| Author |
Message |
|
Matthew Amt
|
 Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2011 7:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Weapon tests by Barry Molloy and others have shown that bronze sheet of around 1mm is *highly* effective against the weapons of the time. There is simply no reason for armor to have been significantly thicker than that. It would just add unnecessary weight.
There really isn't much flexibility at all with a plate cuirass. It is made narrow enough across the chest and short enough in the waist to allow the wearer to bend and move freely, but the metal itself is rigid. More coverage could be had by adding articulated bands or belts at the bottom (as on the Dendra cuirass), or simply by using scale armor. Sure, it is believed that the Dendra armor was made for chariot use, but plate cuirasses were typical for infantry (elites at least!) in a number of cultures across Europe and the Middle East for quite a long time.
Part of the problem with testing bronze is that ancient bronze is not an alloy that is commercially produced. So you have to find one of the 3 or 4 people on the planet who are capable of casting really accurate alloys--and then hammer it out into sheet. I believe Neil Burridge has been working with a researcher on this sort of project, but not sure if the results have been published yet or not. Some of Molloy's tests used copper rather than bronze, but the results were still impressive and it is obvious that tin bronze would perform BETTER than straight copper! But tests on copper or brass or modern bronze will not give us usable data in terms of joules or whatever.
Barry Molloy's book is entitled "The Cutting Edge", and is readily available. There's also a quick write-up on one of his shield tests on the Sword Forum:
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.p...nd-shields
Khairete,
Matthew
|
|
   |
 |
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
what other cultures (besides greeks) used plate armor back in the bronze age?
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bronze cuirasses have been found all over Europe: France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and farther east. There are clear depictions from Sardinia, too, though not sure if any remains have turned up there. Wracking my brains for specifics from Asia Minor or the Middle East, etc., but not coming up with anything besides scale armor, hmmm.... Note that I'm thinking early Iron Age as well as Bronze Age--a lot of the European finds are only vaguely dated and could go either way.
One of the all-time biggest finds of ancient armor was at Marmesse in France, where over the course of a few years a total of NINE bronze cuirasses were turned up, apparently buried in sets of 3, nested together. They are all similar enough that they probably came out of the same workshop. But they were all chance finds, and while they were rescued by archeologists they were not found as part of a formal dig, so there doesn't seem to be much in the way of associated finds, stratigraphy, etc. And they haven't been fully published yet, either, so most folks have never heard of them. Even "Bronze Age Warfare" by Osgood, Monks, and Toms just shows a stock photo of one of the cuirasses, with no indication that there were others.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | William P wrote: | | as for the original question as to lloyds mention of taking a hit to the ankles. how WOULD you stop yourself being skewered in the ankle/ upper foot by a underarm spear thrust. i would imagine you just move your feet back, but in a solid plalanx when our being pushed by your comrades from the back.. |
Poke him in the eye as he's looking down! Heck, in a phalanx you probably can't even see the other guy's feet unless you bring your shield in tight and stick your head out over the rim. I just don't think feet or ankles were all that much of a danger. Pretty small and fast-moving targets, after all. Shins are a little more likely, hence the greaves.
| Quote: | | as for the cuirass. quarf morgan my garrison leader and part of the sydney greco roman group (you might know of him). told me that 6mm bronze is CAST not forged as well O.O |
Well, I doubt armor was ever cast to shape. You cast a plate or blank and hammer it out into sheet. I have yet to see a piece of armor that has been decisively shown to have been cast rather than hammered.
| Quote: | | and how thick was the breastplateby dave michaels? |
Don't know. (Thinner than mine, ha!) It must have varied, thicker in some places than others. The breastplate was 3 pounds, the backplate (which tends to cover a larger area) 2.5 pounds.
| Quote: | | accordingto quarf i told him what i said here, assuming your 8 pound cuirass was about 0.8/0.9mm a 5.4mm cuirass would be about... 48 pounds now. ive been told an ENTIRE gothic harness was about 48 or sslightly more pounds. |
Exactly, it's a ridiculous weight, used by "experts" to draw all kinds of false conclusions about ancient warfare. And it's a completely unnecessary weight, since we know that 1 to 2mm of bronze is resistant to most anything the ancient world can throw at it.
| Michael Curl wrote: | | Interesting. I was under the impression thought that maces were quite common in that time period. Are there any good (stress the word good here) books about bronze-early iron age weapons and armor? Most of what I find are bad, or I doubt their quality. Took me 2 years to get up to speed on medieval/renaissance W&A, I know how much misinformation is out their on the subject. |
Maces were extremely common in the Early Bronze Age, and then someone invented helmets! At least, that seems to be the rationale, since after helmets appear the mace is suddenly relegated to a ceremonial scepter, mostly. Maybe it was just the appearance of swords that pushed out maces. There are a few books around that us Bronze Age types really like, but a few ("Bronze Age Warfare" by Osgood, Monks, and Toms) which are indeed dreadful. Frustrating as heck. If you can afford them, any of the volumes in the Praehistorische Bronzefunde series are excellent, basically dry scholarly catalogs full of line drawings of weapons and stuff.
Valete,
Matthew |
he said that that sort of thickness of broonze would not be hammered into shappe but be a cast product.
as for solid bronze items ve had it asserterd by a few random sources of theidea of the spartiats using solid bronze shields..
i sincerely doubt this is true but hypothetically: how thin would a bronze shielde likely need to be to not hugely overweightedand how protective would such a thickness of bronze be compared to the thickness and weight of wooden aspis?
|
|
 |
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | he said that that sort of thickness of broonze would not be hammered into shappe but be a cast product. |
Sure, anything over a few mm was likely cast, such as weapon blades. But since the examples of armor and helmets that *I've* seen have been much thinner and in some cases clearly hammered to shape, they weren't cast.
| Quote: | as for solid bronze items ve had it asserterd by a few random sources of theidea of the spartiats using solid bronze shields..
i sincerely doubt this is true but hypothetically: how thin would a bronze shielde likely need to be to not hugely overweightedand how protective would such a thickness of bronze be compared to the thickness and weight of wooden aspis? |
Right, the aspis was wood, SOMEtimes with a very thin bronze facing. There are some all-bronze shields from Bronze Age Europe, such as the Nipperwiese types found in Germany and Britain. But they are generally smaller, under 2 feet in diameter, and up to I think about 1.5mm thick (not overall, just in some places). There are also larger types, such as the Lough Gur shield from Ireland, or a batch found in Denmark, but I *think* those are thinner and originally had an organic backing. (Or they *may* simply have been ceremonial!)
A 3-foot-diameter shield of 16 gauge, .050" or c. 1.25mm, would weigh about 16 pounds. Not too bad, but I'm really not sure how it would compare to wood. Probably better in some ways, worse in others. You want to tote that thing in the hot sun, for starters?
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | William P wrote: | | he said that that sort of thickness of broonze would not be hammered into shappe but be a cast product. |
Sure, anything over a few mm was likely cast, such as weapon blades. But since the examples of armor and helmets that *I've* seen have been much thinner and in some cases clearly hammered to shape, they weren't cast.
| Quote: | as for solid bronze items ve had it asserterd by a few random sources of theidea of the spartiats using solid bronze shields..
i sincerely doubt this is true but hypothetically: how thin would a bronze shielde likely need to be to not hugely overweightedand how protective would such a thickness of bronze be compared to the thickness and weight of wooden aspis? |
Right, the aspis was wood, SOMEtimes with a very thin bronze facing. There are some all-bronze shields from Bronze Age Europe, such as the Nipperwiese types found in Germany and Britain. But they are generally smaller, under 2 feet in diameter, and up to I think about 1.5mm thick (not overall, just in some places). There are also larger types, such as the Lough Gur shield from Ireland, or a batch found in Denmark, but I *think* those are thinner and originally had an organic backing. (Or they *may* simply have been ceremonial!)
A 3-foot-diameter shield of 16 gauge, .050" or c. 1.25mm, would weigh about 16 pounds. Not too bad, but I'm really not sure how it would compare to wood. Probably better in some ways, worse in others. You want to tote that thing in the hot sun, for starters?
Matthew |
thats very true... but at least you would have something to cook your food in. on the other side of the world in japan one commander reccomended that ashingaru should have iron jingasa (the shallow wide brommed helmets in the same shape as the pointed straw hat japanese and chinese people are so well known for) to allow them to cook rice in their helmets when not fighting, saving them from lugging extra equiptment around on the campaign trail and thees less chance of them discarding it since the helmet was essnetial for saving your life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jul, 2011 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's an easier way--just bring a servant or slave to carry the food and cookpot! That's what hoplites did. The baggage carrier can even carry your shield and helmet on the march. What better way to go to war?
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Jul, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | There's an easier way--just bring a servant or slave to carry the food and cookpot! That's what hoplites did. The baggage carrier can even carry your shield and helmet on the march. What better way to go to war?
Matthew |
well this was for asingaru, who , largely had to cook for themselves
but thats a good point, through this could be of course negaated by covering the surface back and front, and porpax with cloth and leather to A reduce vibration and B hhelp with heat
i keep forgetting that the greeks always duked it out i the middle of summer,..
can you imagine that thoughm fighting through the daym and after the fight, lay your shield down on the grond and grill a piece of meat or fry and egg on the hot bronze
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Oct, 2011 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
*chants necromantic incantations and chuckles madly*
I have not been active on the forum for a while, but now I'm back...
And in the meantime, I have been on several fighting expeditions. On one of these, I came across a vendor selling large (ca 85cm) domed round shields...
With this thread in mind, I gave in to temptation and bought one... it was costy, but it was for Science!
I have since tried it in various configuarations: Center grip, suspended hung on the shoulder, and with armstraps.
My experience this far is that it gives better protection than a flat round shield of its size, especially for the shoulders. When held in guard position, the curve of the shield almost completely covers the top of the shoulder. It also lends itself well to blocking head blows.
As such, it works best in a tight, static guard, both with the center grip and the handstraps. It is a lot easier to hold in the handstraps, though. Due to the position of the elbow at the centre of the shield, it stays in the right place all by itself, even if the arm hangs straight down to rest. This is in contrast to the center grip, which takes effort to hold in guard position.
The straps also give mutch better edge controll. I have yet to try fencing masks and one handed spear with the straps, but from the experience with swords, and heater shields, pushing the opponents shield with the shield rim is definetely very viable in close combat.
I will take som pictures shortly
"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
|
This is a standard topic