Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII

[Fortinbras]

In terms of training, what is the difference between a navy corpsman and army 68W?

Of the two who gets more combat training?

Who gets sent on more ops?

[Grynning]

Need some help from some of the history buffs: What kind of swords and firearms would have been used by soldiers and in particular naval officers during the Nine-years War? I know that pistols would have likely been uncommon but would have been of wheelock or snaphance designs, but that's about it. Images and references would be helpful. Thanks!

[Mike_G]

In terms of training, what is the difference between a navy corpsman and army 68W?

Of the two who gets more combat training?

Who gets sent on more ops?

What's a 68W? Is that a medic?

Navy Corpsmen don't get any specific combat training just by virtue of being Corpsmen, and Army basic teaches more combat stuff than Navy basic. That said Corpsmen act as medics for both Navy and Marine Corps units, so the ones whose job it is to keep the jarheads patched up see a lot of combat operations.

I doubt that the medical training is very different between services. It's similar to paramedic training. Not exactly, but that's the closest civilian analogy. One of the guys I worked with on the ambulance a few years back had been a Navy Corpsman, and he mostly worked as an OR tech in the service.

[Psyx]

it was the point where this panzer officer lost his faith in hitler, as it was clear he was totally disconnected between what his Big Board said and what was on the ground, and wasn't willing to listen.

Hitler was so mentally degraded by that point that he was still busy winning the war with invisible divisions in his head. He'd surrounded himself with officer who were happy to lie to him rather than face his anger for so long, that his reality had become the only one he could tolerate.

It's a problem with all dictators that they tend to assume that they have suddenly learned how to become military geniuses, and know how to fight wars better than their career Staff Officers. Perhaps sending men to die is the ultimate high for the megalomaniac.

It sounds like you are talking about battle losses?

On a modern battlefield, pre-combat losses are negligible. Although that I would imagine that in the event of 25% casualties before getting into line (say due to a transportation accident or illness), that a reserve unit would be used instead. Prior to the late C20, such a thing would be quite a luxury, and attrition due to disease and desertion simply something that had to be dealt with. I also suspect that desertion (and perhaps disease to an extent) might be more prevalent amongst Other Ranks than within the command structure, and so less detrimental to the unit as an organisation. that's just a hunch, though.

[Storm Bringer]

It's a problem with all dictators that they tend to assume that they have suddenly learned how to become military geniuses, and know how to fight wars better than their career Staff Officers. Perhaps sending men to die is the ultimate high for the megalomaniac.

part of the problem was, he'd clashed with his staff several times, won the arguement, and then been proven right as events unfolded. For example, he'd overruled staff officer objections over france, and won a major victory.

Hitler took gambles, and had a run of luck that convinced hum he knew better than his generals.

[RationalGoblin]

Quick question; in the 10th (so 900s) and 11th century, how did the decentralized Frankish state work? Particularly military-wise, what was the relationship between king and vassal in military matters, the type of troops (and their equipment) and so forth?

[Spiryt]

Type of equipment is being "standard" generally.

What I mean, nothing is really standard in those times, of course, as people are arming themselves on their own, by "standard" I mean typical for the period - spears, axes, javelins. As I understand franciskas or similar throwing axes were somehow typical frankish element. Helmets, mail and rare and not well documented things like scale or lammellar for armors - usually the best things we have for their confirmation is something like this.

On this situla one can see oval shields, both with central boss, and with rivets in the upper part, which can suggest few different methods of holding the shield. It's supposed to represent Otto III, AFAIK, and is from about 1000.

Generally, system would be prospering feudalism - depending on status, power, wealth, your armed man would be expected by his lord to stand with better equipment and more armed subjects.

So here are few point, hopefully others shall add more.

[fusilier]

Need some help from some of the history buffs: What kind of swords and firearms would have been used by soldiers and in particular naval officers during the Nine-years War? I know that pistols would have likely been uncommon but would have been of wheelock or snaphance designs, but that's about it. Images and references would be helpful. Thanks!

Basic European firearms would have been muskets and calivers (or arquebuses), and pistols. Most long arms would be matchlocks, but an officer could afford a wheellock or snaphance design. Such locks were also preferred for powder-train guards and some skirmisher units. Pistols would typically be wheellock. I think I've seen some snaphaunce and also early miquelet lock pistols too. I think the older German style pistols (pfuffer) were falling out of use. Pistols wouldn't have been that uncommon. Lances were being abandoned in favor of pistols at this time, and it is reasonable to expect an officer to have a few pistols. I'm having trouble finding good pictures on the internet at the moment. Maybe someone else can help.

