body armour and arrows

[Anonymous]

Hi! I'm Germanicus from Italy. Another question: could an arrow penetrate a lorica segmentata?<br>
I think yes but i've never tried on a reply.<br>
Did Junkelmann do it?<br>
Why, in the middle age, nobody used an amour like this?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>

[richsc]

Good idea, but I wonder if just shooting against various gauges of mild steel would demonstrate the same thing but in a more controlled way? Say, a recurved/parthian type bow against a sheet of 16 and 18 gauge mild steel? This way you can control the distances as well. <p>Legio XX<br>
Fortius Conamur<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!<br>
I doubt I'll be able to keep this from erupting into a huge debate involving all manner of physics, theory, dogma, opinion, and very little hard evidence, but it is very unlikely that arrows would actually pierce the plates of a lorica segmentata, at least on any regular basis. Even mail was much better protection than we used to think.<br>
<br>
There have been verbal wars fought over the same sort of topic amongst medievalists. In the latest scientific tests the experimenters (the Royal Armouries at Leeds) were unable to get an arrow shot from an English longbow to go through a piece of plate armor, even under optimal conditions. They were very surprised!<br>
<br>
Now, there are HUGE numbers of variables, for most of which we have very little solid data. Metal thickness and hardening, bow weight, arrow weight, point composition and shape, range, angle of strike, etc. Those who Believe In The Longbow brought up all kinds of physics, calculating joules and psi left and right, telling us how the arrow doesn't reach its full energy until 20 or 30 feet after it leaves the bow because it is still flexing, that sort of thing. The Armor Guys keep repeating that there are VERY few accounts from the middle ages of arrows actually penetrating a piece of armor, though men were often hit by arrows that hit a bare spot.<br>
<br>
I know, everyone has seen all kinds of shows on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel where the Noted Television Producer shoots right through the armor. Chances are, something is flawed with the "test". The guys who have studied the armor and weapons for many years and have access to the real thing and VERY accurate reproductions don't get the same results. Shooting at flat pieces of modern steel just hung from a tree or leaning against a hay bale will not give you scientific results. Even if the effects are entertaining, they may be very misleading to the general public.<br>
<br>
That said, I don't think the plates of a lorica were as strong as the steel in high-grade 15th century armor (which was demonstrably better than that made in the 14th century). So sure, it is possible that an arrow could go through in certain circumstances. Basically I'm saying that it didn't happen often. Doesn't mean you're invincible, of course! Armor only covers part of you, though on the other hand the shield helps as well. And I wouldn't want to stand still while someone takes a whack at me with a battle axe or falx or two-handed pike. But we're down to the same old equation: If the ancients didn't think the stuff worked well enough for their purposes, they would not have used it.<br>
<br>
To answer the second question, Why was armor like this not used in the middle ages, well, it was! Plate armor began to reappear in the 13th century, until you got the fully armored knight of the late 14th century. But armor was expensive, as it was in Roman times, and only the upper class ever had fully enclosing suits of armor. Most of the men on the battlefield were commoners, and even the professional infantrymen had less armor than a knight. So they were still very vulnerable to a good arrow storm.<br>
<br>
In short, it's a VERY complicated question, and I'm sure we'll now launch into a couple pages of point an counterpoint. But by and large, the armor worked.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Just to through my 2 cents in.<br>
<br>
I believe the primary defence was meant to be the shield. Hence its size and universal use. Armor I believe was a last resort piece of defence, meant to save u when that one stray arrow came in, or that one enemy that got behind u takes a wack at your helmeted head/armored body.<br>
<br>
Would an arrow pierce a Segmentata? Only some well defined tests could tell, however I believe that it couldn't....for the most part. Worst case at close range it does, best case at long range it doesn't.<br>
<br>
In either case it might slow it down enough that only a centimeter gets through, not enough to cause a fatal injury perhaps...<br>
<br>
If armor was completely ineffective against arrows then in my opinion they wouldn't have worn it. Why wheigh yourself down with kilos of equipment if it doesn't help defend u against the weapons of the time.<br>
<br>
Food for thought.<br>
<br>
Cheers <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=markusaurelius@romanarmytalk>Markus Aurelius</A> at: 3/16/04 10:32 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Really really interesting, that's sure. I agree with you about a lot of thing. But i have again a few doubts:<br>
<br>
1) During the battle of Carrhae, in the parthian war, they told arrows penetrate shields (2 cm of wood) and the arms of the soldiers behind. They told body armour (lorichae hamatae, mail) were also penetrated. Was a lorica hamata so much better?<br>
<br>
2) Enemies of Rome kept using arrows and slingers against the legion. They should have had any good reason to do it.<br>
<br>
3) In the battle of Crecy and Anzicourt french knights, heavily armoured, were defeated by english bowmen. In large numbers. I read somewhere (don' remember where) that an english bow could penetrate a body armour. I am a bow-hunter, in two occasions I killed a wild-boar (in italian "cinghiale") about 90 kg (about 190 lbs) so i have no doubts about the power of a bow (mine is 70 lbs). With a heavy arrow and a cone-shaped point i think a lorica of 1 mm could be penetrated. I think: i have never tried mainly because a good reproduction costs, in Italy, about 550 euros.<br>
<br>
In conclusion i think a body armour was designed for protection in the hand-to-hand combat in which rarely the blows were at the maximum force because of the general mayhem and the lack of space. Surely a lorica could stop an arrow launched too far or an arrow impacting with an angulation far from 90 degrees. I think we can bet about this.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

