Weapon/Armor Effectiveness

[Gallus Maximus]

Getting back to the original post, would it be possible to cut mail (not just bruise) with something like a two handed battle axe?

If you penetrate mail or not, a two handed battle axe will break whatever bone is under it!

[M. Caecilius]

There's some interesting stuff on this topic in Xantener Berichte 16, Waffen in Aktion, ROMEC XVI (published 2009).

I'm only able to read the book very slowly due to a rather busy time at work, but in particular the article by S. James, 'The point of the sword: what Roman-era weapons could do to bodies - and why they often didn't' (p.41-54) in particular has some interesting bits, although overall I'd rather he had written more than the space allowed.

T. Fischer also does a frustratingly brief introduction on "Kampfspuren" (traces of combat) on buildings, weapons, armour and bodily remains (ibid. p.1-9).

Overall, my impression so far is that the work is quite interesting, but frustratingly brief on interesting aspects - partly, as the acknowledge, because more studies have been done on typology than effect of weapons under scientific circumstances, due, in part to a supposed (?) reluctance of the academe to get involved with the more gory bits, and in part because it's a tad illegal to do the experiment for real...

Will keep people updated as I go, if there is an interest.

[Cerco 21]

I would have to talk to an engineer to see if any solution was possible.

Yes? :grin:

Actually on my web page I've done the computations - using the values for our Ballistas and bolts - for speed, range, impact energy and drag. Our exit velocity computations were validated using a chronograph. So as you can see it's very very simple. Siege Engines, Bows and Crossbows act as acummulators and will release the energy acummulated (regardless of how it was stored - faster, slower) at the same rate each time it is fired. Which means it's user independent (in case of bows it's not completely user independent).

For close combat impact and penetration you'e need to rig an arm that would produce the same impact energy as a "human" arm. But to compute the "average" swing speed you'd need a statistic significant number of real swings at different angles. It's NOT user independent and that brings a whole mess of variables. You can do a series of tests that will infer material penetration, but in the end the user variables will matter the most.

Very few Mechanical Engineers have a taste for history and so it's hard to convince a Materials Lab to perform tests (yes I've tried - but I'm no researcher or academic - I actually do engineering work).

[Sean Manning]

I must have been unclear. I said that I thought the physics of projectiles are relatively easy, but the physics of cuts are hard (because the wielder provides a constantly changing force from the moment that the weapon strikes to the moment it leaves the target) and that I didn't know if there was any simple way to model the different factors. One problem with Gabriel and Metz is that they assumed they could use "average weapon speed squared times weapon mass over 2 equals kinetic energy" for cuts which is a big underestimate of the energy that a trained fighter can deliver.

I agree that human variability is a big problem. It probably matters more for cuts than thrusts or archery. The other problem with Gabriel and Metz is that they only tested one person and used him to represent all fighters in all situations. The Peter Connolly study on spear effectiveness also used very few subjects and doesn't explain things like how they generated power for their strikes.

If I am in Europe next year for grad school maybe we could talk about getting an interdisciplinary project together. An engineer, a classicist who can fence and program and do calculus, and a third person who is very good at cutting would make a good team.

[Cerco 21]

If I am in Europe next year for grad school maybe we could talk about getting an interdisciplinary project together. An engineer, a classicist who can fence and program and do calculus, and a third person who is very good at cutting would make a good team.

If you do come to Europe, we'll be more than pleased to help you. My group has 3 Engineers and one Teacher, we all do historical fencing for over 10 years now. Our problem is test facilities. We all have jobs outside the academic medium that bred us so we don't have a "department" were we can go and borrow dynamometres, do hardness tests etc. We have some test equipment, but we would like to have a compreensive data logger to test a series of parameters. If you come for an Engineering grad look for IST or FEUP.

Also we are very unbiased, one of us is an archery fanatic, the other (myself) enjoys chainmail and axes and a third is a full plate buff. Very interesting discussions, and no definite conclusions...