hard experiments, anyone?

[Goffredo]

Does anyone know of people that perform systematic and quantitative and clear experiments of sword and missile impacts on shields, armor etc? I would like to contact them.

[Caius Fabius]

Peter Connolly.
He even publishes some of his results!

[John M McDermott]

Check out this excellent test.

http://www.cotasdemalla.com/ma1.htm

[Dan Howard]

Allan Williams, "The Knight and the Blast Furnace," Chapter 9.

[Alexius]

Dear Goffredo (and John),

Once again, I see great experiences challenge at this Forum!

Godoffredo: Yes, in did, in mi 14 year of full fighting combat on foot and horse riding (14 years at medieval period and 1 year at roman era) I (and my companions) have a “fewâ€Â

[Martin Wallgren]

Here is a link to the videosection for testcutting at the site of ARMA

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/t ... erials.htm

[John M McDermott]

This test was of particular interest to me. Erik Schmidt and I worked for three years developing a hamata that incorporated the features of riveted and stamped iron rings over a good fabric hamata. on the theory that it would resist weapons at least as good as a segmentata.

Up until this time everyone assumed that a segmetata was infinitely superior to a hamata, almost to the point that there seemed sense to wearing a hamata at all.

[Erik D. Schmid]

I just want to point out that the tests conducted by Alan Williams in his book as they pertain to mail should be taken with a grain of salt. The tests done in the link provided by John are slightly better, but could still be improved upon. :wink:

[Crispvs]

Regarding Goffredo's question about shields, my first group was an 11th century group using eight foot spears, axes and swords. Most of our shields were thirty inch round and made of 1/2 inch plywood. Our original shields were edged with rawhide but not faced with anything or painted. All had 1/16 inch spun bosses. These shields were quite adequate at resisting glancing blows and these rarely caused any damage. Solid blows to the rawhide edges of shields would sometimes cut through the rawhide but would rarely go far into the shield unless the rawhide at that point was already damaged, in which case a solid sword or axe blow might split the shield. In either case the shield arm recieved a nasty jolt.
Against thrusts these shields performed poorly and a solid thrust to the face of a shield often resulted in a piece of layered ply being knocked out of the shield. Then hole created was similar in nature to a bullet wound, with a smallish entry hole and a large exit hole. In this situation the weapon would often penetrate the shield but unless the shield was being held close to the body the weapon rarely penetrated far enough to do physical harm. What it often did was to effectively take both men out of the fight for a moment, as the weapon and shield would often become bound up with one another for a second or two before the weapon could be pulled out. With the weapon arm of the attacker extended but unable to parry blows and the shield of the defender being pulled down by the weapon, both men could easily become tagets for other men in the battle line.
After a couple of years we decided to glue cloth facings to any new shields we made. Most, but not all of these shields were painted.
The canvas faced shields were better in all respects over the unfaced shields. Blows which penetrated the rawhide edging did not cut as far into the wood and thrusts no longer caused pieces to pop out of shields, although they could still cause cracks and general weakening of the affected area. The worst damage I saw to one of these shields was a 'door' about six inches long which hung open on a securely attached hinge formed by facing material which had not torn and which was produced by a heavy blow from an axe. As I said, this was the worst damage we saw and the shild may already have been weakened by previous usage. We also guessed that the blow which caused this damage might well have broken an unfaced shield into three pieces. We generally found, as well, that fabric faced shields which were painted seemed to perform better than unpainted fabric shields.
Unfortunately, we never performed any measured tests on shields to find the relative merits of each type af shield against different types of blows from different weapons, so few reliable conclusions can be drawn. The experience of several years of regular combat training and combat re-enactment, however led to a realisation in the group that glue, fabric and paint all add to the defensive quality of a shield, whose job, after all, is to take the punishment which is being directed against its user.

Crispvs

[Magnus]

I really think people should adjust their p.o.v. when it comes to armour type vs weapon type. Going with what John said, I don't feel based on what I've read on Sword Forum that plate is better than maille, but in certain circumstances they sure might be.

I am hoping for a cumulative study on the effects of blunt force trauma from weapon damage on both hamata and segmentata type armours. Too bad someone doesn't have access to some of the things forensics uses to determine impact energy from bullets and motor vehicle collisions. I think both armour types have a similar degree of effectiveness vs thrusts or penetration types of weapons, but when it comes to impacts, my vote would be with plate armour + padding.

[John M McDermott]

There was a good program on the History Channel last week. It was an episode from, "Weapons that Made England (or Great Britain)" It concerned a battle in France during the Hundred Years War, but the point of interest was a demonstration that showed how vulnerable even the best plate armor was to blunt force. Mail would be similarly vulnerable.

My own theory is that the segmentata and the hamata were roughly equal in effectiveness, but that mail required a a specialized maker, whereas the segmentata could be made by a regular blacksmith/armorer.

[Erik D. Schmid]

John, the weapon tests in "Weapons that Made Britain" should also be taken with agrain of salt as they were done specifically for a television production.