Talk:Ring armour

early discussion

Sethwoodworth, I wish to revert your most recent edit because it removes too much from the article - including the actual description of what ringmail actually looks like! Toby Douglass 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid someone might do that. The thing is that this article is terrible, even with my edits. I'm currently speaking with armor historian Dan Howard to correct this, but he hasn't done so yet. None of the sources at the bottom of the page are based off of research less than 50 years old, and most are referring to 'studded leather' which is now verifiably a non-item. The article stands better with *no* information than the bad information that was there before. Sethwoodworth 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's tantamount to deletion, which should not be unilaterially implemented in this way. Toby Douglass 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

211.27.13.86 is actually armour scholar Dan Howard. Can we find a way to get both the old, suspect information and the new info the same article, rather than just reverting? Megalophias 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That information is not suspect. It is quite well attested from continental history and armour vocabulary... also, his discounting the Bayeux tapestry as a source does not look very scholarly to me, since we know from records that the warriors depicted there wore ringmail brognes, not chainmail haubergeons . Sure, early archaeology from the victorian era may not have been able to distinguish between broigne and chainmail, but the former was a very real (and common in its time) type of protection, and should not be discounted. Actually, I suspect that a number of cases where modern scholarship (or perhaps popular archaeology) ascribe use of chainmail to our ancestors, they might actually have used the simpler ringmail. I don't edit articles about that because I don't have proof, and that would be new research.--Svartalf 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree on the source. Many of the older sources are highly suspect if only due to poor interpretations. While we have to make due with iconographical evidence in a lot of cases, armor tends to leave behind remains. The Battle of Wisby, for example, left behind a tremendous amount of very viable remains, many of which outwardly appeared to be "studded leather" in iconographical evidence but were actually composed of plates riveted to the inside of a leather garment. While there were garments with studs without plates to back them up, they were usually meant to deter highwaymen as you appeared to be armored even when you were not. Without physical evidence, only shaky iconographical evidence, and the fact that smithing a ring would be overly time consuming for the amount of protection it would provide. A wire small enough to make a link (like the Japanese kusazuri) that was sewn to fabric used the fabric to support the weight, but the links were still interconnected. A self-supporting link that would take a blow from a weapon would be a very thick piece of metal and would defeat any weight gains. Sorry to be verbose, but for lack of evidence or even benefit of the design, I'd put my money on the design never existing. A source is good, but if there is no evidence, it's a guess. Michael F 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The current version of the article is using sources that are misapplied to ringmail.

"it being a leather suit studded with metal."

That would refer to what the victorians called 'studded leather' which is now known as a brigadine or a coat of plates.

"name derivating from Latin "brugnja" and designates a type of torso armor studded with metal scales or nail heads."

Nail heads would be referring to the rivets in Brigadine plates, not rings.

There are no archeological finds of ringmail, nor any sucessful reproductions.

Your sources say one thing, Dan Howard's say another. Howard is a well known and respected armor historian and scholar. I've talked with him many times, and I trust his opinion with his credentials or without. But this doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia, so we must look at his sources.

Francis Grose, A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons, London, 1786.

3

Samuel R. Meyrick, A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour, as it Existed in Europe, but Particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the Reign of King Charles II: with a Glossary of Military Terms of the Middle Ages, (London, 1824).

4

Charles Henry Ashdown, British and Foreign Arms and Armour, (London, 1909). (Reprinted as European Arms & Armour).

5

Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-duc wrote in the 19th century. Two of his books were Encyclopédie Médiévale and Dictionnairé Raisonné du Mobilier Francais de l'Epoque Carolingienne a la Renaissance.

Unlike Meyrick’s work, Viollet-le-duc’s work continues to be reprinted today and so new generations of armour students are exposed to Victorian inaccuracies in regards to medieval armour scholarship.

6

Claude Blaire, European Armour, (London: Batsford, 1958). 35-36.

8

John Smythe, Observations and Orders Militarie, (1591). 185.

9

Charles Ffoulkes, The Armourer and his Craft: From the 11th to the 16th Century, (London: Methuen, 1912). 91. (It seems that the two doublets in question, along with many other items, went missing from the Paris museums during the German occupation in WWII.)

