View Full Version : Was there any accuracy in Vanilla?
russia almighty
10-22-2007, 23:15
About the units in general. Were there any that did exist with in the time frame that they put in the game and looked somewhat accurate to there historical description ?
Bootsiuv
10-23-2007, 00:03
Yeah...peasants probably looked like peasants.
I wouldn't go any further than though.
Of course, we all know about the Arcani and their crazy battlefield exploits, so CA hit the nail on the head there. :laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-23-2007, 00:08
Yes of course there was some accuracy, the Macedonians weren't too bad, the Romans, the Carthaginians. In a very broad sense CA got a lot right. It's just that a lot of details were wrong.
Griever14206
10-23-2007, 02:43
The Romans (of course) we're pretty well done. They had most of the classes, hastati, principe, triari, equites etc. The 3 family model also represented the civil wars of Rome very well.
The 3 family model also represented the civil wars of Rome very well.
Unfortunately it was highly ahistorical for everything apart from the civil wars.
Lorica segmentata
100% historically accurate.
the only fault in eb.
:clown:
iwwtf_az
10-23-2007, 03:55
Lorica segmentata
100% historically accurate.
the only fault in eb.
:clown:
:laugh4:
A lot of good points here. It was a Rome focussed game, you had to play as a Roman just to unlock the other factions.
Vanilla was a computer game, not really a historical simulation. Its like Sid Meiers Pirates on the old Atari 800, but its not as bad as Pirates of the Carribean.
They wanted an interesting pallette of factions for an interesting and marketable game. I guess it was just after "Gladiator" came out so Rome was sexy, but frankly the decline and fall is less dynamic than the Rise of Rome era. there are less diverse factions (Look at BI: a bunch of krauts, a bunch of HA's and 4 Roman factions).
They chose a fine era to fight in, and managed to park reasonably diverse factions in strategically interesting places. They popped in lorica hamata dso fans of Russell Crowe would stay tuned.
Defintiely the Britons were dodgy but necessary from a marketing poiint of view: along with the Germans they have immense interst in the English speaking world as percieved ancestors.
The Egyptians were anachronistic: that was a marketing decision pure and simple, and I recall an embarrassed interview on that point.:egypt: :embarassed:
Wailing women, incendiary pigs, well they are mentioned in the literature (although whether they should be believed is another thing) so they have some tenuous basis for some of their more criticised decisions. IIRC Hannibal used Incendiary Bulls on one occasion, I wonder why they didn't make the cut? I reckon a unit of Archimedes Artillery would be way cool too.
Its a decent engine and they dressed it up nicely, and it was a starting point for many people to taste ancient mediteranean history: a very good thing.
Best of all they have left bits open for tweaking by lovely crews like EB.
Romano-Dacis
10-23-2007, 04:21
I don't understand what everyone has against the Laurica Segmentata. I've always read that it was used between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. At least that's what http://www.loricasegmentata.org/ says. In fact, I read that at multiple sources. Wouldn't it be a pretty good guess to assume that by 14 AD there would at least be one unit with this type of armor about?
I mean c'mon, they're even depicted on Trajan's Column, they certainly can't be that far out of the time frame.
Segmentata 4 Life homies...
QwertyMIDX
10-23-2007, 05:21
Trajan's Colum was complete in 113 AD, that's one year short of a century past the end of EB, which is just shy of 3 centuries in length. I'd say 1/3 of the entire length of the game time period is pretty far out of the time frame. Anyway, there are like a thousand threads explaining it, just search and read a few of them.
I don't understand what everyone has against the Laurica Segmentata.
It's just that there's been so many demands to include them that it's getting a little boring. Nothing wrong with the armour.
Because the earlist EVER peice of LS found was in 18AD.
And I'm sure that http://www.loricasegmentata.org will present a fair and unbiased veiw.
It's just that there's been so many demands to include them that it's getting a little boring. Nothing wrong with the armour.
actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)
I've always read that it was used between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. At least that's what http://www.loricasegmentata.org/ says.
It was first used at the end of the 1st century BC, and continued in service with the Roman army until the middle of the 3rd century AD.
http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/loricaseg/what.htm
If you wonder at the url, it is the real site that loricasegmentata.org points to.
The currently accepted range for the use of the armour is from about 9 B.C. (Dangstetten) to the late 3rd century A.D. (Leon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata
Romano-Dacis, if you always read what you say you do, perhaps you should try to read a little more carefully.
overweightninja
10-23-2007, 12:32
Oh dear don't start this again guys...
:laugh4:
Watchman
10-23-2007, 12:38
actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)I was always under the impression the main reasons it got dumped after a couple of centuries were economical and logistical, ie. the thing was too much of a pain to put together and then keep together on campaign. Mail has the comparative advantage of being easy enough to manufacture (making the links and putting them together is easy enough, but quite time-consuming; robot work basically) and not very demanding to repair and maintain, and scale even more so.
Ignoramus
10-23-2007, 12:54
I saw a documentary which showed that lorica segmenta could actually absord the impact of scorpian bolts. Rather impressive stuff.
russia almighty
10-23-2007, 13:05
Yeah but it would have been like body armor pre-insert days . Would have stopped the bolt but there could be an energy kill still.
NeoSpartan
10-23-2007, 14:32
Dang it can I can't find the OLD OLD thread about Lorica segmenta vs lorica hamata..
we had guys from romanarmytalk forums come over and drop some info, and me and watchman were arguing like creazy.:laugh4: I stopped being a "peaceful guy" after that thread:whip:
I was always under the impression the main reasons it got dumped after a couple of centuries were economical and logistical, ie. the thing was too much of a pain to put together and then keep together on campaign. Mail has the comparative advantage of being easy enough to manufacture (making the links and putting them together is easy enough, but quite time-consuming; robot work basically) and not very demanding to repair and maintain, and scale even more so.
from what i hear the only thing the segmentata was better at than chainmail was stopping arrows :smash:
And yes, you would have to take the armor apart after every battle, hammer the damaged plates back into shape (or replace them), and then put it together again
Ritterlichvon86
10-23-2007, 15:43
it's also harder to keep the rust off of it. needs steady maintanence..
apart from that I would like to see it in EB. After 50 years in EB nothing is historical anymore anyway ;) We're playing history and build castles bigger than reality has ever seen. :yes:
actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)
Obviously, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that no-one harbors any deep hatred towards the armour itself. But about the armour's usefulness, it must have been pretty impressive in parades. :smash:
actually the armor was not very good, that's the reason it was replaced relatively quickly (compared to other armor types like chain)
I think it's a bit wrong to say that. It must have had some use, or the Romans would have just stayed with lorica hamata alone; but segmentata seems to have been used to some degree for over 200 years.
The reason segmentata isn't in EB isn't that it was bad, just that it wasn't used until the last few years of the game period.
MerlinusCDXX
10-23-2007, 21:33
I think it's a bit wrong to say that. It must have had some use, or the Romans would have just stayed with lorica hamata alone; but segmentata seems to have been used to some degree for over 200 years.
The reason segmentata isn't in EB isn't that it was bad, just that it wasn't used until the last few years of the game period.
I don't think anyone is saying that LS was bad armor, only that issuing LS to the main body of line troops wasn't really cost-effective (it's like issuing Stradivarius violins to a military orchestra that has just been drafted out of high school).
Tellos Athenaios
10-23-2007, 22:26
Quite so. :laugh4:
If you've seen replica's of the stuff in real life the first couple of things you'll notice is the fact that you would be able to break it really easily. And the armour isn't very useful at all when you are fighting well drilled; heavy infantry with sharp & pointy things. Also, considering that the Lorica Hamata offers more protection in the sense that a larger area of the body get's protected (most notably a couple of well known "bleeding-to-death-spots" :sweatdrop:) ... :shrug:
A Terribly Harmful Name
10-23-2007, 22:40
Lorica Segmentata was much better than Hamata at stopping arrows, but then any legionary using it should have known that the Scutum wasn't enough to protect from an arrow shot from a Parthian Composite Bow, except in lucky situations. Or a scorpion bolt. You would get your arms or feet nailed and suffer the consequences.
Plus LS was too valuable to be given to raw recruits. It's not unreasonable to assume most of them wore Lorica Hamata, and many legions (especially in the East) kept Hamata because it was cheaper. Only the crack troops and legionaries with good training and experience would be allowed to wear LS, during the Imperial period.
But then, if the first fragment was found in 9BC, then we can deduce it must have already been in an experimental phase during the late 1st century BC. If the Cohors Imperatoria is in the game, and they were only used from 30BC onwards, then why not LS? Bot just cover a tiny fraction of the game period, yet the Cohors Imperatoria is in the game. Just my thoughts.
keravnos
10-23-2007, 23:16
I blame EB and its NON Pharaos...
WHERE ARE THE PHARAOHS EB?:furious3:
nOT,... :beam:
Watchman
10-23-2007, 23:40
Lorica Segmentata was much better than Hamata at stopping arrows, but then any legionary using it should have known that the Scutum wasn't enough to protect from an arrow shot from a Parthian Composite Bow, except in lucky situations.:inquisitive: ...you mean like at Carrhae, where the Romans spent a good part of the day just standing there gathering Parhtian arrows on their shields ? Arrows have a problem with obstacles.
I would imagine Legions in the East tended more towards the Lorica Squamata, or scale armour. Relatively cheap and simple as metal armour goes and the local infrastructure had a millenia-plus of tradition with the stuff, and better against arrows than mail...
And the armour isn't very useful at all when you are fighting well drilled; heavy infantry with sharp & pointy things.That seems like a rather counterintuitive statement, as well as one rather disputed by the fact historical warriors had this funny habit of tending to load up on armour - especially for close-order infantry fighting, as there's little room to dodge and maneuver there.
Pharnakes
10-24-2007, 00:00
There is little room to doge and manouver when you are wearing heavy armour, no matter where you are.
Watchman
10-24-2007, 00:10
If it kept you from moving, it was "horsemen only" armour to begin with. Are you quite aware of the kinds of moves people regularly pulled in full plate ?
But the gist is, when you know you won't be able to move too much to avoid blows anyway, it's better to be armoured so they won't kill you nearly as readily.
Centurion Crastinus
10-24-2007, 00:21
I always thought the Romans looked pretty good in the game. Except for the Brutii troops. That green color was ugly as hell. Same goes for the purple Parthian Cataphracts.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-24-2007, 01:27
Okay, firstly, the site quoted is Mike Bishop and he's reliable, he's what I use and what every proffesional experimental archaeologist uses.
Very briefly, because I am sick of this debate:
Pros: Quick to construct, if you have the skills.
Light.
Looka good on parades.
Absorbes blunt damage well.
Cons: Poor protection vs mail.
Unreliable.
Can't really carry a shield or anything on your back.
Difficult to repair.
Perishes in hot wet weather.
Metal corrodes, both the iron itself and the chemical reaction between the different alloys.
Bad vs pointed weapons, and decidedly lacklustre against ranged weapons.
Poor heat transfer.
Now as to the idea that LS was some sort of elite armour, we rarely see 1st Cohort soldiers, Praetorians, or Centurians etc. wearing it. In the lat case they never do. Nor was it "only issued to the best" if you could afford to pay for it you could buy it. If it was issued to anyone en masse it was probably the 2nd Cohort, the light troops.
Boyar Son
10-24-2007, 01:40
mail cant do much good against arrows either.
i thought thats why romans switched to LS.
Watchman
10-24-2007, 01:49
Granted, one would think something made up of solid metal sheets had a bit easier time with pointy things than something which is per definition full of holes to begin with...
Granted, one would think something made up of solid metal sheets had a bit easier time with pointy things than something which is per definition full of holes to begin with...
If an arrow (or other pointy thing) has to go through mail, it will have to pull a ring apart. The point will end up in the hole of one of the rings, and as it presses forward the metal of the ring will have to be pulled open. Iron and steel is renowned for high tensile strength, which means it resists pulling forces very well. So unless the pointy thing is thinner than the hole in each ring, mail will do quite well against it. Not to mention the way the mail flexes on impact, detracting from the energy of the projectile.
A metal plate, however, will often be at a comparative disadvantage when stopping eg. an arrow. It doesn't flex, which means the full energy of the projectile goes toward causing damage, so plate is somewhat less capable when it comes to stopping an arrow. Of course, it can still be better than mail if there's more metal or better quality, but generally it is at a disadvantage.
An exception is at long range, where the higher angle of the incoming arrows would increase the tendency of the arrows to bounce off the plates harmlessly; the same effect that is exploited in sloped armor on tanks.
When it comes to blunt weapons, though, mail generally sucks compared to anything with metal plates in it. Not that plate in itself was superb in that role, it required padding underneath. But there's a good reason plated helmets were far more popular than mail coifs - if you get hit in the head with something heavy, the latter won't help you much.
mail cant do much good against arrows either.
i thought thats why romans switched to LS.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
Artorius Maximus
10-24-2007, 04:16
Of course Vanilla Rome: Total War had historical accuracies, but many people just see the flaws of it first. I think the worst innaccuracy was the 'Egypt' faction, I know they wanted to represent them as stereotypical Egyptian units, but they are off for at least five hundred years....also, the Pharoah units should have looked more Greek, because the Ptolymies had little trust for the natives of Egypt to be in the army. The Roman factions were the most accurate, no doubt. I always thought that the Greek factions (other than Egypt) were acceptable as well. Other groups that CA got wrong were the barbarian factions, and the Eastern factions, for instance, Parthia...
-Lucius Julius
so the mail basically got owned by the arrow and the poleaxe tip?
so the mail basically got owned by the arrow and the poleaxe tip?
Arrows didn't penetrate; neither did the sword edge
what? the arrows went through the mail, I dunno maybe I didnt read the subtext good enough, I mainly looked at the pictures, the sword penetrated when it was thrusted though... =)
what? the arrows went through the mail, I dunno maybe I didnt read the subtext good enough, I mainly looked at the pictures, the sword penetrated when it was thrusted though... =)
This is the bit you want to read:
Conclusion: Good maille is very effective against arrows and is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to cut with a sword. However, it is no match for heavy polearms such as the poleaxe, and swords with very acute points can at the very least draw blood without much effort. A good thrust from such a sword can kill.
So I guess mail can be defeated by spears or blunt weapons, but is better suited against arrows and swords (especially slashing). Maybe that's why the Greeks were a bit slower to adopt mail armor than the Romans; they didn't really need it until they got swarmed by legionaries with their little chopchop-pokepoke gladius.
If I remember correctly, the arrows in that test were modern. Tips were wrong, werent they?
nah, he had to balance out the difference between i think a 70 pound composite bow and a 135 pound english longbow or some such so he used specialized tips for his bow to make it even.
NeoSpartan
10-24-2007, 04:46
... did the sword edge
the edge didn't but the tip did. If u look at medieval swords (especially before plate armor became prevelant) they all have a very thin point. Wonder why????
Plate was used by the romans later dumped, why is still being debated BUT I would to like to point it something to you guys:
--the "quality" of the legions (mid & after the 3rd Century AD) didn't really go up as time passed... civil wars, subjects made citizens, constant invasions, constant redeployment of cohorts from one place to another, need to raise troops quickly, etc... hurt the roman army. A LOT of things changed, the armor, the shield, the sword, the pilum, the deployment, training, etc....
keep it mind too fellas. A LOT of S***t happed after the mid 3rd Century. It wasn't just a simple: "it don't work toss it, it works keep it" there other factors involved as well. :book:
NeoSpartan
10-24-2007, 04:50
in regards to plate vs chain mail.... plate is superior, simply look at medieval europe as plate was being incorporated more and more intil they figured out how to make articulated joints and then the smiths when CREASY WITH IT. :book:
The roman example of mail use vs plate use.... well yeah maybe a 1/2 decent one either way. :book:
Oleander Ardens
10-24-2007, 08:22
I will open a thread dedicated to armor alone soon :book:
A good introduction: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=41041
An excerpt:
A common misconception is that mail was highly susceptible to arrows – particularly the bodkin arrowhead. Recent scholarship suggests that this may not have been the case though. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely “butted” together without riveting), inadequate padding was used (if employed at all), the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect (steel links - even mild steel - are more susceptible to snapping or shattering while soft wrought iron will twist and deform rather than break) – all factors leading to a severe reduction in the armour’s protective capability. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defence against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991. An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination during the 15th century) was proof against Mary Rose longbows. Another conducted by Alan Williams concluded that mail worn over quilted padding could resist longbow arrows but not crossbow bolts.
