So why maille/scale/what have you?

Here's a question that's been bothering me:

Why did certain cultures stick to wearing only certain types of armour?

Example: IIRC, the only metal torso armour that, say, the Vikings (and basically northern Europeans in general) was maille, presumably made from iron smelted out of bog iron (or other sources, but often bog iron). But why? Were they simply completely unaware of other forms of armour? Or were they aware but thought that maille was superior? Was maille just that much easier to make? Or did the metallurgical properties of their iron cause them to stick with maille?

Mostly, the Viking used mail because other, better forms hadn't been invented yet, or hadn't made it up to Scandinavia yet. Lamellar, for example, was around, but the Vikings didn't know about at least until later, if at all. So mail was basically their only option. I'm sure the Danes adopted better armour later.

There's also tools for the job. The Vikings were raiders, they'd prefer to avoid actual military engagement when possible. If all you're looking to fight is the odd peasant with a knife or pitchfork then chain is all you need. They did eventually switch to plate, but by then they were professional mercenaries and soldiers rather than the raiders of old. Cost is probably a factor too - for the early vikings (most of whom were civilians rather than professional warriors) it would make little sense to spend a fortune on something you wore perhaps once a year.

Archonsod said:

There's also tools for the job. The Vikings were raiders, they'd prefer to avoid actual military engagement when possible. If all you're looking to fight is the odd peasant with a knife or pitchfork then chain is all you need. They did eventually switch to plate, but by then they were professional mercenaries and soldiers rather than the raiders of old. Cost is probably a factor too - for the early vikings (most of whom were civilians rather than professional warriors) it would make little sense to spend a fortune on something you wore perhaps once a year.

Click to expand...

But then again, wouldn't those who could afford a nice suit of maille be able to buy something more pricey anyway? And I was under the impression that Vikings/other norsemen tended to fight each other as well...

I think his question revolved more on the question why choose a mail over a simple plate, and it's something I've asked myself many times, indeed. While I agree that a later more complex-interlaced plate harness was quite costly, and required specialized craftmaship and/or specific technologies and knowledge that many of those cultures simply lacked in that period, it's quite simple to batter up some iron/steel to build a crude but very effective breastplate (compared to the weaponry used in that period).

And while this kind of armour could be less effective than a chain mail (for some extent), it would surely require much less effort, time and materials, to the point that probably a blacksmith could produce 5 or 6 "crude" breastplates in the time required to craft a chain mail. And while you can point that to make a thin but strong enough layer to make an armor you need a good and tensile alloy, I can point that vikings had very advanced knowledge on metallurgy and steel, so they can build such kind of armour easily. Also roman banded mails were widespread across all Europe since many centuries, and romans considered them to be more effective than chain mails (that were armors of old, or just the 2nd choice armors for the lower foreigner Auxilia), so again why an expensive, complex and not-so-effective chain mail was preferred for so many centuries afterward then?

This really puzzles me.  

13 Spider Bloody Chain said:

But then again, wouldn't those who could afford a nice suit of maille be able to buy something more pricey anyway?

Click to expand...

Yes,but your missing the point. It would be like buying yourself a Rolls Royce rather than a Ford Escort to pick the kids up from school everyday. You can afford it, it does the same job, but most people have better things to waste that kind of money on.

And I was under the impression that Vikings/other norsemen tended to fight each other as well...

Click to expand...

In much the same way they fought anyone. Like I said, the idea was to beach the ship and be storming the village before any defence had time to assemble. By the time the victims managed to get into their chain and pick up the swords, you should be sailing your boat over the horizon with their gold, women and cattle on board. When called up to actually fight many would wear plate or similar forms of protection, however for the most part the Vikings relied on surprise and speed to avoid full on military confrontations.

Another useful thing about chain of course is that it's usually much easier to take off than other armours, quite a handy advantage when you spend significant time at sea.

are the stars just pinholes in the veil of night? who knows?  (who know who I quoted gets 3 kudos..)

It's maybe the same reason why major manufacturers chose BluRay over HD DVD as a worldwide standard. (much worse and more expensive over a cheaper and better one..)

What, Sony bribed the Norse when they were considering their armour purchases?

Arch., I did expect better of you - Viking is the old norse word for raider, yes...  but the Danes and Norwegians did also fight concerted military campaigns, from Alfred the Great's time right up to the Norman Conquest.  Huiscarls and Thegns were basically full-time warriors.  The Nordic and Saxon troops chose mail and leather armour.  Did they have the option of plate?  One has to assume that they knew of it, at least.
So far as I know, there was no culture of plate armour, in any form, in the British Isles or Scandinavian countries after the Romans left.  Maybe it was a technique that smiths just never learned?  Then again, they managed to make plate helmets, not just mail coifs.....

I'd like to suggest in addition, that mail has one HUGE advantage over plate.

You can stuff it in a sack and carry it around.  Plate is bulky and awkward when one is not wearing it.  Mail can be rolled up like a blanket.  Perfect for armies that march long distances in bad weather and hard terrain, and really easy to pull on in a hurry.  In a pinch, you can sleep or swim in mail too.

Amman de Stazia said:

Arch., I did expect better of you - Viking is the old norse word for raider, yes...  but the Danes and Norwegians did also fight concerted military campaigns, from Alfred the Great's time right up to the Norman Conquest.  Huiscarls and Thegns were basically full-time warriors.  The Nordic and Saxon troops chose mail and leather armour.  Did they have the option of plate?  One has to assume that they knew of it, at least.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. Most of the military campaigns they actually did wear plate, or at least solid metal armour (usually over chain, there's some fine examples in one of the museums in Durham). Chain was generally worn on raids and similar skirmishes where neither professional military men or indeed any kind of real combat was expected. They'd reinforce this with plate coverings when they actually meant business (i.e. were going to war).

So far as I know, there was no culture of plate armour, in any form, in the British Isles or Scandinavian countries after the Romans left.  Maybe it was a technique that smiths just never learned?  Then again, they managed to make plate helmets, not just mail coifs.....

Click to expand...

Like I said, it was largely unnecessary. Even in a full blown war the majority of the people you'd be facing would be militia, armed with improvised weapons in the main (oh, and I'd argue the House Carls and Thanes were semi-professional, not full blown ). Consider how rare full blown warfare in Britain was in the time period.

What sort of plate are you guys talking about? And during what time period? I'm a bit confused here...

Breastplates, I believe. Which the Vikings and such did know how to make, although I'd argue that making a breastplate (or any other large, single solid piece of metal armour) is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.

Archonsod said:

What, Sony bribed the Norse when they were considering their armour purchases?

Click to expand...

never underestimate those SONY devils!

Sony was the reason why for centuries the japanese samurais used those stupid katanas instead of more manly weapon (for example axes or flails).

...and to anyone who says that samurais were not effeminate look at my sig: he's armed with a toilet brush, and his outfit is so groovy.
Vikings had great mojo on their side.

Cirdan said:

...although I'd argue that making a breastplate (or any other large, single solid piece of metal armour) is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.

Click to expand...

'Struth.

Cirdan said:

Breastplates, I believe. Which the Vikings and such did know how to make, although I'd argue that making a breastplate (or any other large, single solid piece of metal armour) is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Norse used any form of plate armour, mail yes, maybe even lamellar, but not plate armour. Plate cuirasses or breastplates were not used in Western Europe until the late 14th century.  Aside from the Romans of course, and even they stopped using the Lorica segmentata in the 3rd century AD and bronze muscle cuirasses in the 5th or 6th century AD.

I've thought of a really good reason:

You want to armour as much of your body as possible.
You want the armour to be light, flexible and protective.
You need to be able to afford the armour, and afford repairs to the armour.

If you choose plate, then you have to give one of these up.  A mere breastplate surrenders any protection of the limbs.  Plate armour which covers the entire body from (say) knee to wrist would be expensive and difficult to repair (intricate joins etc).

Wearing plate pieces OVER mail increases the protection, but you increase the weight and expense too.

Why bother, when you have a shield?

Mail was great against slashes, but weaker than plate against stabs and weight-based weapons like hammers.  However, given the primary tactic of the day (shield wall) would mean that most stabs would come from in front of you, you could hope to stop all these with your shield.
Slashing is easier for a novice than thrusting - that's why you see so much of it in films.  So maybe warriors relied on their mail to protect them from a large number of slashes, and their shield and parrying with their own weapon to protect them from more skillful thrusts, and to ward off blows from heavy mauls or axes??

Not to to mention that mail is an effective armour, check out the link at the end of the armour effectiveness thread.

Aqtai said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Norse used any form of plate armour, mail yes, maybe even lamellar, but not plate armour. Plate cuirasses or breastplates were not used in Western Europe until the late 14th century. 

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware Scandinavia vanished in the 14th Century (if they did, who the hell let that lot back in? ).

Slashing is easier for a novice than thrusting - that's why you see so much of it in films.  So maybe warriors relied on their mail to protect them from a large number of slashes, and their shield and parrying with their own weapon to protect them from more skillful thrusts, and to ward off blows from heavy mauls or axes??

Click to expand...

I doubt anyone said "if you're taking a breastplate you can't have any other armour" You're not sacrificing protection by strapping a breastplate on over your mail shirt, you're simply adding further protection to the part of your body which is most likely to come under attack. We don't have any real idea of the thoughts of the regular grunts of the period, it may be that donning a breastplate got you labeled as a big *****, but apart from that I can't see any reason why someone would turn it down if they had the opportunity to wear it also.

Archonsod said:

Aqtai said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Norse used any form of plate armour, mail yes, maybe even lamellar, but not plate armour. Plate cuirasses or breastplates were not used in Western Europe until the late 14th century. 

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware Scandinavia vanished in the 14th Century (if they did, who the hell let that lot back in? ).

Click to expand...

I meant the Pagan raiding Norse of the "Viking period", i.e. circa 790 to 1100 AD.

AFAIK after 1100 the Scandinavians were pretty identical in culture etc to other Western Europeans.