Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Armor, just what was it really supposed to do
#7
I tend to agree with what's been said - Armor in general throughout history has been used to protect the body when all other types of defence/protection fails, as well as to give a little bit of confidence to get in there and get it done. Even the Knightly armor of the late Medieval into the Renaissance has it's drawbacks, where the shield is essentially replaced by full body armor plate, these guys are charging full into [spear/pikemen] - not only does the armor give them confidence, but so does the horse (sometimes with barding) as well as a very long Lance...Hopefully hitting the enemy before you yourself physically make contact/get into thier range - of course, the whole concept of the mass lance charge with a company of Knights is designed to be horrifying before they even close. (And to be honest, as much as I love knightly armor like everyone else, I don't nessesarily want to *be* in it in a battle....Anti-armor techniques are horribly viscious....Nevermind baking or freezing to death...Lor. Seggie armor is air-conditioned compared to full plate!...A "Breeze" even...If ya know what I mean! 8) )

(I would gather here that this applies in a way with the Legionaries - every single man is armored, armed, trained and paid - you're "typical" [Celtic] warrior has next to none of these - to see a Roman formation coming at you fully armed, clanking, and glinting in the sun, and knowing they get paid for it, is pretty goshdarn scary; British Redcoats in the American Rev War, being a Militiaman seeing the British Regulars bearing down on you with precsion would make anyone have a flash in thier pan if ya know what I mean :oops: )

That said, Romans are not fully protected (as had been mentioned - the throat, under arms, legs, et al), but neither were most Medieval/Renaissance footsoldiers, New World/ECW soldiers, or Cuirassiers. And with the Cuirassiers, ie, they have thier most vulnerable part of the body protected (the Cuirass/Breastplate, hopefully "bullet-proof") - so you know you're thorax is very well protected, leaving you perhaps better able to get a little closer with your pistols, or to engage in a daring fashion to make yourself look good/make a decisive move on the field.

Again, back to Romans, you're thorax is fully covered, front and back, and your noggin has a helmet on it....Everything else is covered by a Scutum, Training, and your battle-brothers. (and perhaps a Centurion ready to lay you flat for a week if you didn't get into it)

Maille is most certainly effective, but so isn't Seggie armor... I think both are equally effective armors, and they both had ups and downs.

Likewise, is a WW2 Bomber Gunner's Flak vest any less protective than a Kevlar vest? No, because both did what they needed to do to protect against the weapon that was killing them....But would you wear a WW2 Flak vest in today's Urban combat? probably not....And, if the current vests only stop pistol and rifle shot, sans armor-piercing, are you nessesarily going to know what the enemy is shooting at you? Or are you just gonna say F it and be fairly confident that if anything, the bullet will be slowed down some by the vest...And more importantly, that you're drawing a bead on him and bringing him down before he knows what's hit him. (and hope an A-10 Hog is coming around the corner for a straffing pass!) :wink:

floofthegoof
Quote:One modern example you can see is hockey. Now that helmets are required, people treat each other alot more roughly and take more risks than they did in the old days. I don't think the rate of serious injury has improved though.

HA! No, not quite I think...How about someone like Derek Sanderson from the 1960's Boston Bruins? No helmets back then and not much stopped him from pounding some teeth out of oponents, did it? And helmets in the 80's-90's didn't stop players like Cam Neely from busting heads either. And remember Goalies didn't start wearing face "protection" until Jacques Plante in 1959! And when I started playing hockey, I too started off with a face mask (speaking of confidence building) ...Then quickly got a helmet/cage...Aaaaah, so much better! Although I agree the injury thing has gotten worse...Better gear has made for a much faster game, and a tactic of brute force that appeared in the 80's I think has lead to an expectation for really hard hits and checks...But I digress...Many moons ago back when I was but a strapping young lad. :roll:
Andy Volpe
"Build a time machine, it would make this [hobby] a lot easier."
https://www.facebook.com/LegionIIICyr/
Legion III Cyrenaica ~ New England U.S.
Higgins Armory Museum 1931-2013 (worked there 2001-2013)
(Collection moved to Worcester Art Museum)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Roman Armor, just what was it really supposed to do - by A_Volpe - 07-31-2006, 11:51 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Algeria Supposed Augustus Statue Doc 2 1,277 06-22-2017, 11:09 AM
Last Post: Doc
  Supposed quote from Julius Caesar, true or false? Anonymous 6 1,921 10-17-2002, 01:08 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: