The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. "Ringmail" is a Victorian-era misconception based on bad research of artwork and effigies. There are no textual references nor surviving examples of "ringmail". Sethwoodworth 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an authentic variety of ancient armour, being a variation on Scale armour. The only wrong bit is the lack of reference (I would help but all my quotable ones are French) and let's be clear, the Knights of William the Conqueror, as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry did not wear chainmail haubergeons, but indeed ring and scale brognes, as did their forebears in Merovingian and Carolingian times. -- Svartalf 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
(and I'm displacing my earlier bit so as not to be accused of voting twice) -- Svartalf 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
""Additional information:"" Ringmail was at one point thought to be an authentic variety of armor, but only in pre-1950's literature. Here's an article with documentation to my point, and I can cite Blair's book specifically if need be. Sethwoodworth 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. "Ringmail" is a Victorian-era misconception based on bad research of artwork and effigies. There are no textual references nor surviving examples of "ringmail". Sethwoodworth 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an authentic variety of ancient armour, being a variation on Scale armour. The only wrong bit is the lack of reference (I would help but all my quotable ones are French) and let's be clear, the Knights of William the Conqueror, as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry did not wear chainmail haubergeons, but indeed ring and scale brognes, as did their forebears in Merovingian and Carolingian times. -- Svartalf 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
(and I'm displacing my earlier bit so as not to be accused of voting twice) -- Svartalf 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
""Additional information:"" Ringmail was at one point thought to be an authentic variety of armor, but only in pre-1950's literature. Here's an article with documentation to my point, and I can cite Blair's book specifically if need be. Sethwoodworth 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply