Another Armor question .

[russia almighty]

With the steppe people in the game how common would have bone armor been ? Might sound silly but there was a mention in vanilla about it being used . Was that just some vanilla BS or is evidence that shows that steppe people used bone as an armor ?

[blitzkrieg80]

this is taken from my own post in the internal forum- enjoy ~;) :

"1 word, BONE.... possibly some of the coolest and most effective armor types that is totally underrepresented in any history/field- scale armor, bone scale... is this in the game? it should be... i am posting some evidence, from a truly great book on Eurasian steppe lifeways, textbook for my Nomads to Nations (Central Asian history) class.

(accompanying text even explains what they made it from, with nice photos, warning 1+ meg) there is other good text on armor there too:

David Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: VOLUME 1 Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire."

https://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3240/scaleqc0.th.jpg (https://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scaleqc0.jpg)

That's bone scale on the right... Zoom in on the text if needed, pretty interesting stuff.

Bone armor would be used by any warrior on the steppe (I think) without access to superior metal, but wealthy enough to have the time (or followers' time more accurately) to invest in it. I really wish there was evidence of this in Germanic culture so the Sweboz could get some ~:doh: , because it'd be REALLY strong (it's really lightweight too) for how little resources and technology it would require, cost effective practices at their best ~:) but the steppe is just cool like that.

[Digby Tatham Warter]

Horses hooves would be easy to use, did the Sweboz have access to alot of horses, or perphaps other bone types are adaptable? I thought they used furs/hides.

Any way thanks for the interesting post.

[hoom]

I know that at least Aorsi Nobles are described as using horn for their armour in EB.

[The Persian Cataphract]

"Organic" armour, as I'd like to call it are usually given less credit than they deserve; Undoubtly leather and linen armour being the most popular, it is true that one could make armour out of hoof, bone and horn. However these materials saw a greater use as vital supplements for bows; Where the Achaemenian Persians long used a recurved self-bow made of a single piece of wood, the "Scythians" (In colloquial terms) made use of these supplements in techniques that involved extending the "siyah" (Ears) or extending the belly in order to allow it the potential to store additional energy. This resulted in their bows being able to withstand a greater draw, and henceforth using heavier/longer arrows. This had a few drawbacks; The organic materials needed constant maintenance, otherwise the bows would collapse and be useless for any meaningful purpose; The materials were also highly depended on a concept in warfare referred to as "ideal seasons": The bows were sensitive to humidity, and to armies that revolved around this chief weapon, it could have catastrophic implications.

Of course this also largely applied to organic armour types; A way of alleviating the problem was to "lacquer" the armour, just like how it was common to give iron armour a copper-facing to diminish the risk for rusting. It was a cheaper, more accessible and lighter alternative to metal armour, including brazen armour; Not only scale-technique was subject to this rich variety of options, but it eventually passed down to lamellar as well. Laminated armour naturally had higher requirements, and so far only leather has been accepted as a "softer" alternative to bronzen, iron, brazen or steel laminated armour. The properties of hoof, or horn after the lacquering process made them quite rigid materials, but at certain points also brittle (Think, like a hard biscuit), and at the moment of impact, it would shatter.

For a broader perspective on the issue, the Partho-Sassanians had a different mentality much due to the torrid areas under their possession: They leaned more towards "cosmopolitan" means, such as silk and cloth coverings, which could be quilted as well. It had qualities against the heat.

[blitzkrieg80]

Great! I was hoping an expert would drop by- there ya go. Yeah, hooves don't really mean "bone", imo, which i think of as endoskeleton, so "organic" is a much better name... I like the name Bone Armor, because I think of something primal ~;) hoove armor doesn't sound as cool.

wouldn't bone potentially hurt its wearer upon shattering, such as fragmenting into the skin? metal at least doesn't have as much a chance to do that... i would also think that the bone wouldn't be as good against concussive force, probably best against sharp edges with glancing/less direct force?

[The Persian Cataphract]

There was always a risk for splintering injuries with these armour types; Metal armour, to a lesser degree suffers from the same issue especially well-placed arrows in the weaker spots of a lamellar coat. Scale armour was designed to foremostly provide protection against archery, something that became much more difficult with the advent of composite bows and heavier arrows. The problem with more rigid scales, or lamellae as with any armour that lacked the properties of padded, leather or linen types, was the trauma caused by blunt force; This was usually a neglected factor in the steppes as archery reigned supreme, however the classics do mention steppe infantry armed with axes, and probably these were used as a counter-measure against heavy horsemen, just like how the Romans outwitted Palmyran cataphracts first by exhausting them, and then by ambushing them with light infantry armed with heavy clubs (Often such tactics were performed in pairs).

Any type of armour has its own set of weaknesses; The idea is to have a complementary school of thought, and realize that scales or lamellae of bone, hoof and horn could provide excellent protection in combination with padding and /or chain maille underneath. Nomads out of all people ought to have been highly aware of these issues, and thus their heaviest nobility in return were expectedly very difficult to kill. There is a fine line between being an excellent target for archers through disabling and becoming a counter-measure against horse-archers thanks to extensive protection for both rider and mount. This cycle of advantages and weaknesses by itself propelled the development of advanced archery and improvement of heavy cavalry paraphernalia.

[russia almighty]

TPC isn't the main difference between lamellar and scale that lamellar is the plates laid next to each other while scales have over lap ?

Want to ask that while were on task .

[The Persian Cataphract]

That could be one of the arguments in further setting the distinction between the two types, however it is more than that; Lamellar armour consists of lamellae that are fully attached to the base cloth, through rivets and whatnot, while scale only has the top attached to the base cloth. Let me demonstrate this further:

Lorica Squamata

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/squam1.jpg

Lacing technique for Lamellar

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Lamellar_lacing.gif

It's easier to see the difference if one could properly animate the quirks of this armour type when the horseman is riding; The armour "dangles" or "jingles" or however you'd like to see it. It will of course differ depending on materials and where the armour-smith decided to set the rivets, but the principle is the there. In the matter of conceiving designs scale is typically accredited of having the edges scalloped, however that is a technicality, as the scales could practically be of any feasible size and dimension. Lamellar, through its different attachment does not behave in this manner. It has little to do with overlapping, because an oven-man coat of lamellar can be arranged in an overlapping style as well.

Another difference is the feel; While scale is appraised for providing excellent protection against archery, it was not very flexible at all, and there was a huge problem for a long time in how to work around the issue on extending protection to the arms. This is partly where laminated armour was conceived, and partly where the advantages of lamellar as a more flexible solution would arise; The main difference is their field of application also. Lamellar is more often used as a "supplement", like on top of chain maille, or scale armour, and one could particularly make elaborate armoured jackets or coats out of the technique as well.

It's a bit difficult to generalize on the issue, but after a while you can easily spot a scale-configuration from the lamellar-counterpart and tell them apart.

[Foot]

http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/page6.html

But only because I love that site.

Foot