08-17-2014, 08:47 AM
I'm not sure whether the effectiveness of one type of armour over another is particularly important. If armour didn't work, it wouldn't have been worn. Personally I think that every type of armour ever worn in ancient battles stood a good chance of stopping the most common threats, but we have no idea what percentage of the legions wore any particular type of armour and we don't know how many soldiers went without armour all together. In any case, they all carried a stonking big shield.
Even if Roman armour was completely invulnerable to every weapon ever invented, it only covered a portion of the body. Their armour does nothing to protect against an attack to the face, throat, armpit, wrist, thigh, groin, foot, etc, etc. and soldiers were trained to aim at these unprotected targets. The goal was to take an opponent out of the fight as quickly as possible and move on. A spear in the foot does that just as well as one through the heart. It was irrelevant to the outcome of the battle whether that opponent actually died or not.
One might also ask what sort of influence does armour really have over the outcome of a battle compared to all of the other factors such as logistics, tactics, finances, topography, weather, morale, experience, luck, etc. Armour is very important in determining whether an individual soldier survives a battle but it seems a lot less important in determining which side actually wins the battle. The Romans, in particular, weren't particularly affected by losing a battle. The system was set up so they could keep raising armies until they won.
Even if Roman armour was completely invulnerable to every weapon ever invented, it only covered a portion of the body. Their armour does nothing to protect against an attack to the face, throat, armpit, wrist, thigh, groin, foot, etc, etc. and soldiers were trained to aim at these unprotected targets. The goal was to take an opponent out of the fight as quickly as possible and move on. A spear in the foot does that just as well as one through the heart. It was irrelevant to the outcome of the battle whether that opponent actually died or not.
One might also ask what sort of influence does armour really have over the outcome of a battle compared to all of the other factors such as logistics, tactics, finances, topography, weather, morale, experience, luck, etc. Armour is very important in determining whether an individual soldier survives a battle but it seems a lot less important in determining which side actually wins the battle. The Romans, in particular, weren't particularly affected by losing a battle. The system was set up so they could keep raising armies until they won.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
