Author |
Message |
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
Posted: Tue 24 Oct, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Romans weren't overthrown. They collasped inwardly and merged with the native peoples.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
Max von Bargen
|
Posted: Wed 25 Oct, 2006 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
George Hill wrote: | The Romans weren't overthrown. They collasped inwardly and merged with the native peoples. |
Right. Imprecise language. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Steve Fabert
|
Posted: Wed 25 Oct, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ancient and medieval weaponry choices were ultimately governed as much by economic factors as by culture or personal preference or abstract comparisons of technological efficiency. Organized warfare requires organized sources of supply for weapons. Surplus wealth would permit the purchase of some weapons and armor made elsewhere and imported, but the primary source of the largest proportion of any army's war tools had to come from their own production centers. In parts of the world where there were plenty of metalworking artisans who were competent to make mail garments, mail was no doubt commonly used in preference to items that were made elsewhere and purchased. Where the local shops were better at producing a coat of plates than a mail hauberk, the coat of plates was probably what the locals wore.
It is seldom a matter of deciding which weaponry is technically superior, in the abstract, and then reworking your economy to produce that weaponry. If you have a ready source of supply of a reliable weapon, you use that weapon rather than looking for a replacement that might be more versatile. Tactics generally change to make use of the available weapons, more than vice versa. If you want your entire army to use similar tactics, they will need to be equipped with similar weapons, thus limiting your choices of supply. So the shifting over time from one preferred protective gear, from mail to coats of plates to solid breastplates and back again, says as much about the economies of the combatants as it does about their cultures and military tactics.
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
Posted: Wed 25 Oct, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aaron J. Cergol wrote: | Rome is not my area of expertice, but from what I've learned is that whoever defeated the romans- they wanted to get rid of all things that represented Rome. they wanted nothing to do with Rome so they didn't continue on with their armour. That's just what I heard/read. I could be wrong though. |
Hmm, not to be taking this farther off-topic (though you did ask!), but I don't think that's correct. Many of the barbarians tramping into (or across) the late Empire were apparently looking for the comforts of the Roman world--good farmland, roads, cities, running water, etc. And we know that many of the invading rulers set themselves up as Emperors, or at least took on the trappings of the imperial throne, such as minting Roman-style coinage with their own faces on it. Heck, up through the 19th century, "Germany" was still a collection of independent states who though of themselves as "The Holy Roman Empire". So I'd say the invaders were definitely not so "anti-Roman" as you heard.
Quote: | anyways fast forward to the early/mid fourteenth century and take a look at a COP (coat of plates) several look almost identical in design to a lorica segmentata. kinda' strange. |
Superficially similar, perhaps, since there is a limited number of ways to make metal strips cover the torso. But not really so close a match in details or construction. (Side closures versus front and back, for instance, or internal leathers versus leather or cloth backing.)
Vale,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
Posted: Wed 25 Oct, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another relevant factor in the development towards more plate is the amount of steel vs. iron that can be produced and the size of pieces that can be made. As explained here, the amount of ore that was converted to steel and the size of a bloom both increased with time.
Since mail can very successfully (and perhaps better) made with soft iron, it can be made with greater economic ease than plate which required larger, purer blooms of steel.
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
Posted: Fri 27 Oct, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another advantage of mail is durability, a relative amount of comfort, and ease of maintenance.
Unlike lamelar, where the cords have to be replaced occationally, due to wear and tear, a mail shirt merely has to be oiled and used to keep it in working order.
It's also easier to wear for extended periods, and simpler to transport.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|