| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2018 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | Even if the purpose of a spear is not to stab someone in their armor (that no spear is designed to do that, is something I learned here), one will inevitably be better than another. That difference and how much it is, is all I'm looking for at this point. |
Better at what? Lighter spears tend to be more maneuverable and don't fatigue you as quickly. Heavier spears tend to have more stopping power and deeper penetration. Some spears can be thrown further than others. Some spears do a lot of damage but tend to get stuck in the target. Some spears are better balanced to make one-handed use easier. Some spears are butt-heavy to enable you to hold them further back and give you a longer reach. Some spears have lugs to make parrying easier but they can increase the chance of getting caught on something. Some spears are reinforced to make them less likely to break but it increases the weight. Some spears are cheaper and faster to produce but are of a lower quality. Sometimes spears are made a certain way because the maker had a limited range of raw materials available.
There is no such thing as a "better" spear. You have to determine your resources and the primary purpose of the weapon and design it around those. The result will be a weapon that is good for some things but not so good for others.
If your game doesn't take all the above aspects into consideration then there is no point having lots of different weapon variations. Most games end up with a list of weapons that increase in cost depending on how much damage they do and ignore all the subtle variables that go into real weapon design. The best attempt I've seen to approximate real weapon design in a game is GURPS Low-Tech, because it has the research and science right but it makes some compromises to maintain playability. What would be the point of an ultra-realistic game if it is so complicated that nobody wants to play it?
In GURPS, if you come across a heavily armoured character you have a list of options:
It has hit locations so you can aim for a part of the body that isn't so well armoured.
It has grappling rules so you can immobilise, disarm, or takedown.
It has rules for targeting chinks and joints in armour.
It has blunt trauma rules to cause damage even if the weapon fails to penetrate.
It has shield bash rules.
It has critical hits to allow for flukes when armour fails and a weapon gets through.
It has armour damage rules so that you can wail on his armour until it no longer works - some armour components are easier to damage than others.
It also lets you do what most other games do - keep hitting over and over again until you get a roll high enough to inflict some damage. IMO it is the least imaginative and least realistic option on this list.
The game is also flexible enough to allow more creative players come up with lots of other ways to take out heavily armoured opponents besides those in the above list.
If you want to know how to do proper game design, take at look at it. The game may not suit everyone but it is slick, well researched, and thoroughly professional.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/low-tech/
For extra coolness, the company was targeted by the Secret Service.
http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2018 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the info and tips, Dan.
I have considered most of these separately in the past, but the way you wrote it made me think differently about how I should think about the equipment and how it actually works. Also, I have never heard that reinforcement makes it heavier.
It's not the intention for the game that players will just mash buttons and wear each others armor down. Hopefully it won't be that. As it is a 3D video game (2/3rds of it is first person), precision and hitting someone in weak areas can be hard though.
A too heavily armored person will be slower, become fatigued easier, restricts movement, fall over more easily, etc.
To avoid everyone going a heavily armored route, I'm looking for ways to counter it, that's why I'm somewhat obsessed with being able to penetrate it. A heavy shield also makes matters worse.
I'd love for you to take a look at it when it would be close to done. That's probably a couple of years in the future though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Tor G. wrote: | | Right now I'm looking for a spear that does well against both mail armor and fabric (armor). |
There isn't one because the properties you need for both are mutually exclusive. A narrow spike is good against mail but it bounces off felt and gets stuck in quilted textiles. A flat spear-head with cutting edges is good against felt and textiles but not against mail. That's one of the reasons why the combination of mail and padding was such an effective defence. |
I guess I'm looking for a trade off then, a design that wouldn't be horrible on either.
Neither of these designs probably work very well against mail, but do you think one of these would be substantially better than the other, or do you think the difference is negligible?
 |
The spear on the right is a very good design for penetration of something hard. Notice that the tip is almost square to begin penetration and the blade is not too wide. The spear on the left not so much, it simply widens too rapidly. The blade on the left though, if razor sharp- and I mean razor, will go well through leather and fabric, while the one on the right, will have problems with that square point section, but once it is through, its obviously sharp blade will cut well.
I am not one of those who believe any armor to be proof against weapons like spears. If you were to give me any armor that you guaranteed I could stand and be stabbed at like Masistius and not be harmed, I would lighten it to the point it stopped most thrusts and be a much more effective fighter. I can tell you that I can put my 9' dory through any thickness of bronze plate a man could comfortably wear as long as my strike is perfect and my foe is coming at me rather than falling away. The key is disrupting you foe from making such a perfect strike.
In terms of a game, I would give the narrow spear a bonus against armor and an impale mechanic if you have one, while the wider spear would get bonuses for wounding and perhaps penetrating leather/textile (though sharp and narrow would be better at this). Notice the head is similar to hunting spears that must penetrate hide and cause massive blood loss and wounding. The blood is important to primitive hunters because it allows easy tracking even if not an immediate kill. If you have ever had to track a wounded boar or deer, you will appreciate a punctured lung.
There is a lot of luck involved in any strike though. things like the orientation of the blade to the ribs, how is the victim turned, is he recoiling from the perceived strike. Angle on impact is one of the most important factors in any strike.
Last I would say that the spear shaft is at least as important as the blade. I can punch through things with a 9' dory that I could not with a 6' spear. How you strike is important as well. Overhand strikes, like throws, are substantially stronger- as shown in 3 out of 4 studies that are available. Two handed strikes as well- and they allow a heavier spear. I know it is off topic, but an old canard that never seems to die is that underhand strikes have longer reach. This is only true if you are using a spear that is intended for striking and throwing. In a dedicated stabbing spear that is rear balanced there is no advantage.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This post will be all over the place. 
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | I can tell you that I can put my 9' dory through any thickness of bronze plate a man could comfortably wear as long as my strike is perfect and my foe is coming at me rather than falling away.
|
How thick would that be (just ballpark)? And how much could it penetrate (at best)?
Do you know if there is a difference in how bronze gets pierced in comparison to iron, or simply if it makes much a difference (bronze on bronze, vs iron on iron)?
Why are you so much more powerful with the longer spear? Is it because of the weight, or is there something mechanical about it or how you use it?
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | How you strike is important as well. Overhand strikes, like throws, are substantially stronger- as shown in 3 out of 4 studies that are available. Two handed strikes as well- and they allow a heavier spear.
|
Also, and this would save me a lot of time later, how would you stab with two hands to get more power? Like this?
https://youtu.be/aS0jzFJArTg?t=45
What about these last two (his left thumb pointing inwards)?
https://youtu.be/aS0jzFJArTg?t=73
Without reading your book (yes, I checked you out), which I might do later (at least look through it), do you think the linothorax were made of linen?
Lastly, I don't know how much you're into video games, but I'd like very much for you too to check it when we're close to being done.
As I said earlier, it would probably be a couple of years though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | | ...do you think the linothorax were made of linen? |
Well, "linothorax" means linen armor, so not much else it could be! But if you mean, Were the cuirasses we see in artwork made of linen, that's harder to say.
The Greeks describe a number of non-Greek people wearing linen armor (they tend to say that in two words, rather than "linothorax" all in one word), such as Asians, Egyptians, Libyans, etc. They almost never describe *Greek* armor as linen. Rather, it may have been made of some kind of leather or hide, and called a "spolas". So linen armor was certainly known to the Greeks, and it's likely that at some point they started using it more often, maybe after the Peloponnesian Wars or in the Macedonian era.
Oh, and it was not *glued*. It might have been layered and quilted, but the only descriptions we have indicated *twining*, woven from heavier cords in one to 3 layers.
This might help: https://www.larp.com/hoplite/greekarmor.html
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | This post will be all over the place.
Why are you so much more powerful with the longer spear? Is it because of the weight, or is there something mechanical about it or how you use it?
Also, and this would save me a lot of time later, how would you stab with two hands to get more power? Like this?
Without reading your book (yes, I checked you out), which I might do later (at least look through it), do you think the linothorax were made of linen?
|
A 9' dory is a dedicated stabbing spear that is not intended to be thrown. A thrown spear has to be balanced to just ahead of the mid point in order to fly true. Once you give up on the possibility of throwing a spear any distance, you can move the balance point to the rear for greater reach. But you don't get something for nothing, if you want to hold a spear 6' from the tip, then you have to have weight on the back end that equals 6' of spear, and by weight your 9' spear is a 12' spear. Heavier in fact, because you do not benefit from a 6' lever arm to counterbalance, but need to do the job in 3' or less. All that is a long way to say, yes the spear is heavier.
All stabs are more powerful coming from shoulder height or above. This is a fundamental human trait going back to when we first started throwing things at predators- chimpanzees cannot throw overarm the way we do, they lob things stiff-armed. So I would hold the shaft with both thumbs facing to the rear like swinging an axe, except you hit with the axe's butt.
The best bronze I have stabbed was a Sabian cymbal I had that I later melted down. I penetrated about 3 inches. Inspired by your question, I just grabbed a leaf shaped spearhead and my 9' spear and went out and stabbed some modern steel plates against a foam backing that gives more than a human coming at you. In overhand I went almost 4 inches through 22 ga, and about 0.5 16 ga. Most ancient armor was somewhere between these thicknesses (0.76 and 1.52 mm)and of poorer quality metal.
Literally the only thing I am sure of in ancient Greek warfare is that the linothorax was made of linen. The organic armors we see on vases were most likely made of heavy layers of twined linen in my opinion, but I am opened to quilting ever since Dan showed me how Kendo armor is made. Leather of course is another material that was probably used. You should read my book if you are interested in how large groups coordinate their movement and the way men actually fight when life is on the line as opposed to the play-fighting you have probably seen ad nauseum online.
I would be happy to assist in any way I can.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Paul M. Bardunias on Thu 07 Jun, 2018 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Tor G. wrote: | | ...do you think the linothorax were made of linen? |
Well, "linothorax" means linen armor, so not much else it could be! But if you mean, Were the cuirasses we see in artwork made of linen, that's harder to say.
The Greeks describe a number of non-Greek people wearing linen armor (they tend to say that in two words, rather than "linothorax" all in one word), such as Asians, Egyptians, Libyans, etc. They almost never describe *Greek* armor as linen. Rather, it may have been made of some kind of leather or hide, and called a "spolas". So linen armor was certainly known to the Greeks, and it's likely that at some point they started using it more often, maybe after the Peloponnesian Wars or in the Macedonian era.
Oh, and it was not *glued*. It might have been layered and quilted, but the only descriptions we have indicated *twining*, woven from heavier cords in one to 3 layers.
|
What he said. Matt, do you know anything about 3-D weaving? They may have woven the multiple layers directly together rather than required any stitching or, cough...cough...glueing, after the fact. Giannis and I are thinking of trying to make a corselet directly woven into shape.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, ancient bronze armour was not of an inferior metal to your mild steel plates. Bronze armour has mechanical properties similar to unhardened medium carbon steel. Cymbals have the right alloy composition but work hardening is at least as important. Putting your spear through armour won't incapacitate a person unless you achieve a significant level of penetration. 4-6 inches seems to be the accepted depth. Thrusting your spear though a plate that is on an rigid, unmoving target will not give you realistic results. Using a technique that can't be used in combat won't give you realistic results. Placing the target at an optimal position rather than the expected position in battle won't give you realistic results. Thrusting your spear through a plate that hasn't been lined appropriately with cloth or leather will not produce realistic results.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | No, ancient bronze armour was not of an inferior metal to your mild steel plates. Bronze armour has mechanical properties similar to unhardened medium carbon steel. . |
so, similar? Superior?
Edit: the cymbals are "work hardened": https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-arh-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=arh&p=how+do+they+make+cymbal%3Bs#id=1&vid=8a1282441d01ceeea091392921adf7fe&action=click
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Cymbals have the right alloy composition but work hardening is at least as important. . |
True, but the cymbal is also probably thicker, though I have melted it down.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Putting your spear through armour won't incapacitate a person unless you achieve a significant level of penetration. 4-6 inches seems to be the accepted depth. . |
That is way too deep. I recently came across a study of vital target depth to assess hazards of being accidentally stabbed by industrial robots, I will post a pic below.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Thrusting your spear though a plate that is on an rigid, unmoving target will not give you realistic results.. |
The plates were on a foam archery target, which gives far more than flesh. I know this because I have used both it and a side of pork for tests on linen and the foam gives far more. You can tell this from the deformation of the plates in the pics. A man moving or leaning towards me is quite a rigid target at the speed of a strike. My strike is not going to reverse his motion, it is going to either penetrate or be rebounded and my arm will fail to maintain linkage to the weapon. I prefaced this with noting that the strike has to impact at an angle close to perpendicular. My whole point was that ancient armor was not proof against weapons, it was good enough to stop most strikes given that you will actively ensure they do not hit in a way most dangerous to yourself.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Using a technique that can't be used in combat won't give you realistic results. . |
Not sure what you mean.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Placing the target at an optimal position rather than the expected position in battle won't give you realistic results.. |
See above. It will give you realistic results if you are asking if the armor is proof against a weapon's penetration, it will definitely not tell you if most of the time you could actually penetrate a man's armor. The point being that armor does not need to stand up to every strike, because you are not going to present an ideal target to your foe. SO no need to carry the weight of armor that could repel all blows.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Thrusting your spear through a plate that hasn't been lined appropriately with cloth or leather will not produce realistic results. |
The Greek thorakes was unlined.
 Attachment: 157.49 KB
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2018 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | | Matt, do you know anything about 3-D weaving? They may have woven the multiple layers directly together rather than required any stitching or, cough...cough...glueing, after the fact. Giannis and I are thinking of trying to make a corselet directly woven into shape. |
OOOOoooo, I hadn't thought of that!! Heavens, I should have. You can certainly weave a single-layer corselet to shape in one piece by twining, with no seams or unfinished edges (knotting the bottoms of the pteruges to finish them, that is). So I figured just do that twice, with the pteruges offset half a pteruge width, and slap them together. Maybe a little whip-stitching around the edges to keep the layers together--at my skill level, that would be a heck of a lot quicker than figuring out how to weave both layers at once. But I'm sure THEY could do it!
Another neat thing about twining is that you can weave in all those decorative lines, though I suspect that some applied woven trim was used, too. These guys weren't always looking for ways to cut costs, after all.
Well, at SOME point I'm going to have to spend a ton of money on linen cord, and get to work. (Though in the meantime, scale armor might be the next armor project!) (Or another shield.)
Food for thought!!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Armourers weren't stupid. If their breastplates were getting penetrated by spears, they would have made them half a millimeter thicker. We have hundreds of extant breastplates in various museums and private collections and none of them show evidence of being penetrated by a spear point. The only holes in any of them were caused by the nails that fixed them to the temple walls.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoffroy Gautier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Armourers weren't stupid. If their breastplates were getting penetrated by spears, they would have made them half a millimeter thicker. We have hundreds of extant breastplates in various museums and private collections and none of them show evidence of being penetrated by a spear point. The only holes in any of them were caused by the nails that fixed them to the temple walls. |
1/ survivor bias: just because something isn't available now doesn't mean it never existed. Breastplates were still carried during the 19th century, and we know they couldn't stop most bullets. Yet how many of these damaged breastplates do we have left? Only a few. And it was only two centuries ago, and during two centuries when steel was much more widely available than during previous centuries. Between battlefield looting, contemporary recycling, and modern selection, damaged medieval or early Renaissance breastplates had many occasions to disappear. And we might have a lot of them, but in museum reserves as the curator may deem it's not interesting to show to the public compared to better preserved, nicer items.
2/ we want cars to be safe. Yet people still die in car accidents. Are car makers stupid? No, they're just making realistic design choices to maximize the safety-to-functionality ratio. We could make super safe cars running only 30km/h and using 10l/100km, but they would be poor cars. And different users/customers had different needs, and different makers from different eras had different skills and grades of steel available. There is not one single breastplate design with uniform performance.
For example, I'm pretty sure pikemen armors, those with the super large "tassets" covering the whole hips and top of the thighs, as they were designed to walk with on rather long distances (and thus not be too heavy), and cheaply made, weren't very good, yet they would still save a man's life on many occasions. Same with Cuirassier's breastplate: they couldn't stop most bullets, yet they would deflect about all saber cuts, and many bayonet thrusts, still providing a valuable protection for a type of cavalry that was used to charge head on.
There's one type of spear head I like and is not given much consideration because it's not from what we consider the classic era of spear or polearm use, and it's the French "revolutionnary pike". As during the Revolution, France was at war with many of its neighboors, and the new regime worked very differently from the previous monarchy (which was working with an army of professional hired soldiers, while the Republican army worked with volunteers and conscription), there have been a serious lack of musket manufacturing capacity, and they had to be reserved to the frontline infantry. As nobody wanted the rear echelons (national guards, local volounteers, etc) to be left unarmed and basically helpless, someone had got the idea to have them equipped with easy to manufacture "pikes" that wouldn't take any man hour from the actual weapon manufactures. And these locally set pike "manufactures" would also help give jobless workers an occupation and a small income. And so, we proceeded on making thousands of simplified pike heads, easy to forge, easy to grind, and easy to haft, and though there was some variety to the pattern, they all ended up being mostly the same, apart from a few stylistic differences.
They were flat on one side, and had a strong stiffening rib on the opposite side, with a triangular blade, ending either in a sort of half circle, or like the diamonds in a card game. They were often marqued "AN" for "ateliers nationaux" (national workshops). It was cheaper and simpler to make than even a bayonet, yet as a spear it was probably quite efficient, having both reasonably sharpenable edges and a very stiff pointy blade. It certainly wasn't made from the best steel available, but in history spear heads were rarely made of good materials due to their very nature of basic infantry weapon. These pikes never saw much combat use, as they were never intended for, but they became a symbol of the free armed people, as the pike already was a symbol against monarchic absolutism ("despotism", as they often called it then), and now it was becoming a symbol not only of the national revolution, but also of the willingness to fight against foreign tyranny and oppression. To the best of my knowledge, this is the last use of the pike/spear as an infantry weapon on a mass scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoffroy Gautier wrote: | | 1/ survivor bias: just because something isn't available now doesn't mean it never existed. Breastplates were still carried during the 19th century, and we know they couldn't stop most bullets. Yet how many of these damaged breastplates do we have left? Only a few. And it was only two centuries ago, and during two centuries when steel was much more widely available than during previous centuries. Between battlefield looting, contemporary recycling, and modern selection, damaged medieval or early Renaissance breastplates had many occasions to disappear. And we might have a lot of them, but in museum reserves as the curator may deem it's not interesting to show to the public compared to better preserved, nicer items. |
A common Greek tradition was to take armour from fallen enemies and dedicate them to temples. The very fact that we found them in temples tells us that they were taken directly from battlefield and never used again. They were in the condition in which they were last used - by the loser, not the winner. No repairs. No recycling.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoffroy Gautier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm not very knowledgeable on Bronze Age warfare, but still, that only intact breastplates survive until today doesn't mean they could not be pierced by spears. There could have been selection of the intact ones during both the post-battle looting (picking only the intact ones) and temple exhibition (making room for new intact ones by removing old damaged ones).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: | This post will be all over the place.
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | I can tell you that I can put my 9' dory through any thickness of bronze plate a man could comfortably wear as long as my strike is perfect and my foe is coming at me rather than falling away.
|
How thick would that be (just ballpark)? And how much could it penetrate (at best)?
Do you know if there is a difference in how bronze gets pierced in comparison to iron, or simply if it makes much a difference (bronze on bronze, vs iron on iron)?
Why are you so much more powerful with the longer spear? Is it because of the weight, or is there something mechanical about it or how you use it?
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | How you strike is important as well. Overhand strikes, like throws, are substantially stronger- as shown in 3 out of 4 studies that are available. Two handed strikes as well- and they allow a heavier spear.
|
Also, and this would save me a lot of time later, how would you stab with two hands to get more power? Like this?
https://youtu.be/aS0jzFJArTg?t=45
What about these last two (his left thumb pointing inwards)?
https://youtu.be/aS0jzFJArTg?t=73
Without reading your book (yes, I checked you out), which I might do later (at least look through it), do you think the linothorax were made of linen?
Lastly, I don't know how much you're into video games, but I'd like very much for you too to check it when we're close to being done.
As I said earlier, it would probably be a couple of years though. |
Annealed copper is rather soft but if you start adding tin you can increase its hardness. Arsenic also works but tin seems to work better. If the copper-tin alloy is then work hardened you can actually double its hardness. When annealed a 10% tin bronze alloy might have a hardness of 90-110 VPH but when you could work it you can raise that up to 270 VPH. Alan Williams did an analysis on a couple of Greek bronze pieces and found around 9-11% tin and an average hardness of 155, that would make it equivalent in hardness to iron armour of later ages but without slag inclusions. If you don't anneal it like was done with the 155 VPH piece you could reach the hardness of air cooled medium (0.4-0.7% carbon) steels. I read a bit about late Roman armour and some of those guys would be better of with bronze armour than the craptastic slag ridden iron they got.
If we're talking armour we also ought to look at the thickness and impact angle. The 'projectile' is also going to have an energy that depends on its mass and velocity and if you're using a hand held weapon you have the chance to keeping pushing as you hit the opposing armour unlike say a thrown spear or arrow which has a velocity which can only get lower as no energy is being fed into it after it is send flying.
The tip of the spear is also going to matter, not just the shape but also the hardness of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M. Bardunias
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 03 Apr 2018
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Armourers weren't stupid. If their breastplates were getting penetrated by spears, they would have made them half a millimeter thicker. We have hundreds of extant breastplates in various museums and private collections and none of them show evidence of being penetrated by a spear point. The only holes in any of them were caused by the nails that fixed them to the temple walls. |
If Greek armors were normally impenetrable, this passage in Herodotus where he has to explain why Masistius's armor is impenetrable makes little sense to me: "The cavalry charged by squadrons, and Masistius' horse, being at the head of the rest, was struck in the side by an arrow. Rearing up in pain, it threw Masistius, [2] who when he fell, was straightaway set upon by the Athenians. His horse they took then and there, and he himself was killed fighting. They could not, however, kill him at first, for he was outfitted in the following manner: he wore a purple tunic over a cuirass of golden scales which was within it; thus they accomplished nothing by striking at the cuirass, until someone saw what was happening and stabbed him in the eye. Then he collapsed and died."
Greek artists surely thought you could stab a man through his bronze cuirasse. Here are a couple images I just found with a quick search. There are quite a few showing the T-Y penetrated as well.
Attachment: 345.18 KB
[ Download ]
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | Armourers weren't stupid. If their breastplates were getting penetrated by spears, they would have made them half a millimeter thicker. We have hundreds of extant breastplates in various museums and private collections and none of them show evidence of being penetrated by a spear point. The only holes in any of them were caused by the nails that fixed them to the temple walls. |
If Greek armors were normally impenetrable, this passage in Herodotus where he has to explain why Masistius's armor is impenetrable makes little sense to me: "The cavalry charged by squadrons, and Masistius' horse, being at the head of the rest, was struck in the side by an arrow. Rearing up in pain, it threw Masistius, [2] who when he fell, was straightaway set upon by the Athenians. His horse they took then and there, and he himself was killed fighting. They could not, however, kill him at first, for he was outfitted in the following manner: he wore a purple tunic over a cuirass of golden scales which was within it; thus they accomplished nothing by striking at the cuirass, until someone saw what was happening and stabbed him in the eye. Then he collapsed and died."
Greek artists surely thought you could stab a man through his bronze cuirasse. Here are a couple images I just found with a quick search. There are quite a few showing the T-Y penetrated as well. |
I don't mean to intrude on this discussion you are having but the text is open to multiple interpretations.
| Quote: | | They could not, however, kill him at first, for he was outfitted in the following manner: he wore a purple tunic over a cuirass of golden scales which was within it; thus they accomplished nothing by striking at the cuirass |
One could read it as saying they were striking his cuirass hoping to penetrate it with the knowledge that was a common occurrence.
You can also read it as saying his cuirass was obscured or hidden by his tunic and that they were stabbing him with the assumption that he wasn't wearing any armour.
In other words the text could be saying;
| Quote: | | He wore a purple tunic over his cuirass which was (hidden) within/underneath it, thus they could accomplish nothing by striking him at the torso for there was a cuirass underneath. |
A contrario one might then reason that had they known there was a cuirass underneath his clothing they wouldn't have attempted to stab him there as they knew it was useless; stabbing at a hidden cuirass accomplished nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoffroy Gautier wrote: | | I'm not very knowledgeable on Bronze Age warfare, but still, that only intact breastplates survive until today doesn't mean they could not be pierced by spears. There could have been selection of the intact ones during both the post-battle looting (picking only the intact ones) and temple exhibition (making room for new intact ones by removing old damaged ones). |
Well, that's making a couple assumptions that can't be backed up by evidence, and of course it just extends the assumption that modern museums won't show damaged items, either (which is not always the case!). We *do* know that temples had to clear out excess stuff now and then, and they did it by dumping things down wells and pits--which have been excavated by archeologists. So by your reasoning, most of what we have are the damaged rejects, not the nice stuff. And we're still not seeing a lot of weapon damage.
And we DO have a few items that show what really seem to be weapon holes, the scariest one I know of being a nice Corinthian helmet with a slot in the left cheekpiece. BUT---we don't know if that was a thrust at an active opponent in the middle of battle, or whether it was done to a helmet (whether on a head or not) lying on the ground with the attacker's foot bracing it, etc. I think it's safe to say that it shows that it was possible to get a weapon through a piece of bronze armor.
Probably a good rule of thumb: Most armor stops most weapons most of the time. Not sure how much more precise we can get.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor G.
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, you're the owner of larp.com. I read your site about the linothorax when I added it.
I've used larp.com several times to understand how equipment is actually built and looks. It's done a better job at that than pretty much every book I've looked at.
I'd also extend the invitation to you as well, to check the game out before it's relieased, if you'd like. See if things looks right and acts as you'd expect.
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | You should read my book if you are interested in how large groups coordinate their movement and the way men actually fight when life is on the line as opposed to the play-fighting you have probably seen ad nauseum online.
|
That honestly sounds very interesting. I saw 5 minutes of one of your interviews were you talked about it. Definitely something I'll check out. Probably useful for the AI as well.
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | I would be happy to assist in any way I can.
|
Awesome. You would do it to the extent you were comfortable, from a glance to actually trying it yourself. In all I just want someone to look at the equipment and the realism of the damage.
I can add you somewhere, but if you're somewhat active online then I can find you anyway. As I said earlier, it would be a couple a years down the road. If I misunderstood what you meant, or you change your mind, then don't worry about it.
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: |
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Putting your spear through armour won't incapacitate a person unless you achieve a significant level of penetration. 4-6 inches seems to be the accepted depth. |
That is way too deep. I recently came across a study of vital target depth to assess hazards of being accidentally stabbed by industrial robots, I will post a pic below. |
I wish I'd seen that a month ago.. But it corresponds well to what I've been finding looking at human anatomy.
| Paul M. Bardunias wrote: | It will give you realistic results if you are asking if the armor is proof against a weapon's penetration, it will definitely not tell you if most of the time you could actually penetrate a man's armor. The point being that armor does not need to stand up to every strike, because you are not going to present an ideal target to your foe. SO no need to carry the weight of armor that could repel all blows.
|
That's exactly what I'm asking for. What (realisticly) could happen in the best circumstances, not what happened most of the time.
Although, to me, both are very important to be aware of and understand why. Malfunctioning armor isn't very interesting (to me) though.
When it comes to the torso armor. From what I've read, a linen version is what I'm looking for.
What is known about the metal scales that sometimes accompanied them?
Would the metal scales extend to the back?
Last edited by Tor G. on Fri 08 Jun, 2018 11:58 am; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2018 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tor G. wrote: |
Oh, you're the owner of larp.com. I read your site about the linothorax when I added it.
I've used larp.com several times to understand how equipment is actually built and looks. It's done a better job at that than pretty much every book I've looked at. |
Thanks! I'm actually not the owner of the larp.com server, they just offered me space for my websites (Roman, Greek (including Bronze Age), medieval, orcs). But I aim them at folks who want to make all this stuff.
[/quote]When it comes to the torso armor. From what I've read, a linen version is what I'm looking for.
What is known about the metal scales that sometimes accompanied them?
Would the metal scales extend to the back?
[/quote]
From what I've seen, it varied wildly. Some with just scales at the sides, some all the way around. Not sure how often we see the back, so it's hard to say. Some were *completely* covered in scales, so they'd only need a backing of thin leather and/or a couple layers of linen, for support. Of course, many are shown with no scales at all.
At least one whole corselet of iron scales has been found in a Thracian tomb, but for Greece proper I've only heard rumors of a few bronze scales, with no details. Presumably a ton more have been found but not published... Bottom line, we can't even prove those scales were always metal! It's a good first guess, certainly, but rawhide, horn, and even bone could have been used.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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