But surely one of the major advantages of the lorica segmentata was that the plates were curved, thereby deflecting arrows and (to an extant) other blows coming at an oblique angle? - something that I suppose mail would not have done, as even an angled arrow would be trapped in the links. I'm sure that an arrow fired directly at a flat piece of plate could pierce it at close range, but for test purposes a curved section would have to be used.<br>
<br>
Then again, if segmentata were really better at resisting arrow attack, why was this form of armour used first by the Rhine legions, whose enemies were rather less adept with the bow than the Parthians etc on the eastern frontier? Hmm, interesting topic... <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The parthian blow: this was the name, among romans, of a typical parthian tactic. The horse mounted bowmen attack and fired arrows at a close range. Don't know the distance. They say roman legions were exterminated, in Carrhae. So I think that arrows did reach the bodies of the soldiers on a regular basis.<br>
If it was not true, romans would have win.<br>
Someone told me Junkelmann did any tests on segmentatae. Do you know something about this?<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The battle of Carrhae was a draw. The bow and arrow of the Parthians was not a deciding factor as it was in Crecy. While there are accounts of the arrows penetrating the shields, and hamata, how many? One arrow out of ten? One out of a hundred, or a thousand? Since the missile fire was unable to break the roman lines and produce a decisive victory, I'm leaning towards believing that there were quite few of these penetrations. Without quantitative evidence to support the qualitative, all one can really do is speculate as to the consistancy of arrow penetration.<br>
<br>
For example, we know that the Dacian Falx was capable of cleaving through shields, helms and certainly limbs. If every Dacian Wielding a falx did this every time he swung, the Romans would have been defeated, and the conquering of Dacia a failed cause. So, given the thousand different factors which Matt eluded to, especially during a battle, while there are written accounts of weapons of any kind defeating armour, it's usually never the majority of the time.<br>
<br>
The enemies of Rome stuck with hit and run tactics and missle weapons, mostly due to the fact that any army which engaged the romans in a fixed battle was doomed. (That's a broad statement, the romans lost their fair share of fixed battles i'm sure). As such, their enemies were forced to change tactics. This was hardly due to the penetrative characteristics or lethality of the persian bow and arrow.<br>
<br>
Piercing flesh is one thing. Piercing armour AND flesh is another. The next time you're out boar hunting, capture it first, toss a segmentata on it, then shoot it. See how well the arrow penetrates then, if at all.<br>
<br>
Germanicus, I sort of disagree with your conclusion. The Romans were by far no stranger to missile fire. To develop armour that is ignorant of any threat on the battle field is folly. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"<br>
Niagara Falls, Canada</p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Avete, fratres.<br>
<br>
I agree with Matt that a lorica segmentata in good repair is probably impervious to arrows fired from a normal bow. That's not to say the guy wearing the lorica is impervious-- there are all kinds of places an arrow could hit that would do serious damage, even if the torso is pretty well-protected.<br>
<br>
However, bolts fired from a ballista or arcuballista (basically, a big crossbow) are another matter. The Leg XIII Roman Research Society publication "Roman Artillery" has a pretty disturbing photo of a bolt fired at the girdle section of a Museum Replicas Newstead cuirass (which has plates probably twice as thick as the real thing); at long range, the bolt punched through the girdle with no difficulty, leaving about half the back-end sticking out (and the other half putatively imbedded in the poor milete's liver or spleen). M. Antonius Celer of Leg XIIII said at close range, the bolt went clean through both sides of the cuirass. The Bank of England upper chest plate (now in the Museum of London) has a pretty big hole in it, possibly from a large ballista bolt.<br>
<br>
I wonder about mail. It seems to me an arrow with a bodkin point would find the holes in mail pretty easily; perhaps a tightly-woven mail shirt would strip some of the energy from an arrow coming in, and heavy padding underneath would keep the point from penetrating flesh. But it just seems to me that padding heavy enough to stop a bodkin-pointed arrow fired with some force would be pretty thick and unwieldy. I also seem to recall at least one primary source writing about Crassus' debacle at Carrhae stating that the soldiers' mail was no proof against Parthain arrows. But I am unfamiliar with the tests Matt discusses, so I don't know.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI Victrix<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

As for Carrhae being a drawn fight, I'd say that the total destruction of a Roman army and the loss of six legions, plus the execution of its general, argues for it being a pretty hefty defeat.<br>
<br>
On those Parthian arrows, Plutarch has this to say (my italics):<br>
<br>
"And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at-arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, <em>which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft</em>."<br>
<br>
"...But the Parthians now stood at long intervals from one another and began to shoot their arrows from all sides at once, not with any accurate aim (for the dense formation of the Romans would not suffer an archer to miss even if he wished it), but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force. At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much."<br>
<br>
"...Then the Romans halted, supposing that the enemy would come to close quarters with them, since they were so few in number. But the Parthians stationed their mail-clad horsemen in front of the Romans, and then with the rest of their cavalry in loose array rode round them, tearing up the surface of the ground, and raising from the depths great heaps of sand which fell in limitless showers of dust, so that the Romans could neither see clearly nor speak plainly, but, being crowded into a narrow compass and falling upon one another, were shot, and died no easy nor even speedy death. For, in the agonies of convulsive pain, and writhing about the arrows, they would <em>break them off in their wounds, and then in trying to pull out by force the barbed heads which had pierced their veins and sinews</em>, they tore and disfigured themselves the more."<br>
<br>
<br>
Now it's quite possible that Plutarch, or his source, exaggerates the effectiveness of the Parthian bow in order to compensate for the Roman defeat. But, unless we disbelieve his account completely, it does seem that the Parthian tactic of pouring vast volleys of arrows at the legionaries was successful, and that the shields and body armour of the Roman troops did not offer an total defence against archery of this nature. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