A good discussion on it:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=45006
This is about the quality of plate armour: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=79261
An excerpt:
Conclusion. Dispite this test being heavily biased against the armour, the plate seems to have performed well. Even without an arming garment behind the plate, none of the arrows would have killed a soldier wearing 2mm of plate (the deepest penetration was only 16mm). If the padding is added, I think that there would be no injury at all. If the plate was hardened as with 15th C Milanese examples, there would be no penetration. If the 1.15mm plates were overlapped as would have been the case in a suit of plate then these too are likely to have prevented injury. The only injury that might have occurred would be the rare arrow that managed to hit a thin piece of plate that was not covered by another plate and did not have mail underneath it. These arrow strikes might hit an arm or a leg but certainly would not kill the wearer as is implied by some longbow enthusiasts. The authors then try to weasel out of these results by claiming that non-fatal arrowstrikes were likely to prove fatal anyway because of the unsanitary conditions, dispite plenty of evidence to suggest that soldiers regularly survived arrow wounds - even in the face. They also concoct a ridiculous theory that even though the armour resisted the arrow, the blunt trauma from the impact might have killed the victim anyway.
This test could have been very good. By itself it is only moderately useful. It is the best I have seen so far though. Note that the results are only valid for munitions plate, not the finer quality Milanese plate. My only major complaints are the extreme hardness of the arrowheads used and the fact that nothing was used to simulate an arming doublet. Hopefully Part 2 will build upon this data.
A discussion about the properties of various types:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=75181
This website http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/index.html is very interesting for all the content regarding later steppe cultures and others influenced by them.
Excellent article about textile armor: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_quilted.html
Very off topic:
Very beautiful gothic armor. Did you now btw that the owner of the Churburg did post some time ago in the MTW forums of the .com :)
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_gothic_armour.html
Great article about the evolution of the japanese armor, love the illustrations
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
Cheers
OA
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-24-2007, 09:59
That's all relevent to actual mediaeval plate BUT LS plates are less than 1mm thick and are of a comparatively poor quality.
Watchman
10-24-2007, 12:06
...and overlap at least partially, and are backed up by some sort of padding as metal armour always was.
Why would they have been of poor quality, anyway ? The Romans had the industrial capacity to manufacture perfectly good one-piece helmet bowls, and I don't think the long relatively narrow lames that went into the Segmentata were metallurgically meaningfully more difficult to make. Heck, one reason laminated cuirasses remained in use alongside solid plate in the late Middle Ages was just because it was easier to keep the metallurgy homogenous in a single lame than in a single very large plate...
If an arrow (or other pointy thing) has to go through mail, it will have to pull a ring apart. The point will end up in the hole of one of the rings, and as it presses forward the metal of the ring will have to be pulled open. Iron and steel is renowned for high tensile strength, which means it resists pulling forces very well. So unless the pointy thing is thinner than the hole in each ring, mail will do quite well against it. Not to mention the way the mail flexes on impact, detracting from the energy of the projectile.
A metal plate, however, will often be at a comparative disadvantage when stopping eg. an arrow. It doesn't flex, which means the full energy of the projectile goes toward causing damage, so plate is somewhat less capable when it comes to stopping an arrow. Of course, it can still be better than mail if there's more metal or better quality, but generally it is at a disadvantage.
An exception is at long range, where the higher angle of the incoming arrows would increase the tendency of the arrows to bounce off the plates harmlessly; the same effect that is exploited in sloped armor on tanks.You're forgetting the issue created by the inherently perforated nature of mail compared to a smooth surface; namely, the point needs to strike virtually squarely against the latter to avoid being deflected by the solid obstacle, whereas mail is basically saturated with literal openings the point can lodge in and start trying to burst the links.
Also, most non-monolith solid-surface armour (scale, lamellar, laminate...) flexes to at least some degree; it's sort of one of the central points of the things to diffuse the impact over a wide area with the multiple overlapping layers. Monolith armour - solid plate - in turn, if made even halfway decently, was an utter pain in the ass to get through with nigh anything.
When it comes to blunt weapons, though, mail generally sucks compared to anything with metal plates in it. Not that plate in itself was superb in that role, it required padding underneath. But there's a good reason plated helmets were far more popular than mail coifs - if you get hit in the head with something heavy, the latter won't help you much.A solid hit with a heavy "mass" weapon to the head tended to put even the heaviest armoured folks out of action pretty easily you know. Concussive effect and neck injuries and all that. There's a reason maces were pretty popular among late-medieval knights - they were one of the few cavalry weapons that actually "bit" against fully armed men.
Some helmet design philosophies indeed took the approach that it was enough to stop swords and spears and such, and not worth the weight and trouble to even try to make the piece strong enough to have a chance against a heavy mace or axe. "Dodge it, dumbass" was the operative idea I'd imagine.
You're forgetting the issue created by the inherently perforated nature of mail compared to a smooth surface; namely, the point needs to strike virtually squarely against the latter to avoid being deflected by the solid obstacle, whereas mail is basically saturated with literal openings the point can lodge in and start trying to burst the links.
Also, most non-monolith solid-surface armour (scale, lamellar, laminate...) flexes to at least some degree; it's sort of one of the central points of the things to diffuse the impact over a wide area with the multiple overlapping layers. Monolith armour - solid plate - in turn, if made even halfway decently, was an utter pain in the ass to get through with nigh anything.
