# [ot] What happens when a sword hits chainmail?



## MerakSpielman (Dec 11, 2002)

In real life, I mean. Can a sword cut through mail? What about plate mail?  I suppose there are two ways of trying to penetrate - slashing or piercing, and piercing seems best.

But what kind of damage would a weapon take from this? Imagine a low-quality weapon vs. the high-quality ones they're talking about in the "buying a katana" thread. They'd be dulled, at least, right?

Just wondering out loud, 'cause in D&D you just don't have to worry about weapon/armor repair and maintenance.


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 11, 2002)

From my limited knowledge of the past...

 I don't how true this is.

 But chain and plate isn't really meant to stop the blow from hitting you.  It was made to stop the sword the cutting you.  To Middle Age "doctors" it was easier to set a broken arm then heal a large gash in the arm.  I could be so wrong it isn't funny.


----------



## NiTessine (Dec 11, 2002)

A strong longsword slash against chainmail would probably slash through several rings and sink them into the wound it would undoubtedly cause. However, this wound would be a lot smaller than with unprotected flesh.

Platemail on the other hand... Beats me. I don't think it would go through, but there would probably be some sort of denting.

As for a piercing weapon, say, a rapier... It would go through chainmail, at least to the point where the blade becomes wider than the rings. From that point onwards, it depends entirely on the qualities of the chainmail and the rapier. A rapier against platemail, though... Not a chance. It'd have to hit a seam between the armor pieces to get through.

Of course, this is all coming from a person who hasn't studied the subject very extensively, and is relying strongly on common sense, which is not one of his greater assets.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 11, 2002)

A lot of what happenes in this situation depends on what other protections are also begin used.

For example, chain mail by itself - no under or over padding - isn't very protective at all (for the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that he or she is wearing quality riveted chain mail with a good density - butt-linked chain or chain mail that hangs in such a way as to be "see through" is much worse that what I'm about to describe). If it has a aketon (basically what you think of as padded armor) is worn underneath, then it does much better, and if it also has a gambeson (padded armor worn over the chain) it's even better.

In all cases, chain mail protects against cuts, but does little to protect against impact. Therefore, a sword that hits chain mail will almost certainly _not_ get through all them links to cut deeply into flesh. It might burst some links, but the edge will most likely not cut through the armor. But, depending on where it hit, it's liable to break something. A solid sword cut to the collarbone - even through chain - is likely to snap the bone, and ribs are likely to be cracked by a solid hit. But the chain will probably hold back the edge from anything but a heavy, two handed axe or a charged/set spear). 

At it's best, chain mail (with the proper padding) can also repel arrows from 50 to 75 pound pull bows. Crossbows are another matter entirely.

Enk - who has wound waaay to much 16 gauge wire into chainmail springs


----------



## Kilmore (Dec 11, 2002)

Actually, if you don't mind the pun, from what I've heard, the whole point of the rapier is to stick into the spots between the heavy plates of heavier metal armor.  I guess it makes more sense than trying to hack and slash your way through.

Another thing about a slashing hit to chainmail is that the hit would likely seperate a number of links from the armor and leave the chiurgeon picking them out of the boo boo.  This, I imagine, would be unpleasant. 

As far as damage to the sword goes, there's a bit of maintenence that goes into medieval weapons that isn't touched on in the game rules.  Fighters expecting or returning from a battle spend a some time sharpening their swords and blades.  But I believe that this can be considered an "assumed" activity.  Few people I know of wish to roleplay sharpening their swords.

Then again, that's what squires were for.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Dec 11, 2002)

It depends on many factors, including the weight of the sword, the force behind the blow, the direction of the blow, and the quality of both weapon and armor. Let's assume "default D&D" quality for the armor and sword; that is, they are both made of unexceptional but durable steel.

If you aim a really powerful, chopping/hacking blow at a chain-armored target, and the target isn't dodging or twisting out of the way, then you could conceivably chop through quite a few links and drive the broken pieces into the target. A full-strength longsword chop downward upon the collarbone/shoulder of an unaware target could produce this kind of result.

If you aim a moderately powerful, thrusting/piercing blow at a chain-armored target, and connect, you could conceivably run the target through with only moderate interference from the armor (depending on the breadth of your blade). A medium-strength rapier lunge to the midsection of a surprised target could produce this kind of result.

If you aim a casual, slicing/slashing blow at a chain-armored target, you could conceivably run your sword along the armor and not even hurt the target. A light slash across the arm of an aware and active target could produce this kind of result.

Plate armor is even better against slicing maneuvers and chopping maneuvers, and somewhat better against piercing maneuvers. Greatswords would seem to be pretty handy for chopping through plate armor, because of their weight and length (leverage/momentum). It is thought in some quarters that the flamberge-type blade is even better, in that it concentrates chopping power into a few impact points.

In addition, part of the advantage of plate against most attacks is that it is hard to hit "straight on," so that a properly-delivered point or edge which would ordinarily pierce the armor will instead be deflected off to one side. I imagine D&D's armor proficiencies include training in how to move so that the armor "does its job"; this would be true of all armor types.

One thing chain armor is really abysmal at is protecting the wearer against heavy, blunt blows (plate, again, is somewhat better). The armor deforms right along with the delivery of force. Its weight, and the padding underneath, will surely dampen the severity of the blow, but let's face it, it's just hard to avoid a good clobbering unless the attacker misses altogether.


----------



## Synicism (Dec 11, 2002)

Would a sword go through chainmail? It depends on how you hit it. Chainmail is designed to spread out the force from a cut. If you stab it with something like, say, a rapier, or other narrow sword, the blade will go right through it like it's paper. Incidentally, this is why chainmail in GURPS has a good damage resistance except versus piercing attacks.

As far as plates go, I'd be inclined to say that no, a sword is not going to cut through the plates. First of all, plate armor is angled and beveled so blows will glance. Second of all, late-period armor was bullet-tested. The armorsmith would shoot it with a musket to make sure it could stop a gunshot. Good armor was quite successful at this.

That's one of the reasons many soldiers carried heavy bashing weapons. They could buckle the plates and damage both the armor and the guy inside it. Many two-handed weapons were either blunt (you had a giant, metal mace) or designed for piercing, like the triangular-bladed estoc, which was basically a big spike with a sword hilt, designed to punch through metal plates.


----------



## Xeriar (Dec 11, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *In real life, I mean. Can a sword cut through mail? What about plate mail?  I suppose there are two ways of trying to penetrate - slashing or piercing, and piercing seems best.
> 
> But what kind of damage would a weapon take from this? Imagine a low-quality weapon vs. the high-quality ones they're talking about in the "buying a katana" thread. They'd be dulled, at least, right?
> 
> Just wondering out loud, 'cause in D&D you just don't have to worry about weapon/armor repair and maintenance. *




A friend of mine tested chain mail with some fun things.  4-in-1 chain mail (what you usually see people wear) will not stop a 45-pound bow worth jack, though 6-in-1 (each ring has six other rings linked to it) will, however, though the guy on the recieving end will not be enjoying life.

Obviously, chainmail isn't too effective against hammers and maces.  It's purpose is largely to prevent scrapes, cuts, and halfhearted (or poisoned) strikes that later get infected, etc.  A good, solid strike will still incapacitate a wearer of chain mail.  But even a katana that doesn't cut the links has a lot of force behind it...  And the links dig into flesh and muscle and yuck, yuck yuck yucky...

Plate mail is in better shape, it's effectively what the SCA uses vs. wooden sticks.  People still get bruised, as armor that protects everywhere is not so easy to move around in.


----------



## Kamard (Dec 11, 2002)

The great grand daddy of your thrusting rapier-esque swords, the estoc, was a big glorified nail, triangular in cross section.  It worked like a charm, not only opening a big triangular hole in your armour, but also a big triangular hole in you.  And triangular holes in flesh are bad news.


----------



## Fred Delles (Dec 11, 2002)

From Poul Anderson's editorial "On Thud and Blunder":
"Not even with a samurai sword do you cut through armor... At the same time, armor does have its vulnerabilities. These are not so much to the thrust of the cleaving blow. I have witnessed experiments in which chain mail made from coat hanger wire, backed by a hay bale, could not be penetrated by sword, ax, or spear. Obviously only repeated impacts on the same spot could fatigue the metal enough to let a weapon through. Plate armor should be still hardier. Bear in mind that, in both cases, padding was worn beneath. Still, if a man was getting hit hour after hour, eventually it might prove too much for his body to endure, if heat prostration didn't get him first."


NO handheld weapon can slash through metal. Period. There IS a chance that some of the rings can bend, of course, and let a blow in. At the same time, longbow arrows (and other piercing weapons, if pointy and quick enough) can pierce even plate armor. Shields are around to block head shots, for bludgeons to the head can kill, even with armor.


----------



## Alcamtar (Dec 12, 2002)

It is my understanding that medieval chainmail (not modern) was designed to hang vertically. The rings were designed and arranged so that the effect of gravity would "lock" them together into a semi-rigid plate-like structure. It was nearly impervious to a downward-angled thrust or slash, and highly effective against a horizontal attack. The structure was rigid enough to protect the man inside even from bone breakage, yet just flexible enough that it was not damaged much by the attack.

The most devastating attack against chain was an upward thrust, which countered the effect of gravity and pushed the links upward. This caused them to "unlock" and act like cloth, transmitting far more force. It was also much easier to burst individual rings with an upward thrust or slash.

This property was discovered by examining and testing medieval samples. Many modern "replica" chainmails do not incorporate this property, the knowledge having been lost.

Chainmail was worn hanging from the shoulders. It hung down over the belt, then doubled back up behind and was tucked under the belt, then hung again to the knees. The most important thing when wearing chainmail is that it hangs freely and is not supported in any way -- this is what allows gravity to lock the mesh. The weight was divided between shoulder and waist, but the overhang at the belt was necessary to keep from having a "loose zone" that didn't protect effectively.

Chainmail was very effective against swords and axes. The development of picks, polearms, and longbows/crossbows which could penetrate chain led to the development of plate. Plate was also made possible by better metalworking techniques which enabled the working of large single pieces.

Chainmail was very susceptible to rust, and was cleaned by rolling in a barrel with sand and vinegar.

Now, I am not an expert and did not do the research myself on what I have just written, nor do I have references. This is my understanding from talking to people who *have* done studies in the arms and armor of the middle ages. If anyone on this list knows more about this or can provide references I'd love to hear more about this.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 12, 2002)

Swords cannot cut through properly-constructed chain mail. That's why people wore chain mail. It's the whole point of armour.

Think about it: people wouldn't wear 100 pound shirts made out of metal unless there was some kind of benefit. 

Not to say that chain mail makes someone Superman. As others have noted, the force of a full-strength, straight-on blow will likely shatter whatever bones are underneath the mail*.

If the bone is your head, you're dead.
If the bone is your collar bone, you're incapacitated and soon dead.
If the bone is your rib, your lungs are punctured and you're dead.
If the bone is your weapon arm, you're defensless and soon dead.
If the bone is your leg, you're immobile and soon dead.

That's why plate is better than chain. Less chance (not "no chance") of bone breakage. 

-z

* Padding (gambeson or the like, but also including fat and muscle) reduces the chance of breakage.

PS: modern swords can and do cut through fan-made chain mail armour made by modern hobbyists. *Big* difference between chain mail made by a master armoursmith and chain mail made by Bob Gamergut who downloaded some "quick and easy chain mail" instructions from the Internet. 

PSS: Remember that in D&D, an attack roll that results in less than the AC of a target does not necessarily mean that the attacker missed the target. It just means that the attack failed; did no hit point damage. Also, an attack roll that results in more than the AC of a target does not necessarily mean that the attack drew blood, or even connected. It just means that the attack succeeded; reduced the target's Hit Points.


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Dec 12, 2002)

Fred Delles said:
			
		

> *From Poul Anderson's editorial "On Thud and Blunder":
> "Not even with a samurai sword do you cut through armor... At the same time, armor does have its vulnerabilities. These are not so much to the thrust of the cleaving blow. I have witnessed experiments in which chain mail made from coat hanger wire, backed by a hay bale, could not be penetrated by sword, ax, or spear. Obviously only repeated impacts on the same spot could fatigue the metal enough to let a weapon through. Plate armor should be still hardier. Bear in mind that, in both cases, padding was worn beneath. Still, if a man was getting hit hour after hour, eventually it might prove too much for his body to endure, if heat prostration didn't get him first."
> 
> 
> NO handheld weapon can slash through metal. Period. There IS a chance that some of the rings can bend, of course, and let a blow in. At the same time, longbow arrows (and other piercing weapons, if pointy and quick enough) can pierce even plate armor. Shields are around to block head shots, for bludgeons to the head can kill, even with armor. *




Thud and Blunder is my source for most of my knowledge on this subject (armour).

An important point that should be made though is that a rapier is a civilian weapon and as such was not designed to face heavy armours, neither was an epee (acute on the second e). At the time in history when the rapier was the duellist's weapon of choice, soldiers were still using sabres and basket-hilt broadswords. Rapier blades can be bent irreperably just by hitting human bone. I'd hat to put one against chainmail. In fact, I understand that by the time the rapier was a popular weapon chain had already been driven off the battlefield and plate was on the way out as well. This is all European of course; with other cultures YMMV.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 12, 2002)

NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thud and Blunder is my source for most of my knowledge on this subject (armour).
> 
> An important point that should be made though is that a rapier is a civilian weapon and as such was not designed to face heavy armours, neither was an epee (acute on the second e). At the time in history when the rapier was the duellist's weapon of choice, soldiers were still using sabres and basket-hilt broadswords. Rapier blades can be bent irreperably just by hitting human bone. I'd hat to put one against chainmail. In fact, I understand that by the time the rapier was a popular weapon chain had already been driven off the battlefield and plate was on the way out as well. This is all European of course; with other cultures YMMV. *




That's why, with a rapier, you target the armoured person's face, throat, hands, wrists, knees, inside of the thigh--the unarmoured bits. You certainly wouldn't just thrust it against metal. 

If facing a plate-armoured foe, you thrust at the eyes if you can, otherwise just try to parry and out-manouver until the other guy falls down from exhaustion. Again, since in D&D HPs are abstract, this is all simplified into the rapier fighter rolling an attack roll and dealing damage--even though, in "reality", the rapier wielder is not often actually puncturing his opponent with his rapier.

-z


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Dec 12, 2002)

As a veteran of many SCA and live steel bouts I have worn just about every type of armor and been hacked at by all sorts of weapons. Good chain will stop a slash or a thrust from a longsword and I have even found that my opponents blade will sometimes get tangled in the lnks of my hauberk and allow me just enough time to whack him. Chain does little to stop blunt trauma as I painfully learned when weraing my chainmail in the SCA (where every weapon is essentially a blunt weapon).

When wearing a full suit of plate mail for live steel bouts I find that the blunted steel swords we use do little against that heavy of an armor unless a solid blow is struck to the head or an unsrmored spot. Even sharpened I doubt that a longsword would be of little use against a fully armored knight, hence the development of weapons like polearms and larger swords deisgned to pierce heavy armor. I personally think the best weapon against platemail are hammers, picks and flanged maces that focus a lot of power on a reletively small striking surface.

Of course this is only what I have observed in my own bouts. your milage my vary.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 12, 2002)

Mail was always worn over substantial padding.  Even an effectively thwarteded glancing blow would be incredibly painful otherwise.

It was also common practice for someone in mail to wear supplementary pieces of armor.  

In particular, a vest of metal plates, perhaps sewn between layers of leather, protected the front and back of the torso.  This would give good protection against blunt or piercing attacks connecting solidly on the chest or back.

It was very desirable to protect the joints (elbows, shoulders, and collar bone, knees if fightng from horseback) with fitted pieces made from either metal or hardened leather.  These wouldn't necessarily stop a very solid blow, but they could prevent a broken bones from a glancing one.

One can see how this could slowly evolve into "plate mail" as you keep adding pieces.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 12, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> It was also common practice for someone in mail to wear supplementary pieces of armor.
> 
> In particular, a vest of metal plates, perhaps sewn between layers of leather, protected the front and back of the torso.  This would give good protection against blunt or piercing attacks connecting solidly on the chest or back.
> ...