There's an old geocities page about matchlock muskets that can be found through www.archive.org, but right now that website appears to be having trouble.

http://web.archive.org/web/200801160...551/index.html

As for swords, the short answer is: all of them! Pretty much any sword that was available in Europe could be used, based upon individual preference, although two-handed swords would probably not be used by officers. There are also a ton of different names by which these swords may be known. Rapiers, cut-and-thrust (sidesword? broadsword?), falchions, etc. There's probably others on this forum that can provide more detail.

[Galloglaich]

Quick question; in the 10th (so 900s) and 11th century, how did the decentralized Frankish state work? Particularly military-wise, what was the relationship between king and vassal in military matters, the type of troops (and their equipment) and so forth?

To add to what Spyrit said.

The late Frankish kingdom was a complex society, not really feudal in the 10th Century so much as still mostly tribal. Due to the relative paucity of surviving records we actually know far less about them than we do about the Romans or the later Medieval world. But we do know a few things I can review briefly here.

The Frankish top leadership (the Carolingian Dynasty) was very strong in the 8th Century from the victory of Charles Martel at Tours until the early 9th Century when Charlemagne died. During Charlemagnes reign the King of the Franks also became the Emperor of 'Rome'. After Charlemagnes death the Empire was split into three parts and the Frankish kingdom went into a period of decline through the 9th Century under a series of weak leaders with names like Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple and Louis the Stammerer. France was ravaged by the Vikings and fragmented by internal dissent well into the 10th Century. Meanwhile the other two branches of the Empire, Burgundy / Italy and Germany, went into a different direction, sealing the break up of the Frankish Empire into several parts by the late-9th Century. Finally from the early 11th Century the Capetians took over starting with Hugh Capet, which was a new stronger dynasty leading into the Medieval Kingdom of France. So that is the top leadership, complex enough to be sure, but that is actually the simplest part.

Probably the most important to keep in mind about the Franks is that they were not an ethnic group per se, or a tribe, but a large multi-ethnic tribal federation. It was the same for all the other famous Barbarian 'tribes' of the Dark Ages.

So the original Franks included the Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii, Tencteri, Ubii and Batavi (tribes ranging from Germany to Flanders / Holland), one branch of the federation was dominated by the Salii which is why they were known as the Salian Franks. The name Franks probably means 'Free men' which is typcial of such early Germanic federations (the Allemani, which is still the French word for Germans, means literally Alle - Mani or "All men"). As the Frankish tribes conquered Gaul, they heavily intermingled, intermarried and integrated with the Romanized Gauls and picked up many of their habits and gradually, their language. As the Franks expanded they absorbed or federated with other tribes including the Saxons, Alans (Iranian / Persian people), the Taifals (also Iranian), and Alemanni. This has a lot of significance on the Frankish military.

Frankish tribal law was of the traditional Germanic type, governed by independent "lawspeakers" (called rachimburgs) who spoke at the tribal assembly similar to the Scandinavian 'Ting' and would make legal rulings but did not have direct authority. Judgments were carried out by jurors and tribal Chieftains were elected by the assembly (though the most powerful men were usually elected). Gradually Roman / Oriental style monarchy took hold inside the confederation, which was unified under the Merovingian 'Sea-Kings' and these lawmen were replaced with royal magistrates who were part of an administrative class called centannae or antrustiones (more about them a bit later) who played a similar role, but with loyalty to the King rather than the tribe (somewhat similar to Islamic Qadi).

In terms of kit, while the Frankish confederation started out iron poor, like many Germannic tribal groups, only more so. But by the 10th Century they had actually become one of the greatest iron producing people in the world. Frankish ('Ferrengi') armor and swords were among the most sought-after in the East by this time. So their armies were generally well equipped by the standards of the day, better than most late-Roman armies probably.

Command would break down by Dukes, Bishops, and tribal Chieftains (who would bear similar titles but with less formal meaning). At any one time depending on the strength of the King from 20 -80% of these Princes would fight on the side of the Kingdom. You would also have of course many smaller regional disputes going on between princes.

