Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (17 page)

One big drawback to mail is that it is almost too flexible! If you were wearing a fairly heavy shirt and bent over, then your shirt and all its weight dropped out in front of you. This is really only annoying, but was solved by simply running leather strips through the rings and tying them so that the mail fit the body more closely, and did not shift.

The weight of the shirt obviously varied depending on the size of the rings and how tightly woven they were. There are some full shirts that weighed only about 20–25 pounds, and some that will go as high as 50. There is a shirt in the museum in Gotland, in excavated condition, that had to weigh close to 60 pounds when new. It has very thick rings, and is very close woven.

The amount of protection also depended on the size of the rings. If I had to guess at an average, I would say that the most common size was a ring thickness close to 16 gauge, and a ring diameter of about one quarter of an inch. But remember, this is only an average, and refers mainly to mail of European origin. I have a pair of mail pants with rings much smaller, of about one eighth of an inch. (And each one is fully riveted. A most remarkable pair of pants. They wear like iron also.)

Antique riveted mail pants, circa 17th–18th century. HRC405.
Photo by Kenneth Jay Linsner.

Mail is very effective against a slice or drawcut. It is very effective against a strong cut, and also resistant to a stab. But it can be cut, and it can be pierced, though neither of these is easy to do. The blow has to land squarely, with a great deal of force.

In the past I have done a great deal of testing of mail, on all of the average sizes given above. I found the most effective mail was riveted and made with soft iron wire. The soft mail has a tendency to fold around a sword blade, rather than be cut. Spring steel mail and case hardened mail put up a little more resistance, but then would break or shatter and allow a sword to cut deeper. Riveted mail was much more resistant to thrusts.

When struck with maces, hammers, or clubs, mail showed a positively gory tendency to grind itself into whatever was underneath. It did not stop the shock of the blow, and when using a pig shoulder joint, the mail cut through the leather backing and into the meat itself. A padded undergarment helps distribute the shock of the blow and improves the effectiveness of mail. A partially educated guess would be about 30 percent improvement. Not a figure to be ignored when it's your hide you are protecting.

Hank cutting mail on a pig shoulder.
Photo by Patrick Gibbs.

A lot of men chose not to wear mail. It is heavy, and it does slow you down. It also feels like a radiator unless you wear good padding underneath. In the summer it is very hot, and in the winter it is very cold. You can get used to it. When I was active in sparring with sword and shield with various friends, I would put on my mail shirt. It was one I had made, and weighed in, after I learned how to tailor it, at 29 pounds and ran down to mid thigh. I had no problem moving in it at all, and made it a practice to run at least a mile four times a week wearing the shirt. If the shirt is tightly belted, about half of the weight is suspended from the hips, and it all doesn't hang from the shoulders. At times I wore a padded undergarment. But I lived in Alabama and sparring in 95-degree heat with a padded gambeson and mail shirt made me yearn for winter. As a warrior I would have demanded an air conditioned battlefield. One can also see why I envied Icelandic Vikings.

Another form of armor that was used was lamellar. This consisted of small flat plates of metal that were joined above and below so as to form a thin plate surface that was slightly flexible. It was more rigid than mail, but also somewhat lighter. It was used during and after the Roman period, but seems to have lost favor and was gradually replaced by mail. Although never fully abandoned, it was certainly not common.

The next item of importance in the field of armor was the helmet. There is only one known helmet that dates from the Viking period. This is the Gjermundbu helmet, originally found in a burial mound in Norway and now housed in the Museum of National Antiquities in Oslo. It is in pretty bad shape, but its basic outline can be seen. The most notable thing about it is the extensive eye and nasal protection, to where the helmet looks like it has goggles. This can be seen in earlier helmets from the North, and was probably a very common feature. But this wasn't the only type of helmet worn. There were conical styles that we now term "Norman," there were helmets that we would call kettle hats, and old Carolingian style helmets. One thing we know they didn't wear was hats with horns or wings. That is Victorian nonsense. (Although I will admit I think the wings look kind of dressy.)

Reproduction of the Gjermundbu helmet.

As the Viking Age drew to a close, the helmets became more uniform, with the conical style being the most popular. By the beginning of the 12th century, the head was frequently covered with a full helm. While generally providing great protection, there were drawbacks. Despite vision slots and breathing holes, reduced vision and lack of air persisted, especially if fighting on foot.

Reproduction Viking helmet.

Photos this page by Peter Fuller.Reproduction Norman helmet.

Reproduction kettle hat.
Photos this page by Peter Fuller.

The medieval knight was essentially a horseman, and he did most of his fighting on horseback. He rode with a long stirrup, and when actually using his sword he stood in the saddle, and fought from a moving platform. Other than standing, and using his knees to guide his horse, he didn't use his leg muscles much. Now these huge thigh muscles devour oxygen at a tremendous rate. Much, much more than do the muscles of the back, arms and shoulders. So you can fight pretty well on horseback, but on foot you simply do not get the oxygen that the body requires. Like athletes today, some were better at it than others, but even the good ones needed the oxygen.

Reproduction full helm. HRC348.

All helmets were handmade, and even those produced by the same smith would probably vary in thickness and weight. Sometimes this was probably requested by the owner. One might prefer a little less weight, another would want it as heavy and as strong as he could get it. Weights and thicknesses seemed to vary from what we would term eighteen gauge to a heavy one that would be as thick as fourteen gauge. But the average conical helmet seems to have been slightly less than sixteen gauge in thickness.

Sixteen gauge is good protection; a sword really isn't going to cut through it. But it would damn sure rattle your brains to catch a hard blow on the side of the head. It's problematical how much damage it would do, but it isn't something I am going to volunteer to find out.

The great helms of the Middle Ages gave almost foolproof protection against sword blows, and a great deal against mace blows. Large axes and halberds are a different matter. Even if they didn't penetrate the iron of the helm they could drive it down on the head and crack the skull, and in some cases have been known to actually cut into the helmet.

Helmets were usually not steel, but iron. A very rich knight might have a helmet that was made of steel, or case hardened iron, but usually the helmet was made of iron. This means that it usually wasn't as hard as the sword edge, but that doesn't mean the sword could cut through it.
^[1]