02-01-2004, 10:28 PM
"Show me the results of Shrivenham-type testing on reconstructed samples made using comparable materials/methods of manufacture - and that it thus proves to be radically inferior to any other type of Roman armour - and I might begin to give at least due consideration to the issue"<br>
<br>
I think that the debate re penetration or what the armour could take if hit by a sword/ spear/ pointy stick actually misses a key part of battle- the psychological impact. Many uniforms/ armour/ formations through the ages have been designed to make the soldiers look larger, more unstoppable, and more frightening- with the effect that the opposing line breaks before contact. This is where the "parade armour and helmets" kick in. If I am a Teuton tribesman faced with disciplined ranks of Romans, some apparently wearing metal scales, cavalry wearing face masks, I may well feel inclined to melt back into the Teutoberger Wald before taking on these other worldly creatures.<br>
Perhaps we tend to judge by the rather drab uniforms of the last hundred years, where psychological impact is caused by large bangs rather than visual and aural mpact? <p></p><i></i>
<br>
I think that the debate re penetration or what the armour could take if hit by a sword/ spear/ pointy stick actually misses a key part of battle- the psychological impact. Many uniforms/ armour/ formations through the ages have been designed to make the soldiers look larger, more unstoppable, and more frightening- with the effect that the opposing line breaks before contact. This is where the "parade armour and helmets" kick in. If I am a Teuton tribesman faced with disciplined ranks of Romans, some apparently wearing metal scales, cavalry wearing face masks, I may well feel inclined to melt back into the Teutoberger Wald before taking on these other worldly creatures.<br>
Perhaps we tend to judge by the rather drab uniforms of the last hundred years, where psychological impact is caused by large bangs rather than visual and aural mpact? <p></p><i></i>