a very interesting discussion, indeed!<br>
<br>
As for Medieval reports of bow vs armor, keep in mind most of the injuries sustained from missle weapons occur when the person in the armor takes off a piece of armor for some reason. I can't remember the exact notation, but I remember reading of one Knight, who was so sick of his Bevor (this is a late 15th century "Gothic" style harness I take it), he took it off and kept fighting...A crossbow bolt found it's way into his neck. There was also a mention of another knight who lifted his visor and lowered his bevor in order to take a drink of water "behind the front lines" and also ended up with a bolt through his throat. Seeing actual armored combat in action using the period fighting manuals, it's certainly difficult to take down a fully armored knight...But there are many counters, esspecially when you dent up articulation in the joints, or manage to pull off a piece of armor and hit that open spot....And a nice Rondell dagger through the eyeslit in the visor will do you wonders (personally I'd like a Halberd or a Bec du Corbin on hand for such an application )<br>
<br>
Ok, Segmentata - Knowing the effectiveness of mediveal armor, I'm leaning to the side that seggie armor is very effective versus arrows....But the armor only really protects the torso - there is almost no protection for the arms, legs and the neck from the front. [in general, not talking about Manica and greaves added in Trajan's time] Even with the shield, I can easily see a rain of arrows eventually finding thier marks on those exposed places. The face is an inviting target as well. I'm sure it was pretty easy for a mounted bowman to put an arrow or two into a Legionare's face or neck at "close range" before having to run away. There is also a height advantage for a mounted bowman versus a Roman - he is above the scutum's immediate range of coverage, and a Roman's face is at an easy angle to shoot at.<br>
<br>
I also agree that a well placed shot from a bolt-thrower type weapon (Scorpio or Ballista sort of deal) will easily go through shields and armor.<br>
<br>
The comments that "they wouldn't use it if it wasn't effective" is certainly a valid point, but I would think that if it's the only weapons they have to use, might was well use them. If the enemies of Rome had the materials, energy and time to do a little R&D I'm sure they'd have tried to make some better "can openers". But at that, I'm thinking they tried to find weaknesses like unprotected areas more often than not.<br>
<br>
The only other thing i want to throw in is going back to mass volleys of arrows and bolts and things - If the Romans are in tight formation under fire from bows, slings, bolt-throwers, if the impact is so great to puncture through seggie armor, I can only image the hapless Roman would have been blown backwards/sidewards by such a hit, or made to stumble/fall in the ranks, that will ultimately bring down another couple of Romans, scare the crud out of the others, and you start to see a dominoe effect. Add that with Plutarch's account of mounted soldiers kicking up dust to blind and choke Romans, I can see one heckuva mess developing pretty quickly.<br>
<br>
It's not always the arms and armor - it's the tactics inbetween too!<br>
<br>
-ANDY <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I have a magazine called "Military Illustrated" produced somewhere in the UK that did a test on this subject. Using hand forged period arrowheads and using a bow pulling around 100 pounds, the arrows failed to puncture the lorica seg. The arrows had no problem going through maile and scale. I will try to dig this magazine up and give ya'll more details.<br>
Johnny<br>
PS-I've read also that some believe that the lorica seg was designed for protection against arrows. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

MORON ALERT!!!<br>
<br>
I got Carrhae and Cannae confused....hahahahahaha!!! Sorry Nathan! <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"<br>
Niagara Falls, Canada</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I have one point to bring up about Carrhae...or do I mean Cannae?...hehehehe...on Carrahe:<br>
<br>
In 53 BC, the hamata, NOT the segmentata (not even on the drawing boards yet) was the armour type in use. I don't see how this supports the argument of arrow penetration against the segmentata. This basic fact kind of shoots a few holes in your points Nathan. Look at the campaigns under Trajan and his massive success in Persia, not necessarily due to the use of the segmentata as opposed to hamata, but it probably contributed significantly. <p>Magnus/Matt<br>
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"<br>
Niagara Falls, Canada</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

In our times a flak jacket does'nt protect you against a shot of a AK-47 or an M-60 machine-gun. Neither an helmet does it.<br>
But both are useful against the shrapnels, the flying stones anche the bullets ad the end of their range.<br>
<br>
I think lorichae were designed for the same purpose: save you against a "weak" blow like, for example, a sword blow in a hand-to-hand combat. Or an arrow with bad angulation or shot from too far.<br>
If you have not an armour you can be killed from an arrow with a very poor angulation, if you have an armour (expecially a smooth one like the segmentata) the enemy needs a clean shot (near 90°) to pierce it and you.<br>
<br>
Probably (not really sure) a parthian bow could launch arrows about 180 fts/sec (a modern hunting bow is about 290) that means 213 km/h. An heavy wooden arrow impacting about 180 km/h is really dangerous.<br>
<br>
A wild boar does have his lorica. Not segmentata, of course. A leather and fat lorica more than 1,5 inches thick, not easy to pierce. Sometimes they find healed wounds from smooth-barrel shotguns in a big wild-boar "armour".<br>
<br>
Just yo trying to explain the power of a bow.<br>
<br>
In conclusion, i think tha lorica offered a good protection but was really far from giving you the invulnerability against arrows falces ecc ecc.<br>
<br>
Germanicus <p></p><i></i>