segmentata

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

WellI suppose you are right, as I saw this as part of a documentary by a respected Broadcasting sevice, which is obviously wrong! :wink: If I ever come across it, like I said in my PM, I will let you know! And like I said, the arrow pierced the mail, and made a pinprick in the seg! I'll stick by that statement, untill you prove I didn't see what I saw! And if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to agree! :wink:
If, like you say, it wasn't proper roman mail, then the people involved in this demonstration on internationally broadcast programming of a historical/educational/documentational bent shouldn't really be in the business they are in! IMHO

Regards!

[Matthew Amt]

Martin, let me double check on the thicknesses and where they are on the cuirass. Or Matt, if you're out there..?

Yo! Girdle plates seem to run from about 1mm down to 0.7mm, call it 18 gauge to 20 or 22 gauge. Collar plates and shoulder guards average a little more, from 1mm up to at least 1.2mm, or (I think!) 1.6mm. So 18 up to I guess 14 guage. That thickest measurement is what I remember for the Newstead breastplate--hopefully I'm not misremembering.

One Upper Shoulder Guard is of Corbridge C type (pointed inwards), the other is a replacement/repair of Corbridge A type (flat on both sides). The fittings are also based on different finds and a real mix'n'match as seen on original segs, made of brass, bronze and steel.

OOOooo, a real kludge, neato! Mike Bishop will love it.

Magnus wrote:

I in no way said that the segmentata came about as a direct result of the Roman Gladius.

Oh, good! We were worried about you, hee hee!

Matt Amt, you said that there were other types of plate armour in use by other cultures...yet none resemble the segmentata, nor are they constructed quite the same (at least the examples you gave).

Right, the iron cuirass from Vergina (the sort of thing which may have been the basis for the Roman style of muscle cuirass--ask Travis Clark!), segmented arm and leg guards from Parthia and other eastern spots, and a few other bits and pieces. There are also tantalizing little things such as the lorica hamata on the guy on the Ahenobarbus relief with non-mail-looking shoulder flaps--we assume these are leather or fabric or covered mail, but what if they're iron plate? There could be more little "missing links" along the way. But it's possible that some guy was looking at a solid cuirass and a segmented manica, and a little light went on in his head. Bing! "Hey, what if..." Since we don't *know* of many missing links, that's as good a possibility as any.

But it still doesn't tell us WHY!

Matthew

[markusaurelius]

I'm not sure if Gaius Marcus is referring to the show on the History Channel recently, however I did watch that show where they were discussing the introduction of Plate Armor in the Medieval Period. They showed the comparison of chain mail and the new Knights Plate Armor. The plate armor was far superior to the chain mail in stopping square head armor piecing arrows for instance.

The tests were performed in the field, and then under a hydraulic weight/press system where the arrow head would be drawn up a device and then dropped at a certain level to simulate different ranges and/or weapons (such as the long bow, crossbow etc.)

Mail was still partially protected the user, however quite often the point would enter a good couple Centimeters beyond the mail. Enough to cause some discomfort or injury to a soldier, especially if it was in a more vulnerable area.

The plate armor usually barely noticed the arrow, and quite often either split the shaft completely or flattened the end before any damage was done to the armor.

I can't speak to the effectiveness of medieval plate armor compared to Roman plate armor such as Segmentata, however I wouldn't expect the results to be that far off in my opinion.

my 2 cents

[Dan Howard]

That particular documentary used substandard mail from an Indian exporter. It had little in common with mail that was actually used historically. The riveting was poorly done; the links were too large; the metallurgical content of the links was wrong; the padding inadequate; etc etc

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Dan,

With the size and vastness of the Roman empire there had to be major variations in metallurgical content, and ring size, riveting quality etc.

There have been finds of Roman era maile as large as 9mm rings. This size ring would definately be more vulnerable to puncture from an arrow than some modern commercial maile.

There were just as many variables in the maile, as there are now. So I stand by my statement that you cannot logically assume that all maile was arrowproof.

[Matthew Amt]

"square head armor piecing arrows"

Kind of suspected this--we've covered it on a number of fora. (Not to be picking on you, Markus!)

The medieval square-section "bodkin" arrowhead has long been believed to be the heavy, shorter-range armor-piercing "sheaf" arrow, simply because it looks like it should be. Broadheads such as the common "type 16" (I think that's the number!) were believed to be the lighter, long-range "flight" arrows. Several medieval references make it clear that archers were supposed to carry 3 times as many sheaf arrows as flight arrows.

Problem is, EVERY surviving bodkin point which has been examined has turned out to be unhardened wrought iron, and very light in weight. The type 16s are always heavier, much harder, and three times as common. Surprise!! Bodkins are FLIGHT arrows, shaped as they are to cause less air resistance and go farther. The type 16s are the heavy killers, made to cut through padding and bodies and cause bad wounds.

Remember, most of the men even on a late medieval battlefield did not have complete metal armor, and most of the horses were not armored. So archers have plenty of juicy targets besides the knights. And it's interesting that bodkin-style arrowheads were also common in ancient cultures which had little or no armor! They simply fly better.

The tests were performed in the field, and then under a hydraulic weight/press system where the arrow head would be drawn up a device and then dropped at a certain level to simulate different ranges and/or weapons (such as the long bow, crossbow etc.)

This sounds nicely scientific, and I never thought about it before, but now I'm wondering how well a weight or press system, which is presumably accelerating as it drops, reproduces the flight of an arrow, which is likely DEcelerating due to drag? Though of course the arrow can be falling on long-range shots, hmm, but those would be with lighter arrows and indirect fire, hmm... Lots of complicated physics! The biggest question is still the construction of the mail.

Mind you, I'm not saying that mail is perfect protection, only that modern tests are often flawed and based on some strong misconceptions. And I still agree that plate is going to be better protection overall.

WellI suppose you are right, as I saw this as part of a documentary by a respected Broadcasting sevice, which is obviously wrong!

Hey, documentaries get things wrong ALL the time! The people making the shows are certainy NOT experts in everything they show, and they don't necessarily know which outside "experts" to consult. It can be very hard to tell what they're getting right. In this case, there seems to be a problem, is what we're saying. What you saw was not necessarily a realistic test, so it's probably not wise to base your beliefs on it so avidly.

Valete,

Matthew

[Dan Howard]

Where have I said that mail was arrow proof? I have constantly said for at least 8 years now that "mail offers far better protection against arrows than many have previously thought". Of course there were variations but the sources are consistent with the better of the more modern tests that it is perfectly possible to make mail that is arrow proof. Does that mean that all armour was arrow proof? Of course not. But the chances of an arrow incapacitating a man wearing mail armour under battlefield conditions are very low. Does mail offer better protection than plate? Not if both are of comparable weights. Plate armour offers the same degree of protection at a lower weight. The main reason why plate superceded mail in the middle ages was COST. The introduction of blast furnaces and water powered trip hammer mills enabled plate to be produced at a fraction of the cost of mail.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041

[Dan Howard]

There have been finds of Roman era maile as large as 9mm rings. This size ring would definately be more vulnerable to puncture from an arrow than some modern commercial maile.

Not really. The amount of overlap and the quality of the riveting is as much, if not more important than the size of the links. The stuff coming out of India/Pakistan is sadly lacking in this regard and there isn't a single surviving example from any time period that resembles this product.

[markusaurelius]

Matthew,

In regards to the square headed arrow I think we may be describing different things. I'm talking of the arrowhead that is still pointed, but has a square backing, similar to a Roman Pilum head (but at a smaller scale).

In regards to the hydraulic mechanism I believe it is the same device used to test the strength of materials under impact. The machine can simulate X amount of force per drop therefore simulating the impact of an arrow in flight etc.

Dan,

I do believe that plate superceded mail not only because of cost, but because it was actually superior in strength and blunt force trauma and from stabbing wounds. Furthermore plate could be "shaped" in such a way to create angles that would assist in deflecting the force of a weapon. I think what people forget as well is that Mail "weighted" more on a person than a plate armor with similar protection.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Not really. The amount of overlap and the quality of the riveting is as much, if not more important than the size of the links. The stuff coming out of India/Pakistan is sadly lacking in this regard and there isn't a single surviving example from any time period that resembles this product.

true, but there are some German mail makers who are very close if not as sturdy in their products as found Roman mail. I will ask some of them for samples and will try shooting a Japanese bow on them somewhere in the future, as well as stabb the stuff with gladii and pugio.. I will probably use ballistics Gel as a backing, or a dead Pig.

M.VIB.M.

[Dan Howard]

The best medium is "ballistics clay" not ballistics gel. This is what is used to measure blunt trauma. It is temperature conditioned Roma Plastilina #1 modelling clay.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

thanx for the info!

M.VIB.M.

[marcii ulpi messala]

In the middle ages the arch Wales or long arch it was very top in power to the arch used in the time of Roma, because of it neither in the middle ages nor armors of plates not the jacket of the mails were effective against the arrows.The medieval armor of plates integral was exclusively designed for lords of the war against the swords and heavy weapon, the infantry paid for the lords of the war had armors of more limited plates combined with the jacket of the mails. The lorica segmentata for his aerodynamic cylindrical form is more effective at the moment of turning the missiles aside, the lorica hamata adopts the form of the human body, is a more ideal reveille for missiles, I think.

[Magnus]

Use the dead pig Marcus, then you can always eat it after!

[Dan Howard]

Ballistics clay offers the most consistent and reproducable results. The ballistics industry can predict very accurately the level of injury to a person wearing body armour by measuring the amount of deformation in the clay.