Political and military organization overlapped, by the 10th Century where you are focusing, the Frankish kingdom was much more sophisticated and organized, but still also pretty decentralized and multicultural, quite complex but you can break it down into four zones.

In parts of Flanders and the West of France there were many Gallo-Roman trading towns which were almost like smaller versions of Medieval city-states. These walled towns had their own militias made up of a special class of armed burghers called centannae who were called up under what the records refer to as 'local levies' which were well trained and well armed and equipped, like the urban militias of the later Medieval world, mostly as heavy infantry.

Feudalism wasn't very well established in Frankish lands by this point but in Central and Southern France there were some truly feudal fiefdoms based around Latifundia, traditional Roman villa - plantations worked by serfs (pagani), ruled over by Bishops or Dux (Dukes). There were also certain higher nobles such as the Bishop of Paris and the Patrician of Burgundy who held special ranks and often acted as important military leaders with their own heavily armed (cavalry) retinues. These places had Romano-Gallic cavalry but little infantry (unless the 'General levy' was called in which case even serfs 'pauperes' and 'inferiores' would be armed and pressed into service, but that was very rare).

Around the Rhine and the tribes were more barbaric and organized as traditional Germanic light infantry equipped similarly to the Franks of a much earlier time.

Finally the Alans and Taifals were settled in certain areas of France. These Iranian / Saromatian nomads fought as light or as heavy cavalry. In fact there is some argument that they may have introduced the culture of heavy cavalry to France. A Taifal uprising is mentioned in France in 565 AD by Gregory of Tours, so they were still considered a distinct ethnic group by then. The zones controlled by the Central Asians would have been aristocratic areas since they were a foreign people ruling over local tribes. They seem to have assimilated quickly a Taifal Saint was canonized in the 6th Century.

Spoiler

Show

So in the 10th Century, the urban militias of Paris and towns like Nantes, Bordeaux, Poitiers, Toulouse, Tours etc. would be heavy infantry called centannae, armed with spears, shields, javelins, darts, swords and axes, and backed up by archers. Typical soldiers would wear helmets and many would have mail, others probably textile armor.

Spoiler

Show

The Romano Gallic cavalry was probably armored, at least with a textile armor and a shield, probably with a byrnie as well, and would also carry lance, javelins, darts and a sword. A few would carry bows like Roman Sagitarii

Spoiler

Show

These Cataphracts are kitted out in Asian style, the Alans in Gaul would have probably been clothed and equipped somewhat more similarly to the locals.


The Saromatian (Alan, Taifal) cavalry would be split into light cavalry, some of whom may have had bows, most armed with javelins and darts and light lances, and heavy cavalry with real warhorses some of whom may have had armored horses, body armor (possibly including scale or lamellar armor as Spyrit showed above) axes, light maces, lassos, and lances.

Spoiler

Show

This image depicts Franks from the 5th or 6th Century, Franks in the 10th Century would probably have a more 'medieval' appearance in terms of dress and hair etc., but the weapons were similar.

The Germanic tribes would fight primarily as light infantry armed in the more traditional Frankish manner, with the Angon / Francona (a heavy armor-piercing spear probably derived directly from the Roman Pilum) the Francisca, a throwing axe, plus swords and axes.

Spoiler

Show

The chieftains would be armored with mail and helmets, and would be accompanied by an elite bodyguard called a Commitatus or Antrustiones. These men would be heavily armed and well mounted but many would prefer to fight as heavy infantry as they did so famously under Charles Martel.

The king himself had both heavy infantry centannae and a large bodyguard of Antrustiones called comes palatii and comes stabuli (palace guards and state police, respectively, some of whom were aristocrats but some of whom were recruited from tribesemen or serfs, creating a new class which came to be called ministerials in the Holy Roman Empire, many ministerials eventually became the founders of the fighting Orders like the Teutonic Order), plus archers and probably Sarmatian cavalry as well.

The best source for the early Franks is Procopius, the best source for the Medieval Franks is (in my opinion) Hans Delbruck. The Osprey books are also, as always, useful particularly for the individual kit.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Wars-B...6585302&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Inva...6585377&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfa...6585341&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Societ...6585377&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Charlemagn...6585507&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Carolingian-Ca...m_01_01_t_lht5

G.

[Crow]

Freaking Deadliest Warrior.

I specifically refer to the Viking vs. Samurai episode. It seems they overestimate the utility of the katana, and underestimate the utility of a shield (and western weaponry in general).

A samurai was basically just a feudal retainer, so you kindof have to assume a huscarl on the viking side, which is much the same, to make it fair, so you can probably safely assume a near equal level of skill. While the samurai's weaponry was well-suited to the enemies he was likely to face, it seems the viking's equipment would be better suited to whatever he may have come across (interesting as one culture was very isolationist at times, while the other nearly spanned the globe in their travels).

Am I way off base here? Any thoughts from others?

I hate that show by the way. The only reason I watched it was by the recommendation of that episode by a friend.

[Psyx]

The show always completely underestimates the effectiveness of shields, and seldom addresses armour adequately and...<insert froth>

What weapons did the samurai use? Because it strikes me as:

Japanese bow (low draw weight) vs Higher draw weight Western bow
Spear vs Spear
Laminated metal cutting blade optimised against unarmoured foes Vs Laminated metal cutting and thrusting blade AND shield
Laminate armour vs Mail
Tetsudo versus Long Axe

I suspect fanboyism won out, and the samurai won, right?

[MarkusWolfe]

The show always completely underestimates the effectiveness of shields, and seldom addresses armour adequately and...<insert froth>

What weapons did the samurai use? Because it strikes me as:

Japanese bow (low draw weight) vs Higher draw weight Western bow
Spear vs Spear
Laminated metal cutting blade optimised against unarmoured foes Vs Laminated metal cutting and thrusting blade AND shield
Laminate armour vs Mail
Tetsudo versus Long Axe

I suspect fanboyism won out, and the samurai won, right?

Yep. And the Viking had better weapons he could've used.

This was also the episode that the guys figured out that most weapons are going to have a very difficult time getting through riveted (AKA effective and well constructed) chainmail. Anytime after that you see chainmail on the show, it's butted chainmail (AKA it might deflect accidental blows while training, but it's not going to stop a determined opponent) Whether it was for balance between combatants or for more blood for the ratings, it was sucktacular.

[Britter]

Speaking as a practicioner of Japanese swordsmanship, I think it is way off base to assume that a samurai would win that fight. For starters, with the exception of the early days of the Tokugawa shogunate, when the samurai were veterans of the wars that unified Japan, a samurai was for the most part a glorified administrator. Oh sure, some of them could fight, all of them wore swords, and they were part of the military to some degree, but there was a 300 year period of relative peace in Japan during which the samurai were essentially government functionaries. It's sort of like asking if a Viking warrior could kill an accountant, in some ways.

Assuming our viking was fighting a samurai of sufficently high rank to be able to afford swords and armor and a horse and a bow (which was not always the case. Watch the excellent movie Twilight Samurai for an example of both the samurai as adminstrator, the samurai as very poor, and a couple of pretty cool fight scenes) and that the samurai was equally skilled, I think it would probably come down, to a certain extent, to personal skill. The tools of war used in Japan did not evolve very much during the feudal period, and the katana is not really an anti-armour balde. Additionally, the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai was either the bow, used from horseback, or the spear. I think that a well trained spearman could give the Viking a run for his money, but I don't think that a katana is well designed to deal with shield, high quality sword, and mail.

I personally ignore just about everything the Deadliest Warrior has ever said. The show will give you a permenant stress headache if you pay too much attention to it.

[Spiryt]

I think it would probably come down, to a certain extent, to personal skill.

It will come down to a huge extent to personal skill.

And other similar things.

It's not F - 22 vs (insert some SU) or even full plate armor vs naked guy, so equipment alone would matter that much.

And the show, with two mules entering the battle with some weird stuff, throwing the two spears at the same time, and generally doing hell knows what, is only a bit less abstract than Power Rangers.

Thus I'm not sure why it's so widely discussed.

[Britter]

Agreed. I should have put more emphasis on that point, because in my expirience skill is the biggest determining factor in winning a conflict. Luck is the second biggest.

The entire discussion is nothing more than a thought excercise, really, which is why I think it comes up so often.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah it's been widely discussed. The whole basis of what is in the show comes from the "experts" (low grade stuntmen for the most part) that they hire who explain all the details about the "Deadly Warrior" in question.

The biggest falacies were that the Viking didn't have any martial arts or technique, but fought on the basis of strength (which was promoted by the Viking 'Expert', who I think was that dumb guy from Coach who does the voice for Patrick on Spongebob squarepants) the idea that Vikings didn't have bows (they had longbows stronger than a Yumi) or that the armor was equivalent. Mail is much better armor than the early o-yoroi style and do-maru armors they portrayed in the show, but late Samurai armor such as a more modern 'Tosei-gusoku' panoply would have been more effective than anything a Viking from the 8th-11th Century would have had.

Both pagan Norse and Japanese were known to be very stoic, disciplined, ruthless, cunning, and resourceful.

Skill of a real 'fighting' Samurai and a 'real Viking would probably be equivalent. The equipment of both would depend on wealth and rank, and what time period you were specifcally referring to. So armor could range from nothing to formidable panoplies. The heydey of Samurai arguably occured during the period of Arquebus, which would outclass anything the Vikings had, but failing that the Vikings would have equal or better weaponry. However Vikings didn't offten fight mounted and didn't usually have very good cavalry horses.

So in the open, at a distance I might give the edge to the Samurai if they were mounted. Depending on how the Vikings were equipped. Close up, I'd give it to the Vikings who were much bigger men, had better armor and more armor-piercing weapons, and were very good at shock warfare.

The speculative aspects of this are not entirely fantastic, Swedish Vikings in Russia had extensive experience fighting with Asian horse archers who were armed and equipped in many ways similarly (though by no means identically) to the early Samurai. Sometimes they defeated them, sometimes they were killed, it went both ways. The Rus gradually expanded and crushed most of the Steppe tribes, largely using techniques taught to them by the Khazar Empire, but then later the Mongols came and almost wiped them out. But they almost wiped out the Japanese too.

The 'double spear' thing was just pure Sci Fi channel stupidity, the show is really, truly retarded but I watch it anyway when it's on. Sometimes (more or less randomly) they use marginally realistic armor in their tests, and it's good for people to see that it works. I saw Chuck Ledell hack up a side of beef with Roman cestus. Another time I got to see a test of a Sikh chakrum being used to cut through a hunk of meat, which was cool.

G.

[Galloglaich]

The best episode though was Medellin cartel vs. Somalian pirate, i loved the machine-pistol hit on the parked car, that was classic.

G.

[Noodles2375]

The 'double spear' thing was just pure Sci Fi channel stupidity, the show is really, truly retarded but I watch it anyway when it's on. Sometimes (more or less randomly) they use marginally realistic armor in their tests, and it's good for people to see that it works. I saw Chuck Ledell hack up a side of beef with Roman cestus. Another time I got to see a test of a Sikh chakrum being used to cut through a hunk of meat, which was cool.
G.

There is def some cool fun stuff.

The spartan v. ninja episode was excellent for its portrayal of armor. The ninja team were yelling and hollering about how their ninja sword would cut through that stupid bronze armor like butter. Surprisingly they did an actual test, and of course, striking solid bronze with whatever that "ninja sword" was made out of did absolutely nothing to the bronze, and damaged the sword.

I was watching this episode with my roommates and for whatever reason, they were utterly shocked that the ninja's sword didn't cut right through the bronze. It was def good for them to see that armor really worked.

[Galloglaich]

yeah I agree there has been a lot of that, with mail they seem to alternate between cheap quality riveted (which always seems to work) and even cheaper butted (which never works) but when it works it's cool, it's changing some very stubborn memes a little bit.

G.

[Brainfart]

That last part is definitely true. Even the most persistent katana plonker will shut the f*** up when you mention that episode of DW.

[Shademan]

Norse sagas tell of a man so big and strong that he could throw TWO spears at one time!
my oh my! he must be nearly as strong as that viking that shattered a boulder with his sword!

[Yora]

Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Skill of a real 'fighting' Samurai and a 'real Viking would probably be equivalent. The equipment of both would depend on wealth and rank, and what time period you were specifcally referring to. So armor could range from nothing to formidable panoplies. The heydey of Samurai arguably occured during the period of Arquebus, which would outclass anything the Vikings had, but failing that the Vikings would have equal or better weaponry.

By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history.

[Shademan]

well yes. you don't suppose anyone had copyrighted the two-spears-at-once throw?
offcourse!
which led to more throwing of said spears...