10

J. G. Waller. “The Hauberk of Mail and its Conventional Representations,” Archaeologia LIX, (1908).

12

Claude Blair, European Armour. 35.

I don't want to be offensive about this, but Dan is right. But I don't know what other ways to show this in the Wikipedia format. So what is to be done? Sethwoodworth 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You Forget MY reference, namely Contamine. He worked in the 70's and still is a highly respected authority in the field (his works being classic textbooks for medieval history students). I don't think he could have perpetuated "mistakes from the Victorian era" and be as respected as he is. Granted, broigne can refer to a variety of armour whose common point is being reinforcement in several forms over a soft (leather or cloth) backing, only the broigne maclée corresponding precisely with ringmail. I'll check Dan's debunking closely and tell you if I'm convinced. --Svartalf 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've ever read indicates that this a victorian misinterpretation of pictorial evidence, so I'd be in favor of modifying the article to reflect this. Wilhelm Ritter

I counterchecked Contamine. His analysis of existing sources and material was as completely up to date as could be in 1980. Unless some definitive and recent proof (as opposed to merely saying "old archeology had low standards") exists. the article stands, as it was when the SfD was defeated. --Svartalf 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I have labeled two statements in the article with {{fact}} that would benefit from attribution:

1. References to it do not point to ringmail being older than chainmail (though scale mail was)
2. there is considerable indication that a different form was used in Carolingian France and Germany

I also moved the three book references at the end of the article to a section called "References". However, there is some information that is presented along with the book titles that needs to be moved back into the body of the article (preferably with a footnote). ×Meegs 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Sources point to scale armour being used in Mesopotamia in Assyrian times, if not earlier during the Babylonian or Sumerian period, and is also attested in the Mycenian period (before 1200BC), while chainmail is generally acknowledged to have been invented during the first millenium BC. If needed, I'll check and quote my sources in the relevant article. the broigne, however, seems to be a purely dark age development, so coming later than chainmail
2. Sorry there... my sources can't be quoted, if only because I've not had them at hand for years, and so don't remember the relevant titles, author, etc. while the statement and explanation do seem logical enough to me, I have no more quotable sources than already given. I notice though, that the broigne was the classic term for the armor used in Carolingian times, but my sources on early Merovingian armament mention that the common warrior defended himself with a shield, and did not wear body armor as such.--Svartalf 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice that this article has been vandalized repeatedly by a "contributor" that only leaves an IP address and replaces the article by a disclaimer claiming that "ringmail" is a historical mistake founded on the low standards of Victorian era archeology and misinterpretation of period representations. The only source cited is an article in .pdf format by one Dan Howard of unknown credentials. While the article is superficially convincing, it does not prove anything and completely passes by a lot of evidence that ringmail was indeed used from the early middle ages. I had a forum talk with this Howard, that left me utterly dissatisfied as it showed him to be of poor character, and more interested in winning arguments and affirming his own opinion than in serious scholarship ; he resorted to fallacious rhetoric tricks when he failed to convince me, prove his point, and disprove my sources.

I suspect the anonymous "contributor" to be him or a friend of his, as all such "contributions" have come from a 211.27.13.xx IP and officially move for the article to be protected. I suspect that the low frequency of the vandalism happening is due to the fact that the article was left unwatched and the spurious contribution left to stand for long periods. This is twice in one day, it may come to more, and it's not the first time. Standing watch to reverse this vandalism everytime it is committed is no solution. --Svartalf 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Refutation

Dan Howard

This article is so full of inaccuracies and outdated scholarship that it contributes nothing to this field of study.

"Chainmail is a composed entirely of a mesh of interlocked metal rings, and is extremely heavy, 7 to 15 kg for a typical jacket"

This is false as can be easily determined by even a cursory examiniation of any museum catalogue. A more typical weight for a mail shirt was between 5 and 8 kgs.

"In contrast, Ringmail is essentially a leather item of clothing (a jacket, or trousers) that has a large number of small metal rings sewn directly into the foundation garment, or alternately, with a small tab of leather sewn over a small part of the top of each ring."

There is absolutely no evidence that this type of armour was ever used in Medieval Europe. The only suggestion for this comes from a misinterpretation of contemporary illustrations such as the Bayeux Tapestry.

"Unlike chainmail, the rings are not physically interlocked with each other, but they are so close and numerous they effectively form a contigious physical barrier"

Modern attempts to reconstruct this armour has revealed that it provides absolutely no protection against the most common threats on a medieval battlefield - namely spears and arrows. The addition of metal rings to a leather foundation adds considerable weight with minimal benefit.

"It was used in Western Europe in the Dark Ages when skilled armourers became rare and the large scale interruption of trade routes cut the flow of iron to the traditional manufacture centers, as it uses less metal and is less labor intensive to produce than full chainmail. Its use continued until the end of the 11th century, when chainmail made a definitive comeback as the armour of the medieval knight."

More empty speculation. There is nothing to suggest that Charlemagne had troubles finding skilled armourers. Same with the Byzantine Empire and in the Middle East. Chainmail continued to be produced during the so called Dark Ages in all these regions and the alleged "comeback" of chainmail in the 11th century is fanciful.

The sources all rely on outated Victorian scholarship.

"Philippe Contamine : La Guerre au moyen âge (War in the Middle Ages), Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1980."

Contamine cribbed extensively from Violet le Duc who has been discredited for decades.

"Dictionnaire de l'Ancien Français jusqu'au milieu du XIVème siècle, (dictionary of Old French until the mid 1300's), (1980, page 84), a "brugna, broine, ou broigne", was still used in 1180, name derivating from Latin "brugnja" and designates a type of torso armor studded with metal scales or nail heads."

While the terms "brugna, broine, ou broigne" were used during the time the most likely types of armour being referred to are either chainmail or scale armour. The so-called "studded armour" never existed.

"Louis Réau's Dictionary of Art and Archaeology (Larousse, 1930) also mentions a brogne or broigne, it being a leather suit studded with metal."

Again a source relying on outdated Victorian scholarship.

As previously stated this essay covers the main points. http://www.knightsofveritas.org/materials/chainmailandringmail.pdf

For a discussion on this subject go here. http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62072

To conclude I might cite from F.M. Kelly (Apollo Nov, 1931)

"And at the start let me define plainly what I mean by 'mail'. I hold that in the Middle Ages and, indeed, as long as armour continued... the term applied properly, nay, exclusively, to that type of defence composed... of interlinked rings. Only through a late poetical licence did it come to be extended to armour in general. 'Chainmail' is a mere piece of modern pleonasm; 'scale mail' and still more 'plate mail' is stark nonsense. As for Meyrick's proposed classification of mail - 'ringed', 'single', 'double-chain', 'mascled', 'rustred', 'trelliced', etc. - it may be dismissed without further ado. His categories, in so far as they were not pure invention, rested wholly on a misconception of the evidence; the passages he cites to support his theories of 'ringed', 'trelliced', 'mascled', etc. all refer to what he calls 'chain' mail; otherwise MAIL pure and simple."

See also Kelly and Schwabe, A Short history of Costume and armour Chiefly in England, 1066-1800, (London: Batsford, 1931).

And Claude Blair's European Armour, (London: Batsford, 1958). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Howard (talk • contribs) 2006 April 24 01:27 UTC.

Not being in academic circles anymore, I don't know anything more recent or affirmative than Contamine, but having gone through his work recently, I can vouch that he did a VERY thorough job of going through all available sources and recent research (of the 70s), to the point that 20 years later, his Guerre au Moyen Âge still is THE basic textbook on the matter in French. Historical dictionaries mentioning various types of broigne, still defining them by type (maclée, treillissée etc) have been published since, and I will check them for sources and value of scholarship ASAP, but since Contamine did not put paid to the "myth" of the broigne, and later writers have perpetuated it, I see no reason to believe in its falsity.

I still fail to see what credentials mr Howard has to show to so affirm he's a greater expert on the matter, or how he can prove that "ringmail" is the pure result of data misinterpretation. Even he recognizes the existence of ringmail armour in the form of the "eyelet doublets" worn by Renaissance archers... but fails to explain why and how such armour should be a late development (at a time when armour trends went either to full plate or to none at all, given the rise of firearms). Neither does he tackle the reasons why the terminology for body armour changed drastically in the late 1000s, when the broigne type of armour, (which, incidentally IS what the characters on the Bayeux tapestry wore, if we believe contemporary texts) which can be interpreted as armor made from a reinforced garment, was replaced by the hauberk orhaugergeon type, which indeed are doubtlessly chainmail.

