Armour and weapons

[Sicofonte]

No, there was no nonriveted or nonwelded mails.

True. I'll edit my post, since no Roman mails were of that kind. Sorry.

Further more. rings was never made of steel plates. It was flatened riveted or welded rings. Such flated rings was stronger then ordinary riveted or welded ring.

You're wrong. For example:

It alternated with rows of closed washer-like rings, and riveted rings running horizontally

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

Paterns. What do you know about chainmail paterns?

Really nothing. And you?

Anyhows, we both can improve our knowledge, it seems.

Real historikal paterns are 4 in 1 and 6 in 1...

Here we can find more than two patterns (and more than ten), including combinations of patterns that were used in tha past for non-ornamental purposes.
http://mailleartisans.org/weaves/index.cgi
And here:
http://theringlord.com/cart/shopdisplay ... cat=Weaves

And combining the information given in those pages one can figure out that not only the thickness of the rings (the diameter of the wire used to make them) matters, but also the relation among the wire diameter and the ring diameter. For example:

European 6 in 1
Search for rings that work for this weave by AR
AR for a tighter weave: 4.3
AR for a looser weave: 5.7
Best around AR: 5
This weave has many uses. It is denser than 4 in 1 and can be a better solution when you're thinking about using King's Maille. It is a good structural weave and can be used in applications like baskets. In order to make armor with this weave the rings need to be tight - this makes it too dense and not very flexible. If the rings are larger they can become too loose and weak.
The higher the AR the looser and more open the weave - it will still work but it will start to separate with larger AR and hang in pairs of rings if hung open. Lower AR makes it tight and stiff. AR: 3.9 is very stiff

No time to make explaining draws for you, sorry.

Ofcours there is some evidance (in songs, in cultural songs) when worriors put couple of chainmails on them, but still not prooven by other documents.

Or double-ring mails (not double ring-mails), as shown in the cited pages.

So for cantr we have only 4in1 patern.

Why? Due to histori"k"al reasons?

[Pie]

hey, no teasing people for spelling.

[Gran]

We just can't stay without teasing about this.

[Sicofonte]

Hey, I was not teasing about spelling, it was an irony (don't force me to explain it). If I would want to do it, I had plenty of other worse mispellings there (siplyfy, reanactor, evidance, moste, lik, jus, stile, flatened, egsamples, paterns, ofcours, worriors, prooven, sed, damadge, wheight, thiknes). And grammar. But I am learning English too

[shapukas]

Wikipedia is not a good example, becouse eanyone that is registered there can write eanything hi wants. So for european there is 4in 1 and and not so popular 6in1. There was some variations in eastern countries, but this topic is too big for cantr. Links that you have posted provides whith lots of fantasy mail paterns such as elf mail paterns and so on. So, if cantr is based on real life, then there is no place for such a paterns. And i know what i'm saying. Try not to use wiki, but try to read manuscripts, or other history books. I suggest some osprey published books. If you intrested in that i can send you some or give link.

And rings was never made out of steel plates. Is was made of wire and then flatened.

[Sicofonte]

Wikipedia is not a good example, becouse eanyone that is registered there can write eanything hi wants.

As in this forum, you mean?

Links that you have posted provides whith lots of fantasy mail paterns

As well as others not fantastic. Would you mind to avoid the fantastic ones and speak only about the others? There are more than two hundred patterns, and you state that only two were real.

Try not to use wiki, but try to read manuscripts, or other history books.

As the ones that you have read, you mean?.
I'll be happy of reading them. Try to quote the important parts of them, or PM where to get, or give the links, or whatever you prefer.

[shapukas]

i'm sorry. I made one mistake. Ringmails did egsisted. It was quite big rings (bigger then in chainmails) attached to leather suits. those rinds wasnt attachet by other rings.

There is some post about chainmail

http://www.arador.com/construction/maillestart.html

The 4-in-1 weave is by far and away the predominant mail weave in Europe. Very nearly all mail that has been found in Western Europe, but for a couple not-quite-verified examples of European 6-in-1, has been of the 4-in-1 configuration. While any of the information in this article can technically be applied to 6-in-1/8-in-1/"King" weave, etc., there is probably very good reason why some of these weaves aren't proven to have existed, or to have survived in wide usage, in any form that has been proven historically. Their greater relative density, a result of the thicker weave, does not provide an advantage that smaller, solid/riveted 4-in-1 rings can't provide, and the 4-in-1 does not have the considerable weight and flexibility restrictions that the thicker weaves do. In short, you can make your mail out of whatever weave you want, but you should know what you're getting into, both historically and functionally, before doing so. There are other kinds of non-armour things you can build using other weaves, and many sites dedicated to these alternate weaves, but this article will be concerned with 4-in-1 for armour.

I'll add one more thing. Experiments proof that chainmail patern 4in1 is the moste optimal solution. Archiological excavations shows that 6in1 paterns was used very rearely and only in some parts of chainmails. All other paterns like 8in1 or 10in1, dragonscales is jus modern days solutions.

[Priekabusis]

nevark aiskindamas, blet tas sicofonte atmazins betka, nenori daryti tia ir iesko priekabiu...

[Reindeer^]

nevark aiskindamas, blet tas sicofonte atmazins betka, nenori daryti tia ir iesko priekabiu...

And what a hell that means? (OK. OK. This is a spam.)

But I think Wikipedia is quite reliable because it takes lots of work to write an article. So who would write two pages of bullshit.

[shapukas]

There is some "scientists" who "knows" what to wright. Its not all bullshit, but there is some mistakes. Then regular moryals make of those articals eaven more mistakes and so on. So you see, if you whant to know the true then youl have to study books of archiogical discoverys and maby manuscripts. Then besides all the theory there is practikal archiology. People ho trys tu dublikate the foundings. In that case they realise what is real and what is not. what could be made and what coudnt. Example: roman seadge veapons. Anly wrighten documentation was found about them Nobody knew how they worked. So, som people began to make thos weapons and try them how.

And as i was saying chainmails wasnt good against arows. Well maby some nobleman could have better ones. But experiments shows that such an mail would be very heavy. Thats how plate mail emerged. It was better and ligter.

[Reindeer^]

if you whant to know the true then youl have to study books of archiogical discoverys and maby manuscripts.

But it is harder to find a book about weapon and armors than read an article from Wikipedia. And I have noticed that some texts in Wiki are copied from book or magazines.

[shapukas]

yes, ofcourse its harder. books youll have to buy. in internet nobody tryes to put books. Espacialy good ones. Tru to finde osprey published ones. those are quite good. for regular mortals its not bad to read wiki just for biger picture. But when it comes to details its not so good.

[Sicofonte]

Please, don't mess anymore this thread. For discussin about documental techniques, you can go to the General Discussion Forum.

This is for SUGGESTIONS