a little mythbusting about Roman Armor

[JaM]

ok i watched many videos i linked wrong ones. This is surely rivetted chainmail and sword goes through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19qEUJTE90s&hd=1. Notice, it is a very pointed sword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcVWi2czH0&hd=1 rivetted chainmail with leather armor behind against a dagger

just another Indian made butted mail replica.

[JaM]

Plate armor provided better protection against blunt force. Mail was no good for that... as I wrote, you need about 90 joules to break a bone... slashing with a mace while wont penetrate the mail would break the ribs, or collar bone, etc... nothing you would really want to end up with... yet for thrusts and cuts, chainmail was very good protection... Plus, it was a lot less fatiguing, especially in hot weather, it was less restricting its user in fight. Look at any medieval armor and you will see that even if it was plate, it used chainmail to cover weakspots and areas plate was unable to cover..


i will repeat - Chainmail was used for thousand years..

[JaM]

From Don Howard article (You should really read it)

A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows—particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),⁵⁹ inadequate padding was used (if employed at all),⁶⁰ the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect⁶¹—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991.⁶² An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts,⁶³ but these tests may have underestimated the strength of English longbows. Strickland commented that there has yet to be a test that uses accurate reconstructions of both armour and bow

Anna Comnena wrote that during the Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail. Joinville describes his servants donning him in his jousting hauberk as he lay ill on the deck of a ship to protect him from incoming Saracen arrows. Joinville later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:

...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.



Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:

The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour protected him from the arrows.

(no plate armors during 2nd Crusade...)


During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

(neither at third)


Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:

And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound





Interesting, isnt it?

[andrew881thebest]

From Don Howard article (You should really read it)

A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows—particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Further, some have argued that plate armour was developed specifically to counter these arrows because of the ineffectiveness of mail. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this may not have been the case. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),⁵⁹ inadequate padding was used (if employed at all),⁶⁰ the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect⁶¹—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991.⁶² An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts,⁶³ but these tests may have underestimated the strength of English longbows. Strickland commented that there has yet to be a test that uses accurate reconstructions of both armour and bow

Anna Comnena wrote that during the Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail. Joinville describes his servants donning him in his jousting hauberk as he lay ill on the deck of a ship to protect him from incoming Saracen arrows. Joinville later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:

...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.



Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:

The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour protected him from the arrows.

(no plate armors during 2nd Crusade...)


During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

(neither at third)


Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:

And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound





Interesting, isnt it?

arrows penetrate mail and get stuck in thick padded suit behind, not so new to know. Probably a normal bow would stop there, while a longbow would reach human flesh. It is stranhe to believe that all modern steel rivetted mail replica are ALL worse than ancient chainmails (with worse steel or maybe just iron), cause i have not seen a single video where mail stops an armor piercing-bodkin arrow. Not even one. WIth thousands replicas out there. But i agree with you over the fact that maybe chainmail can stop not bodkin arrows shot by simple/ mediocre bows (or by good bows, but not bodkin, or bodkin by mediocre bows, in this second case MAYBE).

[JaM]

arrows penetrate mail and get stuck in thick padded suit behind, not so new to know. Probably a normal bow would stop there, while a longbow would reach human flesh. It is stranhe to believe that all modern steel rivetted mail replica are ALL worse than ancient chainmails (with worse steel or maybe just iron), cause i have not seen a single video where mail stops an armor piercing-bodkin arrow. Not even one. WIth thousands replicas out there.

Mail was always used over some sort of undergarment. I mentioned Romans used leather or linen shirt under mail. mail alone would not protect you much, it was the backing that provided the protection. Mail just slowed the impact object so it was no longer lethal..

Sorry, but mail made for war was of much higher quality than any cheap replica made today.. In the article i posted there is specifically stated that: The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),inadequate padding was used (if employed at all) Also Dan mentions that Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions.


btw, Dan Howard is historian that published several works, i already have his book about ancient Bronze armor, it is quite interesting work btw..

anyway, he has several very good articles at myarmoury.com, like for example this, mentioning that not every "rivetted" mail is actually historical:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...189&highlight=

Here is a list explaining why the Indian mail in no way resembles historical mail. It largely refers to wedge-riveted mail but most of the points are also relevant for round-riveted mail. All of the following will make the armour a lot more susceptible to weapons than historical examples (which is why it is completely unsuitable for weapons vs armour testing).

* The thickness of the wire is generally too light for the diameter of the link, making it lighter but less capable of resisting a weapon.
* Holes are made with a punch rather than a drift. This leaves a lot less metal around the rivet to help secure it.
* Rivet holes are either too large or not centred. Both will leave too little material on one or both sides and the link will tear too easily.
* The links are hammered way too thin (probably to make them easier to punch), but this greatly reduces the strength of the link
* Rivets are incorrectly set. If a rivet is not peened tightly, the link will pull apart too easily
* There isn't enough overlap in the lapped section of the link to create a decent join
* Wrong shape rivet hole. Indian mail has rectangular holes. Historical wedge-riveted mail has ovoid holes. Rectangular holes tear very easily at the corners. Circular or ovoid holes are much stronger
* Incorrect metallurgy. Mild steel (or even so-called modern "iron") is not as ductile as bloomery iron and it is more likely to snap upon impact instead of stretching/bending

And this is actually quite a good proof that making a chainmail was not something some SLAVE would do in his free time... it was highly precise work, otherwise mail would not provide desired protection

[andrew881thebest]

Mail was always used over some sort of undergarment. I mentioned Romans used leather or linen shirt under mail. mail alone would not protect you much, it was the backing that provided the protection. Mail just slowed the impact object so it was no longer lethal..

Sorry, but mail made for war was of much higher quality than any cheap replica made today.. In the article i posted there is specifically stated that: The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting),inadequate padding was used (if employed at all) Also Dan mentions that Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions.


btw, Dan Howard is historian that published several works, i already have his book about ancient Bronze armor, it is quite interesting work btw..

anyway, he has several very good articles at myarmoury.com, like for example this, mentioning that not every "rivetted" mail is actually historical:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...189&highlight=




And this is actually quite a good proof that making a chainmail was not something some SLAVE would do in his free time... it was highly precise work, otherwise mail would not provide desired protection

OK, but why cannot he make -or make someone make- or buy a good replica and show the world a chainmail that resists arrows, intead of just writing it? cause everyone can write or say what he wants, but it is not necessarly true. Each author gives his point of view. I realy dont understand why he does not make a video on youtube about that.
Then, if makingmail was a job highly specialised, i can imagine how the hundred thousands roman soldiers wearing armor could cost

[JaM]

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.

[JaM]

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

[Mahgnus]

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.

[JaM]

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.

[Mahgnus]

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.

[JaM]

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)..

[Mahgnus]

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.

[chris10]

"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

[Mahgnus]

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

[chris10]

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...

[JaM]

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)

[Biggus Splenus]

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.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Great post JaM + rep


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.

The Italian scutum was practically designed for individual combat, but was still very effective in close formation... defensively.

They found a nearly complete Prototype of the "Segmentata" at Kalkriese, but the armour was instantly destroyed when they found it. It is sad but such things happend.

A point people allways ignore when talking about the change of the roman army is that one of the main points in changing your tactics and armour are the enemies you have to face. Taking over Auxillary Tactics and "Barbarization" is ofcourse wrong. The strongest militarisized area of the empire became Syria and the east in general, where the Legions had to face an enemy with a professional heavy armoured army and from ancient perspective a centralized state. Something entirely diffrent than their previous enemies.

We can asssume that the segmentata and the gladius was a good equipment to fight Britons, Dacians and early Germanics. In fact many of the 3th century and later gear is heavily influenced by Sassanidian and Steppe Warrior culture.

[JaM]

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..