Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 194

Thread: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

  1. #101

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Thing is nobody is selling real Mail today... replicas that are being sold are not made to the same quality, they are made just to look like mail, as that is what is enough for reenactors.. they are not using it for close combat, so low manufacture quality is not a big deal.. and those shops that are making them would want to shorten the manufacture time as much as it gets to send the ordered armor to their clients...


    to some degree its similar as if you were comparing Airsoft rifle to a real one.. it might look the same, but its not.

  2. #102

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    btw, i just found that discussion about Segmented armor vs Chainmail production times and rentability was already discussed at MyArmoury.com, (nothing i didnt mentioned before though):

    http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...er=asc&start=0

  3. #103

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Yes that is a good thread, I seen it a few days ago and it is worth the read to anyone actually following this thread.

    I beleive it is also needs to be restated that blunt force trauma such a dedicated thrust to the chest, abdominal or any other area covered with mail is goin to hurt like hell. Also still potentially breaking the smaller less dense boones such as ribs, clavicales etc; Regardless of how much padding you have on. Obviously you want enough to dampen the blow but not so much it restricts your range of motion which can be just as deadly as the blow itself. This could be a reason why the LS entered the picture in the first place. To help resist the blunt force trauma that Legionaries would have been exposed to. Further evdeince of this is in the manic. Why did they adopt a the manica instead of just adding sleeve on mail down there arms? They clearly had the tech to do so. Its b/c imo it keeps your arm clear of bulky padding and gives you superior blunt force protection. Just my theory.

  4. #104

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    i think the supposed first line of defense against blunt force was Scutum. it was supposed to block all hits, while armor was supposed to protect against those which somehow landed from somewhere else. There is a plenty of historical mention about legionaries fighting even without armor, especially if they wanted to be more mobile (to chase down faster infantry) Seems like they considered Scutum to be adequate protection for them in case of combat against such opponents.

  5. #105

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    i think the supposed first line of defense against blunt force was Scutum. it was supposed to block all hits, while armor was supposed to protect against those which somehow landed from somewhere else. There is a plenty of historical mention about legionaries fighting even without armor, especially if they wanted to be more mobile (to chase down faster infantry) Seems like they considered Scutum to be adequate protection for them in case of combat against such opponents.
    Yes that is a good point made, but it wouldn't always happen like that. Obviously the Scutum is very large formation fighting shield that we assume was mostly based around defense as where other smaller shields are meant to help aid in the attacking. Whether or not ol' Titus Pullo attacking with the Scutum to manage distance was used afaik is uncertain but not improvable. Afaik there is no manuscripts of exactly the drills and techniques that were used by the legionnaires exist.

  6. #106

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    I don't think it was developed for pure formation fight techniques.. it was quite curved, which practically gave very good frontal (and a bit of side) coverage, yet it was not really suited for any type of locked shields formations.. Instead, it was more suited for open formation fights, where you had good enough of space for own movement, but you didnt had to be worried about your rear, as that was protected by men behind you. Overall its quite special shield, not sure if anybody else used shields like that (i mean curved this way)..

  7. #107

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    I don't think it was developed for pure formation fight techniques.. it was quite curved, which practically gave very good frontal (and a bit of side) coverage, yet it was not really suited for any type of locked shields formations.. Instead, it was more suited for open formation fights, where you had good enough of space for own movement, but you didnt had to be worried about your rear, as that was protected by men behind you. Overall its quite special shield, not sure if anybody else used shields like that (i mean curved this way)..
    While I kinda agree with some of the things you said. The question begs to be asked, "Why then did they abandon it in the later periods of the Empire?" Prehaps we should start a new thread on this before this thread gets any more derailed with side bar posts. Some of the quick to jump answers would be that large formations battles become more and more rare while small ambush styles fight were the norm. Cost reasons could also be taken ito consideration. Some might say barbarization of the army also. Anyway prob better in anew thread.

  8. #108
    chris10's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,239

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    I don't think it was developed for pure formation fight techniques.. it was quite curved, which practically gave very good frontal (and a bit of side) coverage, yet it was not really suited for any type of locked shields formations.. Instead, it was more suited for open formation fights, where you had good enough of space for own movement, but you didnt had to be worried about your rear, as that was protected by men behind you. Overall its quite special shield, not sure if anybody else used shields like that (i mean curved this way)..
    Thats completely odd and directly contradicts the disciplined roman way of formation fighting...the scutum was a shield who especially served formation fighting...
    The legionary raised it and covered his left arm/shoulder and his body and the right shoulder of the men to his left...it was a form of shieldwall..the short gladius was used to stab thru the gap between the own shield and the shield of the man to the right who covered the right shoulder of the men to his left...
    the legionarys in the second/third and so on line forwared their shields to provide support against being pushed back and avoid the unit being penetrated and cracked up.
    Did a legionary fell or had to withdraw due to injury the guy behind him stepped forward and closed the gap immediately...thats how roman units maintained cohesion and without this special shield their way of fighting and their military success never would have been possible...
    Last edited by chris10; December 10, 2013 at 06:37 PM.

  9. #109
    chris10's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,239

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by Mahgnus View Post
    "Why then did they abandon it in the later periods of the Empire?"
    There was another change to Roman infantry equipment that happened during the late 2nd and early 3rd century. The sword in general use changed from the short Gladius to the longer Spatha. This longer weapon changed the ergonomics and tactics of combat, leading to a change in shield type. The Spatha was a more "cut and thrust" and was used as an aux type weapon in the 1st century and was also adopted into Germanic use. This was about the time of the loss of a professional core after the Constitutio Antoniniana and the removal of the professional imperial legions special equipment and status. It seems reasonable to say that Roman infantry adopting auxiliary-style weapons (this shield and obviously auxiliary-style sword) was part of this process of the Roman army becoming dominated by the equipment and tactics of the Auxiliaries ...

    but the scutum never really fell out of use...new problems..old solutions...
    and there is seriously people claiming it was not suited for formation combat...mmmmmmm

    Last edited by chris10; December 10, 2013 at 06:30 PM.

  10. #110

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by chris10 View Post
    There was another change to Roman infantry equipment that happened during the late 2nd and early 3rd century. The sword in general use changed from the short Gladius to the longer Spatha. This longer weapon changed the ergonomics and tactics of combat, leading to a change in shield type. The Spatha was a more "cut and thrust" and was used as an aux type weapon in the 1st century and was also adopted into Germanic use. This was about the time of the loss of a professional core after the Constitutio Antoniniana and the removal of the professional imperial legions special equipment and status. It seems reasonable to say that Roman infantry adopting auxiliary-style weapons (this shield and obviously auxiliary-style sword) was part of this process of the Roman army becoming dominated by the equipment and tactics of the Auxiliaries ...

    but the scutum never really fell out of use...new problems..old solutions...
    and there is seriously people claiming it was not suited for formation combat...mmmmmmm
    Oh I know right! That's a great picture if you can youtube the Korean iirc police doing riot drills with them. That, shut up the people who claimed complex formation maneuvers couldn't possibly be done my even trained legionaries.

    Edit: Found the link lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5PYQXg5Ykc

  11. #111

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Maybe i have chosen a little bit provocative words, anyway, i didn't had time yesterday to explain more about it.

    What i meant, is that Romans didn't used any tight spacing/interlocked shields formation (for close combat melee situations), that would rely directly on its shield wall to be solid, the way Greek Hoplite Phalanx, or barbarian shield wall worked. Instead, Romans used more dynamic sort of a formation, where each soldier was supposed to have enough of space to fight without being pressed by own men. They recognized that pushing at man in front line by own men from the rear was greatly reducing his morale as "he was pushed to danger". Instead, file soldiers provided protection on sides, or more like a supporting position in case enemy tries to attack him through his flank, while rear ranks were providing morale support by practically being there, capable stepping forward - recently i read a report of one member of reenactment group which specializes in mock-up combat, and while it cannot be compared to real fighting he mentioned one interesting thing - when fighting is formation, just pure presence of men behind you increases the "bravado" of men in front rank as they are not afraid to push forward, as they know enemy wont surround them as they will be followed by men in ranks behind him..

    Anyway really good work on Roman fighting style was made by Gary Brueggeman ( http://www.romanarmy.info/site_map.html)
    Last edited by JaM; December 11, 2013 at 02:30 AM.

  12. #112
    Biggus Splenus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    3,547

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Great post JaM + rep

    Padding was commonly used by Legionaries, in form of leather or linen undergarment. yet due to its structure, it didnt survived all these years.. same as Linothorax armor was never found and historians are not sure what exactly it was made of (hardened leather or really glued linen layers?)
    I actually find it surprising that we haven't found a single piece of this armour, even though there must have been thousands and thousands made in it's time... yet we've found ancient Scandinavian wooden shields, and ancient Roman clothing and dyes in caves... there must be at least on linothorax hiding out there somewhere.
    and there is seriously people claiming it was not suited for formation combat...mmmmmmm
    The Italian scutum was practically designed for individual combat, but was still very effective in close formation... defensively.
    Last edited by Biggus Splenus; December 11, 2013 at 02:46 AM.
    | R5 3600, RTX 2060, MSI B450I, 32GB 3200MHz CL16 DDR4, AX760i, NH-U12S |

  13. #113

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Yes, the whole point of curvature of that shield was to allow men to press forward, while still being protected from frontal flanking attacks. If enemy pushed through the gap, he ended up being surrounded attacked by men in second rank, or from sides by men around. more open formation meant they had enough of space to use their swords against enemy pushing thorough. Also more spacious formation, allowed men in rear ranks to use their javelins stationary, over the heads of own men to harass rear ranks of enemy formation. Overall, javelins were not just some sort of "charge only" weapon CA made them to be.. Pilum was the primary weapon for Roman tactics. Close combat was never too long, usually it took just 5-15 minutes, yet battles took hours... Usually after brief short combat both sides stepped back, to restore fatigue, creating a lul on battlefield. During these luls, it was possible to use javelins against the enemy, as two opposing formations stood just few meters away from each other. Javelin shower was not intense, but instead, was constant thread, which made it much harder to resist..

  14. #114
    Archimonday's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts, United States
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    When we talk about shields we have to take a step back and really examine how they were designed.

    Its already a noted fact that most ancient shields had a central handle by which they were wielded. The important part comes from the direction the handle faces. A scutums handle is horizontal, which lends itself to rotations on an upward or downward plane. Where as, many round shields had handles which were vertical, which allowed rotation from side to side. This has a very big effect on how one engages a target with a shield. While this next video references more medieval fighting, it demonstrates why a vertical handle, and the concept of a round shield was effective in fighting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc#t=235

    So now lets take a moment to think about a shield such as a Thureos, a Scutum, or any other Oval shields which used horizontal grips and come to terms with how one could use that in a similar way. Hiding your sword, or in most likely case, spear, behind your shield, you wait for an attack, then you parry either up, or down, rotating the shield to push the enemies attack in a direction, and then at the exact same moment deliver an attack of your own.

    A scutum also curiously reminds me of a Pavise. Its shape warranting the idea that it could probably stand up on its own. With a horizontal grip more pressure could be applied downward, and so its more than a possibility in my mind, that Scutum can be used (similarly to the riot picture above) to create a wall behind which other men could fight the enemy in relative safety. So if you create a wall of scutum, then cover it with more scutum, and from behind this throw all manner of missiles at the enemy, you get an interesting development.

    Curiously enough, its interesting to note that Polybius says the Principes carried spears at some point early in the First Punic War. Thats interesting. Why when the Hastati were switching to the Gladius, would Triarii and Principes both be using spears? Well interestingly enough, the two man team of Spearman and swordsman is a well known battlefield team. The swordsman defends the spearman from attacks, and makes jabs at the enemy, while the spearman, who has longer reach works to deliver a successful strike. Though there may be no literary evidence to support this observation, it would seem to me that Hastati could have fallen back on the Principes, not to pass through the line and allow them to fight, but to make a wall of scutum behind which the Principes could thrust with their spears, pull enemies in, or like in the korean riot video, divide the enemy formation.

    I'm a believer that there is a lot of missing understanding on how these weapon systems were used biomechanically with one another.

  15. #115

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    i think horizontal handle might have something to do with fatigue reduction. Scutum was relatively heavy shield, 7-10kg is quite a lot if you have to hold it for several hours during battle.. i spent some of my free time in fitness centers, so can tell that when doing biceps pullups, i can use much greater weight with horizontal grip, than i would do with vertical,but it would also depends on type of grip. Fingers up grip, is the grip ,you can hold quite heavy weight even for a bit longer time, yet fingers down, not so much...

    Overall, your comparation to Pavise sounds right, Legionaries preferred to fight from lower posture, they supported their shields on the ground, Triarii even knelt to preserve their strength for time they will be needed.. i think if they were kept in ready state, holding their shields up, that would definitely reduce their strength before contact with enemy...


    Anyway, regarding Principes using spears, i'm not so sure about that, as they were said to use them in both hands... which means they must have dropped the shield, which suggest it was most likely improvisation on the battlefield, than standard tactics..

    Lots of people don't realize that spear was quite effective weapon, if used in initial clash.. much more effective than sword could ever be.. charging in formation, with spears lowered and fixed, is something that can literally destroy your opponent. I recently read a book that was investigating Hoplite fighting style from a completely new perspective, and this was something that was depicted quite extensively. Hoplite with spear levered and fixed in underarm grip with spear being over his shield rim, was in quite fixated form, sauroter was additionally fixed by shield of men behind. Spear was held like this in the back, which means Hoplite projected about 2m in front of him. If such formation moved forward, weight of men, together with his speed was transferred to the tip of his spear. Charge of such formation with let say light run/faster walk of 2m/s (let assume weight of men of 75kg, his armor and shield adds another 25kg), would give us 200 joules of kinetic energy delivered by the spear point.. that was quite enough to defeat shields and armors of the time..

    Some might think that if you are moving and you thrust at the last second, spear speed would increase and so will impact energy, yet that is not the case, as your wrist wont be able to handle this increase, and will flex out reducing the impact energy. One handed thrusts with spears based on tests performed gave relatively low speed - 8.3m/s for underarm upper thrust (spear as high as your shoulders),7.5m/s underarm low thrust (spear same way as can be seen in R2) and just 6.5m/s for overarm thrust (similar to grip for throwing javelin) which means the most effective way how to use spear was the first one, thanks to which such thrust could deliver about 50+ joules (overarm grip about 30+, low grip 40+ joules)

    Anyway back to Principes, with the heavy scutum in hand, its quite hard to imagine them using spear anyhow effectively for long time, if you have to hold the shield. It would make much more sense, lay the shield down on the ground, and fight from lower ground. This might even explain why spears were dropped completely later - oval Scutum was longer, therefore when on the ground, it gave more protection, while new Square Scutum would be too low to provide good enough of protection for a spearmen. it was not that big deal for Auxilia, as Thureos was much lighter, thus could be used in one hand a bit easier..
    Last edited by JaM; December 12, 2013 at 02:30 AM.

  16. #116

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Some of you guys cited Dan Howard previously, here is what he said on topic of Segmentata:


    How effective was Chainmail

    This has all been covered before. Segmentata was munitions armour. There isn't a single depiction of an officer wearing it. Those who had the means seem to have preferred mail or scale or solid plate, rather than segmentata. Mail took longer to make and was more expensive than segmentata. Given the time required just to make wire (hundreds of meters for each hamata) and the purity of the iron required, its likely that mail was the most expensive type of armour available (apart from heavily decorated bronze plate).

    Mail was just as protective as segmentata, covered more of the body, was more comfortable, more flexible, easier to transport, easier to maintain and repair, required far fewer tools and spare parts, and it lasted longer. Segmentata was cheaper and faster to produce, was a little lighter than mail, and better against blunt trauma. Strips of iron plate can be made by apprentices. There is no skill required. There is also a suggestion that at least some Roman plate was made with rolling mills.

    Segmentata was phased out around the same time that the state took over the armour fabricas and had nothing to do with a "barbarianized" army.

    We have no idea whether Romans wore a subarmalis under their mail. IMO their mail had an integrated padded liner and they just wore a regular tunic underneath.
    http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roma...chainmail.html

  17. #117
    SD_Man's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    416

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Its hard to take it seriously when the source uses acronyms in its explanation. Lol, jk, Musculata FTW!!!

  18. #118

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Segementa is more expensive than Hamata...

  19. #119
    SD_Man's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    416

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by HuangCaesar View Post
    Segementa is more expensive than Hamata...

  20. #120

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    you guys are lost cause...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •