Time period weapons vs time period armor

[MagnusStultus]

What if any time period appropriate weapons would penetrate Roman Armor?

I have read in Roman Imperial Armor by Sims that

For example, lorica segmentata is approximately half the thickness of high medieval plate armor, but was just as effective as a measure of defence

That seems like overkill to me in an age without the mail penetrating poleaxe

So I repeat my question what was the armor penetration capability of weapons romans actually faced? They never had to enter the war of the Roses so High Medieval/Renaissance level protection seems like overkill to me.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I actually think Lorica Segmentata, as much as I love and prefer Lorica Hamata, was a very well made and fantastic innovation in armor: properly made lorica segmentata fit snugly, conformed well to the wearer, was hard to penetrate and hard to exploit gaps. It was face hardened, a technology not used again until the 18th century, which made it just as resistant as renaissance plate armor.

Probably the most powerful weapon the Romans faced, other than artillery like Euthytone and Palintone engines, was the bow. An archer with a 100 pound draw could do as much damage as a small caliber bullet, although people with that kind of strength were rare.

Chainmail was very, very difficult to penetrate. Late Medieval Chainmail like the kind used in the War of the Roses wasn't as well made as Roman mail, usually because the links were larger and it was less dense, providing better opportunities for penetration, as well as the probability that it had a higher slag content than Roman steel.

What killed in all eras was not trying to penetrate armor, your objective was to kill your opponent by attacking and disabling his limbs or head. In finds of battlesites, the torso and thighs very rarely have wounds, while most attacks were done to the limbs or head.

[Urselius]

If there are flaws in the metal, or if it has been over-hardened making it brittle, plate armour can shatter. In this case any energetically applied weapon can breach armour protection.

[Dan Howard]

I'm not sure whether the effectiveness of one type of armour over another is particularly important. If armour didn't work, it wouldn't have been worn. Personally I think that every type of armour ever worn in ancient battles stood a good chance of stopping the most common threats, but we have no idea what percentage of the legions wore any particular type of armour and we don't know how many soldiers went without armour all together. In any case, they all carried a stonking big shield.

Even if Roman armour was completely invulnerable to every weapon ever invented, it only covered a portion of the body. Their armour does nothing to protect against an attack to the face, throat, armpit, wrist, thigh, groin, foot, etc, etc. and soldiers were trained to aim at these unprotected targets. The goal was to take an opponent out of the fight as quickly as possible and move on. A spear in the foot does that just as well as one through the heart. It was irrelevant to the outcome of the battle whether that opponent actually died or not.

One might also ask what sort of influence does armour really have over the outcome of a battle compared to all of the other factors such as logistics, tactics, finances, topography, weather, morale, experience, luck, etc. Armour is very important in determining whether an individual soldier survives a battle but it seems a lot less important in determining which side actually wins the battle. The Romans, in particular, weren't particularly affected by losing a battle. The system was set up so they could keep raising armies until they won.

[MagnusStultus]

Thanks you all for answering although I think I was unclear.

I was essentially wondering what weapons that would be available to an enemy of Rome (if any) could actually penetrate the armor to kill the individual soldier under it; it was inspired by the passage I read and quoted about LS being on par with a Renaissance breastplate.

So to be clear my question is what time period appropriate weapon would I use if I was trying to kill someone in the three main imperial armors (squamata, hamata or segmentata) or would I just be aiming for the face legs and armpits and not actually be able to penetrate the armor itself because the armor was too good to destroy during the battle?

[Dan Howard]

If you wanted to kill a Roman soldier, you aim for part of the body that isn't covered by armour. Plenty of places would prove fatal - the throat, the eye, the groin, the armpit, the inner thigh, etc. Or you simply disable him and kill him after the battle. Deliberately aiming for his armour is crazy. The chances of successfully punching through, regardless of what weapon you choose, are way too low to be worth the risk. While you are smacking around his armour he has already stabbed you in the belly and moved on.

But I'll repeat, killing the enemy is irrelevant. It isn't necessary. All you need to do is incapacitate. You can decide what to do with all of the wounded after you have won the battle. Actual fatalities during a battle were usually very low. The fatalities occurred afterwards when men succumbed to their wounds, prisoners were executed, and routers were chased down.

[Nathan Ross]

Deliberately aiming for his armour is crazy. The chances of successfully punching through, regardless of what weapon you choose, is way too low to be worth the risk.

I agree.

There were only two weapons in the ancient world that were specifically used against armoured opponents: the standard Roman military pickaxe (dolabra), used against plate-armoured rebels in Gaul, and the heavy studded club used on several occasions against clibanarii. The pick may have hacked through the armour, but more likely both weapons were used to deliver a hard enough blow to batter the man inside the armour into unconsciousness or death.

Neither was adopted as a standard weapon by the Roman army, which suggests that, as Dan says, chopping up armour was not a priority!

[Nathan Ross]

Lorica Segmentata... was... just as resistant as renaissance plate armor.

Late Medieval Chainmail... wasn't as well made as Roman mail.

Are these sensible comparisons? Renaissance plate armour covered the entire body and was built to withstand pikes, poleaxes and even firearms. If it wasn't any good at doing that, I doubt if people would have bothered wearing it. Would Roman torso armour have been as effective on the battlefields of Bosworth, Flodden or Pavia? I doubt it...

And I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that medieval mail intended as main body armour was inferior to the Roman version!

[Dan Howard]

And I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that medieval mail intended as main body armour was inferior to the Roman version!

Agreed. There are examples of medieval mail that you can't even stick a pin through. It depends on what it is used for. Mail that was intended to be worn by itself as the primary armour was at least as protective as Roman mail. Other types of mail were layered with other types of armour (CoPs, jacks, brigandines, etc) and tended to be lighter.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I was referring to the kind layered with other kinds of protections.

And I didn't account for Blast Furnaces which made Renaissance Armor vastly superior beginning in the late 15th centuries.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Actual fatalities during a battle were usually very low. The fatalities occurred afterwards when men succumbed to their wounds, prisoners were executed, and routers were chased down.

Maybe, but in a hard-fought battle thousands often perished in close combat on both sides - just ask Pyrrhus of Epirus or Hannibal.

As far as penetrating torso armor goes, javelins, sarisa, and lances probably had the best odds. Some accounts have sarisa piercing shields and armors, Vegetius wrote that well-thrown javelins could, etc. Heavy javelin when thrown with a running start deliver a tremendous amount of energy. Current-day Olympic athlete manage 350+ J with light javelins. For reference, a 150lb English warbow delivered 110-150 J.

[Benjamin Abbott]

[quote="Dan Howard" post=358380]Actual fatalities during a battle were usually very low. The fatalities occurred afterwards when men succumbed to their wounds, prisoners were executed, and routers were chased down.

Maybe, but in a hard-fought battle thousands often perished in close combat on both sides - just ask Pyrrhus of Epirus or Hannibal.

As far as penetrating torso armor goes, javelins, sarisa, and lances probably had the best odds. Some accounts have sarisa piercing shields and armors, Vegetius wrote that well-thrown javelins could, etc. Heavy javelin when thrown with a running start deliver a tremendous amount of energy. Current-day Olympic athlete manage 350+ J with light javelins. For reference, a 150lb English warbow delivered 110-150 J.

[richard robinson]

Having read Josephus and one or two other histories I would suggest that the gladius and pilum are the correct weapons that opponents of Rome generally chose when they felt threatened by Rome.

Apart from The Dacians, they always chose to do things a it differently.

Regards
Richard

[Dan Howard]

Maybe, but in a hard-fought battle thousands often perished in close combat on both sides - just ask Pyrrhus of Epirus or Hannibal.

But how many actually died during ther battle and how many died in the aftermath?

[Benjamin Abbott]

But how many actually died during ther battle and how many died in the aftermath?

The thousands who died on the victorious side - as at Heraclea or Cannae - either did so during the fighting or later on from wounds received in the fighting.