His strongest argument seems to be "trust me, I know, read the spiffy op-ed I wrote on the matter" ... Some of his conclusion on the interpretation of armour representations are indeed true, but his conclusions that ringmail as a whole is a historical legend are definitely too far-reaching.

I know not about reinforced leather being efficient defense versus spears or arrows... though I'd like to know about how the modern reconstruction and experimentation was conducted... but even if this is true, it offers some protection against axe, sword and dagger, which is better than none at all.

As for "empty speculation", yeah, right, a) I've never argued that scarcity of metal or craftsmen ever affected the Byzantine world, b) what about the Norse world, which is infamous for having imported quality swordblades from Germany.... can it be reasonably argued that they had sufficient access to quality iron and skilled smiths to equip most warriors with chainmail as some sources would make us believe? and c) Charlemagne, as emperor, had access to resources the ordinary count, let alone warrior, could only dream about. I never argued that chainmail completely disappeared during the period, only that a less labour and resource-intensive form of protection was prevalent.

Mr howard completely discredits himself by arguing that Contamine parrots on Viollet le Duc, showing he knows nothing about the book at all. A full 20% of his book is taken up by bibliography and references alone, and I've satisfied myself that his work was perfectly up to date when it was published, and it has been updated and still is the most basic textbook on the subject, in a context where experts on medieval history and military history are not so very scarce. Louis Réau's book may be outdated, but the "Dictionnaire de l'Ancien Français" is contemporary to Contamine's work, and mr howard's claim that studded leather never existed is completely unsubstantiated.

Quoting one's own work as proof is bad form... similarly, swordforum is a place where howard holds a lot of sway, you'll be hard put finding opinions dissenting from his there... or quickly shut down by peer pressure and dirty rhetorical tricks.

As for the remarks by Kelly... it may be (I reserve opinion until I've had proper access to the seminal works, as well as to those of partisans and debunkers) that Meyrick did commit misinterpretations, but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water and condemn what is likely a historical reality because one of its defenders was a deluded man. --Svartalf 08:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I agree with Dan Howard's overarching message above, in that there are many controversial statements and insufficient citation throughout the article. Swapping one version for another is not productive, though. I would like to propose reducing the article to a stub, one that is as short as necessary to ensure that all parties can agree upon it. If that's one sentence, that's ok. From that point, the article will be expanded only with extreme rigor, citing reliable contemporary sources for every addition.

This method is basically an application of WP:CITE, which says, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I have little interest in this article, but I am willing to assist in finding the reduced form that all can agree on. ×Meegs 01:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine but I'm not sure how this can be achieved. I claim that the armour never existed in Medieval Europe. My critic says that it did. It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative so it is up to those who support the affirmative case to provide evidence. All I have seen so far is a circular argument: the term "broigne" is used to confirm the existence of ring armour and the alleged existence of ring armour is used to define the meaning of "broigne". There is no archaeological evidence to support its existence and the relevant iconographical evidence has been shown to have been misinterpreted.

I would suggest a short passage such as,

"Ring mail" or more correctly "Ring armour" is a rare type of body armour similar to scale armour. It consists of separate metal rings sewn to a foundation of leather or cloth. It is debatable whether it was ever used in Medieval Europe. Dan Howard

That is the kind of thing I had in mind; however, if there is any more of the current form that you can agree to keep (perhaps with the addition of conditional clauses), that would be extremely helpful. ×Meegs 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've collaborated with the stubbified version, but still find the older, longer one better, even if it needs further work and will never rate featured article. and please remember that there ARE sources I cited for the existence of the item. I don't know if my finding that material was what saved the article from AfD, and deeply resent unqualified editors reducing my work to naught, instead of building and improving on it. maybe I should go vandalize some articles according to my POV.... doing that to prove one's point is not good wikiquette, but it seems it's the brutish trolls rather than the scholar that get articles the way they want.--Svartalf 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for personal attacks. No one has gotten what they want at this point, all we've done is produced an article that is compliant with WP:CITE and completely accurate, even if lacking. Svartalf, I now suggest that you begin to reintroduce critical elements from your old version. Any specific facts should be cited at the end of the article (and preferably also be footnoted). Controversial sources, should additionally be attributed in-line (e.g. According to xxxx's work in the 19xxs...). Please do so slowly, however, so that any detractors have a chance to comment, add qualification, request citation, or add attribution to each item. We can not continue to debate all of the issues simultaneously. ×Meegs 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to officially ask an editor to remove "despite some reasons to believe it was" from the article as it seems to be trying to influence the tone of the article without any sort of proof to back it up. Perhaps, in the effort to retain neutrality, it should be changed to something regarding a disagreement over the validity of the evidence. The reason I would like to request an editor to do this is so I'm not called a vandal because someone disagrees with me. I would happily change my mind if any evidence was presented apart from iconographical evidence which could be interpreted in more than one manner. Michael F 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Svartalf, please produce either an actual citation from a source or, better yet, an actual survival of 'ring mail.' One source cited, who sounds like a very -general- medieval historian, that is to say, not an expert on arms and armour, is not enough in my mind to refute the overwhelming majority of armour scholarship over the past few decades. For instance, in the introductory, Carolingian section of their "Arms and Armour of the Medeival Knight," one of the best English language introductions to the subject, Edge and Paddock make not one mention is made of 'ringmail.' Wilhelm Ritter 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The central point of contention seems to be the difference between French and English speaking scholarship. No contemporary English sources have thus far been cited to support the existence of Ringmail. The only French sources that have been cited are at least 20 years old or older. I've read most of the modern English speaking sources, Edge and Paddock, George C. Stone, et cetera. Stone's glossary was first printed in 1961 and then reprinted in 1987 or 89, and has no mention of Ringmail as a European armor. I wonder if there *has* been some refutation of the victorian scholarship in some article we haven't seen. An expert on the subject seems appropriate.

What happens if French scholarship says one thing, and English speaking scholarship says another?Sethwoodworth 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

General Comment

I started this article in mid 2005. I have to say, I'm extremely pleased with how it's developed and what it has become. Well done, everyone who contributed.

Toby Douglass 11:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to the external image of asian leather ring armor is broken.

Anyway, this discussion is nuts. Was there or was there not ever anything like what is now called in the PRG parlance "ringmail"?

69.95.253.248 18:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite March 08

This article had degenerated into a discussion about what terminology historians prefer. I rewrote it to incorporate the original material. A term that was used by Victorian historians but is not used today isn't "incorrect" it simply isn't the same technical term that's in modern use. A Google books search for "ring mail" OR ringmail returns 650 hits whereas "ring armor" OR "ring armour" gets slightly less. It's an actual term used in English for at least a century, it's entirely deserving of a real encyclopedia entry. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To the individual making anonymous edits: if you're going to start deleting references you need to present your own evidence before doing so. A simple search for the term "broigne anneaux" (French for "rings") shows that the term "broigne" can indeed refer to ring mail (and for all I know is a direct translation) so there is no reason to exclude mention of it from the article as you have done. Note that if you simply revert what I've done I will have this page semi-protected. As I noted above, this is not the place to carry on some campaign about orthodoxy of terminology. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I have made a request that this page be semi-protected. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

Ringmail has not been in D&D 3rd edition or later, which is quite a while. Unless these so-called "modern" enthusiasts are playing decidedly not modern versions of D&D from decades back they are typically not going to use the term ringmail. Perhaps choose a different RPG which actually includes ringmail being that that example would at least be relevant. 71.120.201.39 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Armour or Mail?