A solid hit with a heavy "mass" weapon to the head tended to put even the heaviest armoured folks out of action pretty easily you know. Concussive effect and neck injuries and all that. There's a reason maces were pretty popular among late-medieval knights - they were one of the few cavalry weapons that actually "bit" against fully armed men.
Some helmet design philosophies indeed took the approach that it was enough to stop swords and spears and such, and not worth the weight and trouble to even try to make the piece strong enough to have a chance against a heavy mace or axe. "Dodge it, dumbass" was the operative idea I'd imagine.
True, mail has less ability to make things just bounce off harmlessly. But it still provides good protection from arrows as long as the quality is up to scratch.
If an arrow hits a band of metal, there might be some distribution of the energy, but it will definitely be far less than in mail armor. The basic pattern of mail armor is actually still used today in some of the most advanced protective measures against falling rocks:
http://www.geobrugg.com/contento/English/Home/Rockfallbarriersandfences/ROCCOsupregsuprockfallringnet/tabid/2052/Default.aspx
(of course, their system can afford to use a lot more play, which increases the dispersion of energy even further)
Once you're talking a solid piece of plate, I guess it would usually be so damn thick that arrows wouldn't stand a chance of penetrating anyway.
And yeah, someone hitting you in the head with like a halberd at full swing will probably be bad regardless of armor. But something like a sling stone or a glancing sword blow might be a different case; a mail coif wouldn't do much against it, while a plate helm would (or might).
Watchman
10-24-2007, 12:51
True, mail has less ability to make things just bounce off harmlessly. But it still provides good protection from arrows as long as the quality is up to scratch.I understand it works decently enough against arrows and the like at longer distances, but at short ranges where the projectile still retains most of its energy tends to fail. Miserably. Which isn't really that surprising because good bows with proper arrows were apparently a murder against anything short of full plate or cataphract-level layered armour at shorter distances.
If an arrow hits a band of metal, there might be some distribution of the energy, but it will definitely be far less than in mail armor.Uh... with the semi-flexible structures using overlapping pieces of metal (or something) you have the energy of the blow being distributed over the whole "roof tile" system, the individual pieces pressing down against those they overlap which in turn press down against... you get the idea. Mail is more like "metal cloth" - damned difficult to cut, but basically quite flexible, like heavy cloth. (It folds and falls much the same way actually; I've stared at the specimen in the museum I work in enough to know that.) It does obviously provide an extra cushioning layer above the padding, but otherwise does little to sap the kinetic energy of a strong blow (a fact which quite a few weapon designs in fact readily recognised and exploited, aiming to hurt, disable and hopefully kill the man under the armour with sheer focused blunt trauma).
Against an extremely localised impact, eg. that of something pointy, it's obviously pretty much down to the padding underneath to absorb the impact. Hopefully the mail will still hold instead of bursting, so the tip of the pointy thing cannot get in too much past it.
The basic pattern of mail armor is actually still used today in some of the most advanced protective measures against falling rocks:That has nothing to do with the issue, and indeed only reinforces my point as it works by stretching and deforming - good for stopping falling stones certainly, but no good for protecting your innards from blunt trauma in body armour. After all a similar stretch-deformation effect there in practice means bruised inner organs and internal bleeding, which are Not Good Things...
Note also that armour-piercing pointy things typically had a triangular or rhomboid profile, with relatively sharp corners - doubtless partly to "cut" through the stretched metal of the deforming mail link they're trying to burst.
I understand it works decently enough against arrows and the like at longer distances, but at short ranges where the projectile still retains most of its energy tends to fail. Miserably. Which isn't really that surprising because good bows with proper arrows were apparently a murder against anything short of full plate or cataphract-level layered armour at shorter distances.
Uh... with the semi-flexible structures using overlapping pieces of metal (or something) you have the energy of the blow being distributed over the whole "roof tile" system, the individual pieces pressing down against those they overlap which in turn press down against... you get the idea. Mail is more like "metal cloth" - damned difficult to cut, but basically quite flexible, like heavy cloth. (It folds and falls much the same way actually; I've stared at the specimen in the museum I work in enough to know that.) It does obviously provide an extra cushioning layer above the padding, but otherwise does little to sap the kinetic energy of a strong blow (a fact which quite a few weapon designs in fact readily recognised and exploited, aiming to hurt, disable and hopefully kill the man under the armour with sheer focused blunt trauma).
Against an extremely localised impact, eg. that of something pointy, it's obviously pretty much down to the padding underneath to absorb the impact. Hopefully the mail will still hold instead of bursting, so the tip of the pointy thing cannot get in too much past it.
That has nothing to do with the issue, and indeed only reinforces my point as it works by stretching and deforming - good for stopping falling stones certainly, but no good for protecting your innards from blunt trauma in body armour. After all a similar stretch-deformation effect there in practice means bruised inner organs and internal bleeding, which are Not Good Things...
Note also that armour-piercing pointy things typically had a triangular or rhomboid profile, with relatively sharp corners - doubtless partly to "cut" through the stretched metal of the deforming mail link they're trying to burst.
The mail is intended to protect from penetration by the arrow; it is up to the padding underneath to actually absorb the blunt force. The thicker the padding, the better the mail would be since again, there would be more play in the mesh of rings to absorb energy through. Compared to blunt weapons like a mace, an arrow really doesn't have a lot of energy in it; it should be possible to wear enough padding to be fairly safe from internal damage from the blunt force trauma of arrows.
Of course, at short range it would be likely to fail, but so would comparable plate or segmented armor; the plate would probably display a bigger difference in efficiency between long and short range since at short range the arrows could be fired at a much shallower angle, reducing the tendency to deflect the arrows.
A Terribly Harmful Name
10-24-2007, 15:19
Watchman, regarding the efficiency of the Scutum against Composite Bows, especially during the Parthian Wars, Plutarch mentioned:
"And when Publius urged [the legionaries] to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields [by arrows] and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence."
I don't know about modern tests demonstrating this, but the Composite Bow was well able to pierce many shields of the time. And undoubtely they would pierce mail and some inferior quality plate too.
Tellos Athenaios
10-24-2007, 16:27
The good thing about mail is that you usually wear something underneath it. At least if you can afford mail, you can afford a padded leather vest or lineothorax too -- which cancels out the arrows for the most part. Leaves you with internal damaging projectiles; such as bolts & rocks though. And clubs & axes too, of course.
Also: one of the main points about mail (and the main reason why it's still worn today, albeit in a slightly different fashion) is that it will prevent any sort of "stabbing" weapon to penetrate your body. You simply can't stab accurately enough to stab in the center of the rings; rather then getting stuck on the metal surface. It doesn't really do much against arrows. Apart from it's obvious weakness against arrows (things small, pointy and with a tip of considerably smaller diameter than that of the rings') the main reason to wear something underneath your mail shirt is of course: comfort. I mean, it's not like you really would enjoy the friction of the mail on your skin; you would end up with all sorts of bruises and the like.
The good thing about mail is that you usually wear something underneath it. At least if you can afford mail, you can afford a padded leather vest or lineothorax too -- which cancels out the arrows for the most part. Leaves you with internal damaging projectiles; such as bolts & rocks though. And clubs & axes too, of course.
Also: one of the main points about mail (and the main reason why it's still worn today, albeit in a slightly different fashion) is that it will prevent any sort of "stabbing" weapon to penetrate your body. You simply can't stab accurately enough to stab in the center of the rings; rather then getting stuck on the metal surface. It doesn't really do much against arrows. Apart from it's obvious weakness against arrows (things small, pointy and with a tip of considerably smaller diameter than that of the rings') the main reason to wear something underneath your mail shirt is of course: comfort. I mean, it's not like you really would enjoy the friction of the mail on your skin; you would end up with all sorts of bruises and the like.
High quality mail doesn't leave too large of an inside diameter on the rings for an arrow to slip through...
http://www.newyorklongsword.com/pics/mt31.jpg
QwertyMIDX
10-24-2007, 16:53
Indeed, look at this Roman chain.
https://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5056/chainmailci5.jpg
Underhand
10-24-2007, 17:05
And the best thing about mail armour is that it's one-size-fits-all. You just make it in 'Large' size and anyone smaller can use bits of wire to take in the slack. Easy!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-24-2007, 17:14
Overlap on segmented armour is really minimal, I mean really minimal. The stuff was just plain bad. As to the iron helmets, well for starters a lot of them are a-symetrical and Roman quality control was about at bad as it gets. Gladii have been found where the blade was quenched and then ground so that the edge was infact soft iron while the rest was carbonised to an extent.
My personal belief is that the Pompeii type Gladius was invented because without the leaf-shape and sharper point they're less likely to snap.
dominique
10-24-2007, 18:00
Having worn a reenactment plate and a reenactment chain (hauberk) extensively, I'll tell you my opinion. Both offer great protection. Both offer mobility. Chainmail though is a real pain on the long term. All the weight is on the shoulders and after a couple hours, it really hurts! Plate, surprisingly, is lighter and split the weight between the shoulders, the back, the hips, etc...
To debunk an other myth, you can fight on foot wearing plate. You can even wrestle! There are some martial arts compendiums from the XVe century (like le noble jeu de la hache) that explain how in detail.
Plate, once you have your patterns to hammer your pieces, is really easy to do. The problem is that you need to be able to forge a good grade steel in sheets. While to make a chain mail, you just need some iron rods and A LOT OF TIME!
:inquisitive:
A joke:
Some reenactors call the chains "Sonic the Hedgehog" armors. Everytime you get hit, you lose a ring. :laugh4:
QwertyMIDX
10-24-2007, 18:05
We need to remember that we're comparing chain to Lorica Segmentata, not medieval plate.
Chris1959
10-24-2007, 20:05
Surely the reason for the introduction of LS was it was cheaper.
Roman Military QMG "I'll need 100,000 new sets of Armour over next 20years"
R&D "Try this Lorica Segmenta"
QMG "Is it any good?"
R&D "Good enough"
QMG "What's it cost?"
R&D "10% less"
QMG "Where do I sign, charge the same price and put the difference into our new Cayman Island account. When they are finally discovered"
Very facile I know but the way beaurocrats have viewed the military since both were invented.
A Terribly Harmful Name
10-24-2007, 20:15
There's much controversy about LS and LH. I personally think LS was better in some aspects, even if quite unpleasant to wear and difficult to maintain.
But then again, how to can we guarantee the best quality LS survived? What if the examples we found of such armour, and the same applies for armor like Linothrax, are just an exception and not a rule? Poor quality armor would definetely survive more due to a less constant use by the military.
NeoSpartan
10-25-2007, 04:36
We need to remember that we're comparing chain to Lorica Segmentata, not medieval plate.
when discussing penetration... plate armor is plate armor
when discusssing mobility, cost, etc.... then is not.
Oleander Ardens
10-25-2007, 06:42
Having worn a reenactment plate and a reenactment chain (hauberk) extensively, I'll tell you my opinion. Both offer great protection. Both offer mobility. Chainmail though is a real pain on the long term. All the weight is on the shoulders and after a couple hours, it really hurts! Plate, surprisingly, is lighter and split the weight between the shoulders, the back, the hips, etc...
To debunk an other myth, you can fight on foot wearing plate. You can even wrestle! There are some martial arts compendiums from the XVe century (like le noble jeu de la hache) that explain how in detail.
Plate, once you have your patterns to hammer your pieces, is really easy to do. The problem is that you need to be able to forge a good grade steel in sheets. While to make a chain mail, you just need some iron rods and A LOT OF TIME!
Good post. Fits my view of armor gained from the fechtbucher perfectly. Medieval plate armor requires a certain knowhow and a cheap source of energy or labor. We reconstructed in our village a huge water-powered hammer, which is nothing but a huge hammer with a very long shaft (4-5m) attached to a Crankshaft driven by the water wheel. Thanks to its massive momentum it really makes it easy to hammer large metal plates. Smithing with it is a blast.
I personally wonder if the massive steel producing complex of the Noricum might not have sparked the mass producing of the LS. You have there great deal of knowledge, a massive production of steel, not so many people and a good deal of streams - ideal circumstances for the employment of water wheels. And the timeframe would fit nicely, given that it was occupied shortly before the mass use of the LS.
PS: Funny I found now that the terminus tecnicus is trip-hammer. It is first recorded from Styria - once a part of the Noricum.....
Cheers
OA
when discussing penetration... plate armor is plate armor
when discusssing mobility, cost, etc.... then is not.
Now that's got to be an oversimplification. Thickness, material, quality of material, design and construction methods will all have an effect on the overall quality of the armor.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-25-2007, 10:00
when discussing penetration... plate armor is plate armor
when discusssing mobility, cost, etc.... then is not.
Flat out wrong, LS is half the thickness of mediaeval plate and made of a different material. Don't make statements which you can't back up. Further, a solid breastplate provides protection in a different way to the more flaxable laminate forms.
Watchman
10-25-2007, 10:27
Just for the record, Medieval armourers AFAIK tended to regard half-thickness plates (typically arranged as laminate for flexibility) as perfectly sufficient for protecting the limbs from most melee weapons.
Oleander Ardens
10-25-2007, 12:58
Just for the record, Medieval armourers AFAIK tended to regard half-thickness plates (typically arranged as laminate for flexibility) as perfectly sufficient for protecting the limbs from most melee weapons.
My thoughts about plate armor coverning the limbs:
a) 1. The rounded shape of the metal plates increased their stiffness
2. It helped to deflect many more hits
b) The natural flexibility of our limbs mitigates many hits, by giving way. Try to hack a freeswinging piece of wood.
c) Even when a) and b) failed a small penetration was still not so serious as the same one suffered into the abdomen or the chest.
So IMHO it makes perfect sense to use lighter plates to cover the limbs. It seems that we have a hard time to understand the motivation behind certain developments in the field of armor. It also shows how difficult it is to test armor in a meaningful way...
Cheers
OA
Just for the record, Medieval armourers AFAIK tended to regard half-thickness plates (typically arranged as laminate for flexibility) as perfectly sufficient for protecting the limbs from most melee weapons.
You worry about your heart and lungs more than your arms and legs. Flexibility is more important with your arms.
Watchman
10-25-2007, 21:24
Well, obviously. And that's why the body armour might be up to two layers of 2-3mm steel plate even firearms had trouble getting through... at point-blank ranges.
But it's kinda beside the point, which was that the laminate of comparatively thin metal was found by and large sufficient for protecting the limbs against most weapons. Heck, the Persians and steppe folks and slightly later Hellenistics were doing it with bronze and leather and iron in the cheires and didn't seem to regret it, and the Romans issued front-rankers of legions in Dacia a derivative to cut down the number of falx-induced amputations...
In other words, if you make the stuff even halfway decently laminate serves you quite well enough even with period tech level. And I flatly refuse to believe the Romans only ever made the things wrong during those three or so centuries they now used the thing (in several successive versions to boot, which apparently at least tried to work out some of the over-engineering bugs); their armies weren't exactly idle then either, and given the highly Darwinian nature of the weapon-armour arms race it hardly seems credible to assume they splurged money and high-end industrial capacity on a body armour design that didn't do its job.
Oleander Ardens
10-26-2007, 14:25
A very interesting link about the medieval watermills with an excellent summery about the helleno-roman technology
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/technology_and_culture/v046/46.1lucas.pdf
As an economist I prefer the simple solution of less costs for similar performance, made possible by the mass production thanks to technological advances :egypt:
Cheers
OA
A Terribly Harmful Name
10-26-2007, 15:55
Well, obviously. And that's why the body armour might be up to two layers of 2-3mm steel plate even firearms had trouble getting through... at point-blank ranges.
But it's kinda beside the point, which was that the laminate of comparatively thin metal was found by and large sufficient for protecting the limbs against most weapons. Heck, the Persians and steppe folks and slightly later Hellenistics were doing it with bronze and leather and iron in the cheires and didn't seem to regret it, and the Romans issued front-rankers of legions in Dacia a derivative to cut down the number of falx-induced amputations...
In other words, if you make the stuff even halfway decently laminate serves you quite well enough even with period tech level. And I flatly refuse to believe the Romans only ever made the things wrong during those three or so centuries they now used the thing (in several successive versions to boot, which apparently at least tried to work out some of the over-engineering bugs); their armies weren't exactly idle then either, and given the highly Darwinian nature of the weapon-armour arms race it hardly seems credible to assume they splurged money and high-end industrial capacity on a body armour design that didn't do its job.
