They meant puncture as in stabbing the chainmail with a pointy thing vs cutting it. They do offer some protection but it’s easier to get through; more force in a smaller area
Yeah it’s all about tradeoffs, really. Plate’s great but it does weigh and cost more so you wouldn’t see as much of it in the field – although it’s not nearly as clunky as popularly portrayed because you had to be able to fight in that thing. A lot of the time throwing some mail and a gambeson on a peasant is Good Enough™ for the mass of your army
I recall a tour guide at the armory museum in Boston describing accounts of (presumably well-to-do) armor wearers showing off their suits’ mobility by doing cartwheels. Still difficult to imagine, but yeah fighting in clunky armor sounds like it could easily be more dangerous than none at all.
Chainmail does not secure against punctures, only cuts.
Anecdotal but a kitchen I worked at used it for shucking oysters, i.e. specifically to prevent puncture of skin.
They meant puncture as in stabbing the chainmail with a pointy thing vs cutting it. They do offer some protection but it’s easier to get through; more force in a smaller area
That makes sense. I suppose that’s what plate was for?
Yeah it’s all about tradeoffs, really. Plate’s great but it does weigh and cost more so you wouldn’t see as much of it in the field – although it’s not nearly as clunky as popularly portrayed because you had to be able to fight in that thing. A lot of the time throwing some mail and a gambeson on a peasant is Good Enough™ for the mass of your army
I recall a tour guide at the armory museum in Boston describing accounts of (presumably well-to-do) armor wearers showing off their suits’ mobility by doing cartwheels. Still difficult to imagine, but yeah fighting in clunky armor sounds like it could easily be more dangerous than none at all.
Depends on the mass of the projectile and the size and material of the rings of the mail.