Login

Alexandr K · 03-19-2004, 06:28 PM

Hi, 
Goldsworthy in his "Roman Army at War 100BC-AD200" has also examined the effectiveness of Roman defensive equipment. He has also made comparison to the battle of Wisby. He has concluded, that the armour gave the soldier good protection against serious wounds, but he was more vulnerable against cuts and thrusts to limbs. He writes: "Not covered by the shield were the legs, particularly the left leg which was nearer the enemy, the right arm and the head. Interestingly it is precisely these areas, the head, the right arm and legs, where the vast majority of the wounds, judged to have been inflicted in combat, occurred at Wisby. ... Most cuts to the legs or arms would have been weakening to the victim, but not incapacitating. A succession of such minor wounds might have eventually reduced his strength and ability to wound his attacker. The man might then have been killed by a more serious blow to the head, now that he was less able to defend himself. Alternatively, lesser wounds, especially to the legs, might have prevented a man from escaping when his unit fled." 
 
Greetings 
Alexandr

03-19-2004, 06:52 PM

HA! That's what I said....!!! Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

aitor iriarte · 03-19-2004, 07:21 PM

Folks, 
 
The report of the excavation of a mass grave from the War of the Roses Townton battle revealed that the fellows had been finished by several more blows (sword, axe, etc) after they had fallen. 
 
Aitor

Matthew Amt · 03-19-2004, 08:27 PM

Avete! 
Okay, I think we're all on the same sheet of music about armored men still being hit where they aren't armored. (Whew!) 
 
Pericles911 mentioned the point I was going to make about Cannae, that most of the legionaries wore only the small pectoral plate. And archery was not a big factor in that battle--those men were all killed up-close and personal. 
 
As I alluded to earlier, the reason the Romans didn't bother using axes and maces is that their opponents were largely unarmored. The reason their opponents didn't use them is that they usually fought each other, and they weren't armored! It's only when they fought armored Romans that they ran into trouble, and that's just too damn bad! 
 
The Greek muscled cuirass is not necessarily any heavier than a lorica. They were forged bronze, not cast, and could have been expertly work-hardened, though I'm not sure any studies have been done. (I HAVE seen mention of a study that found Greek bronze helmets being hardened after a particular date, though I don't recall the details.) The reason the belly is a target for a man in a muscled cuirass is that its bottom edge is about at the bottom of your rib cage, to allow you to bend and move. So it's really the lower belly and groin which are targets. (The lorica can cover the belly because it's articulated.) Tests that have been done with bronze shields (bronze age types) of the proper alloy and properly work-hardened, and they are (surprise!) very resistant to weapons. Same old story, if you stand there and let a guy plant a spear into you with a two-handed thrust, you're going to the hospital! But it will keep off the majority of the bumps, slices, prods, and pokes that are coming your way in a typical battle. 
 
One interesting thing I've heard about those skeletons from Towton is that they had all manner of fresh and healed wounds to bones in their heads and extremities--and not a mark on the torsos. Because they wore body armor. This was in the age when the longbowmen were a major force in practically every battle in England. 
 
You know, as plain as it is which side I'm on in this debate, I just wouldn't trust any armor to keep me perfectly safe in an arrow storm! Head-to-toe steel, and I'd still be convinced that some turkey with a 2-dollar bow was going to have his Lucky Day at the same moment that I have a Bad Day. I think I'll go work on the trebuchet crew, or something... 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

03-20-2004, 08:15 AM

OK. Really interesting. So the situation is this: 
 
1) Lorica hamata was not arrow-proof nor sword-proof. 
 
2) Lorica segmentata was arrow and sword-proof. At least in a good percentage of cases. 
 
3) Obviously, is always better target che naked spots. 
 
Valete 
 
Germanicus

03-20-2004, 02:54 PM

There is no doubt that arrows were efficient against enemy troops whether armoured or not. 
It seems that at Marathon the Greeks ran towards the Persians to avoid the shower of arrows and get within hand to hand distance as fast as they could. 
According to Connolly, at Platea, the Plateans lost their nerves and charged the Persian line after being subjected to continuous volleys of arrows for some time. 
The heroes at Thermopyles were finished off with arrows so numerous that they "obscured the sky". That is what Darius threatened them with anyways. 
To which Leonidas answered with the famous: "good, then we'll fight in the shade". 
Spartan humour.. 
At Carrhae, I suspect that after a while the Parthians horse archers just stood on their horses a few yards away from the roman lines and shot at leisure at almost point blank range. The Romans had nothing to shoot back with. 
If contemporary witnesses say that, sometimes, arrows went through shields I tend to think it is true. I am no bowman but from what I've read, the composite bow is a very powerful weapon. 
Of course, the proficiency of a Parthian horse archer, trained since very early age both at riding and using a bow is something very few people could attain nowadays. However I know that some modern bow hunters can hit birds in flight, and that gives an idea of what Parthian horse archers could do with bow and arrow. Not only were they able to shoot many arrows in a very short time, but I suspect that they were also deadly accurate with aimed shots. 
I am surprised at these bodkin points not being hardened. You never know.. 
At Agincourt, I think the french defeat has more to do with the utter tactical incompetence of the french nobility than with the efficiency of the longbow. Or at least as much. 
I wonder it the ancients had snipers tasked to kill the officers...

Wagnijo · 03-20-2004, 04:22 PM

From a paper in 'The spoils of victory' on the Germanic armies 
by Xenia Pauli Jensen, Lars JÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¸rgensen and Ulla Lund Hansen. 
 
"At the start of period C1b of the younger Roman ironage, 
ie shortly after 200 CE arrowheads begin to appear in burials 
all over Europe north of the Limes. South of the Danish area 
it is typically broad leaf shaped arrowheads of iron while it in 
the Nordic area is penetrating warheads of triangular or square 
cross section............... This warhead is designed to penetrate the rings of a mailshirt. The bows used was powerfull longbows of yew........................Trials with copies 
from peatbog sacrifices show an effective range of at least 130-140m" - my fast translation 
 
The paper goes on to tell that the shields was 
made more resistent to arrows since the old types simply would split on impact - this was also tested in trials. 
 
So a germanic arrowshower would likely aim at disabling the enemy and take out the shields from a distance more than penetrating armour plates and kill. 
 
Cheers 
Wagnijo

03-22-2004, 12:08 AM

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that medieval mail was quite capable of resisting arrows, even lance thrusts. 
 
Firstly there were several types of mail. Several documents indicate two categories: "haubert de guerre", and "haubert de joute". Hauberts de joute were mail hauberks specifically designed to be worn for jousting. The josting lances during this time period were war lances with sharp tips, yet this mail was considered capable of resisting them. 
 
Ffoulkes includes entries from 1316 and 1398 on the proof level of mail in France that suggests 4 proof levels. The higher levels were quite capable of resisting arrows. 
 
The following passage comes from "Chronicon Colmariense" dated to 1398. 
 
the author states that men at arms wore, "camisiam ferream, ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare." 
 
translation: "an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow of a bow could wound a person." 
 
There is the previously mentioned anecdote regarding uninjured crusaders with multiple arrows sticking from them after an engagement. 
 
A sergeant during the seige of Constantinople in 1204 crawled on his hands and knees through a postern gate while the Byzantine defenders struck him with all kinds of weapons. Then he stood up and cleared a path so that his fellows could follow him through the small opening. 
 
The Fair of Lincoln was an urban engagement involving crossbows at fairly close range yet only one sergeant was killed. Also, William Marshall received many blows to the head and shoulders from the Count of Perche (who was considered a very capable warrior) yet the count could not penetrate William's mail. 
 
The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh, recounts an anecdote in which he personally jumped his horse over a low wall and struck what he thought to be an unarmored crusader in the side with his lance, nearly knocking the Frank from his saddle and causing him to lose his helmet and shield. When he turned his horse to see the results, he saw the man sitting unharmed on his horse waiting for his servants to fetch the dropped gear. A rip in his silk surcoat revealed a hauberk underneath. 
 
At Bouvines in 1214 only a couple of knights were killed out of many hundreds. There are many documented attacks with swords, daggers, etc., failing because of their mail hauberks. 
 
The chronicles are consistent in indicating that mail was more than capable of resisting most battlefield weapons of the time. 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 1:10 am

03-22-2004, 04:21 AM

I find that pretty difficult to swallow that chian mail was impervious to missile fire, regardless of era (how did this become a medieval discussion?). These examples you gave were singular "anecdotes" as you put them. But, were they the law, or the exception? They also don't describe the blunt trauma suffered from arrow/weapon impacts, whether the mail was punctured or not. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

03-22-2004, 06:02 AM

Not all of my post consisted of ancedotes. It is fairly conclusive that "hauberts de joute" were considered proof against lances. Nobody is certain how this mail was manufactured though. Some sources also mention "double mail" and it is fairly certain that this was proof against arrows. Again, nobody knows for certain what "double mail" was. It is also certain that there were different grades of mail and they were considered proof against certain weapons. There is little doubt that higher grades of mail was considered proof against arrows. The probem is that we don't know what the differences were between the various types of mail. It is foolish to claim that all mail was completely resistant against arrows. It is equally foolish to claim the opposite. 
 
There have been two recent sets of tests done by the Royal Armouries. Both involving accurate replicas of longbows and contemporary arrows. One involved testing the penetration of plate armour. The other involved testing the penetration of mail. Hardy's recent publicaton of "Longbow" and Dr. Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" both have details of these tests. The mail test involved firing a Mary Rose replica against a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination in the 14th century). The conclusion was that this combination was proof against Mary Rose longbows. 
 
It became a medieval discussion because there is little functional difference between medieval mail and Roman mail. The main difference is that medieval mail covered more of the body. Many of the conclusions one can draw about medieval mail can be applied to Roman mail. 
 
As Matt has already said, arrows do not need to penetrate armour to be effective. The majority of soldiers did not wear much in the way of armour and it is possible to destroy an army without scratching a decent piece of armour. Arrows are also good for neutralising cavalry charges, and as an "area denial" weapon. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 7:15 am

aitor iriarte · 03-22-2004, 06:57 AM

And Matt, about blunt trauma, you musn't forget the thick padded undergarment worn under the mail. All Roman re-enactors (included those in my group ) should start using subarmales to give the public a more accurate idea on how Roman soldiers looked like! 
 
Aitor

03-22-2004, 10:36 AM

I think the problem is that we have seen too many Hollywood movies! soldiers being killed by a single blow or a single arrow, falling with all kind of funny gesture. Unlike in the movies, battles could last for hors or even days, along all that time a soldier could receive multiple blows and minor injuries, so that what I picture is that most of the kills would be rather an attritional process, especially for those well armored. Besides, wounded always outnemberd killed in action, but nevertheless as they are unable to keep fighting they are casualties. Finally, as we all know, most of the casualties in battle originated in the rout,with soldiers trampled down and when even a fully armored men at arms could be killed at leisure.

03-22-2004, 11:17 AM

As far as I know all ancient mail recovered was a "four in one" weave. One ring passing through four others. 
But in the Middle-ages mail could be also "four in six" or even "four in eight", making it far more dense. 
Also what is described as "mail" in the Middle-ages was not always mail. According to some medievalists, anothert system may have consisted of rows of round scales overlapping horizontally. 
Some medieval scuptures and copper engravings indeed show a difference between both types. 
About arrows: more often than not, arrows were poisoned., increasing greatly the lethality. Late empire authors mention Gemans (Franks) shooting poisoned arrows. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/22/04 12:17 pm

03-22-2004, 12:18 PM

Firstly you are confusing the medieval definition of mail with the Victorian definition of mail. For some unfathonable reason Victorian scholars used the word "mail" as a general term for armour - ring mail, plate mail, scale mail, etc. The medieval definition of mail was the same as ours - armour made from interlinked rings forming a mesh. Mail comes from the French "maille" which is derived from the Italian "maglia" which is derived from the latin "macula". 
 
Secondly, every single documented piece of European medieval mail is 4-in-1. There is only one exception and that is the standard in the British Museum which has a 6-in-1 collar. This standard does not date to the medieval period and it is likely that the 6-in-1 section was a later addition again. 
 
Thirdly, regarding the round scales. If you are referring to the so-called "ring armour" which consisted of metal rings sewn onto a fabric/leather foundation then there is absolutely no evidence that this was ever utilised in Europe. Apparently it was (rarely) utilised in Asia. I know of two examples, both of which are depicted on pg 22 of Stone's Glossary. The first was from Alaska and consisted of Japanese and Chinese coins sewn onto leather. The second may have come from northeastern Asia and consists of iron and brass rings sewn onto leather. 
 
Fourth, poison has absolutely no immediate effect on the battlefield and did nothing to contribute to the outcome of a battle. Poison, which was not used anywhere near as frequently as you imply, only took effect after a battle. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 3/22/04 1:22 pm

03-22-2004, 02:02 PM

Well, firstly I didn't confuse anything with the Victorian definition of maille since I didn't even know there was one. But thanks for letting me know there was. I am being enlightened. 
 
Secondly, as a rule in archeology, absence of evidence does not mean anything but this: absence of evidence. Besides your reference to different grades of mail looks pretty much like evidence to me. I don't know what "double mail" is, but there are only two solutions: two layers of mail, or one ring in eight. Whatever it is, it means twice the amout of mail per square inch. 
 
Thirdly: What I am referring to is a system of scales --or rings, the jury is out on this-- laced horizontally and overlapping. Not to the undocumented system of rings sewn side by side to a leather backing to which you refer. 
Some people who know far more than I do think there is a lot of evidence for that scales system. It is called in old french "maille quasiguesnÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©e", which means "almost sheathed mail". 
After having looked at that evidence I tend to think they're right. That construction was largely used in Asia (Sind armour) and the byzantine lamellar system is also based on scales laced horizontally --and not vertically as well-- on a leather or fabric backing. 
In this case the sculptural representation was also zigzagging vertical lines similar to the representation of mail. However mail hangs differently and the sculptural evidence shows that difference. 
There were several other ways to construct scale armour, differing from the "classic" scale in that the scales were for instance nailed to a leather backing instead of being sewn on. 
The scales could be square or round and could be nailed to the backing in the upper part (haute clouure) or in the middle (mi-clouure). They could also be "lacÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©es", "rustrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©es" ou "maclÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©es". 
 
Fourth: I wrote that poison increased lethality. I didn't say anything about how quickly it killed. Dipping arrow points in dung or feces was a common practice and Roman history amply demonstrates that the ancient knew what poison means. (see Locust..) 
But the ancient authors Sulpicius Alexander and Gregory of Tours stand corrected.. My congratulations on your knowledge of toxicology. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/22/04 5:55 pm

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Technological studies on Bronze Age metal body armour	Steven James	0	908	12-28-2016, 12:21 PM Last Post: Steven James
	Men of Bronze: Experimental approaches to the first body armour in the Aegean and Eur	Steven James	0	1,064	09-25-2016, 05:59 AM Last Post: Steven James
	Arrows Against Linen and Leather Armour	Steven James	1	1,857	09-21-2016, 07:41 AM Last Post: MonsGraupius