06-05-2009, 06:16 AM
I think that answer has been given repeatedly - economy and availability of cheap materials, plus prestige in some cases.
First, of course, roman armorers did not work through a Senate-appointed design committee with computerized models of different armours and statisticans determining the preferred weight-to-protection ratio, so what they went through the trouble of creating is likely unconnected to that particular question.
In my experience, which was - as stated - with a suit of plate that in fact was a bit too small for me contra a l.seg. that was made to fit me, the limitations on movement (and especially movement connected with fighting) are fairly limited in both. Of course, any armour weights you down. Lighter armour would have been far more of an advantage if the legionaire wanted to run around fighting duels, if fact: dodging is easier if you know where the blow is coming for...in the battle line a great deal of blows are going to be coming from the guy a meter or two to your right, sticking his spear through the gaps in the shield-wall while you are preoccupied with someone else. That thrust might not be very powerful, attack of opportunity as it is, but if it gets past the shield it will pierce unarmoured flesh.
Of course any choice is a subjective one. "objective" testing of this sort of thing is impossible. I would have preferred not getting my hands, neck or legs cut off or pierced to wearing a lighter suit of armour. An unarmoured fighter is more nimble than an armoured one, but he is also dead easy to wound.
Spears and arrows are slashing weapons? You have misread; our tests are against maille and coat-of-plates, not white plate.
As practical experience and dozens of harness-fighting manuals attest, I believe the legionaire would have had a great deal of trouble sticking his gladius into the articulation of white plate. On a moving, fighting opponent , one-on-one, the preferred way to go about that is to grapple or use entry techniques that require you to leave the battle line for them to be effective - you have to get very close in for attacks on articulation to work properly. Additionally, they require you to rely on your armour to keep you safe from attacks while you enter. When it comes to the Battle of the Golden Spurs, it might also have had something to do with the fact that the fight was conducted in rough terrain where the cavalry's mobility could not be brought to bear. But that is a whole other story.
The fact that Tacitius' description has them resorting to dolubrae and (non-combat) axes is just further confirmation that his crupellarii were walking around in badly made gear that bore little relation to later armour. A combat axe, goedendag or military pick has a weighted head, but it is literally oceans away from a regular axe or pick: those are very unwieldy as weapons. Many authors think it is possible to pick up a regular axe or pick and use it to full efficiency. That perception is dwindling, for good reason. Medieval and early modern armour-breakers, even the simple things the flemish were using, were purpose-made weapons made in response to the "invulnerability"(not literal invulnerability, of course, but what I've been outlining) of fully armoured men to swords and spear-thrusts.
We return to my first answer here. The limitation was economy and availability rather than a tactical one, I think. This is just going in circles.
Quote:However -- 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?
First, of course, roman armorers did not work through a Senate-appointed design committee with computerized models of different armours and statisticans determining the preferred weight-to-protection ratio, so what they went through the trouble of creating is likely unconnected to that particular question.
In my experience, which was - as stated - with a suit of plate that in fact was a bit too small for me contra a l.seg. that was made to fit me, the limitations on movement (and especially movement connected with fighting) are fairly limited in both. Of course, any armour weights you down. Lighter armour would have been far more of an advantage if the legionaire wanted to run around fighting duels, if fact: dodging is easier if you know where the blow is coming for...in the battle line a great deal of blows are going to be coming from the guy a meter or two to your right, sticking his spear through the gaps in the shield-wall while you are preoccupied with someone else. That thrust might not be very powerful, attack of opportunity as it is, but if it gets past the shield it will pierce unarmoured flesh.
Of course any choice is a subjective one. "objective" testing of this sort of thing is impossible. I would have preferred not getting my hands, neck or legs cut off or pierced to wearing a lighter suit of armour. An unarmoured fighter is more nimble than an armoured one, but he is also dead easy to wound.
Quote: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, but not the Classical reenactors so much? No matter how amazingly plate armor stands up to slashing -- and I cede completely to you on that -- 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?
Spears and arrows are slashing weapons? You have misread; our tests are against maille and coat-of-plates, not white plate.
As practical experience and dozens of harness-fighting manuals attest, I believe the legionaire would have had a great deal of trouble sticking his gladius into the articulation of white plate. On a moving, fighting opponent , one-on-one, the preferred way to go about that is to grapple or use entry techniques that require you to leave the battle line for them to be effective - you have to get very close in for attacks on articulation to work properly. Additionally, they require you to rely on your armour to keep you safe from attacks while you enter. When it comes to the Battle of the Golden Spurs, it might also have had something to do with the fact that the fight was conducted in rough terrain where the cavalry's mobility could not be brought to bear. But that is a whole other story.
The fact that Tacitius' description has them resorting to dolubrae and (non-combat) axes is just further confirmation that his crupellarii were walking around in badly made gear that bore little relation to later armour. A combat axe, goedendag or military pick has a weighted head, but it is literally oceans away from a regular axe or pick: those are very unwieldy as weapons. Many authors think it is possible to pick up a regular axe or pick and use it to full efficiency. That perception is dwindling, for good reason. Medieval and early modern armour-breakers, even the simple things the flemish were using, were purpose-made weapons made in response to the "invulnerability"(not literal invulnerability, of course, but what I've been outlining) of fully armoured men to swords and spear-thrusts.
Quote:Although you made the argument that more armor always = better, I keep coming back to the notion that the Romans had it was a completely viable option, but simply went away from it into a different direction, from tactical reasons. John Roberts' last post dovetails on this exactly.
We return to my first answer here. The limitation was economy and availability rather than a tactical one, I think. This is just going in circles.