The coat of plates over chainmail is my favorite armour. It's strong, relatively light weight and inexpensive, modular (in a hurry? Hot? Ditch the coat.), easy to maintain, and looks cool. What more could an adventurer want?

It's really sad that Scale Mail (fantasy armour) is in the PHB, but coat of plates and/or brigandine is not.

-z


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Dec 12, 2002)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's why, with a rapier, you target the armoured person's face, throat, hands, wrists, knees, inside of the thigh--the unarmoured bits. You certainly wouldn't just thrust it against metal.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you _couldn't_ use a rapier against a heavily armoured opponent, just that it was far from ideal. Let's face it, any weapon is better than none unless you're expert in unarmed combat. That being said, I'd still rather the slower and heavier broadsword than the faster and lighter rapier if facing a heavily armoured opponent.


----------



## Kilmore (Dec 12, 2002)

Another thing to consider is the average strength and skill of the modern recreationist vs. the strength and skill of the average medieval veteran soldier.  I'm not dissing the SCA... I've seen some pretty rugged boys (and girls) in that bunch.  But I would imagine that an actual medieval soldier would be better at putting his pointy metal stick through his metal plated opponent.

Taking that a step further, you get fantasy PC's, who have strength, feats, abilities and skills to turn metal armor into steel confetti.  I would think that at level 7 or so, you go completely beyond the realms of reality.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 12, 2002)

NoOneofConsequence said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't use a rapier against a heavily armoured opponent, just that it was far from ideal. Let's face it, any weapon is better than none unless you're expert in unarmed combat. That being said, I'd still rather the slower and heavier broadsword than the faster and lighter rapier if facing a heavily armoured opponent. *




Right on. I didn't mean to imply that that's what you suggested. I was trying to say (to others reading this thread) "Yep, NOC is right--so here's what the rapier fighter could do when confronted with armour."

-z


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Dec 12, 2002)

This Happens!


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 12, 2002)

I've been reading a book about medieval war, from "Medieval warfare source book: warfare in western christendom" by david nicolee..
A study analyzed bone-damaging wounds on 582 skeletons from the mass graves at the battle of visby, 1361, and got this information about wounds (they said flesh wounds were impossible to determine and crushing wounds were a lot harder do to being buried for so long)

Cuts to the humerus: 6.71% of the total
Cuts to the radius: 3.35% of the total
Cuts to the ulna: 4.88% of the total
Cuts to the femur: 12.2% of the total
Cuts to the tibia: 56.4% of the total!!!
Cuts to the fibula: 16.46% of the total.

thats 85.06% of the total bone-wounding injuries to the LEGS!

makes you re-think medieval combat... well it at least made me re-think medieval combat. 


Joe b.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30063&highlight=medieval+combat


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 12, 2002)

Having fought SCA and live steel it does not surprise me that 80% of bone injuries are to the leg. Leg shots are both easier to pull off and generally have less protection. A shield is great for protecting the upper body but provides much less coverage to the lower legs. If you are defending with a sword you run into the same thing as it is much easier to defend your upper body with a sword rather than your legs. Additionally head and body protection came first in armoring if you have limited resources. This results in many lower status people lacking in good leg protection.


----------



## shurai (Dec 12, 2002)

What about skull-shots?  Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years?  I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs.  What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?

In any case, it's worth noting that you can kill a man in all sorts of unpleasant ways without breaking any of his bones.  For instance, I believe very few thrusts to the chest will damage the bones enough to be noticeable, although 'notches' in some cases ought to be visible.  In some cases even cuts to the chest won't cut the ribs, if done properly.

-S


----------



## Xeriar (Dec 12, 2002)

shurai said:
			
		

> *What about skull-shots?  Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years?  I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs.  What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?
> 
> -S *




In a massive battle with a lot of people, do you really want to stick your sword (or any peircing or slashing weapon, really) in what amounts to an inch of rock?  Plus any helmet involved...  Beyond the fact that it's the easiest to defend.

