06-05-2009, 05:13 AM
I apologize I've taken some time to write my reply to the posts in the third page; here it is.
Endre you based your responses and endorsement of all-encompassing armor on your personal experience, but in some of these views another person could have an entirely valid but differing view. For instance:
Here is the problem, although I was really interested to read your re-enacting experiences: the examples you cited seem to show a vastly predominant emphasis on slashing weapons, am I right? In other words precisely the sort of stuff medievalists would have to deal with, rather than Classical reenactors? No matter how amazingly plate armor stands up to slashing, how difficult of a time would a legionary have with just sticking his gladius into any of the dozen joints between articulations? Or what about weighted-point weapons, such as axes: look how quickly the Romans defeated the lumbering Crupellarii by thinking quickly on their feet and putting axes into play. See the short work made of heavy knights by simple halberdiers and Flemish goendags. Is there any armor that could defend you from that?
Although you made the argument that more armor always = better, I keep coming back to the notion that the Romans had it as a completely viable choice, yet simply went into a completely different direction from tactical reasons. John Roberts' last post dovetails on this exactly.
Endre you based your responses and endorsement of all-encompassing armor on your personal experience, but in some of these views another person could have an entirely valid but differing view. For instance:
Quote:If given the choice of wearing a full suite of maille with textile armour underneath and open infantry combat helmet, and a l.seg. and helmet in battle, all other things being equal, I think I would have chosen the former.Isn't that a subjective and personal preference? People who do more Roman re-enactments probably wouldn't take your side on this one. D.B. Cambell here gave an entirely opposite answer, for instance.
Quote:I have no trouble moving around and fighting in either a full suit of maille and helmet or l.seg and helmetHowever -- it isn't whether we simply have no trouble moving in these two armors, but whether moving in one is easier than in the other. That's where the objective comparison lies. I have a hard time believing that a full-plate would weigh as little and be as nimble as an articulated (non-solid!) segmentata. Why would Romans go through the trouble of inventing a segmented plate armor, when resorting to a solid chunk of metal would've been so much easier?
Quote:I've been part of test cutting experiments and public demonstrations for years now, suspending pig's haunches and carcasses from jigs and covering them with different pieces of armour. Few if any in the audience doubt the effectiveness of armour aftor going away from those. I can, with a good cut, cut straight through a pig's haunch - stronger and tougher than any man's thigh - with a sword. Even a 20cm spearhead can produce horrifying cuts to the bone into flesh and gristle. Penetrating an unarmoured carcass with a spear or sword thrust barely requires any energy at all: I can set the spear to the flesh and push it through with a finger, even if it is just a hanging haunch with little resistance due to weight. Small, quick, backhand swordstrokes can produce extremely nasty, deep wounds, even through thick muscle and gristle.
Here is the problem, although I was really interested to read your re-enacting experiences: the examples you cited seem to show a vastly predominant emphasis on slashing weapons, am I right? In other words precisely the sort of stuff medievalists would have to deal with, rather than Classical reenactors? No matter how amazingly plate armor stands up to slashing, how difficult of a time would a legionary have with just sticking his gladius into any of the dozen joints between articulations? Or what about weighted-point weapons, such as axes: look how quickly the Romans defeated the lumbering Crupellarii by thinking quickly on their feet and putting axes into play. See the short work made of heavy knights by simple halberdiers and Flemish goendags. Is there any armor that could defend you from that?
Although you made the argument that more armor always = better, I keep coming back to the notion that the Romans had it as a completely viable choice, yet simply went into a completely different direction from tactical reasons. John Roberts' last post dovetails on this exactly.
Multi viri et feminae philosophiam antiquam conservant.
James S.
James S.
