07-13-2007, 11:47 PM
I would point out one thing that always seems to be overlooked when discussing things like this- someone hitting your armor is the LAST thing that should happen, it's a LAST line of defense. Moving, parrying with weapons, and most definitely the shield all keep you from having to rely on your armor, so I'd say being too concerned with every detail of its performance IF it's ever hit might be a touch 'modern'. We're forced for legal reasons to design the hell out of things and consider every eventuality- do you really think the Romans did? I think it's very doubtful.
With a somewhat bunched-up tunica under ones' lorica there's virtual 'built-in' padding, and the overlapping nature of the plates does a good job of dispursing energy. Most of the weight is borne on the shoulders, so comfort padding is good there so as not to cause injury over time marching, drilling, building, etc.. Or maybe not enve that because remember Roman soldiers were TOUGH. Anything short of a broken rib or clavicle or a dislocated shoulder might have been just a matter of course. And in truth just how much force would be necessary to cause the real significant injuries and would a bit more padding really make a difference?
I think it benefits us to remember that battles were infrequent, soldiers actually being hit devestatingly on their armor even less frequent and for a blow to be debilitating but for a little more padding even more unlikely. I'd say it's far more likely that such a blow would be mortal thus padding would be irrelevant.
It's like thinking of the 'active stability control' and all the other little gadgets cars can come with nowadays- they really only add tiny fractions of a percent to the chance a disasterous accident will be aoided, but in the vast majority of cases they're irrelevant and might as well not have been there at all.
The Romans were very practical- so which makes more sense: that they might have had some padding as soldiers found it desirable but kept to a minimum for reasons of carriage, heat, etc. and as variable as you can ger, or that they had a great deal of standard padding to protect from every possible strike on their body armor 'just in case'?
With a somewhat bunched-up tunica under ones' lorica there's virtual 'built-in' padding, and the overlapping nature of the plates does a good job of dispursing energy. Most of the weight is borne on the shoulders, so comfort padding is good there so as not to cause injury over time marching, drilling, building, etc.. Or maybe not enve that because remember Roman soldiers were TOUGH. Anything short of a broken rib or clavicle or a dislocated shoulder might have been just a matter of course. And in truth just how much force would be necessary to cause the real significant injuries and would a bit more padding really make a difference?
I think it benefits us to remember that battles were infrequent, soldiers actually being hit devestatingly on their armor even less frequent and for a blow to be debilitating but for a little more padding even more unlikely. I'd say it's far more likely that such a blow would be mortal thus padding would be irrelevant.
It's like thinking of the 'active stability control' and all the other little gadgets cars can come with nowadays- they really only add tiny fractions of a percent to the chance a disasterous accident will be aoided, but in the vast majority of cases they're irrelevant and might as well not have been there at all.
The Romans were very practical- so which makes more sense: that they might have had some padding as soldiers found it desirable but kept to a minimum for reasons of carriage, heat, etc. and as variable as you can ger, or that they had a great deal of standard padding to protect from every possible strike on their body armor 'just in case'?
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