If your weapon gets stuck in combat you're in trouble, plain and simple.  Bashing people over the head was generally a bad idea.  A lot of protection goes to the brain on all sorts of levels.

The torso isn't as bad, but can have similar problems.  In the mock combats I was in I usually got people's arms first (I'm rather tall) - I could only get to the torso if they weren't paying attention (which would probably not be so likely if our lives were at stake .


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 12, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *This Happens! *




Nice! Note that the butted mail didn't hold up well at all, but the riveted mail did okay (maybe losing a ring or two). 

-z


----------



## shurai (Dec 13, 2002)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> In a massive battle with a lot of people, do you really want to stick your sword (or any peircing or slashing weapon, really) in what amounts to an inch of rock?  Plus any helmet involved...  Beyond the fact that it's the easiest to defend.
> *




There's always the face and neck, which are both relatively difficult to armor and much more fragile compared to the skull.  Also, although the skull and helm or cap gives good protection to the head in terms of actually penetrating in to the brain, fractures and concussions are certainly viable goals, and plenty debilitating.  See my above post regarding knocking on a guy's head with the pommel of your sword.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the torso is easier to defend than the head, all told.  In a good middle guard position it's easier to defend the torso than the head, garaunteed, though I'll grant that evading certain cuts at the head is easier than the torso.  It's even easier to defend the arms, which are more exposed but also the fastest parts of your body and very easily protected by your weapon or shield.



> *
> If your weapon gets stuck in combat you're in trouble, plain and simple.  Bashing people over the head was generally a bad idea.  A lot of protection goes to the brain on all sorts of levels.
> *



*
*

You're absolutely right about stuck weapons and trouble, but I have to disagree with you otherwise; bashing in the head was a huge tactic in just about every kind of melee I can think of, unless what I've read and been taught is completely wrong.  The Japanese used to attack the top of the head all the time, 'drawing butter' was the nickname that one of my sword instructors told me about.  An attacker can stop his attack and snap the blade out as part of the cutting action, or even better draw the blade out by pulling before it has the chance to stop.  



> *
> The torso isn't as bad, but can have similar problems.  In the mock combats I was in I usually got people's arms first (I'm rather tall) - I could only get to the torso if they weren't paying attention (which would probably not be so likely if our lives were at stake .
> *




Personally speaking, I know that even if armored the head is an excellent target.  In most of the simulated combats I've been involved in, the head, inner shoulders, and neck have all been prime targets. Going for any particular target has its risks, of course, but the head and neck are pretty fragile and full of vitals.  All this and it is an extremity!

And I don't know where you're getting this about the torso.  To get a good cut, you have to expose the torso one way or another.

-S


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 13, 2002)

shurai said:
			
		

> *What about skull-shots?  Where the skulls hard to measure because they'd been crushed by the years?  I also notice that there's no mention of any other bones beyond in the arms and legs.  What about the vertebrae of the neck and the ribs?
> 
> -S *




sorry, it was just a study on wounds to limbs... they dont provide any other information.

more stuff

http://www.churchmousewebsite.co.uk/visby.htm


joe b.


----------



## Ace (Dec 13, 2002)

From what little is known about mail armor the general consensus is it is impossible to cut with a sword if made properly.

The armor was always and I mean always worn with a padded gamrment usually called a gambeson or an asketon depending on size and construction 

 Modern mail armor is what they called "butted" the links are pressed together with pliers. This armor can be "ripped" open with a strong blow.

It is the fastest to make and the only kind you will commonly see for sale. It was never worn in Medieval europe as main protectiona 

Better armor is riveted and will not break on anything but a strong repeated  cut to the same location. 

It will disperse most of a blow along the links and into the padding. Any solid blow will hurt like blazes but it won't cut you and thats what matters

Note The best armor was welded together, this was later stuff and pretty rare. Magic armor in D&D would be welded (and sung with spells too) It was very strong stuff

Now there were several other kinds of mail including the 6 in 1 mentioned earlier, double mail and other sorts. They were fairly uncommon. 
About 90% of the mail you would see is 4 in 1 or international mail

ALso note that mail users almost always had shields, they might not have carried them but they were used. Not only were they cheap and effective but mail armor stops serious injury but if you are hit you will still be hurt

After plate armor became common it was strong enough that shields were needed less and weapons were often 2 handed, Longswords-- Bastard Swords--- Poleaxe and so on had to hit hard to penetrate high quality plate

Now Plate cam in different grades-- In D&D terms munitions issue would be normal

Higher grades made of better steel and better contruction would have bonuses to AC (up to about +2) and if fitted, reduced movement penalties and incresed maximum dex bonuses

Whew

OK, two last bits

Rapiers are useless against armor

They were dueling weapons used on opponents who at most had a "buff coat" of leather. 
Rapiers came into existnence in the last 100 years of plate armors reign and were rarely seen on the battle field

IRL it was next to impossible to hit a chink in the armor while your opponent is stabbing you in the face with his hand and a half sword

Mail was outdated as a defense by the time rapiers came around although occasionally a mesh mail glove called an arming glove. It was basically a meat cutters glove and could be used to ward and catch rapiers and maybe daggers

Also note rapiers and similar weapons were mainly used with a second weapon such as a dagger

The Estoc was an unusual weapon, a edgeless sword well described earlier as a big awl. 
It was used 2 handed and gripped in front in front of the handguard (Ricasso) and thrust like a spear. 

It could pentrate armor (sometimes) or hit joints and go through weak spots,  unlike a rapier I migt add

A fight between two estoc men (or pole axe guys sometimes)  would like a wrestling match by armored men with crowbars


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 13, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *A study analyzed bone-damaging wounds on 582 skeletons from the mass graves at the battle of visby, 1361, and got this information about wounds (they said flesh wounds were impossible to determine and crushing wounds were a lot harder do to being buried for so long)
> 
> Cuts to the humerus: 6.71% of the total
> Cuts to the radius: 3.35% of the total
> ...




If this data is from the battle of Visby, the it's probably worth noting that the Visby Coat of Plate was unearthed from the same battlefield gravesites. To give you an idea of what the armor was like, think of wearing a sort apron - one that comes down to mid thigh. If you were to make that apron out of heavy leather and then back it with either steel plates or saddle leather plates, you would have a good idea of what the armor looked like. Also, by 1361, vambraces and rebraces (lower and upper arm guards, sometimes but not always connected by an elbow cop) were becoming more common even among footsoldiers. If you add this basic set of armor together with a shield and helmet, you'd see that the lower legs were the only thing left uncovered.

Kind of makes sense now, doesn't it!


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 13, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> snip!
> 
> ...





Personally, I think I'd notice if my whole body was armored except my own, tender legs. Why didn't they work out some sort of leg protection? They couldn't have just not thought of it.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Dec 13, 2002)

WRT the Battle of Visby, I remember reading about the wounds inflicted, but for the life of me, I can't dig it up right now.

Anyway, here's something interesting from John Keegan's _A History of Warfare_...

_One of the most gruesome discoveries made at the disinterment of the mass grave on Gotland, containing 2000 bodies from the battle of Visby of 1361, was that many of the dead had been extensively mutilated--typically by repeated sword-cuts down their shins--and such cuts could only have been inflicted after they were disabled._ (p121)

I wonder if this ritual mutilation skewed the data somewhat?

That's not to say that the legs weren't prime targets however.

The legs were especially vulnerable in the earlier Viking period (10th c. or so), when leg armour was non-existent (being foregone in the interest of mobility--amongst other reasons) and the round shield was used in preference to the even earlier oval shield, or the later kite.

The sagas are filled with stories of men's legs being sheared off, which is one reason they practiced the "salmon leap"--the best defense against a blow is to not get hit by it!


----------



## alsih2o (Dec 13, 2002)

here are tests with pictures for your entertainment 

http://www.thehaca.com/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm

 these madmen got together and hacked up ham hocks (say that 10 times real fast) with different swords protecting the ham in different ways. one of those ways was some chainmail


----------



## alsih2o (Dec 13, 2002)

see?-


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Dec 14, 2002)

NOTE: The above is the butted mail *Zaruthustran* was commenting on from the link I provided earlier.  The riveted mail did much better, but bruises and broken bones would still be a distinct possibility.


----------

