Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 194

Thread: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

  1. #161
    Archimonday's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts, United States
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    yes it is more or less same habits between your training and that of a roman soldier, but with a difference. You need your muscles maybe just to carry weights (i am not an expert, but i am sure you have some cars too...?), while in a real fight what you are supposed to do is just to click a trigger and aim, so basically that does not need all that strenght and PHySICAL training (but surely psichological training). A roman soldier but someway each ancient soldier until 17-18th century needed strenght to survive in battle, combat in that time was hand to hand combat, you could see the eyes of the man you killed and smell his blood, not like today that you just press a button some miles away and you feel a heroe.
    Hand to hand combat without weapons its far more exhausting than any other form of fighting. Even if you have a rifle to muzzle thump somebody with, or butt stroke, you can fight for far longer than if the two of you end up grappled on the ground. This is due in part that the two of you are continually resisting the force of each others muscles, which means you are constantly under tension. Punches get weaker, your cardio resperatory system goes nuts, your legs don't move as fast, hits to the head blur the mind and cause vision imparements and headaches. God forbid you are the unlucky guy who has a rib broken by a solid blow. Hard hits can knock the wind out of you too, particularly if you are slammed. Even really good fighters I've only seen go for three, maybe four minutes before their endurance starts to suffer, and each man is just sort of guarding against the other hoping they'll give them an arm to break, they stop throwing punches and kicks, they breath heavily, and then hold each other almost as if cuddling on the ground.

    Hand to hand combat is exhausting, I don't care how use you are to it.

  2. #162

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    in 18.century, there was a simple rule - when rookie survived first 6 months of service, he would usually survive almost anything (except bullet in his body of course) Military service was harsh, daily marches, hard drill, lack of food, all this had huge effect on rookies which had quite low survivability in such conditions. if you look at Romans, they had good system how to train their soldiers - im talking about professional Marian army - usually it took 6 months for rookie to be accepted into combat cohort, and during that time, he was trained and drilled quite hard. Historians mention that Roman training was like bloodless battles, while their battles were like bloody training.. i think there is no doubt Roman Legionaries had to be in top shape to survive such conditions for 6-8 years.. and real Evocati veterans, with 20 years of service, i cannot imagine how tough those men must have been... so, if todays soldiers are supposed to carry 50-60lb of weapons, armor and other equipment, there is no doubt Roman soldier would have no problem with it either.. he might be even a bit stronger due to conditions he was trained/lived in...

  3. #163

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    i think that a roman veteran could be some up in just these words: trained killer. More than other soldiers at that time. Carry a pike 6 mts long and push it forward trying to hit something for chance is not like to stab in the face, neck or stomach a man in front of you, just 50 cm away, facing death every second, for each man you face. Imagine being a young boy in his 18s or 20s and be in first rows, in his first battle. That would be menthally devastating, a thing that changes you completely. 2000 years ago boys were not dna different from today, they had a tough life but felt as we would feel nowadays in those occasions. I think it was a way of natural selection, if you survived that, you had to be a tough, very tough man. Imagine bring a teenager of our time in an ancient battle and tell hiim to kill the enemy or be killed ...i think someone would his pants soon.
    Last edited by andrew881thebest; January 08, 2014 at 02:07 PM.

  4. #164
    Archimonday's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts, United States
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    i think that a roman veteran could be some up in just these words: trained killer. More than other soldiers at that time. Carry a pike 6 mts long and push it forward trying to hit something for chance is not like to stab in the face, neck or stomach a man in front of you, just 50 cm away.
    Then again, death was a common thing in the ancient world. People must have been incredibly raw. Death must've been so natural a thing to them. I mean, you'd have so many children, and then more than half would die before they came of age, and another third of those would die of war/disease/famine or some other unfortunate act. While I dont illude that it was easy for a man to kill another, I do think that the idea was much more common place.

  5. #165
    Tango12345's Avatar Never mind the manoeuvres...
    Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    20,729

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Keep this on topic please. This thread is about ancient Roman armour, not modern warfare. This is your first and final warning.

  6. #166

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    I'm not a re-enactor and I've never worn any of these types of armor. This is an interesting discussion and I would like to focus on it from a medical standpoint (I'm a medical doctor). It seems to me that mail armor had the advantages of being flexible, straight-forward to repair and relatively easy to clean and keep rust-free. Disadvantages were its weight and possible tediousness of construction. With an undergarment, it seems to have been good against slashing weapons and piercing weapons such as swords, spears and arrows. However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. However, its use against bashing weapons would greatly have reduced broken bones that would occur of the "bashee" were wearing mail. I also think that over time, especially as cavalry started to become more dominant, the cost and maintenance of the segmented armor would have become too significant and its use would have been phased out. Mail became the dominant form of body armor again for centuries, until the redevelopment of good plate armor in the Middle Ages.

  7. #167

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    plate is no doubt better in fighting but thinking that fighting time was 0,00000001 % of the life of the typical legionary I think that they preferred mail because it was more confortable to wear in everyday life (and routine hard jobs) and easier to maintain. Simply for that reason. Imagine having to dig trenches cut trees or do routine physical exercise with a segmentata on rather than mail. You can even take off mail and put it in a small bag while segmentata needs more space and you cannot simply put it on ground cause it would rust...many problems in everyday life.
    Simply think that medieval knights had servants who cleaned from sweat and put things to prevent rust immediately after the knight took armor off. Romans did not have servants so they had to do this alone every day, if they had enough time in peaceful times during campaigns it must have been time consuming (they even needed to carry with them cleaning stuff maybe animal fat to protect from rust...).
    I imagine that the result of wearing mail armor was many soldiers with broken ribs or shoulders (a hard thrust hitting with violence your chest even with some padded protection behind even jf not piercing will definitely break some ribs and damage inner organs). Exactly like medieval knights in mail. Since the main problem back then was infections I think that this could be the better thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  8. #168

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    actually, slaves were never cheap.. average roman farmers were unable to afford them, which means they were unable to compete with large (slave operated) latifundias owned by aristocracy, they went bankrupt and extended the amount of poor population of Rome... this was the critical thing for Rome, as it relied on soldiers being drafted from farmer families, and sudden reduction of this "middle class" combined together with disasters in war against Teutones and Cimbri, meant Rome suddenly was short of men... this was the sole reason why Marius changed Republican army into professional force..


    anyway, its all is not important. It is proven that making chainmail is more manpower intensive than making plate armor. it doesnt how much slave work cost, as same slave (weapon smith would only buy slaves who had some experience with smithing, and celtic slaves were quite good with it) could work on both tasks... therefore, if making chainmail was more work (and material) intensive, its just natural such armor would be more costly for customer.
    Slave labor would be cheap compared to non slave labor of the same kind. There is also the potential to leverage unskilled slave labor in ways you couldn't leverage free labor. Repetitive labor like that is required in creating chain mail for example. Or working in mines for a more harsh example.

    The presence of more slave labor would absolutely impact the cost of something like chain mail.

  9. #169

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Actually, not really. Slaves with ironworking experience were quite costly.. Plus, working on mail required a lot of skill considering how precious work was required. if you realize that rings were 0.8-1.2mm thick, with rivets have to be punched perfectly in the middle, otherwise such ring would be easy to break... it is not something unskilled person could do without endangering the quality of mail..

    and for mines, that was practically a death sentence. no slave could survive for long, so they used mostly slaves that were not suitable for anything else, or as terminal punishment (and it was not pretty..)

  10. #170

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    [QUOTE=Rayjock;14362384]However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. We don't really know precisely why segmented armour was developed, one might speculate it was produced as a candidate for improved protection and it probably did, but only under stricter circumstances that did prevented mass-production. No point equipping your entire armed forces against a specific threat if only a few legions will end up being put into respective harm's way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rayjock View Post
    However, its use against bashing weapons would greatly have reduced broken bones that would occur of the "bashee" were wearing mail. I also think that over time, especially as cavalry started to become more dominant, the cost and maintenance of the segmented armor would have become too significant and its use would have been phased out. Mail became the dominant form of body armor again for centuries, until the redevelopment of good plate armor in the Middle Ages.
    The thing is that when it comes to defense, a shield is the first line whereas the armour is the last. Even the poorest soldier wearing no armour can rely on a shield to avert lethal blows. This might explain the longevity of mail armour: whatever it can't do, a shield can be used. This might also explain why even after mail, shields remained.

  11. #171
    Archimonday's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts, United States
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    [QUOTE=daelin4;14368245]
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayjock View Post
    However, I would question its effectiveness against "bashing" weapons, such as axes, war-hammers, big broadswords and the like. These weapons would have been used by the Germans. Mail doesn't distribute the force of such weapons as well as plate. Might the segmented plate armor have been developed for use against that type of fighting? It seems to have been uncomfortable to wear and a pain in the butt to maintain, and, unless "forced" to wear it, I might, as a Centurion, decline to wear it. We don't really know precisely why segmented armour was developed, one might speculate it was produced as a candidate for improved protection and it probably did, but only under stricter circumstances that did prevented mass-production. No point equipping your entire armed forces against a specific threat if only a few legions will end up being put into respective harm's way.


    The thing is that when it comes to defense, a shield is the first line whereas the armour is the last. Even the poorest soldier wearing no armour can rely on a shield to avert lethal blows. This might explain the longevity of mail armour: whatever it can't do, a shield can be used. This might also explain why even after mail, shields remained.
    Shields remained because they are a weapon. Its sole purpose is not as a defense. You use a shield to attack an opponent. Considerable blunt force trauma can be delivered by using the edge of the shield, or the flat. You can use it to knock an opponent off balance, to trip him, and to create space between you and your opponent to give you opportunities to strike him. You would strike with your shield and sword at the same time, so while your opponent was defending against one, the other hit him.

    This is why, for instance, in the Medieval Era, Dueling Shields were specifically designed. Two opponents would use specially designed shields in a duel, the idea was to knock your opponent down, and a specific number of downs would decide a winner.
    Last edited by Archimonday; February 17, 2015 at 08:48 PM.

  12. #172

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    I was aware of the shield being used to fight, but I was also considering the context of the OP's subject.

  13. #173

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    If you watch whatever duel video in YouTube in you its matter of few seconds before one manages to overcome the Shield protection reaching the guy behind. So armor was fundamental not simply an add on, it let you survive when the enemy strike hit your body, which surely happened quickly in a melee fight. None is able to defend and pary when I can do 3 strikes at second over or under or at the sides of the shield or maybe attack the guy to my left or right so that each soldier should protect against 3 guys at same time. Or maybe simply hitting the unarmoured parts like face or hitting with violence the helm to give concussive damage.
    So you definitely an armor covering the most area possible and in this sense mail was better than segmentata. You could easily cover thighs and arms. Well they could have done same with segmentata but they did not for some reason (I am sure I even saw a type of Gladiator in iron segmentata with all body covered by iron segments and head protected by a big helm with visor...something very close to a late medieval knight as for protection)
    Last edited by andrew881thebest; February 18, 2015 at 05:15 AM.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  14. #174

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    Huang. Laminata cannot be compared to full plate. It was not full plate but composed of smaller plates. you are confusing things. Plus, Technology in Medieval times, was far behind the Roman level of Technology. Historians consider Renaissance to finally catch up with Roman state of development...
    As a historian I must say : No.

    In many areas the mideval era is beyond the Roman technology. Wheelbarrows, mills, land reclaiming, stirrups, deep plowing, horse harness.

    Due to the term "dark ages" we have always thought it a universal retreat from civilisation, but it's not nearly as simple. The middle ages had their own dynamics

    Also, something on sizing: Keep in mind Roman Legionairies were supposed to be overweight at the start of the campaign (fat as pigs) and due to the rigors get into shape. Thus the notion they had well fitted armor seems to be highly suspect. And that's perhaps a reason why lorica segmentata was popular: it's perhaps easier adjustable than a suit of chainmail (it's a guess from me, so take this with salt).
    Last edited by Seydlitz; May 04, 2015 at 05:35 AM.

  15. #175

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by Seydlitz View Post
    As a historian I must say : No.

    In many areas the mideval era is beyond the Roman technology. Wheelbarrows, mills, land reclaiming, stirrups, deep plowing, horse harness.

    Due to the term "dark ages" we have always thought it a universal retreat from civilisation, but it's not nearly as simple. The middle ages had their own dynamics

    Also, something on sizing: Keep in mind Roman Legionairies were supposed to be overweight at the start of the campaign (fat as pigs) and due to the rigors get into shape. Thus the notion they had well fitted armor seems to be highly suspect. And that's perhaps a reason why lorica segmentata was popular: it's perhaps easier adjustable than a suit of chainmail (it's a guess from me, so take this with salt).
    roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/andrew881thebest youtube channel dedicated to rome 2 machinimas and movie battle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeOCm5MJJ14 battle in Germany from "Gladiator" movie remade

  16. #176
    Iron Aquilifer's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Scotland, Angus
    Posts
    4,199

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    I think it is more to do with them being underfed during campaign. They needed the extra fat for energy.

  17. #177

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    plus, Segmentata was never popular... whoever could, used (pricey) Hamata..

  18. #178

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.
    I can't find the source just yet, but I'll find it. But fat does not equate lazy.

    The reasoning is quite simple: It was seen as an efficient way to carry energy on campaign. By the time the campaign was under way the times would be extremely lean. soldiers would loose a lot of weight.

    Marius did a lot to get rid of the bagage train, hence his preference for overfed soldiers at the start of the campaign.
    Last edited by Seydlitz; May 05, 2015 at 02:28 AM.

  19. #179

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew881thebest View Post
    roman legionaries overweight? fat as pigs? please tell me sources. Thus seems so strange to me. I have always known that they were in constant training so I can hardly imagine them getting fat and lazy.
    Actually it wouldn't surprise me too much, at least during peacetime, as seydlitz said.

    For example, there is a debated theory among historians that gladiators themselves might have been frequently overweight on purpose. Not "sumotori fat", since too much weight would become a liability against a faster, more agile opponent, but still overweight. The reasoning behind this is that a subcutaneaous layer of fat would provide some measure if protection against swords and other sharp weapons. So gladiators might not have looked like the demi-gods we've seen on TV (I'm looking at you Starz ).
    Keep in mind this is only a theory, and it is still hotly debated (especially since in most sculptures and engravings, gladiators are depicted as lean and muscular).

    Anyway, back to legionnaires. Analysis of ancient roman camp sites has reveled some info about legionnaires' diet, and it was extremely rich in protein and lipids: meats were often fried or roasted (and served surprisingly frequently to the troops, when supply conditions allowed it), a lot of eggs, bacon, a lot of lentils (rich in protein), bread was often baked with honey, olives and dried fruits or nuts to be more nourishing, etc.
    Nutritionists have assumed that even with a rigorous training regimen, this diet would inevitably lead to weight gains.

  20. #180

    Default Re: a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

    Don't forget the posca and wine (in the northern reaches beer) which was a significant source of calories. But you can also be certain that during a long campaign supply issues will have been common.

    And it's a good day! I learnt something new, it seems vinegar (ingredient of Posca) is good at keeping scurvy at bay.

    On the gladiators: hotly debated indeed... especially since the sculptures/engravings are wide open for interpretation. Where one person would say they look fat, the other say it's muscular. Then again, muscular and fat isn't mutually exclusive. But the resons for Gladiator fat and Soldier fat seem to be quite different, where the one is supposed protection against minor wounds (bleeding) and the second is buffering for lean times.

Posting Permissions

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