Weapon/Armor Effectiveness

[Bryan]

Just got done reading "From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies" and had quite a few "confused" moments while reading about their methods used to test the effectiveness of weapons. Basically they stated that swords and spears were generally useless against mail armor, that the greatest weapon was the ax. Which is weird because very few armies that I am aware of armed their warriors with axes.

So can a sword or spear, constructed in the manner accurate to say the 200 BC - 1 BC period, actually pierce accurately constructed mail armor in a one armed stabbing motion?

Has anyone done any recent tests on this? If so, what are the results?

[Robert Vermaat]

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=40 is a tread you could look at. Testing armour has ben discussed before on this forum, please use the search function.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=20 discusses the use of a falx vs. Roman armour.

I have never come across any conclusion that a spear was useless against mail, quite the contrary. Mail protects against blows (but use a subarmalis against the impact) and cuts, but it can be penetrated by arrows and spearheads, and swordpoints I guess.

[Cerco 21]

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=40 is a tread you could look at. Testing armour has ben discussed before on this forum, please use the search function.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=20 discusses the use of a falx vs. Roman armour.

I have never come across any conclusion that a spear was useless against mail, quite the contrary. Mail protects against blows (but use a subarmalis against the impact) and cuts, but it can be penetrated by arrows and spearheads, and swordpoints I guess.

You are quite right, mail protects very well against slashing cuts, not so good against blunt trauma (but underpading can overcome this), and against piercing stabs was the worst, a well aimed thrust did a lot of damage to mail, could split and open rings.

A spear would be more effective than a sword against mail because of reach and momentum, the fact that you had to spend energy to split the mail resulted in a "shallower" blow, whilst the spear had larger momentum* and could still do damage underneath.

*Not only due to larger mass but also because it would be used two handed. Usually.

[Cerco 21]

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=40 is a tread you could look at. Testing armour has ben discussed before on this forum, please use the search function.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...0&start=20 discusses the use of a falx vs. Roman armour.

I have never come across any conclusion that a spear was useless against mail, quite the contrary. Mail protects against blows (but use a subarmalis against the impact) and cuts, but it can be penetrated by arrows and spearheads, and swordpoints I guess.

You are quite right, mail protects very well against slashing cuts, not so good against blunt trauma (but underpading can overcome this), and against piercing stabs was the worst, a well aimed thrust did a lot of damage to mail, could split and open rings.

A spear would be more effective than a sword against mail because of reach and momentum, the fact that you had to spend energy to split the mail resulted in a "shallower" blow, whilst the spear had larger momentum* and could still do damage underneath.

*Not only due to larger mass but also because it would be used two handed. Usually.

[joeandmich]

A thick quilted under coat like gambeson slowed penetration even further. Vikings used this type layered approach.

[Sean Manning]

Just got done reading "From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies" and had quite a few "confused" moments while reading about their methods used to test the effectiveness of weapons. Basically they stated that swords and spears were generally useless against mail armor, that the greatest weapon was the ax. Which is weird because very few armies that I am aware of armed their warriors with axes.

So can a sword or spear, constructed in the manner accurate to say the 200 BC - 1 BC period, actually pierce accurately constructed mail armor in a one armed stabbing motion?

Has anyone done any recent tests on this? If so, what are the results?

"From Sumer to Rome" was well intentioned, but its littered with errors, incorrect generalizations, and things which aren't as scientific as they think they are. I made two pages of criticisms before I got tired.

Since they give no details of the weapons and armour they reconstructed, and based their test on a sample size of one subject with unspecified experience at hitting things with hand tools, its meaningless. Unfortunately it has spread widely because it looks 'scientific' and most people forget how to design an experiment after high school.

[Sean Manning]

A thick quilted under coat like gambeson slowed penetration even further. Vikings used this type layered approach.

Do you have any evidence for that? As far as we can tell quilted armour (including special padded garments to wear under armour) re-appeared in Europe in the 12th century after a hiatus of 600 years.

[Bryan]

You are quite right, mail protects very well against slashing cuts, not so good against blunt trauma (but underpading can overcome this), and against piercing stabs was the worst, a well aimed thrust did a lot of damage to mail, could split and open rings.

A spear would be more effective than a sword against mail because of reach and momentum, the fact that you had to spend energy to split the mail resulted in a "shallower" blow, whilst the spear had larger momentum* and could still do damage underneath.

So there has been a demonstration that revealed that a one handed stab with a gladius or spear could pierce lorica hamata? Could you provide more details.

[Virilis]

In the last issue of "Ancient Warfare" there was an article concerning the greek / persian wars. The writer said that they tested the armour piercing abilities of a 55# bow against linen armour. It would have been funny already but then they added that persians didn`t even have such a "powerful" bows hock: ...

Seriously, in my opinion a bow under 80 pounds of draw weight is quite useless in warfare. The persians had the knowledge of making powerful composite bows and guys who had practised archery all their lives. The added poundage would have made a huge different in range and penetration. I think 100# bow could have been common...

[arklore70]

There was a test with pictures on RAT at one time, that I can not find, that showed some effects of a bow on Modern reconstructed Roman Armor. Believe there was a segmentata, hamata with and without a padded subarmalis. Not sure of the hamata was riveted and stamped rings or butted, but it was interesting the results and lended credibility to the fact at for hamata to be efective it was best used as a system of layers with some sort of subarmalis. A proper sized tonic might have worked as well as mine bunches all up and seems to add a extra layer when I put on my subarmalis and hamata.

All the tests I have seen on reconstructed armor and even with modern body armor is usually done in a controlled environment. While these are great indicators of protection and effectiveness of weapons it does not tell the full story. In melee combat, nobody is going to just let the other guy hit you and in some cases, the amount of energy and effort expended might also inadvertently open up the individual striking you to receive a fatal blow from yourself or your fellow soldier. Tons of variables to factor in.

Only thing I can say with certainty is that the armor had to be effective enough to a degree that soldiers wore if for decades and centuries. If it did not work to a certain degree, soldiers and armies would not have expended huge amounts of resources to equip all or some of their soldiers in it and soldiers would not have wanted to wear it.

[rrgg]

I think the highest penetration resistance I've ever seen attributed to padded mail of any period was around 200 J for a spear point and around 120 J for a bodkin. That'd be pretty tricky to thrust through but given that modern Javelin throwers regularly get up past the 300 J range it probably won't make you invulnerable.

[Bryan]

So with a quilted underlayer underneath a sword or spear thrust performed one handed could not pierce lorica hamata/ring mail. Is that correct?

If I understand it most mail from the ancient period was made of iron, not steel. Has anyone done tests with non-steel mail to see how effective it was?

[Dan Howard]

So there has been a demonstration that revealed that a one handed stab with a gladius or spear could pierce lorica hamata? Could you provide more details.

Nobody except Williams has bothered to try and use mail that was representative of that worn at the time. He concluded that the minimum amount of energy required to compromise his samples was 120J for a spike (e.g. bodkin arrow) and 200J for other blades (e.g. spear head). He also cited from Horsfall who concluded that the maximum amount of energy that a person can deliver with a one-handed thrust is 115 J. So based on the best evidence we currently have, you can't thrust through properly-made riveted mail with a one-handed spear or gladius. You'd need a pilum or a two-handed pole arm to have much chance.

[Bryan]

To all, thanks for the information. just read the thread, http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...&id=293030, that dealt with this very topic.

Very interesting, seems that it would have been a lot harder to mortally wound someone in battle than I originally thought. Brings a whole new dimension to the period.

[Cerco 21]

So there has been a demonstration that revealed that a one handed stab with a gladius or spear could pierce lorica hamata? Could you provide more details.

Nobody except Williams has bothered to try and use mail that was representative of that worn at the time. He concluded that the minimum amount of energy required to compromise his samples was 120J for a spike (e.g. bodkin arrow) and 200J for other blades (e.g. spear head). He also cited from Horsfall who concluded that the maximum amount of energy that a person can deliver with a one-handed thrust is 115 J. So based on the best evidence we currently have, you can't thrust through properly-made riveted mail with a one-handed spear or gladius. You'd need a pilum or a two-handed pole arm to have much chance.

Did he mentioned, besides energy, momentum, pressure or other variable.

Because energy alone tells us only part.