Roman Armor, just what was it really supposed to do

[arklore70]

Folks,
now I know what some of you must be thinking in regards to this topic.; besides the obvious fact that armor was designed to protect the soldier, I am curious as to what extent.

For example, we know that the Lorica Hamata was designed to stop slashing and piercing weapons to an extent , and that with some sort of subarmalis, this was a pretty effect armor system that would also absorb some blunt force trauma..but not all of it.

A lot of that blunt force trauma would not be displaced and still be capable of breaking collar bones, shoulders, ribs, etc.., especially if an opponent was capable of getting in a solid, well cranked in in shot.

While adrenaline could play a factor in keeping a trooper in the fight, as well as learning how to roll with a blow, was the basic idea of the armor to keep the soldier in the fight or designed to stop a killing blow/life threatening blow, that might disable him for the battle, but with healing would get him back into the campaign.

Another example would be in a modern context of what I am trying to articulate. Level III body armor is designed to stop a pistol shot as well as a rifle shot as long as armor piercing ammunition is not used. That said, a person wearing a level III vest, getting shot at short range or medium range will definitely get knocked off there feet, have the wind knocked out of them, and have good bruising, along with perhaps some cracked ribs, which might effectively take the wearer out of the fight, but allow them to live and fight another day very quickly.

I am sure any good Centurion would say the real intent is to not get hit at all ...but life does happen on the battlefield.

I have read this page for a year and have not seen this discussed before and Cheesman, Connolly, Barker, Fields, Cowan, Simpkins, Goldsworthy, Watson, Sumner and Peterson do not seem to discuss it either in the works that they have written.

Thoughts?/Ideas?,

V/r
Mike

[Peroni]

Mike, let's not forget that your body armour (in Roman times) was your second level defence. Your main defence would be your shield. This would be the first point of contact (hopefully!) in a battle situation.

[Felix]

The issues were pretty much the same then as now, I should think. Two incidents may be useful to think about:

During one of the civil wars, a Roman army incorporated a group of gladiators into the army, of a heavily armoured type (crupellarii?). When this force met with a battle, the opposing legionaries couldn't pierce the heavy armour with conventional weapons, and had to knock these gladiators down and dismantle them with pickaxes.

During the Dacian Wars, the Romans felt it necessary to make field improvisations in their standard armour, with helmet reinforcements, manica for the arms, and the like. The Dacians (presumably because of the falx) posed an unusually dire threat.

The Romans never armoured their soldiers as much as technology permitted (see anecdote #1). The helmets were pretty much open-faced, they didn't wear throat armour (although this is a very vulnerable part of the body) and weren't big on thigh or arm protection either. There must have been a trade-off (explicit or not) between:

degree of protection

comfort (if a soldier won't wear it, it is useless) both short term and long term

cost (either the soldier's or the state's)

As Peroni noted, the shield was the first level of protection; I would say that armour was mostly designed to deal with the blows which somehow got past that first level, and to allow a soldier to fight another day.

[Tarbicus]

Add to that the seg and manica, as well as many features of Gallic style helmet, were designed to make a blow or thrust continue on and away from the initial point of contact. The latest examinations seem to prove that the quality of Roman plate far exceeds what has been previously thought, but the added deflective properties of the actual designs make the armour as a whole even more effective.

[arklore70]

All,
I agree whole heatedly on the shield being the first level of defense. I should have articulated that better, my bad.

V/r
Mike

[floofthegoof]

I have also heard it said about armor in general, that it gives a significant morale boost. Less hesitation etc.

One modern example you can see is hockey. Now that helmets are required, people treat each other alot more roughly and take more risks than they did in the old days. I don't think the rate of serious injury has improved though.

[A_Volpe]

I tend to agree with what's been said - Armor in general throughout history has been used to protect the body when all other types of defence/protection fails, as well as to give a little bit of confidence to get in there and get it done. Even the Knightly armor of the late Medieval into the Renaissance has it's drawbacks, where the shield is essentially replaced by full body armor plate, these guys are charging full into [spear/pikemen] - not only does the armor give them confidence, but so does the horse (sometimes with barding) as well as a very long Lance...Hopefully hitting the enemy before you yourself physically make contact/get into thier range - of course, the whole concept of the mass lance charge with a company of Knights is designed to be horrifying before they even close. (And to be honest, as much as I love knightly armor like everyone else, I don't nessesarily want to *be* in it in a battle....Anti-armor techniques are horribly viscious....Nevermind baking or freezing to death...Lor. Seggie armor is air-conditioned compared to full plate!...A "Breeze" even...If ya know what I mean! 8) )

(I would gather here that this applies in a way with the Legionaries - every single man is armored, armed, trained and paid - you're "typical" [Celtic] warrior has next to none of these - to see a Roman formation coming at you fully armed, clanking, and glinting in the sun, and knowing they get paid for it, is pretty goshdarn scary; British Redcoats in the American Rev War, being a Militiaman seeing the British Regulars bearing down on you with precsion would make anyone have a flash in thier pan if ya know what I mean :oops: )

That said, Romans are not fully protected (as had been mentioned - the throat, under arms, legs, et al), but neither were most Medieval/Renaissance footsoldiers, New World/ECW soldiers, or Cuirassiers. And with the Cuirassiers, ie, they have thier most vulnerable part of the body protected (the Cuirass/Breastplate, hopefully "bullet-proof") - so you know you're thorax is very well protected, leaving you perhaps better able to get a little closer with your pistols, or to engage in a daring fashion to make yourself look good/make a decisive move on the field.

Again, back to Romans, you're thorax is fully covered, front and back, and your noggin has a helmet on it....Everything else is covered by a Scutum, Training, and your battle-brothers. (and perhaps a Centurion ready to lay you flat for a week if you didn't get into it)

Maille is most certainly effective, but so isn't Seggie armor... I think both are equally effective armors, and they both had ups and downs.

Likewise, is a WW2 Bomber Gunner's Flak vest any less protective than a Kevlar vest? No, because both did what they needed to do to protect against the weapon that was killing them....But would you wear a WW2 Flak vest in today's Urban combat? probably not....And, if the current vests only stop pistol and rifle shot, sans armor-piercing, are you nessesarily going to know what the enemy is shooting at you? Or are you just gonna say F it and be fairly confident that if anything, the bullet will be slowed down some by the vest...And more importantly, that you're drawing a bead on him and bringing him down before he knows what's hit him. (and hope an A-10 Hog is coming around the corner for a straffing pass!) :wink:

floofthegoof

One modern example you can see is hockey. Now that helmets are required, people treat each other alot more roughly and take more risks than they did in the old days. I don't think the rate of serious injury has improved though.

HA! No, not quite I think...How about someone like Derek Sanderson from the 1960's Boston Bruins? No helmets back then and not much stopped him from pounding some teeth out of oponents, did it? And helmets in the 80's-90's didn't stop players like Cam Neely from busting heads either. And remember Goalies didn't start wearing face "protection" until Jacques Plante in 1959! And when I started playing hockey, I too started off with a face mask (speaking of confidence building) ...Then quickly got a helmet/cage...Aaaaah, so much better! Although I agree the injury thing has gotten worse...Better gear has made for a much faster game, and a tactic of brute force that appeared in the 80's I think has lead to an expectation for really hard hits and checks...But I digress...Many moons ago back when I was but a strapping young lad. :roll: