Talk:Chain mail

Latin Name

does anyone know the latin name for Chainmail as I have searched for MACULA and always end up at spot, blemish etc??? —219.88.43.216 00:19, 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The lorica hamata might be what you're looking for. Macula does mean spot or blemish, but it also mean "mesh," particularly that of a net, and is the origin of mail in its armor-related meaning. —68.44.65.38 12:29, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Page Name

This is crazy. Can we move it back please? "Chain maille" gets less than 5% of the number of hits of "Chainmail". I know the etymology, but we happen to have a policy of titling articles after the commonly used English term. dab (ᛏ) 11:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an old talk but it is still relevant. Common english usage is Chainmail, or simply Mail, with the latter being strongly preferred by medievalists etc. Additionally the opening line outright declares that terms other than Mail are outright false. Given this strong phrasing the opening paragraph should be revised, or the name of the article changed to simply 'Mail'. 173.73.72.124 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement that it is properly called maille is another oddity - that is French. It’s proper name in English is mail, I believe. Firsteleventh (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Knotted Mail

Anyone have pictures of knotted mail to add to this one? -- Dbroadwell 17:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Knotted mail being what, exactly? Do you mean something involving twisted wire? Edit: Like this? (It's what Google gave.) Sucinen 12:03, 5 Jun 2005

Perhaps. As a chainmailler myself, I'd put that under a separate wireworks section, as that type of work is created very differently, and it is a mere subset of a the wire weaving art, to which that website is dedicated. Perhaps even we could split this article into chainmaille (armor) and chainmaille (other, probably jewelry), and include knotted maille in there. There probably is some sort of request form for spliting articles, but being new, I'm not sure what that is. ---Idiot with a gun 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo Orientation

---Would the original poster of the Photographs take them down and rotate them 90 degrees? Thats the way chainmail is supposed to go, by having the mail shown the way it is on this page it is innacurate and misleading.-Dark357g---

The detail photos are only intended to provide a clear view of the structure, not to be any sort of fashion statement. Chainmail can go any way the maker wants it to go.

Um - that's true, but with certain limitations. Hauberks or other shirts of mail typically have the mail oriented so as to fall together, rather than apart. The closer position of the rings results in more fluid movement of the mail, and therefor greater mobility and comfort to the wearer. I speak under correction, but I believe that mail armor almost always had its rings oriented in this fashion. In any case, the photo has been rotated. --Badger151 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Japanese mail (in the European pattern) was orientated 90 degrees opposite to the Western mail.--82.28.44.83 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Decorative mail

I can't seem to move the above posts this section, but Idiot with a gun brings up a good point. There is a difference between historical mail and modern jewelry mail and weaves. Jewelery mail often has little to do with the historical concept of mail and it's uses, but some of it's weaves are derived from it, and the terminology comes from there as well. New article? Sethwoodworth 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As he said, there are hundreds of modern maille weaves, usually catagorized as European, Japanese, Persian, Spiral, and Hybrid (the miscellaneous catagory), and are catagorized by their similarity to the "father" weaves, if you will, of each catagory. However, most of these have little to no combat use (as with most modern non-riveted/welded maille), so they are quite different from the chainmaille discussed here. ---Idiot with a gun 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, not to mention all of the historical Oriental weaves involving hexigonal and triangular shapes and the like. Not something I've played with personally. There is probably a much stronger connection between the modern weaves and jewelery, especially with the spiral weaves, which are better suited for strands than sheets. I wonder if something of the like already exists on wiki? Sethwoodworth 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Mail

Japanese mail was neither rivetted nor solid. Thus butted mail did exist and it is weak. The statement that mail was never wore without a gambeson cannot be verified, thus is misleading.

I added more about Japanese mail, but it probably needs some rewording, and I'm a bit strapped for time. --Idiot with a gun 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese mail was VERY frequently welded. However, welded/rivetted increases strength against thrusts, and much of their attacks were based on slashes, for which it wasn't necessary.Mzmadmike 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The most common weapon on the battlefield was still the spear, and they were very fond of bows. Granted, their spears were quite slash friendly, but thrusts still comprised more than a significant amount of attacks on the battlefield. Tsuka 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to show even one example of Japanese (samurai) chain armor "kusari gusoku" which has been "welded" As far as I know (I own and have seen more examples of samurai chain armor than anyone I have met) there has NEVER been even one picture to prove this statement. Japanese chain was always butted or wound several times but NEVER welded riveted, or stamped. (Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Arrow resistance

I am reverting the arrow resistance mention. I have seen modern scientific data that shows mail with a proper padded garment being sufficiently resistant to arrows.

At the very least the wording is misleading, the topic is a lot more complicated and deserves to be covered in it's own section. There have been no conclusive scientific tests that show a vulnerability of mail to arrows.

If mail "offered little to no protection against arrows" then a group of archers would be able to overwhelm anyone armed in only mail. Mail would be obsolete and stop being worn, which wasn't something that happened until the rise of gunpowder.Sethwoodworth 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maille was made obsolete by the rise of better swords, and archery techniques. A standard hunting (broad head) arrow tip will probably not pierce chainmaille, and often the thick leather underneath it saved the wearer. Swords during the era of chainmaille hauberks were iron and crude steel, and lacked the structural integrity to do a stabbing technique, in which you would risk destroying the blade due to entanglement and torque. Therefore, most warriors used shields and swords for slashing techniques, which maille was very good at defending against. Once better steel started to show up in swords, and the longbow was developed (with longer armor piercing points, that lacked the broad sides to get caught by), chainmaille began to become the armor of choice among lower pay infantry, where knights started using solid breast plates, and eventually the traditional full suits of armor. Chainmaille as a main form of armor was gone long before firearms came about. ---Idiot with a gun 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Mail became obsolete because of steel plate armor and eventually firearms. But both of those could be explained as socio-economic factors. Mail is suprisingly sturdy. If it could be punctured easily with an arrow it wouldn't have been worn for thousands of years, as it was. A good stab on properly riveted mail *can* do damage, sometimes. It depends far more on the geometry of sword tips, which is in turn affected by metalurgy to some degree.

On the other hand, sword and shield techniques used thrusts as well as cuts and strikes according to artwork and extant manuscripts. And according to armor finds such as Wisby thrusts aren't the main source of death and damage to armor. Far more deaths are due to blunt force trauma and broken limbs. A sword can do more than cut thrust and strike (not the same as a cut) it can also be used to close with an opponent and grapple with them. Which throughout history in all extant combat training manuscripts (and even a good deal of ancient Roman verse) show using one's sword as a lever, not so much to attack the armor. Besides, while an opponent is attacking your armor you can cleave them to your heart's content. As plate armor rose for knights, the infantry's man Jack, or Aketon was preferred over mail. Mail was incredably expensive still. Gonnes or firearms started to rise in the 1400's, albet slowly. Mail was still the base and main form of defense in this time period. It was augmented with plate armor more and more over the next 300+ years. But one doesn't see plate armor for protection against firearms until the late 1600's. Sethwoodworth 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The mailed knights in the Hundred Years War took a beating from archers, and there were specific bodkin points made that would slide right through 3-4". However, archers were not in large use outside of England, and gunpowder followed fairly shortly. But mail stayed in use for a long time, because it was still effective against edged attacks.Mzmadmike 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail was pretty good protection against arrows, including the bodkin point (which are made of soft iron, in any case). I can even give you a reference:

Indeed, experiments undertaken by the Royal Armouries in Leeds have shown that when chain armour is outfitted on a free-flowing dummy, effectively mimicking the human body in motion, as it would be in a military engagement, it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon. Sword slashes are deflected, with spear, sword and arrow thrusts effectively stopped by the ring defenses. Even bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate the chain armour in these experiments. When layers of leather, felt or even cloth undergarments are added to the chain armour, the protection is even better. The results of these experiments are confirmed by the injuries recorded on medieval skeletons which have been excavated near battlefields or in medieval cemetries. These skeletons almost exclusively have wounds only to the head or limbs, the torsos remaining protected by armour. Taken from Kelly DeVries, "Medieval Military Surgery", Medieval History Magazine, Vol 1 is 4, December 2003.

I think it would be worth working such facts into the article...might do it myself if I evel get time. BTW, pleased to see the page moved to a much more sensible name. Gwinva 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I Actually think that there is just not enough evidence either way to make a statement of fact. There are certainly other studies that have shown that mail can be penetrated by bodkins. The real problem here is that there is not a single test that has used many different kinds of maille, bows, arrows, ranges etc. They always seem to rely on a single bow shooting a few arrows into a single target. Basically until someone can show such an experiment or group of experiments that have been replicated then it's still all conjecture. I believe we should show both sides of this issue or at least point out that it is a point of debate amongst experts. Master z0b (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement of fact is made because their is peer-reviewed professional testing by one of the premiere institutes on Medieval weapons in the world cited to back it up. And because their test results are consistent with contemporary accounts of the protection of mail. And because the sheer history of mail and it's always high cost are consistent with it being effective armour. Three separate lines of evidence and reasoning support the assertion made as fact. Therefore, lacking contradictory evidence (none has been cited), the confidence in that fact is rationally high. If you wish to show both sides of the issue then please provide references. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well one peer review article hardly makes something "fact". I don't have the article in question so I can't read it in it's entirety, however my main problem is the statement: "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon.". An experiment needs to be replicated, not just appear in a peer reviewed journal to be considered a fact.

Also you mentioned "contemporary accounts" which I agree with, however there are also accounts of maille being pierced. The following is an exert from this website: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41041 and whilst I know it's not peer reviewed it does make good points;

"There are a few sources, however, indicating that arrows could, on occasion, penetrate mail far enough to kill the wearer. At the Battle of Nicaea (1097), Albert of Aix wrote that, "Walter the Penniless fell, pierced by seven arrows which had penetrated his coat of mail." In another account Saxo wrote that the Gotlanders strung their bows so hard that their arrows could penetrate shield, hauberk, and helmet. Gerald of Wales recounted an anecdote in which a Norman was hit at close range by a Welsh arrow that penetrated his mailed leg, through his saddle, and far enough into his horse to kill it. During the Battle of Acre (1291), William de Beaujeu, Master of the Temple, was accused of cowardice when he retreated from the fighting. He lifted up his arm and replied, "Seigneurs, I can do no more, for I am dead; see the wound." An arrow had pierced him through the mail beneath his armpit – only the fletches were visible."

"Another source is the Chronicon Colmariense (1398), in which the author states that men at arms wore, "…an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow fired from a bow could cause injury." The very need to make this distinction implies that some other types of mail were not as capable at resisting arrows."

My point is that it certainly still being debated and the article should indicate that. Master z0b (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that one peer reviewed article made it fact. I said that three different, independent lines of reasoning/evidence make it a fact. I've also seen several non-reviewed tests of mail with the same conclusion and I believe those tests to have been well done.

The contemporary accounts you provide are entirely consistent with the results of the Royal Armouries tests. That is the armour is not invincible but is seldom punctured. Contradictory contemporary accounts would describe large number of casualties, but all of the above are one off incidents (perhaps written down specifically because they are unusual).

