Hamata by Erik Schmidt

[Crispvs]

We did a test on segmentata a few years ago, although at the time we we testing artillery rather than archery. The test results are included in the article 'Scorpio and Cheirobalistra' in JRMES 11 (2000). Without wishing to relay the entire test information to you, we shot a bolt from the cheirobalistra over a distance of 50 metres at a set of segmentata which had been padded and propped up in a way which was intended to provide a similar level of resistance to being pushed back as would be found in a person standing normally. The draw weight of the catapult was 732psi. The bolt only penetrated the armour slightly, piercing one plate but not the plate it was overlapping. However, the force of impact buckled the plates, pushing the armour inwards in such a way as to have caused broken bones and massive internal injuries in a real body. Obviously archery would not be able to reproduce this same level of power. I doubt therefore that arrows would be effective at penetrating segmentata. A caveat here is that our segmentata was made from modern mild steel rather than pure iron, but given the tantalising possibility of case hardening on actual armour the difference might not be as great as might at first be thought.

"I've even seen an armour that had been shot at with a musket and there was not a hole, only a bent in the armour!"

This dent in the armour was probably a 'proof mark'. During the 17th century it was standard practice to fire a pistol at point blank range at a newly made breast plate, in order to prove it was good enough for use in combat. This shot is normally reflected in a circular dent in the armour, known as a proof mark.

Crispvs

[Marcus Mummius]

This dent in the armour was probably a 'proof mark'. During the 17th century it was standard practice to fire a pistol at point blank range at a newly made breast plate, in order to prove it was good enough for use in combat. This shot is normally reflected in a circular dent in the armour, known as a proof mark.

I didn't know that

I think that a standard roman segmentata was cheaper and quicker to produce than a mail. It was lighter too. Full plate armour is a fully different story however. All the pieces have to be carefully formed, whereas a segmentata just consists out of simple strips of metal.

That test is interesting but not very conclusive IMHO... There is a huge difference between firing a projectile at a flat steel plate or firing it at a curved plate. Same with flat or curved shields. There's a good chance that an arrow will glance off a seg's girdle hoop.

I'm wondering which arrow would have the most force: one that is shot horizontally from a distance of 5m or one that is shot in a curve from a distance of 100m. Someone wants to calculate this?

Kind regards

[Caius Titius Verus]

Hello Martin,
Yes I should have clarified, I mean by plate armour just the mass produces,used cuirasses and chest plates... I don't think full plate armour was ever used more than hamata:p

Can't imagine an army of thousands all dressed in Gothic plates...
I thick these were indeed to expensive and only for the very rich as Counts and Barrons...

Best regards,
Tom

[Martin Wallgren]

Hello Martin,
Yes I should have clarified, I mean by plate armour just the mass produces,used cuirasses and chest plates... I don't think full plate armour was ever used more than hamata:p

Can't imagine an army of thousands all dressed in Gothic plates...
I thick these were indeed to expensive and only for the very rich as Counts and Barrons...

Best regards,
Tom

Ah! yes!

I agree

[Tarbicus]

However, the force of impact buckled the plates, pushing the armour inwards in such a way as to have caused broken bones and massive internal injuries in a real body.

Just as a note to anyone making a similar test again, you may want to think of placing a thick layer of plasticine (modelling clay) between the subarmalis (or tunic) and whatever is supporting the seg, moulded onto the supporting body. That could give you a real visual and measurable imprint of how far the missile affected a theoretical body, via how far the layers of protection were pushed in.

[Crispvs]

"There is a huge difference between firing a projectile at a flat steel plate or firing it at a curved plate."

Just to clarify, the bolt struck the curving portion of the girdle plates of the segmentata and still penetrated, albeit not through both plates. The curve of the armour was effectively reversed at the point of impact, meaning that the metal was forced back far enough that it would certainly have been pushed into the body of a man inside, along with any padding and clothing which got in the way. However, as I noted above, this was an artillery test, rather than an archery test. The 732psi (pounds per square inch) draw weight would be nine to ten times as much as one might expect from a recurve bow, even in the hands of an experienced archer. It stands to reason then, that had archery been accurately (i.e. with the appropriate level of skill and strength of shot) employed in the same test, that arrow would be likely to have bounced off, leaving not much more than a miniscule dent or scratch.
As a further demonstration of the strength of segmentata, on one occasion a year or two back, I was acting as loader for the cheirobalistra (or manubalista if you will) when one of the metal arms snapped under tension. The forward action of the other arm meant that the bowstring pulled the broken arm in an arc which curved backwards towards the stock of the machine. As I was loading at the time, my body was intersecting this arc and the broken arm struck my armour with some force. Despite the speed of its flight being faster than was possible to see with the human eye and the high tension it was releasing (probably somewhere in the region of 300psi as we were doing a public demonstration at the time) the impact did nothing more than produce a small sctratch on my armour. I did not actually feel the blow, although I could feel the impact against the armour. On that occasion I was not wearing any padding other than my tunic and undertunic. This is all somewhat OT though, as this thread is supposed to be about archery rather than artillery. :roll:

Crispvs

[Antonius Congianocus]

Hello,

Overall I am greatly impressed, very well done.

I fully comprehend those who question the attachment points on the back of the shoulder doublers, I too have not seen those before.

However; it’s not as if you attached the doublers with a zipper, snaps, or Velcro. You created the Hamata based on Sculpture & original pieces (correct if I’m wrong but I do not believe that any complete or near complete have yet been discovered) and, to quote Travis Lee Clark, “you did not create something out of whole cloth, you thought like a Romanâ€ÂÂ

[Dan Howard]

In "Current Archaeology, vol 152", Peter Connolly believes that the most vulnerable areas of a legionary were the shoulders and upper back due to the low combat stance used for close formation fighting, with the most accessible area being 'over' the top of the scutum (at an angle and not vertically). He believes that is why the larger neckguards on helmets were introduced and developed to actually help protect the back from this kind of attack, and not from an attack from behind.
[url:3db6efba]http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/Training%20Images/pages/Trainingdisplay%20059_jpg_jpg.htm[/url]
ESG photo

Hey Tarby,
Apologies for dredging up a old thread. I was wondering if you had the name of the article in question? I've had a look at the table of contents of that issue and can't find an article that seems relevant except perhaps the one about Fishbourne (Manley & D Rudkin), page, 314

[Tarbicus]

Sorry Dan, it was on an old laptop that died utterly on me, and I'd have to resurrect it from the archives of British Library Direct and pay again for the privilege. But here's a link to it:
[url:bdfo22pb]http://direct.bl.uk/bld/OrderDetails.do?did=6&uin=107848538[/url]

It's one of those things (I seem to remember) he mentions in passing, but the interview is a good read, although short.

Another historian, Lendon, believes the neckguard and shoulder armour was increased because legionaries became more involved with siege warfare, leaving the field combat to the auxiliaries. I think both views are valid, and are not actually mutually exclusive.

Hope the above helps.

[Dan Howard]

I found an interview in Issue 177, not 152. Could this be it?
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/ca/issues/ca177/ca177.htm

[Tarbicus]

That must be it. Here's the full info from BLD:

CURRENT ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 VOL 15; PART 9; ISSU 177, page(s) 374-381 CURRENT ARCHAEOLOGY

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Tinning. The hamata is made of iron, not steel. Iron lasts about 3 rustings unprotected, then it is gone. Tinning is one solution. There may be others, but as of yet, no one has constructed a hamata using another technique for protection that we know of.

A question. My new hamata just came in, and it is galvanized. I have some parts of my balteus tinned - very similar look to the galvanized metal of the hamata. Hence, is it absolutely necessary to strip the galvanization? It can, I think, create an impression of a tinned iron hamata.

Comments?

[Dan Howard]

Over time the mail will darken. It might look shiny now but wait a year or two.

[John M McDermott]

Well, a tinned hamata is stunning. You almost need sunglasses to look at it. I guess it is a matter of personal taste.