Editing Chain mail (section)

==Effectiveness==
[[File:Bayeux haubert.JPG|thumb|right|Mail hauberk from the Museum of Bayeux]]

Mail's resistance to weapons is determined by four factors: linkage type ([[rivet]]ed, butted, or [[welded]]), material used (iron versus bronze or steel), weave density (a tighter weave needs a thinner weapon to surpass), and ring thickness (generally ranging from 1.0 to 1.6&nbsp;mm diameter (18 to 14 gauge) wire in most examples). Mail, if a warrior could afford it, provided a significant advantage when combined with competent fighting techniques.

When the mail was not riveted, a thrust from most sharp weapons could penetrate it. However, when mail was riveted, only a strong well-placed thrust from certain spears, or thin or dedicated mail-piercing swords like the [[estoc]], could penetrate, and a [[Pollaxe (polearm)|pollaxe]] or [[halberd]] blow could break through the armour. Strong projectile weapons such as stronger [[self bow]]s, [[recurve bow]]s, and [[crossbow]]s could also penetrate riveted mail.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211205/eYsr81y0Aeo Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20191105095514/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsr81y0Aeo Wayback Machine]}}{{cbignore}}: {{cite web| url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsr81y0Aeo| title = Old vs. New - Bows and Crossbows tested on Butted and Riveted Mail Armor ("Chainmail") | website=[[YouTube]]| date = 22 May 2017 }}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSL7XApz2s|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223060132/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSL7XApz2s|archive-date=2017-12-23|title =Arms & Armor 12th Century Spear VS. Riveted Mail and Ballistic Gel|website=[[YouTube]]|date=24 October 2017 }}</ref> Some evidence indicates that during armoured combat, the intention was to actually get around the armour rather than through it—according to a study of skeletons found at the [[Battle of Visby#Archaeological excavation|battle of Visby]], Gotland, a majority of the skeletons showed wounds on less well protected legs.<ref name="thordeman">{{cite book|last=Thordeman|first=Bengt|title=Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361|year=1940|publisher=Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien|location=Stockholm, Sweden|page=160}}</ref> Although mail was a formidable protection, due to technological advances as time progressed, mail worn under plate armour (and stand-alone mail as well) could be penetrated by the conventional weaponry of another knight.

The flexibility of mail meant that a blow would often injure the wearer,<ref>D. Edge and J. Paddock. ''Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight'' (London: Bison), 1988</ref> potentially causing serious bruising or fractures, and it was a poor defence against head trauma. Mail-clad warriors typically wore separate rigid [[helmet|helms]] over their mail coifs for head protection. Likewise, blunt weapons such as [[mace (bludgeon)|maces]] and [[war hammer|warhammers]] could harm the wearer by their impact without penetrating the armour; usually a soft armour, such as [[gambeson]], was worn under the hauberk. Medieval surgeons were very well capable of setting and caring for bone fractures resulting from blunt weapons.<ref name="ReferenceA">Mitchell, Piers D. ''Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon''. Cambridge University Press, 2007.</ref> With the poor understanding of hygiene, however, cuts that could get infected were much more of a problem.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Thus mail armour proved to be sufficient protection in most situations.<ref>Williams, ''The Knight and the Blast Furnace''. pp. 942–943</ref><ref>Horsfall, I. et al., "An Assessment of Human Performance in Stabbing", ''Forensic Science International'', 102 (1999). pp. 79–89.</ref>