The need to make a distinction proves nothing. Since we do not know if it was simply an epithet, exaggeration, or highlighting by the author. The different varieties of mail - double, triple, proof, tournament - clearly show that there was variation in quality, construction and protection but does not void the other evidence. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a very old discussion, but I was looking into the sources cited because of how strong and challenging of a statement it made. Right now I've seen it cited to either "Medieval History Magazine vol 1 no 4", as in the wiki citation; or else via "myarmory.com" the same quote is cited to "the journal of the mail research society vol 1 no 1". Neither source is accessible to me, as Medieval History Magazine is defunct and not digitized, and The Mail Research Society has no web presence and no publications being sold. I have also been unable to find the alleged study by the Royal Armory at Leeds. Hence, I think you could consider the statements made to be unsupported or at least unverifiable quotation as their source is inaccessible. Can you make any of these sources available to verify their content and provide further citations? Ideally, the actual study by the royal armory at Leeds, the primary research which any subsequent source is citing.

Further, contemporary studies of chainmails protective qualities by citizen scientists such as Tod of Tod's Workshop have demonstrated that chainmail can be penetrated by arrows at a variety of angles, distances, and strengths, using research setups including contemporary and historical arms designs and various armor setups. Therefore, the source is somewhat contradicted by contemporary research which finds it possible, even consistently possible. Admittedly, these tests are not done by professional academics, but each are qualified either as craftsmen or practitioners of HEMA, and so I think their tests are worth some consideration.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyOIZ4Vm_I&list=PLIUWkznLJcsEFvEZdYExu7ffW2Hf5s32k&index=4

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSL7XApz2s

[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvMm4jM49ig

Altogether, I think the statement that chainmail is 'almost impossible to penetrate with any contemporary medieval weapon' as per the wiki page is not very well supported by evidence or accessible sources. Can I get your thoughts on this, since the statement originates with you? GeorgeOrangutan (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If the findings of the Royal Armouries testes are something like: "the armour is not invincible but is seldom punctured." then something like that should also be included in the introduction. The problem is that the statement "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon." in the introduction should be qualified, as I certainly read it as meaning that virtually nothing could penetrate. I don't have the article so I can't quote from it, and honestly I don't have heaps of research in front of me at the moment, or heaps of time. I remember seeing tests showing that maille is very good against almost anything except very powerful bows (like the Mongol ones mentioned above) or crossbows. Also did the Royal Armouries tests include lances or spears from horseback? I find it difficult to imagine any maille withstanding the impact of a lance from horseback and there are certainly many contemporary sources and pictures that show/describe spears going straight through a knight on horseback. Master z0b (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This image from the Morgan Bible shows maille being penetrated by spears; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Morgan_Bible_10r.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master z0b (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Morgan bible also shows iron helms being cloven by single handed swords. But all descriptions of fighting against armour stress the importance of hitting gaps in the armour. Illuminations from the period simply cannot be relied upon to show accurate assessments of the damage a weapon will inflict. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reservations about the phrasing "virtually impossible", and perhaps rewording along the lines of "seldom punctured" might be better; the problem is the direct quote, which references the study but is not directly reporting it, but is the best we have access to at the moment. I supplied the original reference from MHM, and even tracked down the Royal Armouries study it was referring to, but was unable to access it to check the exact wording of the orginal due to subscription issues. Now, I cannot recall where it was published, and haven't time (at the moment) to search again. However, it is worth reading the threads at Talk:Bodkin point and Talk:Arrow#Bodkin points. As for crossbows: yes, I understand the powerful ones could pierce armour, hence the fact various popes tried to ban them. It would be interesting to read the original study to find out what "conventional weapons" are; I note the above quote does not include crossbows or lances. I have always found the Royal Armouries helpful, even by email; an email can't be cited, of course, but might point us in the direction of sources. The Armouries are leading researchers, of course: [4], and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't want to get into A) and edit war or B) try and justify my own point of view here through research as that would contravene the No Original Research policy. However by that same standard I also think that we are putting undue weight on a single point of view from a single study. From my understanding, the generally held point of view of most historians in this field is that maille was very good at stopping arrows and most weapons from penetrating deeply but certainly wasn't "virtually impossible" to penetrate. I just think there isn't enough research in this field to be certain. Yes we have one well conducted study, but we also have contradictory references in both contemporary pictures and written sources. I also think the statement "But all descriptions of fighting against armour stress the importance of hitting gaps in the armour." isn't very relevant as of course it's easier to hit something not armoured but that doesn't mean that helmets were impossible to penetrate with a good solid blow from horseback (which is what the morgan bible is showing) nor have there been tests of such nature from horseback to conclude whether that is feasable or not. The problem is that someone who knows little about the subject may only read the introduction and decide that warriors in maille were indestructible behemoths in battle. The one thing that convinces me that there is more to this argument is the amount of knights that did die in battle, they couldn't all have been from blunt trauma, and there are just too many written and pictoral references of armour being penetrated to say that all of them are false. Lastly I think that this also ignore the huge difference in maille quality that must have existed. Yes a brand new hauberk may have been almost impossible to penetrate but what about at the end of the battle when it has been repeatedly stuck with all kinds of weapons? What about an older one that has seen some action and has been repaired badly or if some of the links are rusty? The tests I have seen certainly show that iron maille links deform when stuck, therefore repeated hits must have reduce efficiency. Master z0b (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not (A) get into an edit war by (B) providing references to support changes that you make. You have, on multiple occasions alluded to modern historians supporting a different viewpoint - simply quote and/or reference such a source. Undue weight is not being put on a single source as multiple lines of evidence have been put forth; I have a specific reference for one of those lines of evidence and since it is consistent with all the other information provided I find it sufficient.

You have not provided any contradictory contemporary sources of information, written or pictorial. I discount the written incidences of single arrows penetrating mail for the reasons given above and I discount the pictures from the Morgan bible et al. for the same reason and because of the known severe limitations on art of the period and the fact that such depictions contradict contemporary manuals on fighting.

Fighting instruction from the period does not recommend striking for unarmoured parts because, "of course it's easier to hit something not armoured". In fact striking unarmoured parts is much more difficult but necessary because hand weapons won't penetrate the armour. All fechtbuch instruction on fighting armoured opponents assumes that the armour is generally impenetrable. So yes the helmets could be not expected to be split with a sword.

"they couldn't all have been from blunt trauma" Why not? Provide references. We know that plenty of knights at tournaments died from bruising alone.

One of the distinct advantages of mail is it's ease of maintenance. Anyone can be taught to fix their own mail in a few minutes with simple, easily portable tools. And a hauberk is made from a fantastic number of links. Most tests I've seen show four or fewer links damaged from a single hit. So that means that a hundred solid, rivet busting hits would damage around 1% of the mail. Leaving 99% fully intact - not exactly worrisome (especially as the wearer would be dead before a hundred such hits were inflicted).

I've made some edits to hopefully address your concerns.Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the statements in the opening paragraph turn on the findings of an article that nobody here seems to have direct access to, I thought it might be useful to reference the findings of the University of Reading: http://www.srs.ac.uk/scienceandheritage/presentations/Williams-Tate-Poster1.pdf.

--M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mercutio.Wilder I haven't got into an edit war because I didn't make any edits, as I'm trying to be civil. Also I have provided at least one pictoral reference (Morgan bible refernece above) and a couple of written references (again above) to mail being penetrated but you ignore them. You may or may not like those sources but please don't accuse me of not providing "any contradictory evidence" when I clearly have. Again I'm just engaging in discussion here which is what this page is for. I'll do some more research and site sources for the following things and then I will edit; For starters the archeological remains of soldiers from the battle of Visby show that most wounds occur in non defended areas but not all, That's from the "Medieval Warfare Source Book, Vol. 1 Warfare in Western Christendom" David Nicolle, London: Arms and Armour Press, 1995". He also states that mail could be pierced. However I'll do the right thing and not edit until I have more sources so that at least the idea that it's debatable is undeniable. Master z0b (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference and clarity, I'd like to suggest everyone interested in truth to read the page I'm linking here that provides over a hundred citations from existing historical documents providing contemporary eye-witness or second-hand accounts regarding the protective qualities of various types of mail armour against various types of weapons and impacts; knowledge base there is worth incorporating into the article, provided you could take the time to validate the citations with the sources:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html 217.131.108.185 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

Latest reversion was made because it placed the word 'sometimes' in an improper place. Mail is made of small interlocking rings, not just sometimes. Sethwoodworth 16:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted references to using mail as a Faraday cage, and alleged CURRENT military uses of it against edges. Show me some kind of cite for either, because I'm calling BS:-) 22 years in the military, licensed for electrical work, deployed with numerous NATO allies and I've never seen any mention of either, nor does any electrical supply company offer mail for that, nor would it work unless grounded, nor would anyone in the military wear mail when existing body armor will work just fine and protect against frag and bullets too. This sounds like something someone saw in a movie, or heard at a SCA event from "Some old guy" or "former Navy SEAL."Mzmadmike 04:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Asian Patterns

It should be mentioned that the chief difference of european and asian maille is it's function. Europeans used maille as the primary armor, or as flexible joints for the groin, shoulder, or neck. Asian armors used it only for connecting large plates. The patterns they used did not 'mesh' in the same way as european patterns.

But it was used instead of an organic material because it would protect from wounds in gaps between plates. In India (which you may or may not be using in your deffinition here) many armor finds are complete mail shirts with some overlappping plates of mail over the spine and shoulders. So to say that it wasn't used for protection at all isn't exactly right, but for *some* armors it's arguably not the main purpose. Sethwoodworth 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

True, I suppose it's too fine of a point to really be worth mentioning. Anyone who cares that much will be going beyond wiki anyway.

it's correct only for Japan! in Middle East and Central Asia: not so rich warriors used mail as main armour, and mail connecting large plates (plated mail) were for rich --82.115.54.196 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the Japanese(samurai)only used chain for connecting plates of armor and did not use it for a stand alone defense has been completely disproved. The Japanese used full suits of chain armor "kusari Gusoku" and individual pieces of chain clothing such as chain jackets or "kusari katabira". There are many pictures, discussions and items for sale of authentic antique Japanese chain armor available now online for anyone to see, just search for>>> Japanese chain armor, Japanese chain mail, Japanese chainmail,kusari katabira, kusari gusoku.(Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Swimming in Armour

Believe or not, this has been done. Tuomas Viljanen, a Finnish Medieval re-enactor and former competive swimmer, did test swimming in sea wearing hauberk and chausses in Finland 1993. He described it extremely exhausting but certainly possible. Since mail certainly won't float and the natural body buoyance is reduced by the weight of armour, it requires great effort, but an experienced swimmer can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk • contribs)

Source? I'd like to know what the armor was made of, at the very least. --Eyrian 07:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion on swimming in armour on the Plate Armour Talk Page. While not specifically about chainmail, please do provide any citation (video would be a boon) or the type of hauberk, used (ring size, steel type) etc and the distance swam, any currents, and the time it took to complete the feat. -- Xiliquiern 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[[5]] Another person swimming in mail.

Merge

I have added a suggested merge to move the European 4-1 page, currently a very small stub, into this article. European 4-1 is a type of chainmail, and I think it would be rather difficult to come up with much to make an entire article on just 4-1 link pattern. --Xiliquiern 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Go ahead. --Eyrian 17:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have made note of this in my original post, but the merge will take place "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days)" per guidelines on merging pages. --Xiliquiern 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an obvious enough case where you don't really need to wait. This article already has as much information on the 4-1 pattern as European 4-1 has anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I thought so, but wanted at least another person to confirm it. The merge has been completed. If I did something wrong (my first merge) please feel free to correct it - I'll see it in the edit history. Thanks.--Xiliquiern 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fringe mail types

Theblindsage 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Isn't 'double mail' kind of a bunk concept? Doubling the number of rings certainly doubles the weight, but I don't think it doubles the protection. References to 'double-linked' seem to refer to 6 in 1 linkages, rather then 4 in 1 linkages. http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/3505/index.html

Is there any evidence for the actuality of 'bar mail', which is 4 in 1 maille with every fourth ring being punched rather then welded, riveted or butted. http://artofchainmail.com/history.html. Some sources seem to say yes (http://www.arador.com/articles/chainmail.html) but I am unsure about what to accept.

Out of idle curiosity, why is there no woven or knitted wire armor? Given that all Maille starts life as wire, why did no one ever just make the wire directly into armor? I've found examples, but they are more curiosity then armor. http://www.golden-knots.com/mail.html

Double mail may very well be historical bunk. But, I'd imagine it would double protection. Mail tends to fail by forcing the rings apart. Two rings will require twice as much force to separate.

There certainly seem to be instances of bar mail. But I'm not convinced that it was a common thing. It may have been simply for decoration.

People wouldn't knit wire directly into armour because that is just much more difficult to do. It's easier to do a small, simple operation with a workpiece a thousand times than knitting a very long, bulky wire into a massive, singular suit. Also, if a mail shirt was damaged in combat, the broken links could be easily replaced. Engineering naturally lends itself to mass-produced identical structures. (it's worth noting that the piece you link to is also not knitted in a single piece, it is a series of small knots)--Eyrian 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Double mail is bunk. There are no european examples but one gorget at the MET, and it was 'reconstructed' in the late 1800's and is very very suspect. And I don't believe that the extra rings would contribute double strength. I think that it would be some small fraction of that, and would be better served by making the wire double thickness. Because each wire ring of a shirt could be, and often was a separate thickness, varying from the top of a shirt to the bottom.

Bar mail, although I am not familiar with the term, seems to correspond with the fairly common roman practice of alternating rows of riveted mail with rings punched out of sheet metal. This practice fell into decline after the fall of the roman empire because there was very little sheet metal available. I seem to remember some later instances of it when sheet metal became available in decent quantities, but I don't have any reff's off hand.

Woven or knitted wire mail is unlikely, because wire flexible enough to be worn wouldn't be as protective as riveted mail. Also most available wire was soft iron, like rebar tie iron today. It's soft and malliable and fairly weak until one hardens and anneals it like one does in weaving mail.

Also drawing wire of length above that for making rings is a pain in the @$$.

Pick up a copy of AAOTMK: Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight, great book and covers a lot of this material. (aside: I edited the arador 'chainmail' article when I was with the knights of arador. Sethwoodworth 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more information about theta mail: Forth Armoury --Eyrian 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Russian armor

I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't Chainmail be two separate words - 'chain mail'? Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But even more properly it should be just "chain" or "mail", not both. "Chain mail" is a neologism, as the article states; history knows no such thing. "Maille" is an affected Frenchification or archaism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why not change it? I would if I knew how... Does someone want to teach me? I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Laziness, really. I've edited the article and keep an eye on the article, but it's not a high priority for me and I don't want to get involved in any discussions or complaints that might ensue. And if it's renamed to anything but Chain mail we're going to get a whole pile of double-redirects that need to be fixed and I don't really want to deal with it. (Wikipedia only follows one level of redirection. Redirects to redirects stop at the second redirect page.) But "chain mail" should probably be OK, since the article explains the name issue.

Ordinarily, to rename an article you click on the "move" link at the top of the article page. However, in this case there's already a Chain mail redirect page that used to be a stub article and therefore has some history to it. Move won't work in that case; an admin has to do it. That means we have to request a move. It can be listed as an "uncontroversial move" depending on how strenuously you think anyone will object. It might be that, since I've corrected every spelling of "maille" that's ever been added, and no one ever complained. Otherwise, we have to have a discussion about it on this talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest changing the title to mail to be more accurate. Should we request this as an uncontroversial move? Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the title, and the article already calls it that everywhere. But it should be Mail (armour) since there's already an article at mail. Mail (disambiguation) should be updated as well as all the double redirects that will result via chain mail. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maille is by far the best spelling I've seen used for the computer age. It is hard to confuse with other words both for humans, and more importantly for computers. Searching for "Chainmail" brings up both armour and chainletters, while "mail" also brings up post service. It is far more correct than chainmail, and yes while chainmail is the common term used in English, scholars need some way to help correct it.--Talroth 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Maille" is a mere archaism affected by SCAers and the like, and is far less correct than "mail" for modern English. It has not been correct since the 14th or 15th century. (And since this article has not been titled "chainmail" for about a month now there's no reason to consider it at all.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of historical mail

Hi, I came to this article looking for pictures of historical mail armour. I found pictures of modern reconstructions, and descriptions of how the modern ones differ slightly from historical ones. Could someone please add pictures of surviving medieval suits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.206.177 (talk • contribs).

I've added an image from commons. --Eyrian 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture is a hauberk or a byrnie?

The caption says hauberk, but the armor shown doesn't appear to be knee-length. According to the article, the waist-length shirt of mail is supposed to be called a byrnie. Pirate Dan 16:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the image is captioned according to how it is identified at the museum where it's kept. Note the bottom edge is missing. They likely have good reason to believe it was originally knee-length. Since we're in no position to judge from here, we have no good reason to change it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone lead me towards a soruce that indicate that a byrnie was actually hip length?--82.28.44.83 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyr Anasazi's chainmail vest. should it be mentioned?

Tyr Anasazi from the tv series Andromeda was often seen wearing a chainmail vest as seen on this picture [6] , should this be mentioned on the article?--TiagoTiago 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO: not really. This is a fantasy costume, albeit a rather fine one. Unless it is of itself in some way noteable, its inclusion would be inappropriate trivia. Gaius Cornelius 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded Gaius. Mercutio.Wilder 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

It is just me or does the first paragraph not makes sense when it talks about wounds. It indicates that mail did not protect against brokenbones due to impacts, but did against cuts. Then it goes on to say that medieval medicine treats bruising and broken bones well but not infection (presumably from cuts), but then goes on to make a contradictory statement that the mail was weak at protecting the wearer from the more dangerous injuries (infering cuts), and vice versa.--82.28.44.83 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On close reading, it is not contradictory, but unnecessarily complicated. I've simplified it; hope this helps. Gwinva (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias/Original Research

The following paragraph has several problems, mainly due to the fact that it makes assertions without citations, also the tone seems incorrect for a encylopedia;

The majority of this type of mail is manufactured in India using a form of mass-production. Unfortunately this style of mail lacks many of the intricacies of the period mail it is meant to replicate. But, the cost is low. However, there are a handful of people around the world who are attempting to replicate mail in a much more accurate fashion, but unfortunately only a couple seem to have gotten it correct. While this type of mail is extremely durable, its high level of labor tends to make it too cost-prohibitive for all but the most discerning collectors of reproduction armour. Many reenactors tend to prefer the use of welded steel rings that take less time to produce while offering the same protective benefits of riveted mail.

I propose changing the paragraph to read like this:

The majority of this type of mail is manufactured in India using a form of mass-production, reducing the cost. This style of mail lacks some of the intricacies of the period mail it is meant to replicate. There are a handful of people around the world who are attempting to replicate mail in a more accurate fashion.

It basically read like someone's personal opinion. Master z0b (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arms race?

A recent edit described the development of armour as an arms race. I find this assertion untenable when talking about personal armour. In all instances that I am aware of the type of armour worn is dictated by socio-economic factors and technological factors.

Plate armour is frequently described as a reaction to more powerful weapons such as the couched lance, crossbow, and/or longbow. But none of these weapons were developed just before plate armour. The crossbow and couched lance predate the first plate by centuries. The crossbow had been banned by the Pope nearly a hundred years before the first known piece of plate armour. The longbow existed this early as well but was not extensively used in warfare until Agincourt in the second half of the 14th century. By that time virtually all of the French knights were wearing full plate harness and the weapon still played a significant tactical role.

There is however a connection between the development of water-powered trip hammers and the infrastructure necessary for making and then affording to buy plate armour. This explains why in appeared in between the emergence of the above weapons and not in reaction to them.

Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding. The crossbow was not singled out by any pope, rather it was banned for use against Christians along with bows. This is hardly surprising, since the canon was published at the second Lateran Council in 1139, which is long before the truly powerful crossbows appeared.

"29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on." http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm

--M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

King's Maille?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Kings Maille' just the same bunk as 'double maille' cropping up againt? Theblindsage 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that king's maille was in the pattern European 8-in-1, and that 8-in-2 wasn't historically accurate. In all the years I've been making chain maille, I've never seen anything to the contrary; in fact, several websites specifically stated that it was not authentic. I'll try to find those again. If I can find the time, I'll also put up a picture of real king's maille. WiiWillieWiki 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read that neither is period, but king's maille is doubled european 4-1, which makes it 8-2. I might be wrong, though. --Brego58 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Two drawbacks

"Weight distribution is one of the two real drawbacks of mail..."

What's the other one? Never stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.215.22 (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bullet resistance

I was wondering whether chain mail is able to stop (small calibre) bullets. Compared to kevlar, its only slightlty heavier (eg 17 kg to 11kg), has full arm (and can even be fitted with leg) protection (unlike a kevlar vest), and finally, it's much cheaper, easier to repair, ... Finally, if simple iron doesn't suffice, perhaps titanium, carbon tubes (both expensive however) or some type of alloy could be used. Perhaps that some sections that don't need much movement (eg breast, ...) can also be welded together to be able to spread the energy better (if this area of the maille is hit). It does have drawbacks to kevlar (eg no energy spreading, not bullet proof atleast for higher calibres, ...) but I think it's still intresting to do a comparison between the 2 (it may be useful for smaller calibre bullets to heavily reduce (but not eliminate) the damage). Some info at http://www.instructables.com/community/Is-chain-maille-bullet-proof/ and http://www.instructables.com/community/Is-chain-maille-bullet-proof/ If a maille could prove useful, I'm guessing it could potentially be useful (due to its lower cost, repairability, ...) to improve the safety in violent regions (eg guatemala, ...). KVDP (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As of the current day mail is used as anti stab armor but not as stand alone protection against bullets. The reason for this has to do with the structure of mail. Being comprised of many relatively large pieces instead of thread it has the tendency to fragment when hit rather than absorbing energy. This makes mail great for resisting cuts and stabs as these pieces aren't easily cut but they can break. Kevlar can absorb energy but can be cut and mail can't be cut but can't absorb energy- they complement each other quite well. In my theory when a bullet would hit mail it would fragment the rings, distributing its force among many particles each with less force than the bullet. If a backing were set up that could absorb the energy of the fragments then it could be beneficial. The other part of the issue is that nobody has even made mail of modern and lightweight materials and even bullet tests of mail have it improperly made (loose and butted for example). Nobody has undergone serious testing of mail in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.166.2 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tested small mesh (17ga x 1/4"ID) 4:1 and medium mesh (14ga x 5/16"ID) 4:1 against some common bullets. The results for both were about the same: With the mail hanging free and unweighted, common .22 lead ball long rifle rounds (did not test with hollow point) fragmented and deformed the rings at point of impact and one place away, but did not break the mesh. The fragments from the larger mesh penetrated the common milk jugs (one gallon polyethylene) that I set behind them, and were retrieved from the bottom. The bullet removed one ring from the smaller mesh and was mangled, but did not penetrate the plastic.
.38spl 158gr SJHP rounds went right through both mail and jugs and were lost downrange. Rings were deformed out to eight places away from point of impact in one place in the small mesh. Large mesh only had deformation out to three rings.
In small mesh, 5.56mm NATO rounds deformed rings out to two places from point of impact but no rings were lost. In large mesh, only two rings (total) were deformed.
Apparently, the exposed lead in semijacketed rounds grab the rings and pull, where FMJ rounds just pierce and slide through easily.
Against a 1/2" plywood backing, distortion was minimal; .22lr rounds stuck in the mesh and drove the mesh into the wood, to a depth roughly equal to the width of the wire, at the deepest point. The 38spl punched through mail and wood, deforming out to two places and carrying one ring from the larger mesh and 3 rings from the smaller through the hole with it. The bullets fragmented into a mangled mess, and were retrieved from the sandbag behind the target. The 5.56mm round was about the same result, and showed a few streaks from contact with the wire, but otherwise looked pretty normal.
Just for yuks, I made some doubled 4:1 (8:2?) out of 14ga 5/16" and shot it with .22lr. It stopped the rounds completely, but the mail was so stiff that there's no way it could be worn as a suit. I didn't try it with other rounds.
BTW, All rings used in these experiments were made of common galvanized steel electric fence wire, available at most hardware or farm stores.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC) wayne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Is it necessary to have "unreferenced" templates at every section or is one template at the head of the article sufficient? SpinningSpark 10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus on tag bombing is that this is an undesirable thing. The issue has been debated many times, most recently at Village pump (policy). In fact, the consensus at that debate was that in many cases even a banner template at the top of the article was too much and it should be moved to the references section. In this case, I would compromise on the banner template at the top, but templating every single main sub-heading seems excessive. SpinningSpark 10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution is for you or another editor to add some references and then remove the tag from the properly referenced sections.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Martin Hogbin, your suggestion is what my approach has been, and I have taken the time to find and read references and by concentrating on one section (Japanese mail) I was able to find verifiable references and either confirmed or removed text that previously was just a series of unreliable statements. I do not think that ONE tag on each section that has little or no references causes any harm to the article as a whole since each unreferenced or under referenced section can make an otherwise good article look illegitimate to someone who is relying on Wikipedia for accurate information. These "reference needed" tags serve as a warning to would be editors as well as readers of the article that there is a problem with a section of the article. Anyone can pick a particular section and do a little reading and find the necessary information to correct any inaccurate information in that section and remove the tag. By breaking the articles down into sections it makes it easier for someone to contemplate actually finding references, as looking at an entire rticle as a whole can be overwhelming to many editors. If someone does not like seeing an article tagged they should help solve the problem, hiding the problem by removing "reference needed" tags will not solve anything, eventually SOMEONE will have to do the dirty work of sitting down and finding real verifiable references and adding them to the article.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Spinningspark, I agree that excess tags are not desirable, however, Samuraiantiqueworld has shown good faith by addressing the issue by adding references and removing tags. If you can all continue this process together, the problem will be resolved without the need for edit warring or further dispute resolution. Good Luck! Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Where has this suggestion of edit warring come from? I opened an RfC, not an edit war. The one and only revert in this was by Samuraiantiqueworld. I do not intend to be forced into dropping all my other projects and give this priority because I do not like the way it is templated. I have opened an RfC because I do not like the way it is templated, that is what should be discussed, not what my editing schedule should be. SpinningSpark 09:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Samuraiantiqueworld has stated they are actively working on this article, thus making it clear that this is not a case of "drive-by" tagging, I am withdrawing this RfC. Sorry to have caused a commotion. SpinningSpark 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Critique

Wikipedia Critique: Mail (armor) : by Jordan Silverman

This article is regarding a short history of mail, which is a type of armor that is made up of tiny metal rings connected together to form a mesh. This article is extremely well written as if an expert on the subject wrote it. The article laid out the history of the chainmail clearly and concisely as to avoid any confusion. Although this article’s sources are authoritative in that they include references to the Journal of Medieval History, they are somewhat incomplete because they do not provide a complete detailed account of when and where mail was invented. This shortcoming, however, is of no fault of the article, and is instead due to a lack of sufficient archaeological evidence of the invention of mail armor around the 3rd century B.C.E.

The illustrations used throughout the article are very useful and give the reader a good idea of the different styles of mail armor used in various times and locations. There are numerous pictures of mail from around the time of its invention up through the present. There are also pictures of different types of mail from Europe, China and Japan to give the reader a sense of how different mail armor was in each area respectively. This article covers the topic of mail armor thoroughly including sections on its history, etymology, effectiveness, manufacturing and modern uses. The article additionally covers the development of distinctive styles and uses for mail in different parts of the world.

The article remains unharmed by frivolous or spurious contributions. It seems to have been thoughtfully put together and sustained extremely well. The treatment of this article in Wikipedia seems to be no worse to that of a conventional encyclopedia, and in fact appears to be somewhat of an improvement. This is because with Wikipedia this article can be easily located by performing a simple search for “mail” or “chainmail”. It can also be considered an improvement on a conventional encyclopedia since it may be updated with current information as it becomes available. Though this article is a terrific source on mail armor it could be improved by mentioning the relative price of the mail armor, specifically its production, as it does not refer to the costs once during the entire article.

Russian Mail: Bakhterets, Baidana, kol'chuga

Ko'chuga seems to be standard mail, baidana a variant mail made of riveted 'washers', and the bakterets is the combination of mail and plate that shows up all over. http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/russ30.htm Theblindsage (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail was used in other parts of Africa

Reference for usage in more than North Africa comes from John Thornton - Atlantic Warfare. It is not my area (the armor thing) so I am hoping someone can seek it out and add it to the Article. B/c mail was used in so-called Sub-Saharan medieval wars.--Inayity (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

nonsense in Bertold Laufer quote

"The Arabs and Byzantines transmitted chain mail to Europe; and a share in this movement may be attributed to the cultural exchange between East and West during the crusades." What kind of utter nonsense (is that? It's even in direct contradiction to the rest of the article. "Byzantines" as a faction did not exist prior to 4th century AD; and "Arabs" as a faction didn't exist prior to 7th century AD. Chain mail arrived in Europe or maybe was invented in Europe before 200 BC. Ölet's remove or cut shrot (by the nonsensical sentence) the Laufer quote! 2001:4DD3:9B47:0:8471:DB5A:9759:EC92 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

this link should be used

https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/ciumesti-burial/ About the oldest recovered chain mail armour (from the chieftain grave mentioned in the article). 2001:4DD3:9B47:0:8471:DB5A:9759:EC92 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mail (armour). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130113011809/http://www.ericsecho.org/investigation2.htm to http://www.ericsecho.org/investigation2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929141530/http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/consjournal37/thetreatment/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/consjournal37/thetreatment/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305111420/http://www.armatura.connectfree.co.uk/arma/mail.htm to http://www.armatura.connectfree.co.uk/arma/mail.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214114205/http://corvuschainmaille.ning.com/ to http://corvuschainmaille.ning.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711214725/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.barker/farisles/guilds/armour/mail.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trevor.barker/farisles/guilds/armour/mail.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 07:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Mail (armour) → Chain mail – Per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per actually reading the article: chain-mail has become a commonly used, if incorrect, neologism first attested in Sir Walter Scott's 1822 novel The Fortunes of Nigel._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps but being technically incorrect doesn’t automatically disqualify a name. Attempts to change Killer whale to Orca on the grounds that they aren’t actually whales had been rejected on more than one occasion.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case the suggestion is to move from the technically correct to the technically incorrect. Given that there's a perfectly good REDIRECT in place, a move seems unreasonable. - Snori (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Chain mail is the common name, whether technically correct or not, so Wikipedia naming policy is clearly in support of this move. And being able to eliminate the parenthetical disambiguation with a natural disambiguation makes it an even stronger case. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Common names do not override correct names. See: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Chain mail" is less ambiguous than "mail". And it is not an inaccurate name either. The term "Chain mail" has been used for almost 200 years now. While it's not the actual historical name that was used in the middle ages, it is a commonly used and accurate modern name for this type of armour. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURAL. The article doesn’t really explain why the proposed title is innacurrate, but considering the name has been in use for 200 years, I don’t think it really matters. Calidum 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as common name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know if I can vote here but Bishop and Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome simply refer to Mail. Stephenson, Romano-Byzantine Military Equipment simply refers to mail. I don't know what terms medieval specialists prefer. 173.66.2.216 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes you may. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Scholarship prefers plain "mail" to "chain mail". If the best sources we will cite do not use "chain mail", why should we? Part of the problem is that changing the article title may have knock-on effects. The two-word term may proliferate on Wikipedia because editors want to avoid piping. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG and WP:COMMONALITY to avoid the armor/armour issue. -- Netoholic @ 09:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support natural disambiguation in this case. Dekimasuよ! 21:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boy, this was a dumb move, if only for the reason that the article title is no longer the primary term used throughout the text, which has the effect of the lead seeming to argue against the title by using "mail" and "maille" first—and then the rest of the article uses "mail" all but exclusively. There was absolutely no reason for this. None whatsoever. WP Ludicer (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

I would suspect a link to French maillot "shirt". Maikel (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Melmann 20:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Chain mail → Mail (armour) – Was moved incorrectly from that title, and without consensus (5-3). All reliable sources and experts in the area use "mail", as does the article itself. A redirect is sufficient to draw in the people who are mistaken about what it's called. I would have just moved it myself, but the redirect blocks me. Magic9mushroom (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For exactly the reasons given during the last move request it's a WP:NATURALDAB and WP:COMMONNAME. Why do you believe that this was moved incorrectly?—blindlynx (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NATURALDAB applies to "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". RS on history, when they acknowledge "chain mail" at all, do so for the express purpose of telling people it's a misnomer (followed by using "mail" internally). Certainly, "Chain mail" should redirect to a page about mail armour, but to make it the page title is to expressly defy our own sources. This was pointed out (and ignored) in the previous RM. Magic9mushroom (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    • To note, I'd be fine with "Mail armour" (without the parentheses) if that's preferred. I used the parentheses because that's where it was prior to the earlier move, but "mail armour" isn't incorrect. I just want to get it off "Chain mail" because that's an explicitly-proscribed term. Magic9mushroom (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if its wp:correct, 'chain mail' is decidedly the wp:commonname [7] and it meets all of the WP:CRITERIA for page names. The fact it's 'incorrect' doesn't change that it is what most people call it—blindlynx (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL, see consensus at previous RM. 162 etc. (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, chain mail is a common name, but mail is also a common name and is considered to be more accurate by most who know what they're talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL. -- Calidum 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL, and an apparent fallacy about what is correct. “ chain-mail has become a commonly used, if incorrect,[citation needed] neologism coined no later than 1786” really needs that citation filled. The references feature “chain mail” prominently. Even when I google search: chain mail misnomer, I get lots of good looking sources proudly and prominently using the term “chain mail”, and not explaining it as a misnomer. I’m seeing that “chain mail” is the correct term for introduction, and “mail” alone is a shortening preferred by specialists. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transition from Round Riveted to Wedge Riveted Not Cited

The article claims "Sometime during the 14th century European mail makers started to transition from round rivets to wedge shaped rivets but continued using alternating rows of solid rings.", however, this is not cited. The following citation (53) does not specify when this transition occurred. OzGardi (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)