equipment.

 

[.matthew.]

Which is one of the reasons why (in Britain at least) there weren't that many large-scale (or even small scale) battles, as the nobles couldn't afford to lose their workers.

Yea, and even big ones didn't usually have the casualties you'd expect since the losers usually just routed.

As a quasi-interesting note on the workers, battles were often fought in the off-seasons when they weren't required to work the farms.

 

[The Ace]

I made my own butted mail shirt (buying the rings was cheaper than buying the finished article), and can make a few observations;

* A tightly-cinched belt around the waist is a must (pull it until he says, "Jings!" then use the next hole) with the shirt bloused above it - otherwise you're lifting the entire thing when you breathe - this gets you very tired, very quickly.

* You need a REALLY heavy sword- or axe cut to actually penetrate chain-mail - it doesn't do much for impact protection, though, so an arming jerkin beneath it is a must. Fatal injuries can still be caused by a hard enough blow if there's no padding.

*Piercing between the rings is possible, but you need a very narrow point - even a thrust from the wrong type of sword can skid off.

* An arrow or spear-head which is too broad is more likely to break than penetrate the armour - although the likelihood of knocking your target down with such a weapon is fairly good. The roman pilum was designed for this, as were bodkin-point arrowheads. Balista bolts, of course, generate so much force that they're pretty unstoppable.

Chain-mail never actually went away from the Roman army, and was always the commonest type. After the Varus massacre of AD 9, three legions had to be equipped very quickly to replace the lost ones. Segmented armour can be made much more quickly than chain, and with the soldier having to purchase his own kit, second- or third-hand equipment became common.

There's also artistic license. Artists made sculptures, friezes, reliefs, and murals of Imperial campaigns (propaganda) and soldiers in chain-mail could be anyone. The distinctive segmentata was unmistakeably Roman, allowing the plebs to easily see that the Romans were winning.

 

[Joshua Jones]

I made my own butted mail shirt (buying the rings was cheaper than buying the finished article), and can make a few observations;

* A tightly-cinched belt around the waist is a must (pull it until he says, "Jings!" then use the next hole) with the shirt bloused above it - otherwise you're lifting the entire thing when you breathe - this gets you very tired, very quickly.

* You need a REALLY heavy sword- or axe cut to actually penetrate chain-mail - it doesn't do much for impact protection, though, so an arming jerkin beneath it is a must. Fatal injuries can still be caused by a hard enough blow if there's no padding.

*Piercing between the rings is possible, but you need a very narrow point - even a thrust from the wrong type of sword can skid off.

* An arrow or spear-head which is too broad is more likely to break than penetrate the armour - although the likelihood of knocking your target down with such a weapon is fairly good. The roman pilum was designed for this, as were bodkin-point arrowheads. Balista bolts, of course, generate so much force that they're pretty unstoppable.

Chain-mail never actually went away from the Roman army, and was always the commonest type. After the Varus massacre of AD 9, three legions had to be equipped very quickly to replace the lost ones. Segmented armour can be made much more quickly than chain, and with the soldier having to purchase his own kit, second- or third-hand equipment became common.

There's also artistic license. Artists made sculptures, friezes, reliefs, and murals of Imperial campaigns (propaganda) and soldiers in chain-mail could be anyone. The distinctive segmentata was unmistakeably Roman, allowing the plebs to easily see that the Romans were winning.

This matches my experience with mail also. It's great for preventing cuts from slashing weapons, but not so great at absorbing impact, and completely useless for rapier thrusts and small headed arrows...

BTW, the thought of getting hit with a balista bolt is horrifying!

 

[The Ace]

This matches my experience with mail also. It's great for preventing cuts from slashing weapons, but not so great at absorbing impact, and completely useless for rapier thrusts and small headed arrows...

BTW, the thought of getting hit with a balista bolt is horrifying!

That's the idea.

 

[sknox]

I wonder how much of a choice we're talking about here. In any given decade, did a given knight have a choice between chain mail and plate? Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for sure, though both styles were on their way out by the latter, except for parades.

Fifteenth century? And even then, was it the same in Switzerland as in Spain as in the Netherlands as in Hungary?

Was the choice purely economic? Tactical? (I'm picturing a knight going to his "war closet" hmmmm what shall I wear to today's battle? <g>)

Might Joe Peasant--or, more likely, Tom Townsman--not have an old set of mail he got on sale? Or from Daddy? Or even was issued to town militia? Perhaps just a mail shirt, a little rusty here and there?

Might not a knight have armor he looted from the last battle?

It just seems to me there would have been dozens of factors at work that determined what a fighter wore to the battle on any given day. Certainly one of the big reforms of the so-called Military Revolution was standardization of gear. It's hard to know how your soldiers will fare when you can't control how they're equipped.

 

[paranoid marvin]

If you've got money and are noble, the chances are that you'll have the best protection you can afford; and that's likely to be plate armour. Even if you aren't killed/mortally injured in a fight, being captured could financially bankrupt you for the ransom. But as a knight your 'raison d'etre' was to fight in battles and win honour and glory (and money) for your family name.

Yes, sknox, I agree that there may have been some ordinary folk who had their own equipment that had been handed down through generations; perhaps a rusting chainmail shirt or similar, and after a battle there must have been a number of dead/captured enemies who could have their weapons and armour 'liberated' from them, although it's quite possible that the Lord who commanded may have 'comandeered' the better stuff for himself.

 

[.matthew.]

I'd assume that the nobles wouldn't be all that keen on their peasants having good weapons and armour

 

[sknox]

I'd assume that the nobles wouldn't be all that keen on their peasants having good weapons and armour

And yet, they would be keen on not losing battles. I think such a choice would be driven more by economics than by socio-political worries. Fully kitting out the peasantry would have been terribly expensive, and many nobles were chronically broke, especially by the time plate mail was on the scene. But medieval armies varied significantly in their composition, and not all foot soldiers were peasants.

>If you've got money and are noble, the chances are that you'll have the best protection you can afford; and that's likely to be plate armour.
Makes sense, but when did plate armor supplant chain? What did, say, the Spanish tercios wear? The German landesknechten? I'm pretty sure plate was the choice for jousting, at least in the 16thc and probably in the 15thc. That's not actual warfare, of course.

It's times like this that I wish I had a complete library of Osprey books. <g>

 

[.matthew.]

Battles weren't really decided by casualties though, so from what I've read it's generally who turned up with the largest number in most cases would win after a shortish skirmish. Of course tactics and the situation could change things a bit but that was again not really dependent on the armament of the men.

As you say, fully kitting out the peasantry would have been expensive but I'd go further than that and say impossible. Even your basic sword was painfully valuable at certain points, and I would imagine that the chains in mail would even add up to an amount worth stripping it apart for (if say a handful of peasants got their hands on a single piece after a battle).

For jousting, it wouldn't be only the extra protection against penetration being sought with plate armour, but the deflection of the lance and extra impact resistance.

As a further resource for pricing, I went on to look at Medieval Prices.
This placed mail at around 100 shillings (20 crowns or 1200 pence). Check my maths, but that looks like 800 gallons of good ale or 50 pigs outside of London.

Now it also came with the following quote which in some way contradicts what I've just said, but I think accurate information is hard to come by and prices changed dramatically around the black death era.

Note: It was mandatory in England for all freemen to own certain types of weapons and armor. (In 1181, every freeman having goods worth 10 marks (1 mark = 13s 4d) had to have a mail shirt, a helmet, and a spear. All other freemen should have helmet, spear, and gambeson (quilted armor) [4], p. 39.) Later, the government stored arms and armour in churches for use; in the 13th century anyone with an income of L2-L5 (wealthy peasants) had to have bows.

This implies that having a worth of around 130 shillings would require you to own a mail shirt, helmet, spear, which makes the 100 shilling value of the mail a little unbelievable... but again, figuring out something that far back is bound to come up all over the place.