[Crow]

Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Haha. Yes. They do. :)

[Galloglaich]

Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Indeed... but of course lawsuits were different back then, even the lawyer might have to fight a judicial combat or a holmganga... and worse than that your whole family could end up in a feud lasting six or seven generations....

By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history.

Of course, but by that time there were no more such thing as Vikings... I mean that is the whole premise of the show a Spartan vs. a Knight or a Venetian War Galley against the Battleship Yamato. It's kind of hard to get a grip on it in a really serious way, but one can always idly play around with the puzzle in at least some of the scenarios...

For example, a really interesting (to me) question is, how would a small force of Vikings have fared against a small force of 16th Century Swedish soldiers? I think 17th Century would be too much even if we left out cannons... it's kind of hard to fight a guy who has 4 pistols and a caliver when your only missile weapon is a bow or a spear. But then again the Ottomans were still using composite bow archers by preference at that time in naval warfare, and I believe the Tartars were still using bows in the time of the 30 years war as well, so who knows....

G.

[Galloglaich]

Another scenario to consider for Vikings vs. Samurai, is in a theoretical street or indoor encounter (in whatever twilight zone world this is) like if they were all drinking in some tavern or something.... because the Japanese had the nukitsuke technique to instantly cut from a sheathed sword, and I'm not sure the Vikings had that or were aware of it as a technique (they could have had it, you can do it with a western sword, but I've never read any mention of it in the Sagas). Ronin Samurai almost took over an English vessel in the 16th Century by taking the crew by surprise with nukitsuke attacks, they killed the navigator and half the crew.

On the flip side I'm not sure the Samurai had ever seen anyone who was really good at throwing axes or not, which might be an unbalancing part of a "civilian" encounter if the Vikings were looking for trouble...

G.

[Fortinbras]

Everyone keeps talking about how the katana would be ineffective against a Viking coat of mail because the katana was designed as a slashing weapon. This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.

[Shademan]

katanas are kinda like two-handed sabers.
so they cut the mail about as good as one. thing is, the katana is rather light. it is not made for weight like the falchion forexample.


oh and if they were fighting in close quarters, I would recon the viking would pull a dagger or headbutt him

[The_JJ]

Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history.

As a Swapanese (Swedish-Japanese) American, I heartily approve this post.

That said, the samurai were still samurai when they were stomping around with gunpowder weaponry.

Now that would be an interesting fight: Hideyoshi vs. Adolphus.

Also, Vikings of the Far East!

That said, I would've still given the fight to the Samurai. They were mounted warriors first and foremost so... yeah.

But yes, DW is the stupidest show on the planet.

[Spiryt]

katanas are kinda like two-handed sabers.
so they cut the mail about as good as one. thing is, the katana is rather light. it is not made for weight like the falchion forexample.

Falchions weren't really made "for weight" anymore than katanas, and most other swords.....

Here the specification of antique falchion, with Windlass reproduction. They not the best AFAIK, but they get the idea.

Here, Thorpe's falchion is not tremendously corroded, in fact quite complete still, and weights only 900 g



And anyway, no matter how weighty the blade would be, 'cutting' mail on the soft, absorbing padding and human body couldn't really happen physically.

If one placed mail on the stump, and hacked it with something, he could certainly had broken the rings - still not exactly "cutting" in the strict sense. And of course that don't make any sense in judging how it would work in the way it was used, obviously.

This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.

It would be obviously much more reasonable, as weapon point can get into the gaps between rings, or inside rings, and burst them open.

Still, it would obviously hugely depend on the shape, weight, properties of the blade, energy, momentum etc of the thrust, material, size, and quality of the rings, and dozens of different things, obviously.

Good experiments are very rare, obviously because of the difficulty in obtaining mail that can at least resemble some historical one.

Still, The Arma had recently put decent try on their site.

Here, by clicking "Test Cotas" one can see one of the few tests of decently accurate mail against accurate arrows. Very nice.

Generally, from both practice, logic and sources, we can conclude that bursting the mail bu thrust is definitely possible, but if mail was decently made and used, it wasn't obviously easy at all - pointy weapons, and very potent ones were absolutely basic ones through the millenia, so armor that wouldn't protect well against them wouldn't be highly priced and used way more often that others.

EDIT : With another of my lengthy post, please inform me when supposed english is not english.