SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The British team used the XMaS (X-ray Materials Science) beamline at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, to examine the surface chemistry of the links. Synchrotron radiation is a thin beam of very high-intensity X-rays generated within a particle accelerator. Electrons are fired into a linear accelerator to boost their speeds and then injected into a storage ring. They zoom through the ring at near-light speed, as a series of magnets bend and focus the electrons. In the process, they give off X-rays, which can then be focused down beamlines.
This is useful for analyzing structure, because in general, the shorter the wavelength used (and the higher the energy of the light), the finer the details one can image and/or analyze. The team found that the links were made from an alloy that was 73-percent copper and 27-percent zinc. According to co-author Mark Dowsett, emeritus professor at the University of Warwick, this is "quite a modern alloy composition," but what was surprising was the level of control.
"We had three completely different samples, and the analysis was the same," he told Ars. One sample had been thoroughly cleaned, but the others had not, and thus still had a corrosive layer. Yet all three showed the same composition ratios. This suggests that Tudor England was fairly advanced in brass production and techniques like wire drawing.
The analysis also revealed heavy metal traces, including lead and gold, on the surface of the links. According to Dowsett, it's possible many of those traces came later, since during World War II, the Portsmouth Dockyard was the target of heavy bombing, depositing lead, mercury, and cadmium, for instance, into the Solent waters. "You can imagine that the armor sank to the bottom of the sea and gradually corroded, and then it picked up the stuff from the seafloor afterwards," Dowsett said. Alternatively, the lead may have been from dust produced by the lead balls used in 16th-century scatter guns and pistols.
As for the gold, traces were only found on one set of links, and he thinks it likely came from the tooling when the armor was made, rather than mixed into the brass alloy. "Gold is very soluble in brass, so if you added gold to the alloy, you would never see it as a separate material," he said. "We saw crystalline gold. That tells you there are pure gold particles on the surface that presumably came from tooling used to work the pieces the armor was made from."
Journal Reference:
M. G. Dowsett, P.-J. Sabbe, J. Alves Anjos, et al. "Synchrotron X-ray diffraction investigation of the surface condition of artefacts from King Henry VIII's warship the Mary Rose", Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 2020. 10.1107/S1600577520001812
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2020, @05:05PM (5 children)
A chainmail of twisted brass rings?! Seriously?!
Riveted steel rings were in use centuries before; welded iron rings, before AD, i.e. a millenium and a half before that time!
https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/mail-armour [google.com]
https://www.erikds.com/?page_id=22 [erikds.com]
http://www.erikds.com/pdf/tmrs-journal-1.pdf [erikds.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 07 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
What were the costs of steel, vs brass? Until firearms became commonplace, good brass was probably "good enough" for most people. And, when firearms did become commonplace, steel probably wouldn't have been a lot better than brass. Or grass, for that matter.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 07 2020, @09:26PM
Cost would be my guess too.
Until relatively recently the British Army was made up of regiments raised by individuals.
For example The Royal Horse Guards [wikipedia.org] were orginally the Earl of Oxford's Regiment and the troopers would have supplied their own equipment, unless the Earl at the time was wealthy enough to buy it for them.
To be fair, that particular regiment was raised for the New Model Army, which was properly professional for the first time ever in Britain, so that may not be the best example.
My point, however is that the individual soldier or sailor was expected to supply quite a lot of their own gear and would have made do with whatever they could afford. p.
The Royal Navy was reformed after the Dutch sailed up the Medway and destroyed the British fleet in 1667. It became completely professional, and was the best in the world for the next 350 years or so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2020, @06:25PM
Maybe they used brass because it wouldn't rust like iron?
I don't know.
(Score: 2) by Kitsune008 on Thursday May 07 2020, @10:27PM (1 child)
What advantage do steel or iron rings have over brass rings against firearms and crossbows (much less English longbows) that were in common use at this time?
At this point in time, armor was becoming less useful against the weapons of war. It served a similar function as helmets and flak jackets did during the Vietnam War of the 1960's-early 1970's.
Look at the practical matters:
steel armor is heavier
steel armor is more costly(way more)
steel armor requires more care, it rusts easily
steel armor stops crossbow bolts, longbow arrows, arquebus projectiles, musket balls, grapeshot, cannonballs, etc., essentially at equivalent levels as brass armor
So, if you are supplying your own armor, you maximize 'bang for buck' and go with what your budget allows.
If you are a lord supplying your troops, again, you go with 'bang for buck' as the budget allows.
Obviously, the more well-to-do will want to display their superiority, and spend the $$ for better steel armor, and the staff to support it...prestige is a powerful motivator for some.
Special units, such as cavalry will spring for the better steel armor out of necessity.
But the bulk of the troops will not have the heavy, costly, high-maintenance armor, and may not even go with brass, content with leather, or little armor.
Hint:
Look up the battle of Agincourt, which occurred a century earlier than TFA. How were the English bowmen armored compared to the French nobles, and 'who did what to who'?
Even in the past, you are sadly behind the times.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 08 2020, @03:00PM
I'd agree with and extend your remarks into logistics of maintainability.
Its not just "more care" its the difference between a jeweler-type or entry level blacksmith with minimal tools can maintain brass armor in the field right up to the night before the big battle, whereas steel maintenance likely requires fixed facilities and skilled labor such that your armor isn't going to be in tip top condition on the morning of the big battle.
Better the weak armor you can actually wear to battle, than the armor that could be strong if in perfect condition, unfortunately it broke in the middle of a 15 day march to the battle, and you've now got a completely exposed shoulder to hit.