Suit Up!!!

[Sun Jetzu]

You've just recieved a large bonus from the ruling party of your country. This coin must go to the armor of your soldiers!
What do you equip your army with? What will make them best suited for your conquests?


Breast Plate



This Armor will protect your vital organs while also giving you the abs you always wanted


Linothorax armor


Armor with light mobility, made from leather.

Scythian Scale Armor


Reptilian armor most affective against bludgeoning


Roman Plate Armor



Not only is it made from steal, but its also very shiny. quite expenive though.

Celtic Chainmail


Stops arrows, reduces impaling injuries, but not much for sneaking


No Armor


A real man doesnt need Armor Slowing Him down!!!

[Sol Invictus]

I have always liked the Linothorax. Seems like it would give moderate protection while not being at all encumbering. I also like Chainmail but it is not good against arrows. Arrows slice right through the rings. The Roman Lorrica Segmentata looks sexy and all while providing great protection but I imagine it is very restrictive and like you stated expensive. My coin goes to the Linothorax.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I have always liked the Linothorax. Seems like it would give moderate protection while not being at all encumbering. I also like Chainmail but it is not good against arrows. Arrows slice right through the rings. The Roman Lorrica Segmentata looks sexy and all while providing great protection but I imagine it is very restrictive and like you stated expensive. My coin goes to the Linothorax.

Arrows does not slice through the rings of real chainmail which is actually layered, it just pierces simple chainmail that is usually used be re-enactors and period movies. The actualy dissadvantage to chain mail is that it basicly provides zero protection against blunt damage, meaning that a wearer of chain mail was more likely to be beaten to death by enemy swords than being cut up...

[RGA]

Arrows does not slice through the rings of real chainmail which is actually layered, it just pierces simple chainmail that is usually used be re-enactors and period movies. The actualy dissadvantage to chain mail is that it basicly provides zero protection against blunt damage, meaning that a wearer of chain mail was more likely to be beaten to death by enemy swords than being cut up...

Agree! Saladin's horse archers peppered the Crusaders with arrows, yet they kept on fighting. There was record of a knight with dozens of arrows sticking in his chainmail. The major weakness of chainmail is against blunt trauma, but even it is often overstated. Medieval knights wore padding underneath their chainmail for some additional protection against blunt trauma. Interesting enough, IIRC Romans didn't use padding. I've seen the re-constructed gear of a Roman cavalryman in 1st century AD and there is no thick padding underneath chainmail, only a normal garment. Perhaps they were less concerned by blunt trauma than medieval knight.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Agree! Saladin's horse archers peppered the Crusaders with arrows, yet they kept on fighting. There was record of a knight with dozens of arrows sticking in his chainmail. The major weakness of chainmail is against blunt trauma, but even it is often overstated. Medieval knights wore padding underneath their chainmail for some additional protection against blunt trauma. Interesting enough, IIRC Romans didn't use padding. I've seen the re-constructed gear of a Roman cavalryman in 1st century AD and there is no thick padding underneath chainmail, only a normal garment. Perhaps they were less concerned by blunt trauma than medieval knight.

Perhaps due to their Mediterrean origin it would not be comfortable to walk around with a lot of padding, legionaries did however have scarfs for the lorica segmentata to avoid neck scratching.

Well the main weapons of the Classical Age was the short sword and the spear, neither are primarly blunt weapons. The Gauls used longer swords, but those were made of iron and tended to bend on impact which would reduce their bone shattering effect. Against steel long swords I guess Roman armor would have been less optimal.

[Durendalv2]

Agree! Saladin's horse archers peppered the Crusaders with arrows, yet they kept on fighting. There was record of a knight with dozens of arrows sticking in his chainmail. The major weakness of chainmail is against blunt trauma, but even it is often overstated. Medieval knights wore padding underneath their chainmail for some additional protection against blunt trauma. Interesting enough, IIRC Romans didn't use padding. I've seen the re-constructed gear of a Roman cavalryman in 1st century AD and there is no thick padding underneath chainmail, only a normal garment. Perhaps they were less concerned by blunt trauma than medieval knight.

I personally think it developed out of the need to protect against the crossbow and absorb it's impact. Which would also explain the evolution to the coat of plates and later full plate.

[Sol Invictus]

Arrows does not slice through the rings of real chainmail which is actually layered, it just pierces simple chainmail that is usually used be re-enactors and period movies. The actualy dissadvantage to chain mail is that it basicly provides zero protection against blunt damage, meaning that a wearer of chain mail was more likely to be beaten to death by enemy swords than being cut up...

Hmm, I was under the impression that of the metal armors the Chainmail was the least protection. I guess it would depend on the power of the Bow and type of arrowhead. I guess I shouldn't have used the word slice since I didn't mean to imply that arrows slice through chain like a warm knife through hot butter. I have read that the rings of chain were relatively easy to separate from an arrow shot but again I guess all chain and bows/arrows are not the same.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Hmm, I was under the impression that of the metal armors the Chainmail was the least protection. I guess it would depend on the power of the Bow and type of arrowhead. I guess I shouldn't have used the word slice since I didn't mean to imply that arrows slice through chain like a warm knife through hot butter. I have read that the rings of chain were relatively easy to separate from an arrow shot but again I guess all chain and bows/arrows are not the same.

Well depends on the quality of the mail, this is from Wikipedia, but quite interesting read:

Mail armour provided an effective defence against slashing blows by an edged weapon and penetration by thrusting and piercing weapons; in fact, a study conducted at the Royal Armouries at Leeds concluded that "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon"^[35][36] Generally speaking, mail's resistance to weapons is determined by four factors: linkage type (riveted, butted, or welded), material used (iron versus bronze or steel), weave density (a tighter weave needs a thinner weapon to surpass), and ring thickness (generally ranging from 18 to 14 gauge in most examples). Mail, if a warrior could afford it, provided a significant advantage to a warrior when combined with competent fighting techniques. When the mail was not riveted, a well placed thrust from a spear or thin sword could penetrate, and a pollaxe or halberd blow could break through the armour. In India, punching daggers known as katars were developed that could pierce the light butted mail used in the area. Some evidence indicates that during armoured combat, the intention was to actually get around the armour rather than through it—according to a study of skeletons found in Visby, Sweden, a majority of the skeletons showed wounds on less well protected legs.^[37]
The flexibility of mail meant that a blow would often injure the wearer,^[38] potentially causing serious bruising or fractures, and it was a poor defence against head trauma. Mail-clad warriors typically wore separate rigid helms over their mail coifs for head protection. Likewise, blunt weapons such as maces and warhammers could harm the wearer by their impact without penetrating the armour; usually a soft armour, such as gambeson, was worn under the hauberk. Medieval surgeons were very well capable of setting and caring for bone fractures resulting from blunt weapons.^[39] With the poor understanding of hygiene however, cuts that could get infected were much more of a problem.^[39] Thus mail armour proved to be sufficient protection in most situations.^[40][41]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_%28armour%29

So riveted mail was nigh impregnable.

[Lord Tomyris]

[Durendalv2]

Cuirass... just cause

[RGA]

Mail. There is a good reason why it was used by Celts, Romans, Franks, Crusaders, Saracens, etc. up to British cavalry in 19th century.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

A breast plate most likely gives the most solid protection, even the Romans used it for their officers, I guess the cost is the main drawback.

Why would scale mail in particular be effective against blunt damage? Seems like the linen thorax would be most effective vs that...

You should add lamellar armor as well:

[neoptolemos]

Iron Lorica Musculata just for the abs!

[SinerAthin]

Wasn't the Roman Plate armor rather cheap compared to say, the Plate Armor?(I always thought that despite its effectiveness, it was also quite cheap and ecenomical, comperatively speaking)

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Wasn't the Roman Plate armor rather cheap compared to say, the Plate Armor?(I always thought that despite its effectiveness, it was also quite cheap and ecenomical, comperatively speaking)

Correct, not to mention that it could easily be disassembled and re-assemblied. It is also has most of the advantages of plate mail and is more flexible, BUT it is more frail than plate mail and it has gaps that can be exploited by sword stabs, spear points and of course thin daggers, that's why the legionary has a shield so that most attack are received as downwards slashes which it is very efficient against. One may also assume that the legionaries were quite vurnable to the old dagger up the armpit trick...

[SinerAthin]

Correct, not to mention that it could easily be disassembled and re-assemblied. It is also has most of the advantages of plate mail and is more flexible, BUT it is more frail than plate mail and it has gaps that can be exploited by sword stabs, spear points and of course thin daggers, that's why the legionary has a shield so that most attack are received as downwards slashes which it is very efficient against. One may also assume that the legionaries were quite vurnable to the old dagger up the armpit trick...

Isn't -everyone- vulnerable to the dagger-up-armit trick?(or through the visors) ;P

I don't think the disadvantages of the armor was really felt. It may not be as strong as plate, but most attacks would be slashes and light chops that wouldn't penetrate the armor. Also, I can't ever imagine how you would in battle get close enough to a legionaire fighting in formation to use a perfect upward-sword thrust between the plates(unless the battle was already won and the romans were in disarray).

Also, wouldn't most swords fail to go through the plates with the upwards thrust?
I never imagined that there was much room for the swords to maneuver through, and I could easily imagine that the sword might just get stuck without doing any real damage(which would be a death sentence if fighting vs a seasoned legionaire).


About the only oddity I have with the Roman equipment was how lightly-armed their sword hand was. You'd think that since it played such an important part, stabbing at the enemy from behind the shield; the romans would include some extra armor for the sword hand of their soldiers.
Getting a cut in your sword arm could pretty much send you out of the battle, or even cripple you for life. Given its importance, you'd figure they'd use at least some extra armor on it. Not too heavy, but enough to deflect most cuts and glancing blows.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Isn't -everyone- vulnerable to the dagger-up-armit trick?(or through the visors) ;P

I don't think the disadvantages of the armor was really felt. It may not be as strong as plate, but most attacks would be slashes and light chops that wouldn't penetrate the armor. Also, I can't ever imagine how you would in battle get close enough to a legionaire fighting in formation to use a perfect upward-sword thrust between the plates(unless the battle was already won and the romans were in disarray).

Also, wouldn't most swords fail to go through the plates with the upwards thrust?
I never imagined that there was much room for the swords to maneuver through, and I could easily imagine that the sword might just get stuck without doing any real damage(which would be a death sentence if fighting vs a seasoned legionaire).


About the only oddity I have with the Roman equipment was how lightly-armed their sword hand was. You'd think that since it played such an important part, stabbing at the enemy from behind the shield; the romans would include some extra armor for the sword hand of their soldiers.
Getting a cut in your sword arm could pretty much send you out of the battle, or even cripple you for life. Given its importance, you'd figure they'd use at least some extra armor on it. Not too heavy, but enough to deflect most cuts and glancing blows.

Yes you are of course right in what you say and that's why the Romans probably judged its' protection to be sufficent, but I merely wanted to point out in what areas it was not as protective as chain mail or plate mail, mainly in its' lack of coverage. It is after all a thread about the quality of the armors themselves and not about Roman battle formations.

About the "getting stuck" factor though, I think that is mainly a question about how much the different segments overlapped, from what I seen the segments actually do not overlap that much so most likely the sword would go through:


Still as you said, it is a hard angle to reach in the middle of a melee, the arms, face, legs and armpits of the legionary are probably more viable targets.

Let's also not forget the main weakness of the lorica segmentata: the lack of crotch protection! That is one fatal flaw in the design of the armor and a major psychological weakness if nothing else!

[SinerAthin]

Still as you said, it is a hard angle to reach in the middle of a melee, the arms, face, legs and armpits of the legionary are probably more viable targets.

I'll still not understand why they didn't at least use a lightly armed glove or so on their sword hand.

It'd probably be a little bit more cumbersome, but much safer; and could greatly reduce the risk of the legionairy getting maimed. And stamina was less of a concern to the Romans due to their rotation system, with fresh troops from the back changing place with the more tired troops from the front.

I don't know, if I was a Roman, I'd at least invest in a lightly plated glove or so.

Let's also not forget the main weakness of the lorica segmentata: the lack of crotch protection! That is one fatal flaw in the design of the armor and a major psychological weakness if nothing else!

Actually, I believe the leather bits that hung infront of their crotch were supposed to be for protection(mainly to protect from slashing attacks).

But then again... you know what we say about men who cover up their important bits with tonnes of clothes and armor? xD

[CheesyFreak]

celtic chainmail, lets be honest, who doesnt love chainmail?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

People die regardless of what they wear and usually, whether or not the armour stops penetration, damage is still done to the body. So with this in mind, I'd go for what makes your soldiers look professional and cool . Breast plate all day haha