Go to page Previous  1, 2

Ville Vinje wrote:
Quote:


The chances of getting injured by a sword on a battlefield is extremely low compared to spears and arrows. A nasal has little effect against these attacks.


That is a weird claim. What proof do you have for this claim? Sure, nasal does not make that much different but it does not make much trouble either.

Are you sure about this?


Two things:
1) Swords are not the primary weapons. Spears, bows, javelins, lances and such are the primary weapons of warfare in this era.

2) Most bodies found of those killed in battle from this era appear to have been killed by missile weapons.

Therefore swords didn't kill many people on the battlefield.
Steven H wrote:


Two things:
1) Swords are not the primary weapons. Spears, bows, javelins, lances and such are the primary weapons of warfare in this era.

2) Most bodies found of those killed in battle from this era appear to have been killed by missile weapons.

Therefore swords didn't kill many people on the battlefield.


Which IMO is probably the reason why mail coifs or aventails were seen as more useful than cheek-plates.
Hisham Gaballa wrote:
Steven H wrote:


Two things:
1) Swords are not the primary weapons. Spears, bows, javelins, lances and such are the primary weapons of warfare in this era.

2) Most bodies found of those killed in battle from this era appear to have been killed by missile weapons.

Therefore swords didn't kill many people on the battlefield.


Which IMO is probably the reason why mail coifs or aventails were seen as more useful than cheek-plates.


Thanks, this makes sense.

However my original question was more broad. It seems the consensus here is, that sometime after fall of Rome the armor became less common but the quality did not drop.
I completely agree that the primary weapons of warfare are the spear and the arrow
and consequently the most efficient armours would deal most effectively with
these threats. But efficiency often took a back seat to fashion in my opinion ...

On another slant ;
When looking at helmets especially we can see that archaeological finds
from the sixth century to the tenth mostly comprise grave-robbings of aristocrats
(Vendel, Valsgarde, Tune, Sutton-Hoo, Broa, Gjermunbu, StSeverin, Frankish graves)
or at the very least high-ranking professional warriors ...
Late-Roman-period helmet finds (let's say fifth century and back)are often also
high-class but do include poorer evidence from excavations of forts and camps.
In this regard the trend in actual FINDS has been from poorer quality upwards ...
rather contrary to the outdated assumption of degeneration from Roman eras.
(Also, segmented Roman armour can be a real b*tch doing anything very athletic
like fighting or ...riding a horse. Forget that for me! Ringmail is so much nicer.)

So I'm saying that quality may have improved, it certainly did not decline from
late-Roman to early Viking-period.

I'm also NOT saying quantity declined, I am afraid I haven't seen much evidence for
this. What I have seen is belief that because all the Roman soldiers are supposed
to have been fully armoured, and because later armies are supposed to have been
only partially equipped with armour then armour quantity must have declined.
I'd say maybe yes maybe not, ...
On the other hand - how much roman armour has been found? AFAIK, comparativly small amounts of roman armour has been excavated, but it doesn't prove that only a small fraction of roman soldiers would have had armour... Then one has to remember that it's easier to find roman armour if excavations are made at the sites of old roman forts, were thousands of legionaries were stationed for a long time. It's much more difficult however to locate such concentrations of fighting men dating from the early Middle ages.
I wonder if it is possible to devise some tests to determine what
may be more effective at resisting side-of-face blows ;
Hanging mail curtain/coif with and without padding
or Cheekplates of various designs with and without padding.
Are there any remains of padding on surviving cheekplates?

Mikael you are right, it must be very difficult to find any concentration
of rank-and-file armour from migration/dark-age/pre-viking context.
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum