Experiments on Reconstructed Armour?

[sulla felix]

Hi all,

Being fairly new to the forum I have been looking through the older threads with great interest. However, I have not seen anything on the boards relating to the effectiveness of Lorica armour in withstanding simulated battle conditions (not that I am volunteering to be the subject of such experiments hock: ).

It seems to me that segmentata for example would be quite effective at deflecting slashing blows with a sword, for example, but what about a good old thrust with a gladius?

Can anybody point me to any research on this?

[Dan Howard]

The most common threat on any battlefield was from arrows and spears. It seems to me that anyone who went to the expense and discomfort of wearing mail, segmented plate, scale, etc in battle did so because they expected it to protect from these threats. If a weapon was developed that reduced the effectiveness of a type of armour then one of two things would occur: either the armour would be augmented till it did protect from the new threat, or it would be discarded because the weight and expense could no longer be justified.

[Matthew Amt]

There have been all kinds of basic backyard tests, mostly reenactors whacking at their various repro loricae with whatever weapons they have. They aren't scientific tests, by any means, but the general conclusion seems to be that the armor is pretty good. I don't think anyone's managed to put a sword through one, for instance (swords aren't meant to do that, anyway!).

But proper scientific tests are much more difficult, since it is very hard to duplicate Roman metalworking to the degree necessary to produce a whole lorica, or enough for a test like that. Heck, we're still arguing about just how the Romans did it themselves! It's going to take quite a collection of historians, metallurgists, and smiths to come up with anything really reliable. In short, the armor we have is often a very nice visual representation of Roman armor, and quite functional, but we can't really be sure that it offers the same sort or degree of protection from weapons.

Once we get that nailed down, then we can start arguing about the accuracy of the weapons! You see what we're up against....

That said, nothing impresses a group of school kids more than stabbing yourself hard in the lorica with your pugio! The front of mine is covered with little dents. Like Dan said, the stuff must have worked enough for the guys wearing it.

Vale,

Matthew

[A_Volpe]

Armor is always going to be a tricky thing to fully "test" and get really consistent results....Just go on a Medieval board or Sword Forum and ask if a [crossbow or longbow] could punch through full plate steel.

Answer? Yes and No. Depends, Really...And it's gotta be one heckuva lucky shot..

And from what I know, the chances are better that one would get injured or killed from a shot that hit/penetrated an unprotected, or weakly-protected area than from a (lucky) direct, powerful, penetrating hit.
(there is also a favored target of the Breastplate/Cuirass...Which was specifically designed to protect from direct, heavy impacts ~ esspecially charged lances...whereas arm and leg guards were designed to be as flexible as possible while giving ok protection from "glancing" hits - in armored combat, the idea is to aim for the joints/articulation, unarmored areas, the eyeslot in the visor, or get into wrestling and pin the oponent...No point in wrecking your weapon on the armor, just jump the guy)

(I also think of the story of a mounted knight who, going to the rear ranks to get a drink of water, opened up his visor and bevor, and when looking back at the battle, was struck in the throat by a crossbow bolt or an arrow....Had he left it all closed up, he would have been fine....Sorry can't remember the specific reference on that)

I feel the same way about Roman armor, and Lor. Seggie.

There has been varying degrees of detailed testing/demonstrations of weapons on [Roman] armor, all with varying results, but for the most part, the armor DOES protect pretty darn well.

And really, this isn't meant to open a can of worms 50 pages long.

Think of it this way - If you're putting on armor that you're second-guessing the effectiveness of as you're heading into the fight, chances are good you're going to be mentally distracted with protecting your weak points [of the armor] that you'll be brought down when you won't see it coming.

I agree with our group's centurion's theory that the armor is there for a confidence boost...it's one less piece of body to worry about getting hit, combining this with the scutum and a helmet, and I know I feel pretty well protected 'behind' that shield, with extra protection of the armor.

metal armor had been is use in various, but similar forms, for over 3,000 years, protecting similar parts of the body against similar weapons, again of various but similar forms, for the same amount of time...So it was effective for what it was made for.

Matt and Dan said - It worked for them back then.
(and at that, if the armor wasn't doing as it would, we certainly would be sharing stories about how we "accidentally" stabbed ourselves by testing the weapon/armor on ourselves, whether or not infront of an audience!)

[Tarbicus]

If it was used for anywhere up to 300 years it must have been effective.