Kits on a budget

[Sir Robert]

In todays age we are all on a budget, and in my off-season, which is way too long, I become an armorer and build a set or three of plate armor. But as crazy as that may be I don't make chain mail as its far too time consuming. However I hope to share here how to buy or make your kit on budget.

First my chain was far to heavy- steel is nice looking but hard to wear all day, and unless your in combat its overkill. So I went to aluminum chain, at about 20% of the weight is quite a savings.

But its very pricey- looking around I found a 3/4 sleeve shirt for $100. So I bought two- one for a friend and mine. This worked quite well BUT the aluminum links are soft and I hat lots of tearing issues- my friend had fewer but for two reasons- he is a bit lighter build, and we found that may platemat was biding on some of the links. This was butted chain.

I since bought riveted aluminum chain, another pricey think- selling most places over $500 a shirt, but I got mine for $180, and its very nice, 3/4 sleeve.

So if your in the market- try www.thinkgeek.com for great prices on the chainmail, gauntlets, and coifs.

[Sir James (Fiat Lux)]

I was taken a little aback when I first heard that ThinkGeek was selling chain. Glad to hear that it's decent stuff. Most of the stuff I see online is more for show, and aluminum would certainly qualify as that. When it comes to longer-term pieces, I've acutally found that some folks in the SCA have some nice kits. When the time comes to change personæ, they tend to sell their stuff cheap. Check out http://www.armorarchive.com.

[Sir Robert]

Kits are going to be a function of what your purpose is more than anything. If your into SCA combat, well plastics and padding are far better than chainmail and finest plate, but I would agree they lack in looks.

I have harness made out of 12 gauge 5086 Aluminum, cold hardened, short of a sledge hammer you can't dent it, and its light. But it still can transfer the force of some blows, where plastics deaden the force. I however don't use it in combat, but rather wear it as garb with chain mail and padding. I have made three of these sets, one heavilly etched, one painted, and one anodized. So it really depens on use -so I agree with Sir James here. I would say that there is no combat worthy aluminum chain (unless you can get a 2000 or 7000 series alloy- good luck), but if light you want and money is not an issue- there are very fine stainless steel offerings and a some titanium as well.

If your lot going to use it in active combat though- aluminum is quite nice, and I will share some techniques and pictures on design, forging, anodizing, and etching to create great pieces- combat ready or for show it up to you.

[Sir Blackwolf]

Good Sirs,

Indeed form must follow function. As both my Ladywife Dame Dagrny and I perform with live steel, all of our harness is real steel. My plate harness totals some 80lbs in weight while her chainmaile plus helm, shield and weapons is easily over 50lbs. We both tend to spend entire days at the Faires and Events we conduct in harness. One of the more rewarding and enjoyable things we do is march in parades. The ability to do this comes from physical conditioning; we train in what we fight. In fact part of the demonstration is where I perform pushups, jumping jacks and run about the audience, which of course is just great fun to watch their faces!

As to where we obtain our arms, we cheat of course! We sell what we use and we are fortunate to be dealers for several excellent sources. These may be found at http://www.medievalfantasiesco.com/armour.htm and http://www.medievalfantasiesco.com/Arms.htm
For images of the House of Blackwolf in action pray see http://www.medievalfantasiesco.com/Livinghistoryexhibit.htm

I am at your service,
Sir Blackwolf

[Sir Edward]

Actually I've been pretty pleased with what I've seen from ThinkGeek. It's the most cost effective way to get started with a renfaire garb kit. Obviously aluminum is not functional as armor and is not historical, but it actually looks decent and is inexpensive.

[Sir Robert]

Thanks Sir Edward, I agree as well and am not trying to distract from anyone in any kit. Steel is traditional, stainless looks good with less work, but is also not period, but many use it and it’s very nice. So for anyone who has a kit- no offense intended noble Sirs and Dames.

Here is an interesting fact though- Armor was made by royal decree by members of an Armorer Guild, in fact each piece is tamped with the “seal” of the actual maker. Now as part of the forging process, Armorers always sought to make armor thinner (to reduce weight) but yet more resistant to ballistics and armor piercing weapons (war hammers). To do this they would create intricate angled surfaces to deflect blows and add fluting for rigidity. Ok we all know that, but they were also trying to create spring steel through the addition of other metals into the liquid iron and carbon, creating the first alloys.

They also realized that the forging process- the actual hammering of the metal would create a “skin” where the metal would be more dense than the inner material, this would lead to what is know known as case hardening (today we dip metals into powders such as Barium Carbonate to produce this). If you removed this surface layer, the underlying metal would not be as hard or resistant to blows. It also resulted in a metal “sandwich” where both outer sides of the metal would be harder than the internal material- this would result in “spring” as if the material was hardened all the way through- essentially the harder it is the more brittle, it would certainly resist “pointed” impacts but a concussive blow would shatter the metal- usually at the rivet or connection points.

So it was so that Armorers developed this technique over time- including baking forged components in ovens while covered in charcoal powder (an early equal to Barium Carbonate) to produce tougher armor.

Thanks for the history lesson- now what’s the point? Well Sir Walter Raleigh was actually jailed once for wearing armor to court, why? It was a polished breastplate. It happens that in order to maintain this spring steel process, a closely guarded guild secret only taught to journeymen before they became Master Armorers, you could not sand off the resulting finish to make it shiny. In fact any armor that was shiny was a tell-tail sign that it was not made by a Armorer, as it was against their guild practice and illegal. What? Yes, during the medieval period, guilds were supported by nobility and churches, many lesser nobles would send their children into guilds to become masters. They also paid huge taxes to the crown, and as such had many laws that protected them.

This all worked out for Sir Walter Raleigh, as a queens favorite. The point is that Armor made by armorers was not polished- it was a dull grey (the carbonizing also protected from rust, or even black (Black Prince), or painted with various materials. The resemblance of this was very close to….aluminum, but of course it was not, it was an early spring steel.

So, shiny armor was either very early armor made by armores maybe between 1000 and 1250,  or it was made by blacksmiths (or in the case of royalty, finished by silver smiths). Most museums that gained pieces, weather in an effort to preserve them or represent the myth of a “Knight in Shining Armor” polished pieces. The making of armor spanned several guilds, and some ceremonial armor was “polished” but usually as a result of adornment through etching, gold gilding, or other artistic hands usually from silver smiths, or gold smiths commissioned by the crown. It was also more common once firearms became a prevalent battle weapon as plate armor was mostly ceremonial or a mark of command.

So actually polished armor was actually illegal and not at all what combat armor would have looked like- but it may have been seen on nobility as high Gothic armor (like the Queen’s) or possibly in ceremonies and events like a Joust.

So the looks of aluminum- although not combat functional (well maybe if warn under plate maile) does actually look more period (but new), blackened chain such as I have seen good Sir Brian wear is actually even more period. No offense to anyone in brilliant polished kits- they are the very ideal people have of Knights- but there are many misconceptions around Knighthood that people hold as truth- and that’s ok with me, each person is more than entitled to their beliefs.

[Das Bill]

Hi Stormdelver,
Do you know where this information came from? Some of it sounds a little suspect to me, particularly given the wide range of time period and regions in which armor was worn. Now, I will point out that I know a lot more about arms than I do about armor, but there are some things that don't ring quite right in what you're saying to me.

Here is an interesting fact though- Armor was made by royal decree by members of an Armorer Guild, in fact each piece is tamped with the “seal” of the actual maker.

I don't believe that's completely true across the board, particularly when we see many of the black sallets of the 15th century worn by mercenaries. It was certainly true in many cases, but I think there are a lot of exceptions.

Now as part of the forging process, Armorers always sought to make armor thinner (to reduce weight) but yet more resistant to ballistics and armor piercing weapons (war hammers). To do this they would create intricate angled surfaces to deflect blows and add fluting for rigidity. Ok we all know that, but they were also trying to create spring steel through the addition of other metals into the liquid iron and carbon, creating the first alloys.

Yes and no. The Germans were certainly looking to try to make spring hardened steel for armor by the late 15th century, but before that they didn't. Spring hardened armor was non-existent in the 14th century (even though they had the technology, as they were doing it for weapons, so they clearly had a reason for choosing to do it this way) And the Italians seemed to favor unhardened armor despite the Germans. I believe the English also tended to prefer unhardened, but I'm not totally sure. So, again, it depended on the context.

They also realized that the forging process- the actual hammering of the metal would create a “skin” where the metal would be more dense than the inner material, this would lead to what is know known as case hardening (today we dip metals into powders such as Barium Carbonate to produce this). If you removed this surface layer, the underlying metal would not be as hard or resistant to blows. It also resulted in a metal “sandwich” where both outer sides of the metal would be harder than the internal material- this would result in “spring” as if the material was hardened all the way through- essentially the harder it is the more brittle, it would certainly resist “pointed” impacts but a concussive blow would shatter the metal- usually at the rivet or connection points.

Again, I don't think this was true all the way across the board. It would depend a great deal on region and time period as to whether case hardening was preferred... many did not use this method.

Thanks for the history lesson- now what’s the point? Well Sir Walter Raleigh was actually jailed once for wearing armor to court, why? It was a polished breastplate. It happens that in order to maintain this spring steel process, a closely guarded guild secret only taught to journeymen before they became Master Armorers, you could not sand off the resulting finish to make it shiny. In fact any armor that was shiny was a tell-tail sign that it was not made by a Armorer, as it was against their guild practice and illegal. What? Yes, during the medieval period, guilds were supported by nobility and churches, many lesser nobles would send their children into guilds to become masters. They also paid huge taxes to the crown, and as such had many laws that protected them.

I'm unaware of this tail, though I'm not writing it off, either. There were a number of ordinances put on armor throughout time. For example, in the 15th century there were areas where selling a painted helmet (a style very popular throughout much of Europe in the 15th c.) was highly illegal because it could hide an armorer's flaws. However, I do suspect there's more to this story than simply he was arrested for polishing his harness. By the 16th century, highly polished armors were very prized, so there has to be more to this than that.

The point is that Armor made by armorers was not polished- it was a dull grey (the carbonizing also protected from rust, or even black (Black Prince), or painted with various materials. The resemblance of this was very close to….aluminum, but of course it was not, it was an early spring steel.

There are too many quotes from period literature about the brightness and shininess of armor for me to believe that this was common. I'm not necessarily disputing that it was never the case, just that the 15th century clearly had examples where it was encouraged to shine the armour to its brightest.

So, shiny armor was either very early armor made by armores maybe between 1000 and 1250,

Well, unless if you're talking about helmets, plate wasn't worn during this time. But what you say about museums is true: Some pieces have been pver polished by over-zealous curators, unfortunately. Not in every case, but certainly in some.

or possibly in ceremonies and events like a Joust.

Hmmm. That doesn't seem right. Jousting armor was typically the same as field armour with additional pieces added to it (such as a heavier duty helmet). If the armor wasn't allowed to be polished outside of the joust, then it wouldn't make sense that it was allowed during the joust.

blackened chain such as I have seen good Sir Brian wear is actually even more period.

Actually, black mail is very much a modern concept. Mail will naturally "polish" itself when one does a lot of movement in it (running, climbing, marching, fighting, etc), and the black will just disappear. Since most of us in modern times don't use our mail as athletically as our forefathers did, our mail will likely stay black (and for that matter, requires more work to clean when it rusts).

[Sir Matthew]

