So, yeah, I'm still on my RTW kick. (EB .74, yeah it's slow and somewhat unfinished...) And I was wondering, have there ever been qualitative tests done on the effectiveness of various armours of the period?
I guess that'd be the linothorax, bronze cuirass, chain mail, quilted, and bronze and iron scale, and any I might've overlooked.
OK, well, maybe not chain, since it's probably been overdone to death in all the segmentata vs. hamata debates...
Ancient armours
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Ancient armours
"Hell or plunder, comrades - March!"
-Conan, Black Colossus, Robert E. Howard
-Conan, Black Colossus, Robert E. Howard
-
LaCroix
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5196
- Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
- Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra
Well, in the later times, the armorers did shoot a musket on their brestplates and left the dent as "Q.C passed" sticker.
I am more into early medieval time and bows, but some things never change.
We tried some forms of armor against arrows from weak hunters Bows (60 pound range) against chainmail and lamellar-style armor.
Chainmail is penetrated at decent range, and using needle-bodkins, you could as well hide behind a rosebush.
Lamellar armor (scale should work similar) is a little better and can handle some hits, depending on the lacing material (the weakest link)
Plate armor depends on many factors. quality of steel, angle of impact and thickness. Under 2mm of steel is rather useless against arrows, one arrow always finds a spot to hit at 90° and at closer than 100 yards, an archer woth his salt was able to hit an oyster, so your breathing holes and vision slits in the helmet were "inviting". Also it comes very unhealthy to have your horse shot at full canter, no armor whatsoever could prtect you from that rough landing.
Medieval steel seldom had more than .4 carbon contend, and the heat treatment wasn't that good, so in the early ages, it would be even worse.
Work-hardened bronze armor is nearly as good as steel, sometimes even better, but it was to expensive for "Joe Pheasant". But steel was easy to obtain and easier to work with, but the varying carbon and impurites content made the results a bit of a lottery. Some of the "magic" swords were simple luck with the perfect carbon and other elements mixture to produce real ood steel.
So cheap units were equipped with steel weapons and armor, and the noble ones had bronze equipment, steel finally superceeded bronze in quality in the early dark ages.
All these armors work rather well against cutting, but the force of the blow needs to be answered by heavy padding.
I am more into early medieval time and bows, but some things never change.
We tried some forms of armor against arrows from weak hunters Bows (60 pound range) against chainmail and lamellar-style armor.
Chainmail is penetrated at decent range, and using needle-bodkins, you could as well hide behind a rosebush.
Lamellar armor (scale should work similar) is a little better and can handle some hits, depending on the lacing material (the weakest link)
Plate armor depends on many factors. quality of steel, angle of impact and thickness. Under 2mm of steel is rather useless against arrows, one arrow always finds a spot to hit at 90° and at closer than 100 yards, an archer woth his salt was able to hit an oyster, so your breathing holes and vision slits in the helmet were "inviting". Also it comes very unhealthy to have your horse shot at full canter, no armor whatsoever could prtect you from that rough landing.
Medieval steel seldom had more than .4 carbon contend, and the heat treatment wasn't that good, so in the early ages, it would be even worse.
Work-hardened bronze armor is nearly as good as steel, sometimes even better, but it was to expensive for "Joe Pheasant". But steel was easy to obtain and easier to work with, but the varying carbon and impurites content made the results a bit of a lottery. Some of the "magic" swords were simple luck with the perfect carbon and other elements mixture to produce real ood steel.
So cheap units were equipped with steel weapons and armor, and the noble ones had bronze equipment, steel finally superceeded bronze in quality in the early dark ages.
All these armors work rather well against cutting, but the force of the blow needs to be answered by heavy padding.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
History....
This used to drive me crazy. However, how valid would any tests be? e
For instance, the experimental archaeologists I've seen (on TV) don't seem to know how to cut. Also, we don't have enough real examples of original armour and weapons to know how representative they are.
Might I suggest the following approaches which satisfied me:
<i>1. What weapons did people carry to tackle the armour?</i>
For example, you can be fairly sure poleaxes can defeat plate armour because that's what people carried into plate on plate melees. One handed swords, on the other hand, don't often feature in such situations as weapon of choice. Where they do, people wrestle (unless they're Don Pero Nino).
You can probably take this further by assuming a no-overkill rule: the efficient weapon of choice will be just destructive enough, and no more.
<i>2. What happened in recorded combats?</i>
Circumstantial descriptions of combat do survive. You have to be careful e.g. because they may be exaggerated for effect, record only anomalous deeds (e.g. those of Don Pero Nino), or reflect out-dated artistic stereotypes (e.g. perhaps Homer). There are also bodies from some battles, e.g. Visby.
<i>3. What do the contemporary martial arts texts recommend?</i>
Some milieus do have documented martial arts. For example, 15th-century longsword texts recommend going around plate armour rather than through it.
For instance, the experimental archaeologists I've seen (on TV) don't seem to know how to cut. Also, we don't have enough real examples of original armour and weapons to know how representative they are.
Might I suggest the following approaches which satisfied me:
<i>1. What weapons did people carry to tackle the armour?</i>
For example, you can be fairly sure poleaxes can defeat plate armour because that's what people carried into plate on plate melees. One handed swords, on the other hand, don't often feature in such situations as weapon of choice. Where they do, people wrestle (unless they're Don Pero Nino).
You can probably take this further by assuming a no-overkill rule: the efficient weapon of choice will be just destructive enough, and no more.
<i>2. What happened in recorded combats?</i>
Circumstantial descriptions of combat do survive. You have to be careful e.g. because they may be exaggerated for effect, record only anomalous deeds (e.g. those of Don Pero Nino), or reflect out-dated artistic stereotypes (e.g. perhaps Homer). There are also bodies from some battles, e.g. Visby.
<i>3. What do the contemporary martial arts texts recommend?</i>
Some milieus do have documented martial arts. For example, 15th-century longsword texts recommend going around plate armour rather than through it.
"Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content" (REH's Conan)
-
Ypoknons
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 999
- Joined: 2003-05-13 06:02am
- Location: Manhattan (school year), Hong Kong (vacations)
- Contact:
The topic specified ancient, and hence we are talking about pre-medieval times, closer to 600bc-200or400ad. Iron plate was fairly rarely outside of the lorica segmentata; chain remains as it always was.
As opposed to medieval times the users would have been exposed to less arrows in Western Europe. Crete had a tradition of archery; but the Romans, Iberians, and Greeks used a large amount of slingers. Archery, both mounted and dismounted, was predominent in what we call today the Middle East. Troops also had to face a large amount of javelins; here is a list of javelin happy troops off the top of my head:
Romans
Most legionnaires until basically the fall in the West.
Iberians
Scutarii and other lesser troops.
Gaul and British tribes
Gaesatae and many others.
Carthage
Troops arrayed Roman fashion.
Mercenaries - Celts, Iberians etc...
Greeks and Sucessors
Peltasts
Certain Macedonian elites at varying times.
I love Europa Barbarorum, but in arguments I would love to have access to their sources (it's hard in Hong Kong). But most are hard to dispute; some Livy and the like available on the internet, so I can cite some if required.
Spears were common; common sword names include the Kopis, various Gladius types, falcatas etc... All rather short, I must say. The Gaul used longer swords of varying quality.
As opposed to medieval times the users would have been exposed to less arrows in Western Europe. Crete had a tradition of archery; but the Romans, Iberians, and Greeks used a large amount of slingers. Archery, both mounted and dismounted, was predominent in what we call today the Middle East. Troops also had to face a large amount of javelins; here is a list of javelin happy troops off the top of my head:
Romans
Most legionnaires until basically the fall in the West.
Iberians
Scutarii and other lesser troops.
Gaul and British tribes
Gaesatae and many others.
Carthage
Troops arrayed Roman fashion.
Mercenaries - Celts, Iberians etc...
Greeks and Sucessors
Peltasts
Certain Macedonian elites at varying times.
I love Europa Barbarorum, but in arguments I would love to have access to their sources (it's hard in Hong Kong). But most are hard to dispute; some Livy and the like available on the internet, so I can cite some if required.
Spears were common; common sword names include the Kopis, various Gladius types, falcatas etc... All rather short, I must say. The Gaul used longer swords of varying quality.