Bronze scale questions

[Virilis]

The simplest forms of bows had just around 20 pounds... Still suitable for hunting, apparently..
For more information:

Niels Bleicher, Optimale Anpassung oder Tradition? Technologische Aspekte antiker Bogenwaffen Mitteleuropas im Vergleich, in:
Fansa (ed.) Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa. Bilanz 2005. Heft 4, 2006, 21-26.

Rudolf Walter, Gaëlle Rosendahl und Wilfried Rosendahl, Experimente zur Verwendung des „Mannheimer Bogens“ als Schießbogen, in:
Fansa (ed.) Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa. Bilanz 2005. Heft 4, 2006, 27-33. (A bit early, I admit, but not so different from later bows)

Reconstructions of the Alamannic yew bow from Oberflacht ( ca. 500 CE ) have between 30 and 70 pounds, with an average of 50 pounds.
[url:3nmmr7pu]http://www.pfeil-bogen.de/oberflachtzug.htm[/url]

Thanks for the info Christian! No wonder late romans didn`t face very formidable archers, at least in the west :wink: ...

[caiusbeerquitius]

So how thick were those scales? 0.3mm? And just how much padding is underneath?

Those scales are 0,25 mm, the padding is felt in linen inside and outside, together ca. 1,5cm.
Along the germanic and raetian limes the majority of scales found derives from the late 2nd and 3rd c. CE, ang there the majority is plain flat. e.g. from Pfünz:

[Matt Lukes]

15mm of felt and linen? Well geez- THAT'S what stopped the arrow LOL Did anyone happen to try a control to see how the padding alone performed? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the scales were shown to be nearly incidental... LOL I know there are a couple of examples of the subgarment to which scales were attached, which was not likely going to stop much since the weave wasn't tight and the threads quite large, but the nature of the underpadding is completely theoretical, no? Choosing something so significant would seem to be not the best choice since it is going to significantly impede realizing just how the metal portion actually performs. I'd think it actually best to use little if anything to really understand how the armour behaves...

But then this is all getting a bit off-topic I suppose- it's clear that the thickness of metal and the type depends on just what type of scale one is interested in- there's a spectrum (which was actually said right at the beginning LOL)

[caiusbeerquitius]

The specifications for the fabric composition were given by the University of Regensburg, apparently based on research AND archaeological evidence. I just made the thing, then. Funny enough, the damaged scales look 100% like original damaged scales. In that the nature of the textile armour seems to be quite exactly of the nature than what was used in the reco. The scales are certainly NOT incidental. They provide the textile "armour" with a stable surface, the spring-like quality of the metal on the fabric, especially when regarding the thread between the scales, deflects blows very well: a splendid composite armour.

[Iosephus]

Yes I know. But the shot in the picture would hurt.

Sorry, but which picture?
I cannot see any.

Could anybody direct me to it?

Thanks!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes I know. But the shot in the picture would hurt.

Sorry, but which picture?
I cannot see any.

Could anybody direct me to it?

Thanks!

Hmmmm, seems they have split threads again for some reason.

@ Matt, it only makes sense to include the subarmalis or padding whne testing armour, at least in my way of thinking.
Metal on unpadded flesh and bone is just another way for the enemy to damage you. hock:

[caiusbeerquitius]

No, I removed the pics, because I first wanted to check if it´s O.K. to post them before the publication is out. I just checked, and it is O.K.
So here they are.

For private use only.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahhh ok! Das ist gut!

[Iosephus]

Thank you Christian!

So the scales on the picture are made of 0,25 thin brass?

[caiusbeerquitius]

No, bronze.

[Iosephus]

Thanks again

[Matt Lukes]

The specifications for the fabric composition were given by the University of Regensburg, apparently based on research AND archaeological evidence. I just made the thing, then. Funny enough, the damaged scales look 100% like original damaged scales. In that the nature of the textile armour seems to be quite exactly of the nature than what was used in the reco. The scales are certainly NOT incidental. They provide the textile "armour" with a stable surface, the spring-like quality of the metal on the fabric, especially when regarding the thread between the scales, deflects blows very well: a splendid composite armour.

So there's more to underpadding that's no generally known? Okay, well we'll see what this evidence is comprised of I guess. I was hardly commenting on the accuracy anyway, just the signficance- obviously 15mm of linen and felt is going to affect the situation greatly and thus cloud the performance of the actual armour; this test is of an armour 'system' to use a modern term. And since there's no question about the scales' dimensions, material, etc., of course damage of one form or another looks the same as some artifacts.

You didn't answer the question about a control though- just how much differently the arrow penetrated without the scales in place would show whether or not they play a really significant role or not. And I was clearly only talking about the arrow shot- you're melding in any attack there. Of course, like I said way back, scales do a good job of deflecting blows- it's penetrations that are where it seems less-effective when very thin. This demonstration doesn't counter my statement since it's clearly the extreme padding that seems to do much of the work. I was talking about the actual armour- scales and subgarment, not padding. Nobody discusses padding direclty with plate armour, or mail or really any other form, yes? In the case of Roman stuff with good reason- the nature is pretty much unknown. What examining the actual armour does is shed some light on what the padding might have been- because super-thin scales don't seem to provide much defense against penetrations, one could infer that the padding may have been more significant, whereas with thicker scales, correspondingly less was necessary. And so on...

[Matt Lukes]

@ Matt, it only makes sense to include the subarmalis or padding whne testing armour, at least in my way of thinking.
Metal on unpadded flesh and bone is just another way for the enemy to damage you. hock:

Well what about this Byron- just how did the metal portion perform here do you think? And how does it compare to other, thicker scales? How can you tell if there are other significant factors affecting the results? We're obviously not talking about efficacy of protecting against wounds, but specifically the scales and how they perform. Look at the subject of the thread :wink:

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, in this case the scales are sewn directly to the padding... To test this armour meant not to test the single components.
There was another piece of lamellar tested, which performed way worse, the scales having had identical thickness. Assuming a thread between the scales of the lamellar, however, would have brought basically identical or maybe even slightly better results. Also tested was a segmentata, which performed better. The scale armour is way more comfortable and lighter, though...

The arrow alos hit the area without scales one or twice, and went right through... so the scales indeed made quite a difference. One arrow even bounced.

Tests were made with sword, pilum, hasta, and bow & arrow. Tests were made on scale, lamellar, segmentata, and a shield...
Results will be published sooner or later...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK Matt, how can you test the scales on their own though?
If you suspend them the ywillmove aside when struck, if you mount them on something, then they will be affected by whatever you mount them on.
If you mount them in a frame, they will need to be tensioned, again affecting their response....

I guess I am just looking at how the yreacted as the ywere ment to be used.
Other wise you need to test them in a lab with high tech equipment.........I guess.