Segmentata - with or without subarmalis?

[Dan Howard]

Dan, as someone who has worked in a military hospital and seen combat wounds up close, I find it hard to accept your view on blunt force trauma.

If Greeks and Romans faced modern military firepower then you might have a point. An AK47 delivers over 2000 J. A 150 lb English longbow shooting heavy war arrows delivers less than 100 J at a range of 10 yards. The bows faced by Greeks and Romans deliver even less.

In any case, most known Roman armour types are not rigid, but flexible, including segmentata. There are probably better people on RAT than me to talk about the effectiveness of arrows at ten yards' distance, so I won't, but if you are talking about the bow's ability to penetrate. that is a different issue to that of blunt force trauma, where the shock travels straight through the armor to whatever the armour is in contact with underneath.

The energy doesn't travel straight through to the wearer; a signifiicant part of it is dissipated throughout the structure and spent distorting the metal. FWIW this is the best warbow test we have; it is heavily biased against the armour but the results are still useful.
http://www.tforum.info/forum/index.php?a...t&id=13822

Ignore the authors' speculation and just look at the data. They try to justify the poor performance of their arrows by claiming that the blunt trauma would have incapacitated the wearer anyway but their own figures contradict that. They use 80J as the threshold for incapacitation but that figure comes from the Health and Safety Executive that deals with industrial explosions against a person who is wearing no armour. Ballistics studies done by the NIJ and others suggest that it requires far far more than that on the outside of armour to seriously affect the wearer.

[Scipio Second]

Joe,

Good question. The sub terminates at the end of the shoulder bone. I have attached studded leather straps to the sub to hang over the upper part of my arm. To answer your question, I have full range of motion. Although the sub was intended to act as padding, it helps absorb a blow.

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre A. Kleff, Jr.)

[M. Val. Naso]

studded leather straps

[Crispvs]

Joe,
Those re-enactors look to be members of the Ermine Street Guard to me. Graham can probably confirm that. I don't know if they may use them now, but on occasions I have been out with them I have never known anyone other than Chris Haines and Martin White (the optio) in the ESG to wear a subarmalis.

Dan,
Most modern combat injuries are not caused by gunshots, so the AK47 example is misguided. Most are caused by shrapnel, stones and shards of glass kicked up by explosions. Despite the explosive force at the centre of an explosion, the men who survive are normally further away and are injured by flying debris which has already lost much of its force. However, I have seen very serious blunt force trauma injuries, often sustained through modern Kevlar or dragontooth body armour. Therefore I am not talking from some theoretical study but from empirical observation. The difference between being injured and not being injured is often a matter of whether a man is wearing a T-shirt under his body armour or a proper combat jacket. Even a small amount of padding makes a difference. That would be no less true in ancient times.

Crispvs

[Dan Howard]

It depends on the flexibility of the armour and the energy of the projectiles when they hit but if you think that armoured soldiers have to worry about projectiles with less than 100 J at the point of impact then you seriously underestimate the effectiveness of body armour - ancient or modern.

[Crispvs]

On the matter of an armour's ability to deform or flex as a means of dissipating much of the energy of a blow, we are in agreement and a trawl through my postings over the years will show numerous occasions where I have argued in favour of that very thing. What I am arguing against here is your assertion that blunt force trauma is a thing of little consequence. I am well aware of the effectiveness of armour against glancing blows or blows involving a low level of force - the mass grave from the Battle of Towton where the men appear to have suffered blows almost exclusively to the neck and back of the head but none to the torso, shoulders or upper arms as they ran away is probably eloquent evidence of this. However, armour is rarely designed for defence against only glancing blows.
Your argument seems to be based on the effectiveness of arrows against armour, but to the ancient soldier this would mainly be an issue if fighting in an eastern sphere. In the west of the Ancient World javelins and sling stones were far more common as projectiles and in practiced hands, both would be likely to apply a greater level of force than an arrow, as would long swords, thrusting spears, falces, axes and clubs. It is true that the ability of scale and especially mail to flex would dissipate a degree of the force of impact, as would the ability of segmentata to dent as well as flex, but padding would also be required at the point where the armour surface was pressed against the body by the weapon, even if some of the energy had been dissipated by the armour.

Metallic or horn armour should always be thought of as one half of a two part system. The outer (hard) layer wards off glancing and low powered blows, as well as stopping the underlying padding from being cut up. The inner (padded) layer backs the hard outer layer and lessens the risk of blunt force trauma transferring through the outer layer to the soldier's body. Thus the two work on harmony with each other.

Attention moderators - this thread is still located on the wrong forum - can it be moved to the correct place please?

Crispvs

[Bryan]

It depends on the flexibility of the armour and the energy of the projectiles when they hit but if you think that armoured soldiers have to worry about projectiles with less than 100 J at the point of impact then you seriously underestimate the effectiveness of body armour - ancient or modern.

Sling bullets are rated at 20-60 J last I read. They were notorious for causing damage to even armored infantry due to shock trauma. Maybe the Joules can't be a good measurement for damage.

100 MPH fastball: 230 Joules
Downward one handed thrust with the buttspike of a spear (coup de grace): 50 Joules

Now I've been hit by pretty fast pitches in the side, arms and legs and they hurt a lot but I survived easily with nothing broken, I think because the object was soft and large. Meanwhile, even a dull buttspike would probably cause much more damage thrusted into someone's side, being hard and concentrating force in a single point. So concerning just Joules, its apples and oranges in comparison.

To test flexible armor (to include modern kevlar ballistic vests), I believe they use clay underneath to simulate blunt force trauma to gauge depth and width of injury even when the armor stops the threat. From the tests I've seen, armor like mail or possibly even scale means needing an under layer of padding to maximize protection or else the hits against it can cause deep contusions, broken bones, burst blood vessels, etc. I don't think they are absolutely necessary, its a trade off. Someone wearing something like mail might be willing to sustain bruising or even a broken rib, in lieu of a sucking chest wound, if it means not having to wear a bulky, heavy, and hot padded linen/leather/wool subarmalis. Let's face it, most ancient warriors didn't wear torso armor at all, and even Roman infantry mostly wore nothing but a 12" plate strapped to their chest for the better part of their early history.

Likewise, I don't think an armor as rigid as segmentata would actually need padding underneath for anything other than comfort and to protect the wearer's normal tunic from oil from the armor as well wear and tear from rubbing of iron and leather. From my understanding the segmented iron plating was often hard enough to stop most types of weaponry commonly faced by an infantryman, being thick enough and properly heat treated.

Dan, I have one question regarding something I've seen you write a few times. You claim that padding would often be attached directly to the underneath of armor, negating the need for a separate padded layer. While I think this could definitely work for most rigid armor types that clasp on the wearer's sides, like segmentata, musculata, or squamata, how would it work with hamata/mail? I've never worn an actual shirt of mail, but from what I've seen, its not the easiest to don:
Viking Hauberk

Now if you attached a padded liner to the interior, wouldn't it make it too rigid to slip on over the head?

[Dan Howard]

Sling bullets are rated at 20-60 J last I read. They were notorious for causing damage to even armored infantry due to shock trauma.

Do you have a cite for this?

Dan, I have one question regarding something I've seen you write a few times. You claim that padding would often be attached directly to the underneath of armor, negating the need for a separate padded layer. While I think this could definitely work for most rigid armor types that clasp on the wearer's sides, like segmentata, musculata, or squamata, how would it work with hamata/mail? I've never worn an actual shirt of mail, but from what I've seen, its not the easiest to don:
Viking Hauberk

Which part of this video did you want me to comment on? One of my mail shirts had some padding stitched to the inside. It could be put on in a few seconds by slipping it over the head like a t-shirt but it was harder to take off because it didn't roll off the way unlined mail does. There are a few examples of mail with fabric on the inside and outside - examples include the kazaghand, jazerant, and gestron. Here is a kazaghand from the Topkapı Palace Museum.


A lot of Japanese mail was lined with padded textiles as well.

Now if you attached a padded liner to the interior, wouldn't it make it too rigid to slip on over the head?

Armour lining has nowhere near enough padding to make it rigid - same with a proper subarmalis. Under padding wasn't much thicker than a winter tunic. Padding thick enough to be rigid was worn by itself, as armour in its own right, not under other armour.

[Nathan Ross]

Someone wearing something like mail might be willing to sustain bruising or even a broken rib... if it means not having to wear a bulky, heavy, and hot padded linen/leather/wool subarmalis.

The 'Persian' skeleton from the Tower 19 countermine at Dura Europos was apparently wearing some kind of padded garment beneath mail. Simon James's Final Report (p.116) mentions 'an unidentified light brown fibrous material, not a woven fabric, which is original and not part of the conservation treatment [of the mail itself] as it is fused into the oxides.' James suggests this is 'the remains of a padded felt 'arming doublet''

So it seems this unfortunate person was willing to wear a padded subarmalis under his mail when going down a narrow tunnel in one of the hottest parts of the empire (even if he was 'Persian'!)... hock:

One of my mail shirts had some padding stitched to the inside... A lot of Japanese mail was lined with padded textiles as well.

I know we've discussed the 'mail liner' idea before, but I still don't see any evidence (or need) for it in the ancient world. Many of the Dura mail fragments, and others from disparate places, have a few rows of decorative copper butted rings at the hems, which would be pointless if these hems were covered by the stitched edges of an integral liner.

[Bryan]

Sling bullets are rated at 20-60 J last I read. They were notorious for causing damage to even armored infantry due to shock trauma.

Do you have a cite for this?

For the Joules part, I used info from a few sources, such as Gabriel and Metz's From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, as well as some other websites I found online.Though I don't know the formulas to calculate joules, to my untrained eye, these figures seem pretty low.Some of the online sources:
Lethality of Stone forum debate

This website says that slings range from 10-300 J.
A New Take on Kinetic Energy (Slinging.org)

For effectiveness of sling against armored opponents, here are some sources I could pull quickly (LacusCurtius is down right now):
- Pompey order's to his men to make extra protection (wicker?) to cover their bronze and iron helmets from slinger threat (JC BC 3.62-63)
- P. Ventidius' victories against armored cataphract at the Battle of Mount Gindarus (Dio 49.20.1-3; Front Strat. 2.2.5)
- Aemilus Paullus wounded severely by sling stone at Cannae, despite armor (Liv. 22.49)
- Diodorus Siculus' description of Baleric Islanders ability to break armor with heavier than average sling stones

I'm sure there are other examples.

Nathan,

I don't doubt that many individuals wore padded subarmalis in spite of the heat, I'm just saying that some probably wouldn't have wanted to. Its a risk vs reward process. Little armor means light, cool, fast, but poorly protected. Too much armor means heavy, hot, and slow.

[Dan Howard]

My initial request was for a cite confirming that 20-60J was enough for a sling to cause shock trauma damage through armour.

For effectiveness of sling against armored opponents, here are some sources I could pull quickly (LacusCurtius is down right now):
- Pompey order's to his men to make extra protection (wicker?) to cover their bronze and iron helmets from slinger threat (JC BC 3.62-63)
- P. Ventidius' victories against armored cataphract at the Battle of Mount Gindarus (Dio 49.20.1-3; Front Strat. 2.2.5)
- Aemilus Paullus wounded severely by sling stone at Cannae, despite armor (Liv. 22.49)
- Diodorus Siculus' description of Baleric Islanders ability to break armor with heavier than average sling stones.

If these accounts are taken in the context of this thread then they seem to suggest that Romans weren't wearing padding underneath their armour.

[Bryan]

For effectiveness of sling against armored opponents, here are some sources I could pull quickly (LacusCurtius is down right now):
- Pompey order's to his men to make extra protection (wicker?) to cover their bronze and iron helmets from slinger threat (JC BC 3.62-63)
- P. Ventidius' victories against armored cataphract at the Battle of Mount Gindarus (Dio 49.20.1-3; Front Strat. 2.2.5)
- Aemilus Paullus wounded severely by sling stone at Cannae, despite armor (Liv. 22.49)
- Diodorus Siculus' description of Baleric Islanders ability to break armor with heavier than average sling stones.

If taken in the context of this thread then some of these accounts seem to suggest that they weren't wearing padding underneath their armour.

Don't know really. Maybe some did, maybe some didn't. Weren't helmets frequently lined internally? Did cataphracts line their scale or have padding underneath? Anyway, a weapon like a hard slung sling bullet is probably going to do some damage padding or not, slings seem to be a pretty effective weapons. But the padding seems to increase effectiveness of armor, especially flexible styles or those that sit directly against flesh.

[Dan Howard]

But what sort of padding? I content that you don't need anything thicker than a winter tunic - a few layers of linen, wool or cotton, a layer of felt, twine-woven textiles, or soft leather - and can produce examples of arming garments and lined armour from all over the world to support this. Padding any thicker than this wasn't worn under armour, but by itself as armour in its own right.

[Bryan]

But what sort of padding? I content that you don't need anything thicker than a winter tunic - a few layers of linen, wool or cotton, a layer of felt, twine-woven textiles, or soft leather - and can produce examples of arming garments and lined armour from all over the world to support this. Padding any thicker than this wasn't worn under armour, but by itself as armour in its own right.

Beats me. Maybe any "thick" layer of cloth under flexible armor, or to stop metal on bone contract between helmet and skull, was enough to at least soften the blow and transfer some energy. Its a trade off. The thicker the padding, the more energy it transfers, but then it becomes hot, heavy, more uncomfortable, more expensive to make, and harder to maintain.

Seems like a call for some experimental archaeology. Maybe a clay test would work. Lay a sheet of mail over it, hit it with various weapons. Examine penetration of clay (depth and width). Add various layers and varieties underneath and compare testing.

[Crispvs]

"I content that you don't need anything thicker than a winter tunic"

Back in my days of full contact combat re-enactment, we used to find that the minimum amount of padding required to prevent serious bruising and bleeding was three layers of blanket wool quilted between a layer either side of linen. SCA fighters I knew wore plate armour but with less padding than that and fractured bones were not uncommon, even from their supposedly safe rattan weapons.

"soft leather"
Are you mad? I challenge you to take a serious blow in armour and expect a layer of soft leather to dissipate the force which transfers through the armour.

"Padding any thicker than this wasn't worn under armour, but by itself as armour in its own right."

That is a very big statement to make. State your evidence for it please.


Moderators - this thread is still in the wrong forum!

Crispvs