Well since the majority of this article itself used "ring armour" instead of "ring mail", I have changed all references to use it as it is a more correct term except for the case where it is explicitly being attributed to faulty Victorian sources as that is the proper term for that context. I have also removed the space from the sole remaining bold use of the term in the first paragraph so that it jives with the article title. Even the Wikipedia article on Mail (armour) states that 'mail' specifically refers to interlocked rings or chains. Ideally this article should be renamed to ring armour with ringmail redirecting and a sentence stating that the terms "ringmail" or "ring mail" are often used (just as the mail article does for "chainmail" and "chain mail"). Of course I do not want to rename an article without consent, so I'd appreciate any feedback. 71.120.201.39 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the article history, you'd note that the only reason "ring armour" is more prevalent in this article than "ring mail" is because some anonymous person or persons has insisted on gradually replacing one term with the other. From the research I've done this appears to exclusively be POV-pushing; there is no evident reason to refer to Victorian English and current-day French historical terminology as "faulty", especially since neither the modern English nor French languages would have been in use when ring mail was. It's wonderful that someone really super-duper wants to exterminate ongoing usage of the original English meaning of the term (see my note from March about the prevalence of the term on the internet) but Wikipedia isn't the place to advance this sort of language pseudo-orthodoxy campaign. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

is it not a franco-english interpetation of a 1000+ years old word

Hello I think one thing that is easily forgotten is that what a word means evolved with time and we are talking 300 to 500 years and that on top of that we have the English French denomination difference on top. Basically we are trying to bend a medieval term into modern French or modern English. Now in the French academic circles, broigne means only that the plate or mail are sawn to the foundation garment, as opposed to a stand alone piece of armour like the cote de maille (literally shirt made I mail). it has nothing to do with the shape of the ring or of it is plate And I think it does make sense but only extend to the period of time where the world was employed.

Now they tend to extend the term to brigandine as well, after all, it is plates riveted between two layers of cloth or cloth and leather. The modern use of broigne is a high level nomenclature descriptor. What I think is misleading is that the word broigne was used a few hunders years before the term brigandine started to appear. In a way it is like calling a modern computer a “boulier-compteur” because that that is how the instrument that was used to make calculation 3000 year ago was called.

Phil .

Ring mail, mail, plate mail.

Hello There is indeed several type of mail and again in different countries ended up calling them a different way.

All the historical mail I have seen is 1 in 4 or 1 in 6, oriental style as in Japanese and Moghul/ Mongolian, this done with flat or round rings.

Now if I say 1 in 4 to you how do you know if I am refencing the “European” 1 in 4 or kagomegata-gusari futae-gusari, kame-ko-gusari (or the Indian equivalent)

Oriental mail organises the ring differently. The rings are flat on the fabric and they are linked but much smaller oval rings. There are several patterns. Regardless it is very different in construction from “European” mail. My understanding, and I can be wrong, is that the Victorian used the tern ring mail to describe the European mail in opposition to the oriental way, which was called chain mail. To be fair, it has good as anything yes the even the flat rings when mounted looks like a succession of rings and the oriental mounting look like a chain.

If you take some Moguls, Mongol and Islamic armour, some of them have the same oriental disposition and link small plate of metal. Those plates are separated by and attached to strip of mail.

Here is one link to Japanese mail http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html

The link in the French wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotte_de_mailles_annulaire

And the link to “plate mail” http://www.quaibranly.fr/cc/pod/recherche.aspx?b=1&id=70.2001.27.286#

Phil

Dear Sirs, A Query

Are there or are there not pieces of leather with thin metal points contained in the artifacts that have been found and confirmed to lack additional metal plates bound to the material via "studs" or armingnails, within the continent of Europe in the year 1361 A.D.? Is this leather of a quality unknown, boiled, or invented in the other hand? How many said pieces may be found? How far do they differ? And do they appear complimentary to thorough Brigandine? May I also ask whether or not you would agree on a scholarly basis, and would recommend to your professional colleagues for all time as outstanding fact, the acknowledgement of decorative studs found on both leather and cloth materials worn in the Middle Ages? Would you instruct a layman to believe forever they did wear these small, round metal dots on their outer or inner coverings and decorum to their battlefield armor, or just their common garments?

If any answer may be given, especially from those discussing in the earlier topics, I would be most interested and grateful for these answers.

2602:306:CDE8:7760:49AD:964B:5606:567D (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Askance

Suggested changes

All the external links are dead. As such, I suggest we remove the "In Asia" section as it has no citation and has no attached images. Its reference of external images without a reference link doesn't fit normal Wikipedia format anyway. Melissia (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)