Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Comerus Gallus]

Is that a Niedermoemter-Guttmann helmet I see behind you?

Sorry, it is a imperial-( Hebron type) :oops:

[Dan Howard]

[b]Hmmm! I had seen experiment of archery test with some kind of Spaniard padded armor, like a subarmalis, but very thick, the enemy weapon was the californian bow, if I'm not wrong?, I think more stonger than some european, dunno the distant that was shot, but it couldn't penetrated through the human body...

Was this garment flexible? Nobody disputes that rigid leather or leather layered with other armour provides good protection.

BTW: I would love to demostrate step by step my experiment with very thick leather cow!.

Is this flexible? The contention between Travis and I is whether a flexible leather garment such as those depicted in Roman scupltural evidence is capable of resisting any of the common battlefield threats - i.e. spears and arrows.

[Dan Howard]

Was Roman plate as good as Milanese plate?

No. But I'm not aware of any examples of a Roman musculata made from iron. Roman iron plate was segmented. Musculata was bronze which, when properly cast and work hardened, provides better protection than iron (but not quench-hardened steel). Solid iron plate cuirasses didn't become common till the end of the 14th century.

And even if it was, was it universal used or did it override considerations of cost, weight mobility?

Iron wasn't used for the musculata.

If it's so dang good and incredible, why isnt IT in the images of the emperor?

Iron or copper alloy?

[tlclark]

And even if it was, was it universal used or did it override considerations of cost, weight mobility?

Iron wasn't used for the musculata.

Well my original question was about the strength of the material, not the alloy, so let's stipulate it was bronze or copper alloy.

Was it used extensively? If so where are they? If it was used was its strength a greater draw than its weight or lack of mobility.

If it's so dang good and incredible, why isnt IT in the images of the emperor?

Iron or copper alloy?[/quote]

Either. If we run on the assumption that the emperor's had the best (a total assumption) then why wouldn't we see these rigid cuirasses instead of the flexible ones?

Travis

[tlclark]

But I see more thicker leather than mine, so in the future let see!...boohahahahaa! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[/b]

Ack! hock: I think I may have a stalker.

Have I stipulated that this is an academic exercise and that I am a total coward?

Well, I think I've stuck my neck out far enough on this that if I every make one of these (money, time, family, all the usual distractions) I will have to offer it up to any and all challengers.

My prediction. It will probablly not resist high velocity projectiles (but then I doubt most armor would) but I bet it will hold up pretty well against a solid gladius thrust.

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

If I'm not mistaken, I think Comerus is refering to the Indian armor that the Spaniards adopted during the conquest of Mexico. It did indeed look like a subarmalis and was VERY effective against arrows. I forgot about that.

The Spaniards even abandoned their metal breast plates in favor of this Indian garment. Sort of reminds me of the Romans adopting their enemies' own technology.

[Felix]

but arrows have been known to puncture plate as well. The French Knights at Avignon had the best plate armor protection available and it was still inadequate to the English long bow.

This is a myth best left to another discussion. You are thinking of Agincourt, not Avignon, and the English longbow could not puncture plate armour.

Good grief! I confused the 'Babylonian captivity' of the papacy with St. Crispin's day! :oops: Much learning hath made me mad!

Thanks for the correction.

As far as it being a 'myth' c'mon, that's a little strong.

This reminds me of the battles over Archimedes devices at the battle of Syracuse. Some say they are utter fantasy, others exaggeration and others gospel truth. The only thing I can say for sure is that the French Knights weren't slain by foot soldiers, and that like Theodosius points out, I have seen examples on television demonstrating that plate could be breached by the force of a long bow. If I have to dismiss all that, I would like to be able to do it on better authority.

[/quote]

As a matter of fact, at Agincourt the English men-at-arms were dismounted, so the English army was entirely "foot soldiers"; more important, the vast majority (80%?) of the English army were archers fighting dismounted. There is no question these archers did wade in (literally, as it was very muddy) and join the melee, and killed many Frenchmen. The idea that the longbow was some sort of medieval machine-gun equivalent is a myth. Modern testing is meaningful only if done right, see Alan William's work. Television never gives enough detail to know if the tests are done right, and many television tests are clearly done wrong. The historical record is quite telling: in all the literature that I know of, there are exactly two accounts of arrows wounding a man armoured in plate where the arrow actually went through the plate. Lots of knights in plate died, and some died from arrows, but explicit penetration of a piece of plate armour was very rarely reported. Please check the Antique armour forum at Swordforum - the subject has been exhaustively discussed.

[tlclark]

The historical record is quite telling: in all the literature that I know of, there are exactly two accounts of arrows wounding a man armoured in plate where the arrow actually went through the plate.

Sooo.... the historical evidence says arrows CAN pierce plate? which means it's a myth, right?

hmmm.

I'm sorry. I will have to concede this point since it's not my area and largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it's a fascinating exercise in academic methodologies.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

Simple questions:

Would a bronze musculata be impenetrable?

Would a ferrous musculata be impenetrable?

[Comerus Gallus]

Thanks Theo, that yould say more than I do!...

There should be a section on this forum about "History Detectives" like some shows, or Connolly & others are! :lol:

Hmmm!...about the Frech Knights vs English bowman!...

Yes, I saw that one too...but I think go to that time is going too far, if I'm not mistaking, the French knight were one the first who wore "Steel" plate armor, so if the english either at close or far range wouldn't do much damage or non to the plate of "Steel", if they were using in their arrows a head of iron, which was softer that Steel, wich in ancient time didn't exsist yet... BTW, the defeat of the French knight, wasn't the cause of the English Long bow, but the infantryman, with knife & hammer-spikes, since the mud, unable the French knights to move or those who fall from the horses can't stand up...So the English light infantrymen were quicker than the heavy armor...

The test made on "Steel" with some metods, some times weren't panetrated, but the heavy blow of a long bow or other havy weapon, would knock you out! ....But yes also "steel" can be penetrate.

This brough me a though, I remember when I fought TKD, many of the cases I wore helmet, sheen & arm protection, also I had a thorax that covers me the rear & front.... I felted many times the kicks & punches of the competitor, many people were knock out even wearing this....

A heavy blow, no matter if you wear heavy armor in your head, your braind will move side by side in your head, causin damage or disiness, in that way you pass out. The same hapened with the body, not matter if its protected with anything, something strong would make you fall down :lol:


To Answer to Jim & Travis, yes, I think every armor in ancien Rome & Greece etc, was penetrable, but all matter of the sircumstance, in my opinion...

PS: Alexander almost lose his life when the Persian give him a blow in his iron helmet!, thank God there was a Klitos!

[hoplite14gr]

The shoe maker who made my thracian boots showed my that sole leather is very difficult to puncture even with drill or shoemakers knife.
If the leather muscle armor was formed and hardened into shape then it could offer good protection. I have my doubts if flexible soft leather armor was anything else but subarmalis or ceremonial.
Still it could be hardened torso armor with unhardened pteryges
A shortcut to make flaxible good leather armor was to make a soft leather brigantine with "encased" rombs of hard sole leather like in the reconstruction that Connolly did for the Ifficratidean peltast.
Just my two pennies worth.
Kind regards

[Comerus Gallus]

The shoe maker who made my thracian boots showed my that sole leather is very difficult to puncture even with drill or shoemakers knife.
If the leather muscle armor was formed and hardened into shape then it could offer good protection. I have my doubts if flexible soft leather armor was anything else but subarmalis or ceremonial.
Still it could be hardened torso armor with unhardened pteryges
A shortcut to make flaxible good leather armor was to make a soft leather brigantine with "encased" rombs of hard sole leather like in the reconstruction that Connolly did for the Ifficratidean peltast.
Just my two pennies worth.
Kind regards

Yes Stefan I agree with that, the leather that you see hanging in my room, is good to make sole, I try to penetrate with a sharp knife, & I couldn't do it...but I did not try with someting more heavier!....

BTW: can I see your boots? :?

[Felix]

The historical record is quite telling: in all the literature that I know of, there are exactly two accounts of arrows wounding a man armoured in plate where the arrow actually went through the plate.

Sooo.... the historical evidence says arrows CAN pierce plate? which means it's a myth, right?

hmmm.

I'm sorry. I will have to concede this point since it's not my area and largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it's a fascinating exercise in academic methodologies.

Travis

Thank you for admitting ignorance. By the by, neither arrow killed the victim, so the grand total for medieval bows vs. plates is zero confirmed kills.

[Tarbicus]

A 12th century account by Gerald of Wales: "...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuises, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))"

I will concede that there may have been an error in translation, and the 'arrow' may be a 'javelin'. However, it would still seem that plate was penetrable, even backed by mail and subarmalis. Also, I understand that not all bodkin arrowheads were made of iron, and some at least were made of steel.

[url:3mfgq8j1]http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t4481.html[/url]

[url:3mfgq8j1]http://www.bickerstaffebows.co.uk/european_tour.htm[/url]

Bear this in mind as well: "While I'm here I'll take the opportunity to remind you all that bodkin arrows spun in the air so as to 'drill' through knights' armor (just like a screwdriver!!)."

One thing I notice is that the debate is still hot about the longbow's effectiveness, and the tests showing French plate to be impenetrable are certainly debatable.

Just to get back on topic, I still feel that the floppy armour is just that, not a subarmalis, and therefore could well have been used in battle, and because it has sculpted features they are leather, albeit not common. It's only my opinion, and I admit I may be wrong, but I've seen it with my own eyes and have come to my own conclusions, and it will take an amount of proof to convince me otherwise. The only arguments against it are learned and logical, but then I look at the photos and they show exactly what Travis says; floppy musculata.

[Dan Howard]

The historical record is quite telling: in all the literature that I know of, there are exactly two accounts of arrows wounding a man armoured in plate where the arrow actually went through the plate.

Sooo.... the historical evidence says arrows CAN pierce plate? which means it's a myth, right?

Both instances involve penetrating plate that was significantly thinner than what was worn on the torso. In one instance a vambrace (wrist guard) was penetrated. In the other a gorget (neck guard) was penetrated. In both instances the wearer survived the wound and neither was incapacitated during the battle. In the case of the vambrace the wearer could take off the plate without extracting the arrow first and was well enough to write a letter complaining to his mother that night with the same hand that was wounded. Hardly the masses of dead that proponents of the longbow claim occurred at Agincourt.