If I may weigh in for a minute on this most interesting topic, I conducted a bit of research while assembling my Elizabethan soldier kit.  Most of the information I found seems to support both of you in the coloration of the armor.  Now most of my research was geared toward armor worn by common soldiers, not knights, so it is possible that can alter things a bit.  I found that most armor was stored in vats of oil, in some cases olive or other vegetable oil was used (most commonly in Italy and the mediteranean region where this was common), but mostly oil that had bubbled to the surface was collected and used.  This oil was mixed with dirt, making a mud and it seems an early oil based paint.  Over time the armor would take on the color of the oil it was stored in.  This seems to be most common with chain armor, and yes when it was taken out to be used the armor was wiped down, removing most of the color, but not all and also leaving the armor dull, not shiny.  The main problem with shiny armor, as I can personally attest, is that the steel tends to begin to corrode very quickly because the protective oil has been removed.  My mild steel kettle helm will actully begin to show corroded fingerprints by the end of a faire day if I leave it totally wiped clean and handle it without gloves.  It seems that by the introduction of true plate armors in the 1400's, the armor was being protected by painting the metal, most plate armor in this period was made specifically for a certain person.  After it was forged and at various points during forging the buyer would often inspect the work to make sure it was up to their standards.  Rember armor is a huge investment and your life may literally someday depend upon the craftsman's work.  To this end, before completion of the sale, they armor was inspected while still unpainted.  As I stated before though, unfinished steel tends to corrode and rust very quickly, so it was certainly oiled.  After meeting the buyers approval, it would have been painted.  Now Plate breast and back that would have been made one size fits most for the common soldier was not so rigorously inspected and the manufacturing process, especially by they 1500's was more like factory output.  Quantity mattered more than quality.  Individual soldiers would be responsible for it's care and although it was often painted in the color of the lord or country the soldiers served, it still needed to be oiled.  Last, although there certainly was an armorer's guild, I have little information on it.  I do know that in England, most armor made for the common soldier in the 1400 and 1500's came from the Royaly Armorers.  By the late 1500's heavy steel armor was being hightly discouraged for common soldiers throughout Europe, Plate breast and back for Pike being about the only heavey armor left, and even that was starting to fade away as most of it was too inferior to stop a musket ball at moderate range.  Most armorers, as most master craftsmen, had a seal they put on their armor, this was to serve as an advertisement and a copyright as each individual had subtle unique differences to their armor.  By no means does this mean that everyone who made armor was a guild member.  Only masters at their crafts were admited into guilds and their skills made them highly sought out and expensive, poor people made due with whoever they could afford to buy from.  Also, although they may have been able to make simple metal armor, blacksmiths are not armorers and the intracacies of making plate armor would have been beyond them, at least without alot of time and material to experiment with.  Most blacksmiths would not have had this luxury, they would have been busy tending to horses and making or fixing tools and other more commonly needed items like door hinges, etc.  I did uncover referenced to polished armor, but mostly this seemed to indicate armor that was meant for show or ceremonial use, not combat.  It also seemed to me that this armor was polished up for that purpose but not stored polished.  Every reference to this though was for a person of very high standing who would have had retainers to do this sort of work for them, not something that even most knights could claim by the 16th century.  

I'm not sure how much this helps, but if anyone is interested, I could try to dig out the references I was scouring through when I was doing my armor research.  It has been about 3 years so I don't know if I have all the information or not, but I could try to look for it.

[Sir Edward]

I've found that the general rule of thumb when discussion anything pertaining to history is that time and place matters greatly. A difference of a few miles or a few years can make a significant impact on the "truths" that we read about. There are very few blanket statements that can be made about the medieval period as a whole, except for the most general of concepts, such as "they wore helmets made of metal"

[Das Bill]

such as "they wore helmets made of metal"

The funny part is that even that wasn't always true!

[Sir Robert]

Thanks for the replies- I think we found a topic of interest. The information comes from several sources, including a renown museum armor reproduction smith in Canada that I am trying to find again, as well as a course I had in engineering on metallurgy. But I should retract and not a few things- this is not a definitive guide, and as Da Bill notes- correctly, armor varied significantly by region and laws, who made it and why did as well. Also its is very true that techniques, laws, practices, and availability varied significantly within what we would consider a local region- but as most populations did not travel far as it was difficult and dangerous, things were far more isolated and evolved far differently. Just think of all the variations of what we think of as English within England itself.

   I am really referring to the 14-15th century, England and not at all completely- that would take books, and I am not an expert, but I do consider myself an apprentice armorer, now with a few full sets of plate armor completed for clients. I have done a lot of research, but all sources are not really complete are they? As to references of a knight in shining armor- while I am certain that shining armor did exist, and discounting fashion trends, was written about in reality and as an ideal- outside reflecting the virtue of the inside- a common literary theme of the age, that and damnation. So as I said, everyone is more than entitled to what they believe as its likely as accurate as anyone else.

So the forging process, it is known that with many metals- steel, iron, bronze, and aluminum, that mechanical working of the metal does increase its hardness. By forging on carbon powder or exposure to charcoal, this also adds the ability to bend without deforming or breaking. This was inadvertently discovered across many cultures when forging blades- most notably the Japanese, and in the making of Damascus steel- something encountered during the crusades.

Was all arms and armor made this way- absolutely not. It was time-consuming and expensive, availability of raw materials alone would have prevented this, keep in mind that England was a bit deforested just due to timber being the primary building and heating source- with peat second, and stone and mud following for construction. However, armor was made this way- including the baking in charcoal and in the seeking of ballistic resistant armor (hence why plate was developed in the first place). Combat armor does differ significantly from jousting armor- many sources site this in many countries. It was generally thicker, may have had removable plates for added protection, usually was a bit more “rigid” and was designed primarily for mounted combat. While some may have also doubled as combat armor, a knight given the funds would have surly had “tournament” armor, but again enough examples exist to give either view the ring of truth.

Since I was primarily interested in the metallurgy used, techniques, and methods, I was focusing on what would have been available vs. modern equivalents. I had said that I was not trying to detract from what other know and believe but rather provide additional information to those looking to build a kit and not to discount anything as strictly un-period looking. Chances are almost anything was “period”, even plastics used in the proper design- while materially very far from period- would be close to armor made from bone or horn, or perhaps boiled leather plates. Point is if it existed then, someone would have used it somewhere to make armor in some way.

Also many mercenaries were opportunistic, as were lower knights or man-at-arms, they would scavenge, buy, and acquire weapons anywhere the opportunity arose, some using “ancient”  armor as they happened to acquire it, mixed perhaps with leather, studded, chain, or fine gothic pieces. Indeed as uniforms were not provided in general, an army was a motley thing. Uniforms gained prominence as a way of identifying friend from foe, where professional soldiers were employed (no money invested, who cares), but there were few standing professional armies during these times that were in anything resembling a standard uniform, that died with the Romans and was just starting to be developed in fortification guards or royal guards.

So I do apologies as I don’t mean to sound authoritative across such a wide breath of time and regions- .

[Sir Robert]

Ok, what I would like to focus on is making a kit- I leave of what to the user.

I would start with researching armor, if thats what you intend on making or wearing, different periods and regions. Find what appeals to you and what kind of character you would want to represent. Are you more of mercenary, a viking, or a knight? What region do you like- armor differs significantly, and by the way- the Japanese were wearing armor betwwen 1300-1550 as well. Do you like the crusades, or later periods?

The time and place you select with help you start defining your armor. I love German, Gothic Armor, but still lack the skills to hammer it out- someday...So be realistic with yourself and push but don't expect blinding sucess. Armor making is 99% sweat equity, with skill you can do wonders but it takes lots of hammering to build skills.

I highly reccomend reserach, reading, and examining armor in detail. Tools will be highly importaint but differ from person to person. Most blacksmiths make their own tools based on need and how they like to work. You can find patterns in many places, they are a good way to start, but keep in mind that they were not made for you and they may require techniques and tools you don't have yet. (Like a mig welder) You can forge a very nice and reasonable set of plate mail from basic tools, its all very possible if you work at it.

There are many references for tools online, the most essential are unsplit sections of trees, prefeeribly oak or other hardwoods. You will need to "dish" these into shapes to help you sink your forms, also steel balls or sphears are great to have for some items as well. A good rule of thumb- don't select or make dishes or balls the same size as you want your finished item- the item will almost amways be about 1/3 larger, at least thats how it seems to be for me. So if your going to make elbow cops, make sure you use a dish and ball a bit smaller than you want the finished size- this is not a science, you'll find out what works and not through experience and the only un-doable thing you can do is when cutting the material out, you can reshape, resize, and fix almost anything other than that.

Measure 10x, cut once. You will need to visualize the curves and attachement points of your form as you go to tweak it along.

Don't use a big hammer- most common mistake, as many looking for speed pick up a hammer thats too heavy- this is a marathon event not a sprint. Also dings from a heavy hammer are much harder to get out during plenishing.

Grind your hammer convex- remove sharp edges, dings and flat surfaces, any imperfections in the hammer will get telegraphed to your work- I sand my hammers with 200 grit paper or better (400 on finishing hammers)

Plastic hammers are wonderful- they don't mar and work very well- but only on cold metal. I have several of these and many rubber mallets for initial shaping around forms.

Metal is really interesting material, it flows, it bends, it shrinks and it expands, it always amazes me how I go from glat stock (16g) to elbow cops or helmets.

Don't use too light a guage- I have never used below 16g, and actually like 14g and 12g better. Its far more work, but it seems to flow better for me. 18g may be used for some things but in general I would stay away from lighter guages- they arn't combat legal (SCA) anyway.

More later- (Chime in anyone)

[Das Bill]

Hi Stormdelver,
No need to apologize! We're just having a friendly discussion!

Just think of all the variations of what we think of as English within England itself.

That's very true. The same is true with time period... just ten years of difference within a period can show a large amount of change in fashion, politics, etc, just as it does in modern times.

This was inadvertently discovered across many cultures when forging blades- most notably the Japanese, and in the making of Damascus steel- something encountered during the crusades.

Curiously enough, the Europeans were doing this hundreds of years before the Japanese, yet the Japanese always get the limelight. But here's a not-too-well known fact: A large number of European swords from the early medieval era up untl the high middle ages were often left fairly soft, or in some cases unhardened entirely. Dr. Lee Jones owns a 11th c. sword that shows no evidence of any heat treatment, and yet we know for a fact that they knew how. Their kitchen utensils were hardened, their farm tools, hammers, chisels, etc, were all hardened. Certain types of tools were spring hardened... and yet, only some swords were made this way. Clearly this was done on purpose, though we can only guess at this purpose at the moment (such as perhaps the desire for a blade that would bend rather than break).

Combat armor does differ significantly from jousting armor- many sources site this in many countries. It was generally thicker, may have had removable plates for added protection, usually was a bit more “rigid” and was designed primarily for mounted combat. While some may have also doubled as combat armor, a knight given the funds would have surly had “tournament” armor, but again enough examples exist to give either view the ring of truth.

Sometimes this was true and sometimes it wasn't. For example, the armor of the first Earl of Pembroke, who was on of the most powerful men in 16th c. England and therefore not poor, had armor that doubled for different roles. His armour had interchangible pieces depnding on whether he was jousting, fighting as a demi-lancer, equipped for light cavalry, etc. His burgonet had a separate face piece for jousting, but it was removable if he was leading on the field.  

So I do apologies as I don’t mean to sound authoritative across such a wide breath of time and regions- .

Again, nothing to apologize for! If there was nothing to discuss, we wouldn't be here!

[Das Bill]

Don't use too light a guage- I have never used below 16g, and actually like 14g and 12g better. Its far more work, but it seems to flow better for me. 18g may be used for some things but in general I would stay away from lighter guages- they arn't combat legal (SCA) anyway.

Just to add to this:

Decide what you want the armor for. If you want it primarily for wear at the fairre or for costume, I'd go with the lightest gauge you can get away with (understanding that too thin is hard to shape properly). If you want it for historical demos, I'd try not to go too heavy, because most historical armors are much lighter than modern armors (due to the fact that they would forge certain areas to be thicker and other areas of the same sheet of metal to be thinner, so you could maximize your strength and minimize your weight... since modern armor tends to be made from sheets of standard thickness, most moderrn armors are not made in the same way). If you want to practice historical European martial arts, you will want certain things to be heavier (e.g. the helmet), but other areas aren't so necessary (e.g. the legs) because you aren't intentionally aiming for the armor in most cases, therefore the armor doesn't need to be too thick. If you are doing combat sport such as SCA, then you want to go with your organizations recommendations.

[Sir Blackwolf]

Sir Das Bill,

From a practical view you are quite correct in saying that maile that is oft used does tend to polish itself. For both my Ladywife and I do use our armour a great deal and as such we are out in both the hot sun and pouring rain, however we have little issue with rusting as what with she donning and doffing and moving about it tends to knock the rust off for the most part. Mine is painted black and needs be repainted about every other month or so from April to October, but again rust is not a great issue.  The item that rusts the most is my coif as I have it attached to my arming cap. The resulting sweat and moisture contained within it causes the coif to rust rapidly and of course it must be aired out and repainted on a regular basis. During the winter months our harness stays on the rack for the most part, except for those days the weather suits to get out and practice out of doors.

Thank you all for this interesting discourse, tis good to see the depth of knowledge and experience herein and I have enjoyed it immensely.

I am at your service,
Sir Blackwolf