Indeed, if LS was plainly uneffective, why would the Romans ever adopt it for 200 years? And win wars with it? Certainly tests disagree with that; LS might not have the quality of some other Ancient body plates, but it was certainly enough to protect along with the Scutum and the Imperial Gallic Helmet. It was uncomfortable and difficult to maintain, but better to be uncomfortable and protected that comfortable and exposed.
Indeed, if LS was plainly uneffective, why would the Romans ever adopt it for 200 years? And win wars with it? Certainly tests disagree with that; LS might not have the quality of some other Ancient body plates, but it was certainly enough to protect along with the Scutum and the Imperial Gallic Helmet. It was uncomfortable and difficult to maintain, but better to be uncomfortable and protected that comfortable and exposed.
I don't even know if LS would actually be more uncomfortable than mail. The latter does tend to be a bitch on the shoulders.
dominique
10-26-2007, 16:53
I agree with Sakkura. LS is confortable. I just tried one :beam: . You need to be in good shape though (less EB mor Jogging I guess) if you want to be able to get the most of it.
BUT I WONDER...
It seems it could be stretched quite easily. It could have been possible to wear a light-long chainmail beneath to get a plate mail effect. I tried to look ar some pictures of Trajan's column to see something but it was clear as a... Well, check the pictures yourself.
Is there any possibility my speculation could be true, or am I raving?
Zaknafien
10-26-2007, 21:47
Tajan's column is next to useless from a scholarly standpoint. Its an artists impression of an artists impression of state-sponsored propaganda.
its like watching Blackhawk Down 2000 years from now and using it as a basis for your American legionaries.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-26-2007, 22:04
I don't even know if LS would actually be more uncomfortable than mail. The latter does tend to be a bitch on the shoulders.
Try wearing both for 12 hours or so. Hamata might way you down but an hour after you take it off you won't know you've worn it, not so LS.
To answer the affectiveness issue, one of our Postgrads has done some testing on various armours, properly constructed and metalurgically correct. His results for LS were, well, not too groovy.
You've certainly not surviving a Scorpian hit.
he 3 family model also represented the civil wars of Rome very well.
No it wasn't. To win a civil war it isn't necessary to hunt down and conquer every single city allied to the brutii or scipii...
Try wearing both for 12 hours or so. Hamata might way you down but an hour after you take it off you won't know you've worn it, not so LS.
To answer the affectiveness issue, one of our Postgrads has done some testing on various armours, properly constructed and metalurgically correct. His results for LS were, well, not too groovy.
You've certainly not surviving a Scorpian hit.
Like I said, I wouldn't know. My experience with carrying heavy stuff on the shoulders does tell me that you will definitely feel that even after you drop the load you were carrying.
I dunno why people keep talking about hits from scorpions and other ballistae. I don't think anyone ever counted on surviving that, at least not thanks to their armor alone. Besides, there were a lot more spears, arrows, javelins and swords to worry about.
antiochus epiphanes
10-27-2007, 02:53
Tajan's column is next to useless from a scholarly standpoint. Its an artists impression of an artists impression of state-sponsored propaganda.
its like watching Blackhawk Down 2000 years from now and using it as a basis for your American legionaries.
im suprised at that statement. so nonthing on it is worth any good?
Zaknafien
10-27-2007, 03:09
Its an excellent movie don't get me wrong. Its just inaccurate. Most of the stuff looks cool, and it passes the casual glance, but alot of the uniform items and pieces of equipment are out of place, and it makes connotations and inferences that arent accurate. That's all I'm saying. The uniforms, for example, are wrong for the time period they're portraying.
Most of the stuff looks cool, and it passes the casual glance, but alot of the uniform items and pieces of equipment are out of place, and it makes connotations and inferences that arent accurate.
Curious. Such as? :beam:
antiochus epiphanes
10-27-2007, 03:24
Its an excellent movie don't get me wrong. Its just inaccurate. Most of the stuff looks cool, and it passes the casual glance, but alot of the uniform items and pieces of equipment are out of place, and it makes connotations and inferences that arent accurate. That's all I'm saying. The uniforms, for example, are wrong for the time period they're portraying.
i was refering to trajans coloum.:sweatdrop:
Zaknafien
10-27-2007, 03:38
The old school Roman scholars used stone sculptures as their biggest source for military equipment--so the big stone propaganda monuments in Rome (like Trajans column) stood out. These monuments were usually of generic scenes, along with alot of what the audience (romans) 'wanted to see' so to speak. Usually the architects were often trained in a Hellenic style, and their knowledge of military matters was largely restricted to the guard units they witnessed in Rome or elsewhere.
The groupings of soldiers are often composed in stereotypical ways that have more to do with religious groupings than military fact. THen you have some level of Greek equipment usually showing up in the sculptures, long after their use was finished.
Trajan's column specifically, the biggest problem its its sculptors were largely unfamillair with the subject matter. With such a big monument to carve, the artists inevitably fell into using 'standard models' to show officers, legionraies, and auxilliaries, etc. This leads to a view of uniformity in equipment that was not the case at all.
Tellos Athenaios
10-27-2007, 04:17
Then again that's the case with just about every movie depicting "the military" in some way or another. I doubt whether the casual passer by could even distinguish between officer and "ordinary" soldier.
Zaknafien
10-27-2007, 04:19
thats what I mean; it looks reasonable enough to the uninitiated; a pro will spot the mistakes instantly though. If a Roman centurion was around today, no doubt he'd whap us all with his vine rod for all the mistakes we roman scholars have made about their equipment and makeup.
russia almighty
10-27-2007, 04:37
Zak if that happens were screwing with the time line so bad .
First Anglo/Negro tag team in charge of the Roman Empire ?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.