Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IX

[Yora]

In phalanx combat I see the point of having armor only on the most vital (torso and head) and exposed (head and lower legs) parts of the body.
However, it seems to me like quite a risk to be prepared only for one single situation under optimal circumstances. I would like to have at least some leather vembrace on my weapon arm in case a spear gets through a gap between the shields. Everything that slightly lowers the chance of permanently loosing use of my right hand would be welcome.
And I don't see a good reason to leave the arm completely bare.

[Spiryt]

Well, there were some vambrances there, sometimes, AFAIR - it's that just armoring the foeram etc. is always pretty tricky, expensive, and tires the arm used for fighting after all.

And as far as "leather" vambrance goes it wouldn't really give much, other than being a bit encumbering.

Don't think there are much, if any signs of such ideas in antiquity (or anywhere/when else for that matter).

If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.

[Knaight]

If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.

I suspect this was taken from archers, without realizing that it was only really needed to shoot a bow (and even then, only if things go wrong), and that one doesn't need to cover the top of their forearm anyways.

[Spiryt]

I suspect this was taken from archers, without realizing that it was only really needed to shoot a bow (and even then, only if things go wrong), and that one doesn't need to cover the top of their forearm anyways.

Most certainly - still those had make quite a career.

[Knaight]

Most certainly - still those had make quite a career.

What? This statement makes no sense.

Interpretation 1) The device I described were made for an extended period of time.
Response) You only have to have the bow string hit you in the arm once before you learn that it sucks horribly.

Interpretation 2) Gibberish.
Response) None.

Interpretation 3) Covering the entire forearm was common.
Response) Yes, but only because its an easy way to make the tool, and even then, it was usually quite thin.

[Spiryt]

Ergh, dunno what you are exactly thinking about -

But as I stated in previous post, leather bracers of unspecified function made quite a carrer, and are present in any "medievalish" movie or other media, from Gladiator to Blood Rayne or whatever.

[Dienekes]

In phalanx combat I see the point of having armor only on the most vital (torso and head) and exposed (head and lower legs) parts of the body.
However, it seems to me like quite a risk to be prepared only for one single situation under optimal circumstances. I would like to have at least some leather vembrace on my weapon arm in case a spear gets through a gap between the shields. Everything that slightly lowers the chance of permanently loosing use of my right hand would be welcome.
And I don't see a good reason to leave the arm completely bare.

You have to remember about phalanx combat is that most of the hoplites weren't professionals. They were normal citizens who were wealthy enough for their armor and weapons(often only just wealthy enough for a spear and shield) and taken out and trained in how to march in formation over the summer.

Basically they were only taught fighting in phalanxes and to their logic if the phalanx broke that means they've already lost. They also had some notions that were rather backwards, the most obvious one being having their leaders fight in the front lines, so expecting pure logic to determine how they ran their military is rather flawed.

Interestingly the professional hoplite army, the Spartans, were prone to wearing less and less armor for maneuverability and relying on their shields and training to just make sure their phalanx never broke (until it finally did with rather nasty results to their army and to the polis' self-image).

[Yora]

If someone could armor his arms, he would probably be doing it, but strapping some piece of leather just for it to be there is mostly RPG and stuff invention - like immortal and super popular leather bracer appearing everywhere on anyone from Xena to Robin Hoods.

I would want a proper gauntlet of course, but I imagine that would be hard to come by, especially for a couple of hundred people.

But what I am thinking of is, that I wouldn't want a sharpened spear tip to just glance off the inside of my wrist. Having some firm leather covering it could make the difference between getting my tendons severed or not. Sure, it wouldn't stop a two handed overhand chop from getting my hand cut off, but it seems a highly vulnerable area which is constantly getting the closest to the pointy ends of my enemies weapon and if I can have a slighly better chance of not losing the use of my right hand if I survive the battle, I would want to get it.
I haven't tried fighting with spears or swords while wearing arm protection, so there might be some factors that are not intuitively obvious. But I think it sounds like a really good idea. To me a layer of leather over my naked skin seems like a no-brainer with no apparent drawback.

[Spiryt]

It's sweaty, potentially hot, and generally expensive as well - well treated leather was pretty precious thing, especially since Greeks weren't having that many cows in general.

Severing tendon or something like that is rather hard to do by just glancing over the spear or something - and piece of leather won't stop anything more serious.

Generally, it seems to be the story about armor all around the world and ages - if armor is used, then at least roughly solid and covering one.

If something could just potentially stop absolutely minor stuff, no one bothered.

[Fhaolan]

I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

A lot of the names for this stuff, jupon, gambleson, aketon, etc. are medieval, but I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff has been around as long as cloth has been. It's not a big intuitive jump to make, and our ancestors were *not* stupid.

[Dead_Jester]

I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

Depending on the period, the actual material of the breastplate (some were made of linen or leather, and so don't have the same physical properties as metal ones) and the wealth of the soldier in question, it is possible that most soldiers wore very little underneath their armor. Full quilted cloth padding only become really prevalent after the 10th century, as "hard" armor required some form of padding underneath to help protect against impacts. However, there is some evidence of its use during the viking age, although mostly as a poor man's armor.

[Spiryt]

I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

A lot of the names for this stuff, jupon, gambleson, aketon, etc. are medieval, but I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff has been around as long as cloth has been. It's not a big intuitive jump to make, and our ancestors were *not* stupid.

This is very probable indeed, but the question was about anything outside the torso and helmet, I believe.

Depending on the period, the actual material of the breastplate (some were made of linen or leather, and so don't have the same physical properties as metal ones) and the wealth of the soldier in question, it is possible that most soldiers wore very little underneath their armor. Full quilted cloth padding only become really prevalent after the 10th century, as "hard" armor required some form of padding underneath to help protect against impacts. However, there is some evidence of its use during the viking age, although mostly as a poor man's armor.

Well, technically speaking, linen jack, jupon, gambeson or whatever cannot be 'breastplate' because it's obviously not a plate of any kind.

Doesn't really sound good either.

And I don't think I follow the rest as it's pretty much backwards - mail and other more elastic armors require substantial padding to work properly. "Hard" armor less so, because it can absorb impact by itself.

There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.

Here are some interpretations of Roman padding :

Spoiler

Show

If someone has time he can check if those drawing are accurate or not...

Here's Acceptus tombstone.

Spoiler

Show

[Dead_Jester]

Well, technically speaking, linen jack, jupon, gambeson or whatever cannot be 'breastplate' because it's obviously not a plate of any kind.

I was referring to the classical Greek breastplates (linothorax) that are usually theorized of having been constructed of either layered linen or leather. The term breastplate isn't exact, but it pretty much only occupies the torso. Sorry for the confusion.

And I don't think I follow the rest as it's pretty much backwards - mail and other more elastic armors require substantial padding to work properly. "Hard" armor less so, because it can absorb impact by itself.

There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.

I completely agree softer armor do need some padding, but heavy gambesons (or arming doublets) became more important with the advent of plate armor as it rendered most conventional melee weapons ineffective as far as piercing or hacking through the armor. As such, there was a relative increase in the quantity of bludgeoning weapons on battlefields, and people needed quilted armor under their primary armor to absorb the impact.

As far as cloth armor before the 10th century, I believe that some Scythians horsemen wore a form of quilted cloth or leather jacket, and the Mongolian silk armor probably dates back a long time too, but apart from that, there seems to be very little historical evidence to indicate it's widespread use.

[Fhaolan]

This is very probable indeed, but the question was about anything outside the torso and helmet, I believe.

Which in a round-about way is what i was referring to. As your images show, if those were in fact quilted armour and not just badly rendered segmenta (which is always possible. Never discount the possiblity that the artist is just... bad. ) they did include the arms. Likely there were also legs to match as well. Put a breastplate over that, and away you go.

There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.

Makes it a bit difficult, yes. Given how cloth armour tends to rot away so easily (and anyone who actually has worn such can attest to why it rots away. Sweat and blood really do a number on natural cloth fibres.) it falls into the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' problem. For all we know cloth armour could have been invented only moments after *cloth* was invented. It's not like it's that hard to figure out.

I can say for sure that cloth armour, while not in any way better than metal, wood, or bone armour, is definately better than no armour at all.

[gkathellar]

You have to remember about phalanx combat is that most of the hoplites weren't professionals. They were normal citizens who were wealthy enough for their armor and weapons(often only just wealthy enough for a spear and shield) and taken out and trained in how to march in formation over the summer.

Basically they were only taught fighting in phalanxes and to their logic if the phalanx broke that means they've already lost.

It's also worth noting that, for a good deal of Greek history, the "hoplite" and their "phalanx" did not exist. They were a relatively late invention in Greece's long history.

They also had some notions that were rather backwards, the most obvious one being having their leaders fight in the front lines, so expecting pure logic to determine how they ran their military is rather flawed.

On the contrary, decisions of this type were closely calibrated to the expectations of their culture. It is only in relatively recent history that leaders were not expected to be brave warriors. After all, how could a king justify sending other noblemen off to die if he himself was unwilling to take the field?

[Galloglaich]

There is one well known form of textile armor (for the torso) from the entire breadth of Greek history up to the post Alexander period: the linothorax. Mostly linen. Apparently pretty effective too.

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linothorax

I agree with spyrit though there is very little evidence of leather armor being used anywhere in Europe. You do see it somewhat in the Central Asian steppe (where they had a lot more cattle), mostly in the form of lamellar, but generally even there buffalo rawhide was more popular than leather.

G

[Spiryt]

It's hard to say if linothorax is 'well known" though, it seems that as even Wiki mentions, there are literally ltwo small pieces of something that most probably was an actual linothorax in "our" possession.

[Yora]

I've also seen a number of convincing arguments, that linothroax were not actual textile armor and the evidence that it was seems to be equally weak.
One was that linen is rather expensive and very work intensive to make, and to layer it into armor would require considerable amounts. And then you have to equip entire armies with it.
My personal guess is some kind of brigandine and most authentic images I found look quite like that to me:

#1 #2 #3 #4

And the remains of a brigandine wouldn't be easily recognizable as such when found by archeologists who did not know what they were looking for.

[Spiryt]

Well, some kind of brigandine is pretty hard to consider, seeing as there is no sign of some constructional rivets of brigandine.... And otherwise pictures are relatively detailed - buckles, cords, eyelashes.

One was that linen is rather expensive and very work intensive to make, and to layer it into armor would require considerable amounts. And then you have to equip entire armies with it

Don't know much about linen in ancient Hellada really, but it's pretty hard to assume that it would be much more expensive and hard to make compared to metal armors...

Linen was all in all most certainly used in up to 30 layers as "cheaper" armor in 15th century.

As far as equipping goes - it probably would still be easier for some mid-class, working citizen to obtain than metal armor.

[Yora]

But you could glue a layer of cloth on the outside over the rivets.

[Dienekes]

It's also worth noting that, for a good deal of Greek history, the "hoplite" and their "phalanx" did not exist. They were a relatively late invention in Greece's long history.

True, but I do think this discussion was of that period, given the descriptions of the panoply.

On the contrary, decisions of this type were closely calibrated to the expectations of their culture. It is only in relatively recent history that leaders were not expected to be brave warriors. After all, how could a king justify sending other noblemen off to die if he himself was unwilling to take the field?

Yes, but I would argue that what makes sense for specific cultures ideology does not make sense when taking a step back and observing them logically. Many of Greece's leaders were killed because of this custom, and the benefits of such a custom appear very small, even detrimental to a war effort. Take the Persians, of course the leaders of the army were trained soldiers but they did not go charging into the field, neither did numerous Roman generals (though admittedly quite a few tried to copy the Alexandrian method of positioning with rather mixed results). Just as Athen's treatment of woman and Sparta's barbaric treatment of the helots does not make rational sense, but is firmly engrained in the ideology of the culture in question.

[gkathellar]

Yes, but I would argue that what makes sense for specific cultures ideology does not make sense when taking a step back and observing them logically.

Logic is only a means of proceeding from your utility function to a desired end point. Certainly, from the perspective of cultural survival, the obsession ancient Greeks had with personal greatness and bravado seems kind of dumb. But from the perspective of being proper, manly Greek men of their time, their behavior was perfectly logical.

[Dienekes]

Logic is only a means of proceeding from your utility function to a desired end point. Certainly, from the perspective of cultural survival, the obsession ancient Greeks had with personal greatness and bravado seems kind of dumb. But from the perspective of being proper, manly Greek men of their time, their behavior was perfectly logical.

Alright, if we want to be technical. Outside cultural biases many customs of the Greeks did not hold strategic or tactical value. While it made sense for a Greek leader to stand at the front lines in order to gain respect and honor for themselves such a standard can be harmful for the military success of an army. This does not mean they're stupid, but breaking down a military tradition with current knowledge will show they most if not all cultures did not run completely on practicality and total efficiency.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

[Dienekes]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

Yes, but many armies did not break when the leaders where killed, and many armies did not break when their leaders where not in direct harm. While it makes sense from a cultural perspective, simply from practicality being in the front lines reduces options and control of the armies leaders. And the Roman armies show that such aggressive moral leadership can be rather successfully implemented through centurions and smaller leaders, without putting the large planners at risk.

It is not the individuals who are acting illogically, it is the culture which is not optimal which is making the individuals put themselves in unnecessary situations.

[Spiryt]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

Pretty much any culture that didn't get devoured got this trait back then though.

[gkathellar]

Pretty much any culture that didn't get devoured got this trait back then though.

This is very true. "Bravado," "face," "honor," or what have you is present in almost all surviving cultures, military or otherwise. Why that is relies on a lot more psychobabble, but almost any society you'll examine has something along those lines.

Alright, if we want to be technical. Outside cultural biases many customs of the Greeks did not hold strategic or tactical value. While it made sense for a Greek leader to stand at the front lines in order to gain respect and honor for themselves such a standard can be harmful for the military success of an army.

Absolutely.

This does not mean they're stupid, but breaking down a military tradition with current knowledge will show they most if not all cultures did not run completely on practicality and total efficiency.

It is not the individuals who are acting illogically, it is the culture which is not optimal which is making the individuals put themselves in unnecessary situations.

Efficiency and optimization towards what end, though? This wasn't just a question of putting stylish living before practicality, it was a question of stylish living being one of the aims of practicality. There are plenty of impractical weapons or military customs or fighting styles spread throughout world history, but most of them make perfect sense when you understand what the cultures they came from placed value on in battle — face, bravura, whatever. It is silly to think these people weren't relentlessly practical in pursuit of what they believed to be important, and that wasn't always victory.

Certainly, holding any of these as preferable to actual victory is an excellent way to lose a war against those who do otherwise, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. If we're to learn anything from the Peloponnesian War, it is that as the war went on and its involved parties grew experienced and focused on advantage and victory, a tremendous degeneration of other values occurred. While there's no reason to believe that necessarily happens in all cases, it does indicate that "impractical" cultural priorities often had very good internal reasons for their "impracticality" to exist.

[Galloglaich]

I think y'all are over thinking this a little bit. I don't think too many things in warfare, whether wearing armor or using weapons or how leadership deployed, was done out of mindless fashion. It tended to all have a purpose, as war tends to weed out the superfluous. In this case, yes it had a lot to do with morale, but morale is very important in warfare particularly in hand to hand combat! Keeping a line from 'breaking' is the difference between life and death.

Leading from the front
The point of leading from the front correlated directly to the type of fighting they were doing, and is not necessarily worse than leading from the rear, it's just different. It conferred certain advantages and certain disadvantages. The Hoplites were effective in Combat against Central Asian armies such as that of the Persian Empire which led from the rear and kept reserves and so on. Alexander the Great led from the front line and obviously had many notable military successes. Thousands of years later during the Medieval period English Knights dismounted and led infantry from the front, to notable success in the famous battles such as Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and so on (though admittedly, against an enemy which was also using leading from the front tactics, less effectively)

The advantage of leadership from the front is that of strengthening morale and contributing to shock attacks, both for infantry and cavalry. In the type of warfare the Hoplites practiced, the collapse of morale and resulting loss of unit cohesion (a line breaking and turning into a rout) would lead directly to death. It was precisely the ability of the Hoplites to endure a shower of javelins, stones, and arrows and maintain unit cohesion which made them effective as a military force. It is a tactic which dovetails well with armor and other types of protection (shields) which were a key component of the Hoplites overall approach. The high morale, 'staying power' and aggression of armies with a high degree of elan and esprit de corps helps these armies win by aggression. Infantry armies of this type in particular are also based on a type of loose control based on meritocracy, which also serves to enhance effectiveness. The Hoplites, the Goths, Cherusci, and other Germanic tribes of the declining years of the Roman Empire, the Vikings, the Swiss, the Czech Hussites all had armies which were effectively democratic and / or meritocratic to some extent. Leaders led on the basis of the respect they engendered in their comrades, not due to any formal authority.

Leading from the rear offers many strategic advantages, and certainly armies which used this tactic were often very successful, notably the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans and so on, but they were not always successful either, and there are just as many examples of well structured armies under very harsh discipline which failed in combat because their morale deteriorated.

In modern armies such as the United States army of the 20th Century, a hybrid system was invented: the morale-steadying role is played out by "non Commissioned Officers" (Corporals and Sergeants) and low ranking officers (Lieutenants) while the "field Grade" officers (Majors, Colonels and Generals) lead from behind... usually WAY behind But this proved to be something of a problem for American forces in World War II. The Germans by contrast tipped the balance a bit more toward having higher ranking officers closer to the front line, which increased their mortality rate closer to that of American Lieutenants but increased unit morale, discipline and tactical flexibility.

Textile Armor
As for the linothorax, I think there is little debate at this point that it was some kind of textile armor, there are literary references to it as well. But there is a gray area because plates and scales were included in the armor, though they do not appear to have been riveted. Some of the images Yora showed have contributed to a debate as to whether the linothorax was stiffened or hardened or whether it was soft like Medieval textile armors. What is not in dispute is the effectiveness of the linothorax, which has been proven amply (and if you read the link I posted that is to a pretty thorough experiment conducted by a major university along these lines) they found that both hardened and soft textile armor was effective. By contrast, leather has not held up well to tests and this is part of why they have concluded it was not used much in armor. They are still trying to figure out how Bronze armor worked

The Greeks had huge amounts of textiles and it was one of their major industries, it was not particularly expensive actually, it's what most of them wore for clothing. In Medieval times it was even cheaper due to the proliferation of hydro powered mills in nearly every town, but you also have to consider that in Greek towns only a small percentage of soldiers were fighting, Athens in 478 BC had a population of over 300,000 people, but only fielded about 10,000 - 20,000 Hoplites at any one time. They could afford to equip these men fairly well, and really, the shield was the greatest expense not the armor of any type.

On the effectiveness of Militias
Finally, I would also like to point out, it's foolish to go along with the old cliche that non-professional soldiers were automatically inferior to full-time professionals. Urban and rural militias historically performed quite well, and there is a BIG difference in effectiveness between troops which trained part time and were familiar with their weapons and tactics, and troops which never trained and had no experience of combat training. The Athenian Hoplites did well in battle and were feared across the Med. The famous Swiss Reislauffer were almost all urban or rural militia. Same with the English yeoman longbowmen, same with the Bohemian Hussites. Or most of the army of Finland in World War II. Napoleons conscript militias smashed the professional armies of all of Europe in the late 18th Century and were only barely defeated in the long run. Militias could be very effective. There is something of a law of diminishing returns with pro's at a certain point for a whole slew of reasons, and what makes an army good or bad is a more nuanced and multi-dimensional reality than most people (including some historians who should know better) want to acknowledge.

G.

[Daosus]

Fighting from the front may be a strategic disadvantage. However, if your army is a citizen militia (like much of Greece), leading from the front may be the only way to even get your army out in the field.

Plus, for warfare between Greek states, their model of front-leadership and aggressive close combat made sense. By concentrating the fight at one place, there is little damage to the surrounding areas, the conflict is resolved without too much bloodshed, and most of those who instigated the conflict are likely dead. There is no siege warfare, or cattle raiding, or any of the other ways that neighboring states can destroy each other economically. By settling disputes in an agreed-upon, decisive fashion, the Greeks could prevent the conditions of endemic warfare.

[fusilier]

Leading from the front
. . .

On the effectiveness of Militias
Finally, I would also like to point out, it's foolish to go along with the old cliche that non-professional soldiers were automatically inferior to full-time professionals.
. . .

Another thing about leading from the front, is that the leader can place himself in the middle of combat, and orders can be issued immediately to respond to the events. Also, the leader can indicate where the rest of the formation should be, by placing himself close to the standard or whatever flag indicates the formations location, which gives him the ability to directly control the formation. For small (by later standards) battles, which come down to melee, leading from the front may give a leader greater control over the battle.

As for the effectiveness of militias -- I'm curious to understand where the cliche comes from. My first guess would be English militia in the 18th century, especially in the American colonies. Many of them failed to drill, and some were very poorly equipped, leading regular British officers to have a poor opinion of them. Although, I can think of a few British militia units during the French and Indian War that seem to have performed well. By contrast, Spanish militia in Louisiana and Mississippi region were known to drill regularly, often drilled by regulars who travelled from town to town, and were often well equipped by the crown, even with uniforms.

The other area would be Italian states which switched to Condottieri during the late middle ages, early renaissance -- but even more detailed study there shows that mercenaries were often augmented by militia, and militia were never irrelevant to military forces.