This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
3
4
5
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
8
9
10
12
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)
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)
I have labeled two statements in the article with {{ fact}} that would benefit from attribution:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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
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
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
3
4
5
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
8
9
10
12
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)
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)
I have labeled two statements in the article with {{ fact}} that would benefit from attribution:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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
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
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)