05-28-2006, 05:04 PM
It seems odd to me that it wasn't until the turn of the 2ndC AD that the Romans decided to, en masse, increase the reinforcement of their armour, as well as increase the use of manicae and ocreae. That coincides with the Dacian Wars, where we know they had trouble against the falx. Logically, that means barbarian swords were not a real threat to their armour prior to then, otherwise we should see even more evidence of the supplemental armour than we do. I think it all was in use before the Dacian campaigns, but not as much.
Testing on a rig using hydraulics or similar scientific methods to simulate a blow is one thing, but that generally only tests the plate as a stationary piece of metal where its shape cannot really be taken into consideration in a fast moving, fluid and dynamic way. By that I mean the curvature of the armour mixed with movement, which I am more convinced was as crucial as the toughness and thickness of the plate. The same goes for hamata, squamata and plumata, which were made of small components, giving the result of a smoother and more deflective surface. It's that third property of Roman armour that intrigues me. It all, to me, seems designed to carry a blade across and away from the surface. The manica is a great example of this, especially the type with the upward overlap. Even the size of the hamata's rings suggest that it wasn't designed for sheer stopping power, but was designed to make as smooth and flexible a surface as practically possible to give a weapon somewhere to go. It makes me further wonder if Roman soldiers were taught not only how to give a blow, but also how to receive one, training day in and day out so it simply became second nature.
The curved scutum is a prime example, where there is much discussion on its stopping power, but little consideration given to the fact that it is a huge curved surface that could serve just as well to deflect a weapon as much as stop one dead in its tracks. The real advantage in that is the enemy's blow would carry through, leaving him more vulnerable to a counter-strike. If the Roman were resolute enough, or trained enough that way, it may well be that rather than being defensive against an enemy Gaul he may well welcome the Gaul to have a go, knowing full well he would have the advantage if a strike against him was made.
Testing on a rig using hydraulics or similar scientific methods to simulate a blow is one thing, but that generally only tests the plate as a stationary piece of metal where its shape cannot really be taken into consideration in a fast moving, fluid and dynamic way. By that I mean the curvature of the armour mixed with movement, which I am more convinced was as crucial as the toughness and thickness of the plate. The same goes for hamata, squamata and plumata, which were made of small components, giving the result of a smoother and more deflective surface. It's that third property of Roman armour that intrigues me. It all, to me, seems designed to carry a blade across and away from the surface. The manica is a great example of this, especially the type with the upward overlap. Even the size of the hamata's rings suggest that it wasn't designed for sheer stopping power, but was designed to make as smooth and flexible a surface as practically possible to give a weapon somewhere to go. It makes me further wonder if Roman soldiers were taught not only how to give a blow, but also how to receive one, training day in and day out so it simply became second nature.
The curved scutum is a prime example, where there is much discussion on its stopping power, but little consideration given to the fact that it is a huge curved surface that could serve just as well to deflect a weapon as much as stop one dead in its tracks. The real advantage in that is the enemy's blow would carry through, leaving him more vulnerable to a counter-strike. If the Roman were resolute enough, or trained enough that way, it may well be that rather than being defensive against an enemy Gaul he may well welcome the Gaul to have a go, knowing full well he would have the advantage if a strike against him was made.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
