05-13-2007, 11:41 AM
Fair point, Dan, but in mediaeval times e.g. the crusades, armour was mail by and large , and part of the system was padding under the mail. Arguably it was essential, therefore necessary despite any heat discomfort.Not the case with more rigid armours - why would you wear hot padding if you didn't have to ?
As to your point about climate, it was different in Ancient time but I'm not sure off-hand if it was hotter or cooler -certainly North Africa had a more temperate climate in Roman times, apparently.Anyway, not too important, I guess.
As to armour penetration, yes, it is not easy to come up with examples ( though there are more of these than you might suppose) Epaminondas, Agesilaus (and others )succumbed to wounds in battle, to give but two notable examples. There is the incident in Xenophon referred to several times in this thread, the more general examples of Thermopylae, Sphacteria and Platea as well. I have a copy of a three hundred page thesis which deals with the subject of the effectiveness of Greek armour in the persian wars. It takes a multi- disciplinary approach, and concludes that the balance between offence and defence was narrow ( as is always the case throughout military history), and that the addition of scales etc shown in art was a reaction to Persian archery, optimised for range against nomad horse archers rather than armour penetration, but still effective.
I am a little leery of the argument that this is all explainable by non-armour- penetrative wounds - statistically unlikely, except in instances such as the one you refer to, where Alexander jumped down inside an Indian fortress and was shot at close range.
Certainly that would not explain the last stage of Thermopylae, with the survivors on the mound, presumably crouched behind their shields in a defensive 'kyklos' being shot to death.Furthermore, from military service I am familiar with wound trauma. As any modern archery huntsman will tell you, arrows kill by initial shock ,and blood loss( as do bullets).An arrow through the arm or other non-vital organ rarely kills unless it severs a major artery - and nature ensures these are not generally vulnerable.
On the whole, the picture we have is that Greek armour did a good job , commensurate with lightness, breathability and other factors, but was still vulnerable.
There is doubtless more, but we are getting off topic.
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
As to your point about climate, it was different in Ancient time but I'm not sure off-hand if it was hotter or cooler -certainly North Africa had a more temperate climate in Roman times, apparently.Anyway, not too important, I guess.
As to armour penetration, yes, it is not easy to come up with examples ( though there are more of these than you might suppose) Epaminondas, Agesilaus (and others )succumbed to wounds in battle, to give but two notable examples. There is the incident in Xenophon referred to several times in this thread, the more general examples of Thermopylae, Sphacteria and Platea as well. I have a copy of a three hundred page thesis which deals with the subject of the effectiveness of Greek armour in the persian wars. It takes a multi- disciplinary approach, and concludes that the balance between offence and defence was narrow ( as is always the case throughout military history), and that the addition of scales etc shown in art was a reaction to Persian archery, optimised for range against nomad horse archers rather than armour penetration, but still effective.
I am a little leery of the argument that this is all explainable by non-armour- penetrative wounds - statistically unlikely, except in instances such as the one you refer to, where Alexander jumped down inside an Indian fortress and was shot at close range.
Certainly that would not explain the last stage of Thermopylae, with the survivors on the mound, presumably crouched behind their shields in a defensive 'kyklos' being shot to death.Furthermore, from military service I am familiar with wound trauma. As any modern archery huntsman will tell you, arrows kill by initial shock ,and blood loss( as do bullets).An arrow through the arm or other non-vital organ rarely kills unless it severs a major artery - and nature ensures these are not generally vulnerable.
On the whole, the picture we have is that Greek armour did a good job , commensurate with lightness, breathability and other factors, but was still vulnerable.
There is doubtless more, but we are getting off topic.
regards, Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
