Regarding the Gladius and Mail

[CNV2855]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJS1MziI98

In this video, he makes a very good point.  Mail is primarily countered by thrusting swords, but not just any thrusting swords.  The tip has to be extremely acute, to the point that it's able to slip into a ring, then tapered enough to allow it to split the ring open, allowing the sword to penetrate.

A sword without an acute/tapered point cannot penetrate mail, and will just mash rings together and be as ineffective as slashing.  So, we know the Romans used mail around 500 BC and adopted the Gladius around the 3rd century BC from some outside source, maybe soldiers from Gaul or Carthage.

I see this is a primary feature of the Gladius:


Here's a Spatha:  

Now I understand that it comes down to individual examples, but the Spatha was a slashing sword.  When thrusting, if you're trying to penetrate mail then a smaller, shorter blade actually provides you with a greater amount of force and leverage, than a longer weapon, such as a spear.  

If you were trying to penetrate riveted mail armor, a thrusting weapon like a Gladius would be pretty much the perfect answer.  It's short, very pointed, tapered, yet a solid bladed weapon that cannot be broken, or rendered useless - like a spear.  Then we see Segmentata, and Scutum, pop up during the time that the Gladius becomes a universal weapon amongst the legions.  

Then when we see some overlap of the disappearances of both the Scutum, Segmentata, and the emergence of the Spatha.  I don't know which event was the chicken, and which was the egg but this doesn't seem to be a coincidence.  Perhaps the legions, after adapting a larger sword due to foreign influence, cavalry, or for whatever reason, no longer saw the need for Segmenata.  The weapon that countered mail wasn't as prevalent?   Battles with the Gladius certainly tended to have high casualty rates, probably due to the close in dagger like nature of the fighting although this may be a false correlation.

All I really know for sure is that the Gladius was renowned for the terrible wounds it made.  Doesn't really say if this was on armored soldiers or unarmored, and what percentage of soldiers in any given battle which wore armor would vary dramatically.  

Anyway, just wondering if this has been discussed or if there's any possibility of any of this playing into the evolution of arms over this period?  It's so hard to say because swords do not share features even when sharing the same classification.  This Spatha is certainly very pointed:

[Dan Howard]

No type of Roman armour can be compromised by a thrust with a one-handed sword or spear. The human body simply can't generate enough energy. It doesn't matter what kind of point the sword has. The videos we see in Youtube are using modern Indian mail that has little in common with Roman or medieval mail and is completely unsuitable for weapons testing.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189

Mail armour can easily withstand a thrust from any kind of gladius. When fighting against someone in armour Romans were trained to aim for spots that were not covered by armour. Deliberately trying to punch through armour is a good way to get killed. The tip shown on the above weapon is likely to break when it hits bone or a mail shirt at an odd angle. Armour-piercing points were "beefed up" to reduce the chances of this happening.

This might help.
https://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[CNV2855]

Are you sure that riveted mail, even when not braced, cannot be thrust through by certain swords?   People did use butted mail in history.  It wasn't preferred or ideal, but it was used.  Surely, that could be thrust through by a sword, no?

I understand the mechanics of force, how it's applied, and the differences in production.  I understand just how effective riveted, 4-in-1 mail is.  You're saying that no specialized sword could cause separation of the rings?

Bodkins, were made specifically to split open mail in this manner, were they not?  Even in the video I linked, the guy goes on and on about just how light, and strong riveted mail is, but concedes that it can be thrust to, even if the blow is "absorbed".

The thing that interests me the most, is that the evolution of weapons and armor occurred so slowly.  Maybe it was pure economics, as an army couldn't change out it's gear to optimize itself to fight whatever their opponents would be using.  Change in weapons, tactics, armor, would happen over centuries it seem.  The one exception being the (manica?).  It wasn't until the Late Medieval Period that you'd see Knights with a primary weapon (Pole) with a secondary weapon (Sword).   The appearance and disappearance of Segmentata is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries to me because I don't see it as a cheap armor for the masses, because it would have found great use in subsequent centuries which featured unarmored men who probably would've loved to wear something.

Well that and this thing:

[Dan Howard]

Mail can't be penetrated with a one-handed weapon unless there is a flaw in the armour. Specialised swords such as "tucks" were developed to get through armour and they had to get rid of the edge completely. It was essentially a long round-sectioned spike and wielded in two hands like a crowbar. Another armour-piercing weapon was the rondel dagger, which was a short spike with a disc on the back to enable the second hand to add additional force. The best tactic was to get the opponent on the ground and fall on him with the dagger so your body weight adds to the impact. The best armour piercers are all used in two hands, ideally with the target being incapacitated on the ground first.

Bodkins were not armour-piercers; they were used on long-range arrows. The compact broadhead was the armour-piercer and it had to be shot from the heaviest bows at the closest ranges (delivering more energy than is possible with a one-handed thrust) to have a chance of penetrating.

[CNV2855]

There's a Saracen account of a Frankish knight with dozens of arrows sticking out of his armor, yet riding away unharmed. Apparently he was amazed at how effective the foreign knight's armor was and that the man was not harmed.

Could I not conclude that mail was indeed pierced by arrows, as it would have to defeat the rings to become lodged in the gambeson/underarmor. The Muslims were not Longbowmen firing at men 30 feet away. I understand that a projectile much faster, therefor you can't "glance/absorb" the impact as you could a slower, yet more forceful impact. Still... not all armor was fit for Kings.

I always envisioned a (pre-modern) battlefield looking more like a bunch of ragtag insurgents, i.e. all manner of completely random weapons and gear, yet with the discipline and training of a modern army. When everybody was wearing very high grade gear they didn't think they'd die in, you probably wind up with say the impetuousness of the French at Agincourt. Then again, better equipped, even trained, armies have been underestimating their opponents since the dawn of time with very dire results...

Same line of thinking still exists. I know several people, friends, other forums who think the United States would roll over Iran, North Korea, and even Russia to the point that war doesn't even worry them. That's such a dangerous train of thought, even if they were were right. To think the Chinese couldn't sink a significant portion of our Navy? Who knows, but never think the impossible. (Sorry for going off topic, this forum probably has the most educated people of any that I've visited)

[Dan Howard]

There's a Saracen account of a Frankish knight with dozens of arrows sticking out of his armor, yet riding away unharmed.  Apparently he was amazed at how effective his armor was and that the man was not harmed.

Could I not conclude that mail was indeed pierced by arrows, as it would have to defeat the rings to become lodged in the gambeson/underarmor.   The Muslims were not Longbowmen firing at men 30 feet away.  I understand that a projectile much faster, therefor you can't "glance/absorb" the impact as you could a slower, yet more forceful impact.  Still... not all armor was fit for Kings.

I always envisioned a (pre-modern) battlefield looking more like a bunch of ragtag insurgents, i.e. all manner of completely random weapons and gear, yet with the discipline and training of a modern army.

All of this is covered in the "Mail Unchained" article above, including the Sarcaen anecdote. There is no mention of him being amazed; just that it happened - to multiple Crusaders, not just one.

Light, fast arrows can't punch through armour. You need heavy arrows and heavy bows. English armour-piercers weighed up to a quarter of a pound.

[CNV2855]

Ok thanks, I'll read it.

What's your own personal take on why the Scutum & Segmentata were adopted and used for three hundred years then abandoned forever? Why was the Gladius so amazingly popular for 600 years then it too disappeared?

[Dan Howard]

Segmentata was the cheapest form of metal armour available and soldiers had to pay for their own armour. So it became popular despite its shortcomings. During the Diocletian reforms the state took over the armour fabricas and standardised armour production. They chose to focus on mail and so segmentata was phased out.

[CNV2855]

Sorry I edited the post to include the Gladius. Why was it so overwhelmingly popular for 5-7 centuries? And why wouldn't Medieval armies, especially the Eastern Romans continue using a cheap, effective armor? (no condescension meant).

Did some other form of cheap armor appear during this period, and how often did these armies send in soldiers that could've been better served by a Segmentata-like-armor instead of being unarmored/lightly armored? Why was the Gladius abandoned too? Cavalry I suppose?

And finally, your theory on the dodecahedron? Probably made them to be an enigma and to baffle historians for eternity.

[Dan Howard]

The overwhelming number of Rome's opponents were not wearing armour. The gladius (all types) was designed to be used against flesh and it was viciously effective at this. Even Roman soldiers left a lot of the body unarmoured - face, throat, armpit, forearm, thighs, stomach, groin, etc. Why aim an inneffective stab at armour when all of these other targets are available? The goal is to incapacitate an opponent and move on to the next one. A thrust to the foot does this just as well as one through the heart.

[CNV2855]

Ok. Regardless of the armor type, and the vulnerabilities, Roman soldiers were considered extremely well armored up until the advent of chainmail sleeves, coifs, leggings? What are the earliest historical known examples of armor that covered an entire body? It certainly existed by the 10th century.

Also, I have an an article from a recent dig from a very wealthy town in Northern Europe. The defenders were very well armored, having the best mail/equipment of the day. One soldier had both legs cleaved clean off, slightly above the knee, through mail (that covered his legs) by a Dane axe. Obviously you couldn't wear padding under armor on your extremities, so those vulnerabilities were vulnerabilities until the advent of plate, I would think?

Still, to say that mail was completely resistant to certain attacks? It's a fantastic article. In it, he concludes that medieval warfare was incredibly violent and bloody and that lines may have had some degree of separation (i.e. a standoff distance) kind of like two boxers, and it wasn't just men constantly forced to fight for their life for minutes at a time like we think.

You'd need a lot of room to swing a Dane axe at thigh level in a side swipe after all... A LOT of the graves at that dig had limbs cleaved clean off, or huge gashing wounds, and they were buried in their armor I think.

[Dan Howard]

The dodecahedron is one of the five Platonic solids. It apparently represented an idealized form of Divine thought.

Also, I have an an article from a recent dig from a very wealthy town in Northern Europe. The defenders were very well armored, having the best mail/equipment of the day. One soldier had both legs cleaved clean off, slightly above the knee, through mail (that covered his legs) by a Dane axe. Obviously you couldn't wear padding under armor on your extremities, so those vulnerabilities were vulnerabilities until the advent of plate, I would think?

Your report is from the Wisby battlefield and it wasn't recent; the dig started in 1905 and Bengt Thordeman published the report in 1944. Look at the distribution of the injuries. Dozens on arms, shins, and skulls but not a single one on the torso, hips, or thighs. It is pretty good evidence that body armour worked. Given the time of the battle, it is likely that most of those injuries were done with polearms, which are better at penetrating mail than swords and axes. They weren't wearing the best armour. It is thought that the Wisby defenders were wearing armour that was around half a century out of date compared to the latest developments in Italy and Germany.

[CNV2855]

I'm going to see if I can't dig it up. No point in even continuing if I can't find my source. I think the article referring to forces maintaining a stand-off distance may have been a separate article. You're right about it probably being Visby.

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2015/...utely.html

What do you think of this?

Roman heavy infantry engagements possessed several clear characteristics which must be accounted for by any model of the combat mechanics involved. If not decided at the first clash, the contests often dragged on for an hour or more before one side finally broke and fled. The losers could suffer appalling casualties in the battle itself or in the ensuing pursuit, but the victors rarely suffered more than 5 per cent fatalities even in drawn-out engagements. The fighting lines could shift back and forth over hundreds of yards as one side withdrew or was pushed back by its opponents. Finally, the Romans had a practical system for the passage of lines, and preferred to reinforce or replace tired units with fresh ones rather than maximizing the depth of the initial fighting line. [1]

He concludes men maintained a distance and then would surge, clash, and then separate again. This would occur until a route. You see the same thing during a riot, there's always 5-10 feet in front of the riot police that the crowd stands off at.

The tempo of their battles would have been decided by fear and terror, as it was with the Romans. Sabin's model of periodic surges of courage temporarily hurling front lines together should be the default image of every mass infantry battle waged in the pre-modern era.

---

Why would parts of each line sporadically surge forward into contact? The key individuals would surely be the 'natural fighters' and junior leaders, who would encourage a concerted lunge forward to overcome the understandable reluctance among their comrades to be the first to advance into the wall of enemy blades. Roman sub- units such as centuries, maniples, and cohorts offered an ideal basis for such localized charges, whereas tribal warriors would mount less disciplined attacks led by the bolder spirits among them. The many accounts of Roman standard-bearers carrying or flinging their standards towards the enemy to embolden the onslaught of their comrades (as at Pydna and in Caesar's invasion of Britain) are of obvious relevance in this connection (Plutarch, Aem. 20; Caesar, BG 4.25). Across an overall infantry battlefront many hundreds of yards wide, the back and forth movement of individual sub-units or warrior bands just the crucial few yards to engage in or disengage from hand-to-hand combat would not prejudice the maintenance of the overall line. If such flurries of sword fighting were not quickly decisive, then sheer physical and nervous exhaustion, coupled with the killing or wounding of the key junior leaders who were inspiring their men to engage, would lead the two sides to separate back to the default stand-off.

I forgot how great that article was. Even the quote, ""Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second" "

I may have misread and confused something about the Visby account. I believe that to be the battle, but can't find the description of the man who was cleaved in half.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The tempo of their battles would have been decided by fear and terror, as it was with the Romans. Sabin's model of periodic surges of courage temporarily hurling front lines together should be the default image of every mass infantry battle waged in the pre-modern era.

I want to make a fair point with this: I think this might unlock a secret to success in Roman warfare: if such a model is true, then the advantage the Romans had was that they could maintain continuous contact with experienced, veteran leadership. As such, they were unrelenting and the front of their army was constantly battering away at the enemy.

Did some other form of cheap armor appear during this period, and how often did these armies send in soldiers that could've been better served by a Segmentata-like-armor instead of being unarmored/lightly armored?

The advent of the highly sophisticated but relatively cheap "Byzantine Lamellar" or more simply Klivanion. Timothy Dawson has reconstructed this armor and it is amazingly complex - as complex as the Segmentata. But it is cheaper than maille. In fact, we find still that maille was given to the best and most wealthy in the Roman army of the medieval period.

[Dan Howard]

Don't bother with a secondary article. Go to the original source.
http://michael-engel.io.ua/album331513

The advent of the highly sophisticated but relatively cheap "Byzantine Lamellar" or more simply Klivanion. Timothy Dawson has reconstructed this armor and it is amazingly complex - as complex as the Segmentata.

Byzantine armour never involved rivets. It was simple laced lamellar like all the other examples we have. Dawson interprets Byzantine illustrations far too literally.