All your assertions have already been refuted by Shik's link, which, you know, actually has credible sources, and not people just trying to justify what their 6th grade teacher taught them.
There are also many misconceptions about mail armour, leading scholars to disregard its effectiveness on the battlefield: it was heavy and cumbersome; it was highly susceptible to piercing attacksespecially arrows; it was cheap and relatively simple to produce; and mail was superseded by "superior" plate as soon as it was technically possible. All of the preceding statements are demonstrably false. One should keep in mind that mail saw continuous use in virtually every iron-using culture in the world for the best part of two thousand years2. It is, without a doubt, the most successful and versatile type of armour ever devised.
Mail consisted of a two-part composite defense. The first part was the mail itselfa flexible metal "fabric" made from interlocked rings that form a mesh. The second part was the padding worn underneath3. When worn in this fashion, mail offered very good resistance to cuts and punctures and helped to reduce the effects of blunt trauma. For mail to have been used for such a long period and remain virtually unchanged during that time suggests that it was an extremely effective form of protection. If a weapon had been devised during that period that could reliably penetrate mail, one of two things would occureither the armour would have been augmented until it protected against the new threat, or it would have been discarded because the reduced protection no longer justified its weight and expense. Since unaugmented mail remained the armour of choice in Europe for those who could afford it one must conclude that it offered good protection against all contemporary weapons. Mail's effectiveness against weapons will be discussed in more detail later.
Weapons vs. Mail
Arrows
Fig. 19A crossbow being shot from above into a mail-clad opponent, 14th century
A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrowsparticularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),59 inadequate padding was used (if employed at all),60 the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect61all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991.62 An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts,63 but these tests may have underestimated the strength of English longbows. Strickland commented that there has yet to be a test that uses accurate reconstructions of both armour and bow.64
There are many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the effectiveness of mail against arrows. During the Siege of Amida (359 AD), Ammianus Marcellinus described Roman archers attacking the Persians:
The Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order and since almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark, even the mail-clad horsemen were checked and gave ground.65
The above passage suggests that the Roman arrows, while effective against the poorly armoured infantry, did little to harm the Persian cavalry. One could surmise that the arrows had little effect on the armoured riders but caused some distress to their mounts, causing the cavalry to give ground.66
Anna Comnena wrote that during the Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail.67 Joinville describes his servants donning him in his jousting hauberk as he lay ill on the deck of a ship to protect him from incoming Saracen arrows.68 Joinville later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:
...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.69
Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:
The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour70 protected him from the arrows.71
During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:
...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.72
Fig. 20Taking on arrows from the towers, as shown in the Maciejowski Bible
The above passage demonstrates the increased effectiveness of mail when worn in conjunction with a padded defense. It is unclear whether the felt was worn underneath or over the top of mail in the above example. What is clear is that the combination is very effective at resisting arrows.73 Russ Mitchell believes that felt is especially effective against bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. The felt deforms around the bodkin and pushes it back out of the target.74 Broadhead typologies, on the other hand, have cutting edges that can allow them to slice through felt. So felt would be less protective against these arrowheads. However, mail is extremely effective against cutting edges. The combination of mail and felt provide good protection against both bodkins and broadheads.
Here are some more brief examples: at the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk. During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets or did not have visors.75
Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:
And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound.76
It can be seen from the above examples that mail provided a good defense against arrows. Although there were occasions when arrows penetrated the mail itself, the arrow was often halted by the padding. One should also note the effects of blunt traumaeven if an arrow failed to compromise the mail, it was still possible to cause discomfort to the wearer underneath.77
Fig. 21Attack and defense of a castle by soldiers in mail armour
Fig. 22Assault on a tower, early 14th century, facing crossbow fire
Contemporary sources note that there were different types of mail, and some were considered more protective than others. In the sources, there are references to hauberts de joute (jousting hauberks) and hauberts de guerre (field hauberks) as well as double mail, haute cloueur, demi-clouer, botte, and botte cassee.78 To this day, nobody has conclusively demonstrated the kinds of mail to which these terms are referring (see the section on Double Mail, above, for an example). ffoulkes believed that the phrase de toute botte referred to mail that was proof against all blowsfrom projectiles, lances, swords, and axes.79 If this is true, one can infer that some other types of mail were not proof against all these weapons. 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."80 The very need to make this distinction implies that some other types of mail were not as capable at resisting arrows. The Franciscan friar, John of Plano-Carpini (who was an envoy to the Mongols) described how the Mongols made their arrows: "...according to the Tartars' custom, dip them red-hot into salt water, that they may be strong enough to pierce the enemies' armour." He later recommended that "double mail" be used to protect men from these arrows.81 One can infer several things from this passage. Firstly, that it was not normal practice in Europe during this time to harden arrowheads. Secondly, it was believed that hardened arrowheads stood a greater chance of penetrating mail. Thirdly, a type of mail known as double mail was considered arrow-proof, even against arrows specifically designed to be armour-piercers.
Persian sources also talk about different types of mail. Shahidi distinguishes between two different kinds of mail. The first one was called zereh davudi ("davudi style mail") or zereh mikh gerd ("mail with rounded rivets"), and the second type was called zereh mamuli ("common mail").82 The latter was not as sturdy as the former, but it is uncertain how the two differed. It is possible that different types of rivets were used and/or that zereh davudi utilized smaller links. According to Zeller and Rohrer, the better quality mail was made in either Isfahan or Iraq.83 Kobylinsky distinguished between heavier and lighter mail variants. The former had larger outside diameters of 10-15 mm and was less flexible, whereas the latter had link diameters as small as 4 mm.84
There are some sources indicating that arrows could, on occasion, penetrate mail far enough to kill the wearer. During the Battle of Nicaea (1097), Albert of Aix wrote, "Walter the Penniless fell, pierced by seven arrows which had penetrated his coat of mail."85 One must conclude that at least one of those arrows penetrated far enough to prove fatal. In another account, Saxo wrote that the Gotlanders strung their bows so hard that their arrows could penetrate shield, hauberk, and helmet.86 During the 1st Crusade, Girard of Quiercy was killed by a Moslem arrow that punched through both his shield and his armour.87 Gerald of Wales recounted an anecdote told to him by William de Braose 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.88 Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Tartushi, wrote in the 11th century that elite archers were capable of piercing mail.89 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."90 An arrow had pierced him through the mail beneath his armpitonly the fletches were visible.91
Fig. 23Mail faced many forms of vicious attack, as graphically shown in the Maciejowski Bible
Based on modern experimental results and contemporary accounts one must conclude that, while not impervious, mail and its associated padding offered good protection against arrows. It is evident, though, that some types of mail offered better protection than others and that it was possible to make mail that was arrow-proof, yet these variants may have been too heavy or not flexible enough for prolonged wear on the battlefield. Even the much-vaunted bodkin did not guarantee penetration. It seems that bodkins are more capable than other arrowheads of punching through the mail links but have difficulty penetrating the layer of padding underneath. Bodkin-type arrowheads have been used since the Bronze Age and were common during the Roman period and right through the so-called "Age of Mail." Considering the frequency with which knights faced arrows on the battlefield, if mail was highly susceptible to them, then it would not have remained the preferred type of body armour for so long. One might argue that a type of armour more resistant to arrows, such as plate or lamellar, would have been more extensively used in Western Europe during this time. It has also been demonstrated that some types of mail (such as "double mail") were considered proof against arrows. If one was concerned about arrow fire, this sort of mail was available to those who could afford it. Therefore, one must conclude that plate armour did not become widespread in the 14th century simply because of the susceptibility of mail to arrows.
TL;DR : Learn2history
