From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:24:44 GMT

In article <DOCONNOR.92Dec16085344@potato.sedona.intel.com> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>] In article <> doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>] >whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>] >I have solid-steel armor myself : the first set of alumunium is for
>] >my wife. The second set will be for me.
>]
>] What is your objection to wearing your steel armor?
>
>It's too good : I can't accurately gauge blows to the torso.
>And until I removed the tassets, I couldn't even feel blows
>to the front upper thigh ( what with (from the inside out)
>steel, my well-padded gambeson, and more steel protecting them.

Since I have heard this problem described both locally and in this
forum.  The appropriate answer appears to be:  Learn.

>It's also NOT what my persona (13th C. Mongol) would have worn.

Setting aside any grumbles about the SCA recreating
*Western*Europe*--and also granting that a Mongol was likelier to be
found at least *near* there than a Japanese, I would point out that a
13th century Mongol wouldn't even know what aluminum *was*--let alone
be wearing armor made of it.

>Your right, of course. I have no plans for aluminium knees or elbows.
>I'm going to use steel, my wife is getting stainless steel.

And yet....  Not for the body....

>] >Lamellar armour, by virute of overlapping the scales and lacing
>] >it tightly, should be rigid enough from what the more experienced
>] >people (including the commercial armourers) tell me. In fact,
>] >many people thought that 0.063" thick 6061T6 aluminum was
>] >more than I needed, and that 0.050" 6061T6 would do fine.
>]
>] My question remains--why aluminum?
>
>Partly low maintenance, partly "authentic effect" : period mongol
>lamellar was made to impeed cuts from edges and arrows, not to stop
>mass weapons. I believe it, like period chain, was relatively light.
>However, steel of the gauge used in period wouldn't be rigid enough
>to stop a rattan sword from bruising (remember that bruises were
>NOT a big deal to real warriors). So by using aluminium, I hope
>to have armor about the same weight as period lamellar but with
>superior protective characteristics. (Remember, stiffness increases
>as the square of thickness : 0.063 is 60% stiffer than 0.050).

I understand the desire for low maintainence--I share that desire.
How *much* heavier would stiff enough steel be?  By the ratio of
densities of the two materials (~2.5, if I remember right), or less
than that?  Proper heat treatment of a suitable steel might well get
you the stiffness you want without an undue increase in weight.

>] >] What is the purpose of SCA combat?  Is it to re-create period combat? 
>] >Obviously not. We're trying to avoid maiming and death.
>]
>] Ahh... But we're trying to aviod those penaties while putting up as
>] much of the appearance of period combat as possible....  I think....
>
>Which is why we pretend to be wearing less armour than we are.

It's one reason--but hardly the only one.

>] >] Is combat an end in itself?
>] >Depends on who you are. It's fun, it gives a mideaval flair
>] >to events, it gets us space in newspapers, it attracts people.
>]
>] And that flair *looks* better in steel than aluminum.
>
>That depends on a lot of things. To the uneducated, polished
>stainless probably looks best. And to me, laquered, painted
>or anodized armour looks better than rusty cold-rolled steel.

Laquered or painted--I agree.  I have my doubts about the anodized.
Cooked-on linseed oil would not only look period, but I'm told it *is*
period.  Forge-blackening looks very good too.  (As an aside, I think
some of the munition grade pieces in the Autrian armor exhibit
actually look nicer than some of the fancier harnesses.  This is
undoubtedly due to modern stylistic preferences, though.)

>On the other hand, our baron has gorgeous leather armour.

We have a local Saxon who wears wonderfully decorated leather.

>And we have one guy who fights with this outrageously
>colorful, blousy "landsknect" (sp?) outfit over his less-than-
>authentic looking armour. The point is : what "looks better"
>depends on whose looking.

I can appreciate good looking armor even if it is not in a style I
would care to use.  One local lady fights in a beautiful harness of
Gothic plate, for instance.

>] This brings up an underlying philosophical point.  Should one adhere
>] to the rules Because They Are The Rules, or should one adhere to them
>] because adhering t them is the right thing to do?  Should one hew to
>] the letter of the law--or rules--or strive to live with their spirit
>] even where the intent may be spelled out poorly and a strict reading
>] requires doing something that isn't intended?  The formal rules
>] *permit* any number of silly things, but they aren't written to
>] encourage them.
>
>One should do as one likes within the rules, and allow other
>the same freedom.

Hmmm....  I'm not entirely sure I agree with that sentiment.  I think
that it is better to adhere to what the rules mean rather than freely
interpreting them to ones own ends.

>] >Actually, the people I've seen who really wanted an edge just didn't
>] >wear armour at all, except where required. It's people who want
>] >to be safe but not slow as dirt who use plastic and aluminum.
>]
>] Care to come out here and meet some nearby fighters who are quite fast
>] in steel armor?  For myself--I'll take the slow-and-in-steel over
>] fast-and-in-plastic any day.  
>
>That's fine with me. But it doesn't address my point : if you
>really want the edge in speed wear woad.

That's been tried too--though not (so far as I know) for that specific
purpose.  I think the answer out to be--if you want speed, take up
rapier.

>I've yet to see SCA mail that authentically reproduced the
>characteristics (lightness and strength) of real period mail,
>although I've heard of it. Real period mail is welded or
>riveted shut, and the rings have a rectangular cross section
>and are hardened. SCA mail is usually just butted, uses wire
>two to four times as thick as period mail. Period mail shirts
>weighed 8 pounds, SCA mail shirts weigh 30 pounds.

Henrik of Havn had welded his mail by ca. AS 6.  I'll agree that it
was inauthentically heavy--being made out of coathangers--but it *was*
welded.  At least one company offers a hauberk of welded mail.  As i
recall the weight given is around 15 lbs.

>SCA mail isn't period, and isn't effective for SCA combat.
>But if you want to wear, feel free : it looks neat anyway !
>I'm not the Authenticity Police for anyone but me, after all.

My point is that steel mail--almost no matter how poorly done--is
closer to period practice than aluminum anything--no matter how finely
done.  I am less concerned with arriving at some specific degree of
periodness than I am that efforts should be directed in that
direction.

>] >] Finally, there is a search for low *maintainence*.  Not having a manor
>] >] full of hot-and-cold-running flunkies, one may want armor that doesn't
>] >] rust....
>] >Can't argue with that. Who would want to ?
>] Anyone heavily into authenticity can present excellent arguments
>] against it.  Cleaning armor is certainly a period activity.
>
>Excuse me, but I have a life outside the SCA. Cleaning armour
>is way, way down on my list of things to do, and always will be.

I am given to understand that the period way to clean mail was to put
it in a small cask together with vinegar and sand and then roll it
around for a couple of hours.  I agree about having an outside
life--but a barrel driven by a motor would nicely substitute for the
serf/squire/slave/housecarl doing the tedious part of the operation,
and would probably need even less supervision.

>] It is not that you're working in aluminum, pre
>] se, but that you've already done work in steel that worries me.
>
>Does it really WORRY you ? 

It worries me in the sense that SCA folk moving *away* from period
materials rather than toward them makes me wonder if the interest is
in the Medieval or in winning.  What direction do we wish the Society
to go in?

>Do you fear you'll come to some
>harm because I'm making aluminium lamellar ? 

Hardly.  Even if we meet and you defeat me because you are fresher and
less burdened that I it will do me no harm.  However, I question who
will have truly 'won' the bout in the sense of recreation of period
practice and ideals.

>That the Society
>will somehow sufer because of it ? 

The Society *does* suffer from it--unless the Society is just a
martial arts club.  It drives the Society further from it's stated
goals--rather than bringing it closer to them than it otherwise would
be.

>Does it bother you that my
>2'x4' door shield is made of aluminium ? 

Not particulary.  Not unless it's predecessor was made of more period
materials.  As for the weight--concern over the weight of shields
seems to be a peculiarity of the Middle Kingdom.  Duke Cariadoc has
noted on occassion the point that Midrealm law does not permit shields
of period weight.

>] Nope.  With really authentic rules, there'd be a lot more mail on the
>] field--and amateurs can make mail very inexpensively.
>
>You miss my point. You said people should count blows according
>to the armour they wore. 

Not exactly, though I grant that I implied it to a degree when I
suggested wearing minimal armor and counting blows accordingly.  I
don't think the situations must--of neccesity--be symetrical.

>Late-period plate was almost invulnerable
>except at the joints and eye-slots. If a person in late-period plate
>were to count blows according to the armour they wore, they
>could shrug off almost all blows.

And some of them do...

>Also to repeat what I said before : SCA mail is usually very
>inauthentic, in both material used (unless one counts all steel
>as equalled : I consider forged steel very different from
>drawn steel wire) and construction techniques. And it have to
>count as no armour at all against a mace, of course.

To be absolutely authentic it armor really ought to be wrought iron
smelted with charcoal.  At least steel is a lot closer to that than a
material that was unknown until relatively modern times and has only
come into it's own in the last 50 years or so.  One could make a case
for titanium or modern composites for their properties, too.

I think the base question remains--to waht end does one make armor?
If the armor is intended to look period but maximize the edge in
combat, then *I* think it is a move in the wrong direction.  If it is
the closest ones skill, available materials, time, and funds will
supply, then one notes that the *intent* is to be as period as those
constraints permit--and that is a moving in the right direction.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca