Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Polybius, horse archers arrows, roman armour, oh my.
#76
Quote:We don't know what the Romans wore underneath their mail.
You're suggesting the Romans used something equivalent to the padded jack, a heavy multi-layer garment not developed until the late 14th century? Even the Roman use of a lighter early-medieval style gambeson would be debatable, but a jack? Seriously??


Quote:In this case Williams was being generous when he said the combination was defeated because the plastilene was only penetrated by 35mm. Hardly a serious wound.
Yes, hardly a serious wound, and it might even be a legitimate comparison if the Romans wore 15th century mail over a heavy 15th century medieval jack.


Quote:The spike used in the test had a 18 degree point and was far harder than any extant arrowhead so far analysed.
Exactly as I said, an 18 degree point, roughly equivelant to a late medieval short wide bodkin style, NOT a needle bodkin or even broadhead, so not a style that was ever intended to defeat mail. And do I need to remind you again that of the thousands of arrowheads yet found only a statistically negligable few have ever actually been analyzed? In fact, the Royal Armouries drew their conclusions based on a grand total of TWO tested bodkins, one of which actually contained steel (an often forgotten detail).


Quote:The Knight and the Blast Furnace p. 942 says that both the modern reconstruction AND the 15th C example required 120 J.

AND the heavy jack beneath it, you keep forgetting to mention that for some reason.


Quote:Not if you use the data presented by Williams and the data presented by McEwan.
So, we can conclude that Parthian arrows could not have penetrated 15th century mail over a heavy medieval jack using arrows equipped with a wide late medieval bodkin. In other words, armor the Romans didn't wear over heavy padding the Romans didn't wear using arrowheads the Parthians didn't use.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Gregg
Reply
#77
Quote: According to David Sim in Iron for the Eagles the difference in production time is negligible. One takes around 37 minutes the other takes around 36 minutes.

Now THAT is interesting. Seems hard to imagine but I'm not a blacksmith and Sim is definitely the expert. And now I'm wondering what an angon would do against a shield...
Reply
#78
Quote:
Dan Howard:23ajh4iz Wrote:We don't know what the Romans wore underneath their mail.
You're suggesting the Romans used something equivalent to the padded jack, a heavy multi-layer garment not developed until the late 14th century? Even the Roman use of a lighter early-medieval style gambeson would be debatable, but a jack? Seriously??

The Romans used padded linen protection for Gladiator manica, and layered linen protection was known to the Greeks ... so the abilty to produce a padded "jack" type garment was there. There are illustrations showing such garments, possibly indicating their use without mail, meaning they may have been more than just a quilted fleece to make mail more comfy.

Quote:Now THAT is interesting. Seems hard to imagine but I'm not a blacksmith and Sim is definitely the expert. And now I'm wondering what an angon would do against a shield...


You seemed pretty definate before, I assumed you had experience of arrow head production ... if I'd known it was speculative :roll: .... I may have been bold enough to challenge teh proposition.

What has suddenly fired your interest in the angon?
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#79
Yes, it is common sense to have padding under armour, and the sculptural evidence certain shows many examples, even if non have acutally survived.
But then greaves are armour, and I believe there are remanents of greave padding existing....
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#80
Quote:The Romans used padded linen protection for Gladiator manica, and layered linen protection was known to the Greeks ... so the abilty to produce a padded "jack" type garment was there. There are illustrations showing such garments, possibly indicating their use without mail, meaning they may have been more than just a quilted fleece to make mail more comfy....
What type of padding the Romans wore beneath their armor, if any at all, is another can of worms entirely. It's clear SOMETHING was worn beneath the segmentata, if only extra padding for the shoulders, and pteruges had to attach to something. What kind of padding it was is a real question however, and even when it was worn. Surviving Roman artwork tends to show armor over tunics, and (unlike medieval artwork) does not show a garment that could be interpreted as a padding beneath armor, though in many cases this may be because the sculptor was attempting to show a kind of heroic ideal. On the other hand, clearly non-heroic sculpture, like the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, shows soldiers in mail over tunics, with no indication at all of any padding worn between. If Roman soldiers were equipped with anything like a heavy medieval jack they'd look like Michelin men. Anything but the lightest gambeson would probably be noticeable in sculpture, and you'd think with all the surviving sculpture you'd be able to see the padded garment in at least some of them, as you can in many medieval sculptures. During the Republic at least it's possible soldiers didn't wear padding beneath their armor because they may have felt they didn't need it. They were protected by a very large, robust shield, and were wearing very effective mail with shoulder doubling. IIRC there's at least one Roman battle during the Republic (the civil wars?) where the soldiers were given padding to put over their armour to counter enemy archers. This would seem redundant if there was already padding of any substance beneath the armor. Perhaps more exposure to massed archery drove the development of padding under armor. I hear Graham Sumner's new book approaches the subject but I haven't got a copy yet.


Quote:You seemed pretty definate before, I assumed you had experience of arrow head production ... if I'd known it was speculative :roll: .... I may have been bold enough to challenge teh proposition.
You're joking. Good lord Conal, most of what ANYONE says on this list is speculative! :lol: Challenge away! I've actually pounded out a couple of arrowheads before, one a replica of a tanged Mongol leaf blade I was very proud of. But I'm not a blacksmith and I'd never try to hammer out a more complex form, like a bodkin, or any socketed form for that matter.

Quote:What has suddenly fired your interest in the angon?
The standard pilum shank is a long thin iron rod that ends in a square bokin tip. Based on what I know about arrowheads, I always assumed it would be much easier to forge a leaf blade tip rather than a bodkin point. According to Dan, Sim Says it only takes one minute longer. That makes me wonder why the Romans chose the bodkin head rather than the barbed leaf blade form, if production time between the two was negligable and a leafblade would do more damage to an enemy. It's tempting to think the reason is because the barbed head on an angon can't penetrate a shield as efficiently as a bodkin head, and a test would probably help prove it one way or another.

Gregg
Reply
#81
Summers book does indeed cover it, and in fact shows several depictions of what can be interpreted as a subarmalis, and also one item which I have long thought to be a subarmalis from a monument.
It would be pretty unfeasibly to go into battle without it. They wouldn't need swords or sharp weapons then, just clubs to batter the armour into you.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#82
I'm aware of a couple of depictions that could be interpreted as a subarmalis, or at least I've always thought they COULD possibly be interpreted that way. But none are clear, which is frustrating. Still, it's been years since I looked into the topic and I'm not at all up on current evidence or arguments. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that warriors in the post-Roman world went into battle with no padding beneath their mail, though this changed over time. I still believe it's possible the Republican Romans may not have felt padding was necessary since they were already well protected by shield and doubled mail, and may have seen the added heat build-up and extra weight as not worth the benefit, though again if this is true it probably changed over time. Again I'd need to familiarize myself with the current arguments and any new evidence before I held my breath on that one...

Gregg
Reply
#83
I have presented a peer-reviewed paper reporting on the effectiveness of mail armor. The test was specifically set up to see how 15th C medieval mail would perform against a 15th C arrow. The main problem with the test is that Williams probably underestimated the amount of energy a medieval longbow could deliver. It does suggest that McEwan's bow would have had no chance of compromising the combination. Until a similar test is performed against a decent reconstruction of Roman mail then it is the only data we have to work with. It is better than the empty speculation I've seen in response. It also counters the argument that mail armour, in general, is highly susceptible to impaling attacks.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#84
Quote:I have presented a peer-reviewed paper reporting on the effectiveness of mail armor. The test was specifically set up to see how 15th C medieval mail would perform against a 15th C arrow. The main problem with the test is that Williams probably underestimated the amount of energy a medieval longbow could deliver. It does suggest that McEwan's bow would have had no chance of compromising the combination. Until a similar test is performed against a decent reconstruction of Roman mail then it is the only data we have to work with. It is better than the empty speculation I've seen in response. It also counters the argument that mail armour, in general, is highly susceptible to impaling attacks.

No, you've selectively presented the results, not the paper.

Certainly the underestimation of the power of the longbow was ONE of the problems of the report. But as I have demonstrated, the arrowhead form used for the test was incorrect (the wrong tool for the job, and I'm not the first to point this out), and certainly incorrect for the Roman era. Eric Schmid himself says that mail basically didn't change throughout time except in style, until the 15th century when a real change in mail quality is seen and mail begins to be made of hardened and tempered high carbon steel, so the mail isn't equivalent to Roman-era mail (or 10th century mail or 14th century mail for that matter). And the heavy jack, which was probably a very important factor in why the mail took so much force to fail, was also inappropriate to the Roman era.

For someone so unfailingly adamant in that past that such tests are not valid unless accurate for form, function and period, your insistance that a test that uses 15th century mail, a 15th century padded defence and an inapropriate arrowhead is relevant to the question at hand is a remarkable change of philosophy. Are you now taking a more liberal view towards the validity of such evidence? Or only when the evidence supports your preconceived notions?

Gregg
Reply
#85
Quote:
marka:2rjypxbj Wrote:roman enemies ie rebels would have had mail or later scale and plate.after all caesar,octavian,pompeius,crassus fought internal enemies as much as external ones.
i have read that the pila goes back to at least 3rd C BC and probably further.

might it also be something to with the barbed head of the pilum.

I have read that the pilum was developed that far cack too. Also if what read is correct then the pilum was a borrowing from the Italic tribes probably the Samnites circa 295BC. As these people developed it and had no tradition of mail, neither did their foes to a great extent then we may be justified to conclude that it was not developed specifically to combat mail.

if some early funeral reliefs are correct maybe much further back than that.
the samnites&etruscans did have metal armour,

the other reason could be that it would designed in this way so the pilum would penetrate deeply even at the edge of effective range (speculation i know)
mark avons
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Swords of the Parthian horse archers claste 4 1,017 07-04-2020, 12:47 AM
Last Post: claste
  Arrows Against Linen and Leather Armour Steven James 1 1,825 09-21-2016, 07:41 AM
Last Post: MonsGraupius
  Interpreting Polybius (was Late Roman Army) antiochus 17 3,897 08-17-2013, 12:00 PM
Last Post: Lyceum

Forum Jump: