Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
On Metal Thickness Segunda quotes in his book aboout the Spartans:
0,5mm to 1mm Bronze shield rim (Athenisce Mitteilungen, 52 1927)
In my opinion it only decorative item.
Other examples: (Source Archeology Students text book)
A "Gorgon" bronze shield emblazon in the National Museum in Athens is
at places 5mm
A bronze Pilos helmet in the National Museum in Athens is 2mm
A bronze "perizoma" remnant from Sparta Museum betweem 2mm to 3mm
A Bronze "cheack-piece from Sparta Museum Museum 3,2mm
A "Kegel" helmet and a bell cuirass at Argos between
1,5mm to 3mm at places.
(This means that they reinforced the "vital" parts more.)
Iron "cheack-piece from Dion Museum 2mm
Also the M-1942 US is arround 3mm cast iron NOT steel and it can resist
a direct hit from 0.45 slug at 50 meters (Army test 1975)
Only the English and Karduchian longbows and some crossbows have better penetration and also proved this in reconstructions.
The friend of mine who obliged to give me info from his textbook also told me that his tutors told him that they allow a 20 % error element because of time but I do not know how they measure that.
If any other memeber has experience in chemistry or time effect on Metallurgy I hope can enlighten us more.
Kind regards
Stefanos
A bronze Pilos helmet in the National Museum in Athens is 2mm
to
Iron "cheack-piece from Dion Museum 2mm
Very interesting! You've done it again, Stefanos.
Also the M-1942 US
?Bullet-proof vest?
is arround 3mm cast iron NOT steel
To absorb the impact?
and it can resist
a direct hit from 0.45 slug at 50 meters (Army test 1975)
Only the English and Karduchian longbows and some crossbows have better penetration
Than the .45? I'm impressed.
and also proved this in reconstructions.
Thanks very much.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
To do justice to the poor 0.45 the simple lead slug was used not the "jacketed" ones. The hemet is composite having a plastic "internal-helmet" when worn.
The longbow arrow points would be bronze or iron and that changes things.
The arrow recomstruction data might be still in the soa.org.uk forum where several members were ranting and raving about the correct classfication of the longbowmen in the DBM game. In the links page there is also an intersting archery site.
Penetration depends on speed and material hardness.
That is why the bulletproof vests are pierced by coper-jacketed slugs shot by rifles(higher velocity) but resist pistol rounds an sharpnel (lower velocity.)
I dont know if somebody have pierced a vest with a longbow but also ancients did not have nylon or Kevlar!
Also most Pilos helmets have been found with hinges.
That implys that the owners would buy "cheack-pieces" later perhaps, if the could not afford them initially.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Regarding Philip's cuirass I can't remember where I got my info from - probably Andronicos' book about the Vergina dig. But I recall Connolly complaining that it had not been properly published too.
2-3mm of copper alloy is heavy enough to withstand virtually all weapons of the day. The butt spike on the back of a spear might be able to punch through but little else. Maybe arrows at very close range but that would not be a realistic battlefield distance. It should be noted that the English longbow is greatly hyped. It did not have the distance nor the penetration of a crossbow. Its main use was massed volley fire to upset a cavalry charge. They could not penetrate plate armour and rarely penetrated mail under battlefield conditions.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Dan I think I will agree with you on the armor thicknes.
After seen the museum exibits I come to to think that they put the maximoum thikness to the vital parts an minimum thickness in other areas.
"Italiotic" Corinthian helmets are an example with thick upper parts and less thick facial. That is one way to distribute weight.
On bow penetration I can only follow re-enactors comments at forums, I do not have personal experience. Some people tend to exagerate but not all reconstruction statistics can be dissmised as invalid.
Xenofon says that Karduchian longbows killed Cleonymos (arrow piersing the shield and armor-no mention what armor was though!) and arrow piercing the helmet of Vasias-no mention what type of helmet) Also no mention of the distance.
I do not know any body having reconstructed a Karduchian longow.
The largest longbow that I have seen is in the Saroglou Collection in the War Museum in Athens but I think it must be Medieval not Ancient.
Iron must give an edge over bronze or copper as the Doreans and Sea Peoples demonstrated.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Dan
I agree on your post over hyped longbows, however the effective range of crossbows was shorter, especially arbalastes and other powerful crossbows, because they were very innacurate.
AKA Inaki
2-3mm of copper alloy is heavy enough to withstand virtually all weapons of the day.
Really? Looking at it, that seems quite thick. If, however, we assume a variation in thickness over the piece, as Stefanos says, then a cuirass need not become ridiculously heavy, I guess. I must talk to my armourer friend about the thicknesses he is using. Most armourers seem to talk in terms of "gauge" but I've forgotten what thicknesses 18-, 16- and 14-gauge represent. Do you have a Greek cuirass reconstruction? If so, what's the thickness of it? I only have a linothorax, because I could make that myself.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Composite crossbows could outdistance longbows by maybe 20%. Later steel crossbows could outdistance them significantly more. Longbows are more inaccurate than crossbows, not vice versa. The only reason English longbows outranged Genoese crossbows at Crecy is because the Genoese bowstrings became wet before the battle. If you are genuinely interested in this subject a good book is "The Medieval Archer" by Jim Bradbury - easy to read and uses recent scholarship
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:Iron must give an edge over bronze or copper as the Doreans and Sea Peoples demonstrated.
Stefanos
The only "edge" is that iron was cheap and more readily available. Tylecote has some tables comparing the hardness of copper alloys and iron/steel. You need quench-hardened steel to produce weapons and armour that is superior to properly cast, work-hardened bronze. Steel doesn't seem to have been used by any culture during the time in question.
Why do you think that the Sea Peoples and Dorians had iron and not everybody else?
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:Also most Pilos helmets have been found with hinges.
That implys that the owners would buy "cheack-pieces" later perhaps, if the could not afford them initially.
Why? Some Roman helms had hinged cheekpieces and there is nothing to suggest that they were added after manufacture.
Posts: 4,029
Threads: 90
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:hoplite14gr:38kbxi6l Wrote:Also most Pilos helmets have been found with hinges.
That implys that the owners would buy "cheack-pieces" later perhaps, if the could not afford them initially.
Why? Some Roman helms had hinged cheekpieces and there is nothing to suggest that they were added after manufacture.
Your point is intersting and I will ponder more on it but:
finances from a war torn period (Peloponician War) that most pilos helmets dated were an issue. Metal was not cheap at the time especially if you had to provide your own equipment. There is no reason to think that they did not upgrade gradualy. Most statues depict pilos helm without extras but on "red faced" pottery it is depicted with crest and chick pieces. A french illustrator reconstructed a late period hoplite with a crested pilos helmet and a "perizoma" I admit it is speculative but not unlikely. After all why put hinges on the helmet if they were used for nothing?
Some where I read about leather cheek pieces but I am still serching for more evidence on that.
Quote:The only "edge" is that iron was cheap and more readily available
As for you commend on Iron I found a site that seems to support you comments so I will go through it
http://www.fargarossell.ad/eng/historia/12.htm
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Rigid cheekpieces are just as easy to retrofit as hinged ones. My question was why do hinged cheekpieces automatically mean that they were added later and not rigid ones?
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Composite crossbows could outdistance longbows by maybe 20%. Later steel crossbows could outdistance them significantly more. Longbows are more inaccurate than crossbows, not vice versa. The only reason English longbows outranged Genoese crossbows at Crecy is because the Genoese bowstrings became wet before the battle. If you are genuinely interested in this subject a good book is "The Medieval Archer" by Jim Bradbury - easy to read and uses recent scholarship
Dan
My information comes from J F Guilmartin "Gunpowder and Galleys", according to that the more powerful a crossbow was the more inacurate it became. so that late XV and early XVI century crossbows, although very powerful, had not an efective range of more than 30mts.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
I'm not sure how the larger fixed arbelests intended for siege warfare and naval combat can be compared to bows intended for battlefield use, but I may as well counter with Bradbury since I don't currently have access to Payne-Gallwey.
"By the fifteenth century the crossbow with its steel bow was a powerful weapon. It probably had greater range and greater impact than earlier bows, even the longbow... Payne-Gallwey thought 370-390 yards; Malcolm Vale believes up to 500 yards." p.150.
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
"The weapon which the Papal injunctions had sought to ban was the composite crossbow of wood and horn. This proved incapable of reliably penetrating the plate armor which became increasingly common during the fourteenth century and was replaced by the steel crossbow.10 In many respects this was a fearsome weapon. The development of an elaborate pulley and windlass system with a considerable mechanical advantage to draw the crossbow permitted the use of a short, very stiff, bow of mild steel into which a great deal of energy could be packed. The energy which a steel crossbow imparted to its projectile was greater than that given to an arrow by even the most powerful bow â€â€Â
AKA Inaki
|
