Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[Paullus Scipio]

My apologies for the condescension - it was indeed uncalled for - but put it down to irritation at broad assertions made without reference to evidence or the underlying science involved, combined with the fact that it is late here, and I'm consequently tired.....

I specifically referred to pistol 'shotproof' marks as one of a number of supposedly 'weaponproof' armours made from time to time historically - a particular example from a particular time ( indidently, a good many of these were 'faked'. Amusingly, a number of examples of 'shotproof' marks on armour have real bullet-holes alongside them, but of course their owners were hardly in a position to claim a refund !!! :lol: )

But we digress.

Yes, the laws of physics remain the same with modern weapons and armour, but they are in no way relevant to a discussion dealing with arrows and bronze armour.

The laws of physics are not relevant to discussions of arrows and bronze armour ? hock: hock: Is it any wonder a person gets irritable in the face of statements like this - I hope you did not mean this the way it reads.

Would you use the argument "an AK 47 can penetrate a flak jacket, so an arrow must be able to penetrate bronze armour"?

Of course not - but the laws of physics underlying penetration in each case are the same, of course.

I simply do not believe that an arrow from the ancient world can penetrate a curved, properly made bronze cuirass, or a helmet. Especially not from combat range of an archer.
A lucky strike from a spear may do, but as I said you would do your best NOT to hit the armour.

...and the evidence for this sweeping statement would be ? Do you have facts and figures regarding thickness , metallurgy and resistance of said armour? Tests of same? Or the forces and factors involved with regard to the many types of bow ( not to mention arrows) in the 'ancient world'? The questions you pose for Scott, valid as they are, apply equally to your own broad assertions..... D