The Snake - felt more like they buffed his DEX through the roof, to pit against STR+CON buff. Looked pretty artificial to me.
Dothraki - a few moments when the charge hit the shield wall looked pretty fine. Dothraki there seemed rather savage with little knowledge of tactics other than banzai charge, so the wall was holding them ok and only taking moderate casualties in the process. Still, Lannisters iirc have been greatly outnumbered, so it was just a matter of time and bodies to dwindle their line, dragon has merely sped up the process.
The other one you didn't mention is Bronn vs Ser Vardis. Also looked fine, as Bronn was actively taking advantage of obstacles in the room. In the open he probably wouldn't succeed.
The Snake - felt more like they buffed his DEX through the roof, to pit against STR+CON buff. Looked pretty artificial to me.
Dothraki - a few moments when the charge hit the shield wall looked pretty fine. Dothraki are savages with little knowledge of tactics other than banzai charge, so the wall was holding them ok and only taking moderate casualties in the process. Still, Lannisters iirc have been greatly outnumbered, so it was just a matter of time and bodies to dwindle their line, dragon has merely sped up the process.
The other one you didn't mention is Bronn vs Ser Vardis. Also looked fine, as Bronn was actively taking advantage of obstacles in the room. In the open he probably wouldn't succeed.
I would have mentioned that last one if I'd thought of it. It seemed like Bronn was waiting for Ser Vardis to tire himself out using obstacles and mobility as you said. How long could a knight in platemail or especially full-plate keep fighting before tiring?
Brienne did knock Arya on her ass with a kick if I recall. If they weren't just sparring that would have been the end of Arya (and one of my favorite characters).
Hm.. it seems you are better educated than me. When, which year I mean, do you say that saddles was improved to the state that they could support head-on charges?
It's not really possible to say exactly when, but true heavy cavalry like how we think of knights wasn't really in heavy use till around the 1100s. By then they had the higher backed and pomelled saddles and stirrups. Stirrups not being so much to keep them on the horse, but to provide leverage when striking down with a sword after their spear/lance was broken or stuck in something. Keep in mind you couldn't get too many strikes out of a spear before it'd break or get stuck in something, so giving an edge with your sidearm was helpful. Even then they weren't really around for too long, and a few centuries later, they were getting off their horses to fight and just using them for transportation.
I'm not that well educated, I just watch lectures and read history books like how people consume Game of Thrones. I find Plutarch to be almost like reading fantasy.
Hm.. it seems you are better educated than me. When, which year I mean, do you say that saddles was improved to the state that they could support head-on charges?
It's not really possible to say exactly when, but true heavy cavalry like how we think of knights wasn't really in heavy use till around the 1100s. By then they had the higher backed and pomelled saddles and stirrups. Stirrups not being so much to keep them on the horse, but to provide leverage when striking down with a sword after their spear/lance was broken or stuck in something. Keep in mind you couldn't get too many strikes out of a spear before it'd break or get stuck in something, so giving an edge with your sidearm was helpful. Even then they weren't really around for too long, and a few centuries later, they were getting off their horses to fight and just using them for transportation.
I'm not that well educated, I just watch lectures and read history books like how people consume Game of Thrones. I find Plutarch to be almost like reading fantasy.
Curious about lancers. Did they charge with their lances and then dismount when they broke enemy lines?
Wow, we have some forumites that are pretty knowledgeable about Medieval warfare! As a Game of Thrones fan I'm wondering how realistic are some of the major fights/battles portrayed in that show. In particular what do you think of the following scenes?
The Mountain vs. The Snake
The Hound vs. Brienne of Tarth
Arya's spar with Brienne
The Battle of the Bastards
Stannis vs. Mance Rader
Eddard Stark vs. Jaime Lannister
The Dolthraki vs. The Lannisters (minus the dragon of course)
They all seemed fairly realistic to me except The Battle of the Bastards might have been a bit far-fetched. Thoughts?
I recommend, if you have some time to spare, to look up Schola Gladiatorii on YT. He does excellent reviews of medieval weaponry etc but also some fan-requested reviews of fights like these in movies and shows.
Hm.. it seems you are better educated than me. When, which year I mean, do you say that saddles was improved to the state that they could support head-on charges?
It's not really possible to say exactly when, but true heavy cavalry like how we think of knights wasn't really in heavy use till around the 1100s. By then they had the higher backed and pomelled saddles and stirrups. Stirrups not being so much to keep them on the horse, but to provide leverage when striking down with a sword after their spear/lance was broken or stuck in something. Keep in mind you couldn't get too many strikes out of a spear before it'd break or get stuck in something, so giving an edge with your sidearm was helpful. Even then they weren't really around for too long, and a few centuries later, they were getting off their horses to fight and just using them for transportation.
I'm not that well educated, I just watch lectures and read history books like how people consume Game of Thrones. I find Plutarch to be almost like reading fantasy.
I was curious since you seem to have made a disntiction between 'classical' and 'ancient' times with regards to how cavalry was used with your remark on that Partian cavarly was later and thus more advanced. For me, I don't know the different eras by heart, so I tend to clump up the time before medieval times as one huge chunk of time with a kinda similar way of warfare.
I've played many, many hundreds of hours of Rome: Total war, including many more 'historically correct' mods, and even in the latter which are made from history nerds, cavalry use charges. I know games is not the best input to draw conclusions from, so it has made me curious about your statements since I had assumed heavy cavalry was indeed used to charge, though not the full head-on charge of medieval knights, but still a charge.
This is giving me food for thought, I find it interesting to ponder on such things.
Hm.. it seems you are better educated than me. When, which year I mean, do you say that saddles was improved to the state that they could support head-on charges?
It's not really possible to say exactly when, but true heavy cavalry like how we think of knights wasn't really in heavy use till around the 1100s. By then they had the higher backed and pomelled saddles and stirrups. Stirrups not being so much to keep them on the horse, but to provide leverage when striking down with a sword after their spear/lance was broken or stuck in something. Keep in mind you couldn't get too many strikes out of a spear before it'd break or get stuck in something, so giving an edge with your sidearm was helpful. Even then they weren't really around for too long, and a few centuries later, they were getting off their horses to fight and just using them for transportation.
I'm not that well educated, I just watch lectures and read history books like how people consume Game of Thrones. I find Plutarch to be almost like reading fantasy.
I was curious since you seem to have made a disntiction between 'classical' and 'ancient' times with regards to how cavalry was used with your remark on that Partian cavarly was later and thus more advanced. For me, I don't know the different eras by heart, so I tend to clump up the time before medieval times as one huge chunk of time with a kinda similar way of warfare.
I've played many, many hundreds of hours of Rome: Total war, including many more 'historically correct' mods, and even in the latter which are made from history nerds, cavalry use charges. I know games is not the best input to draw conclusions from, so it has made me curious about your statements since I had assumed heavy cavalry was indeed used to charge, though not the full head-on charge of medieval knights, but still a charge.
This is giving me food for thought, I find it interesting to ponder on such things.
Eras are kind of fuzzy, some people actually push the classical period back to the 800s BC, others will put it to the Hellenistic era onward through the fall of Rome. In the former case they'd be in the same era, but there were a lot of technological changes between the rise of the Achaemenid empire and the Parthian empire. A recognizable saddle being in wide spread use for one thing. Iron working became good enough and cheap enough you could put scale mail all over your horses and troops, like that picture from the catapharact article. A few super rich people could have done it during the earlier Persian dynasties, but it was not cheap to outfit a horse in armor like that and have a large force equipped that way. Over time horses got bigger through selective breeding, too. A lot of the siege and fighting techniques from Alexander's wars were picked up, and enhanced. There's a lot more sharing of knowledge and philosophy through libraries and academies. More trade routes were opened up and made safe to travel. I really shouldn't use arbitrary era names, since they differ depending on who you talk to, and what region you're talking about. Sort of like how the renaissance didn't happen in all of Europe in the same time, and there was no rebirth in other regions, since they didn't lose their knowledge like in Western Europe. I mainly wanted to distinguish that there was a difference in time and technology and techniques between them.
Cavalry did use charges in earlier times, it's just generally not a head on crash through the lines that a lot of people picture like a late medieval knight. In a lot of cases they'd turn right before getting to the line and stab as they rode by. Alexander would charge into gaps with a V shaped formation, and use the charge to further open up the gap further and collapse the formation with the foot soldiers attacking the enemies front and cavalry splitting them and attacking the sides. In those cases it was a ride into the gap and stab away. Keep in mind, I'm only talking about dealing with formations. While attacking a loose group, it was possible to charge through. It's probably more difficult to depict Alexander's style of charges in a video game, so that might be part of why they did it that way in the Rome mod you mentioned.
A lot of my info on ancient/classical warfare comes from the lectures of Kenneth Harl and other teaching company lectures. Check them out sometime. He also has a great set of lectures on central asia, centering on the Huns, Mongols and other central Asian powers. Plutarch and Xenophon are great places to start if you want to learn about Greek and Roman history from people who actually lived it. Plutarch you have to take with more of a grain of salt, since he's clearly telling heroic stories, and he gets less into the military techniques. Some parts from Xenophon's Anabasis are debatable, but it's a great read, and clearly when the Greeks learned mixed unit tactics. Xenophon was also a general, so you get more into how fighting was actually done and what equipment they had.
That is amusing, though the large boob-like projections raise issues that we've mentioned about force distribution and deflection. A sword isn't heavy, but you don't want to have that concentrated on your sternum by directing the blow to it with boob-like projections.
Anyways, I had a thought about the full plate vs legionnaire style (as in not actual if I wasn't clear, not literally Roman tech vs Late Medieval/Early Ren tech, which wouldn't be fair) gear, and it occurred to me that one of the big pressures on full plate design was actually arrows and bolts, and when they came to prominence in the later half of the middle ages armour design did change to protect better vs these projectiles. Now, I know the Romans had some serious success vs serious archers that also had the advantage of mobility that medieval archers lacked, but I strongly suspect the bows of the Parthians wouldn't be as strong as a medieval longbow or crossbow. Such a bow just doesn't seem practical from horseback, especially if you plan to fire backwards, and if you're a Parthian, you did just that.
So, in short, would you rather have a big shield or plate armour vs a large number of archers? We know medieval crossbowmen often carried massive shields to take cover behind while reloading, dwarfing even Roman shields, but a Roman shield could provide cover I think, and enable you to protect your neighbours, whereas with plate you will maybe be protected, but you'll feel the thwacks, and these are hefty projectiles, so this will likely hurt enough to distract you. Now, I suspect you'd need to increase the weight of the Roman shield for it to be useful vs a longbow or crossbow, but it should be possible to have a bossed shield that is very arrow resilient, and allow you to wear (and carry) much less total weight into battle, making it easier to approach the archers, and to not be in constant pain while doing it. I don't think the shield sounds like a bad idea really, and might explain why knights seemed to find archers so vexing, despite there being many accounts of plate and even chainmail being pretty proof vs arrows (thought there are exceptions to this, including many accounts of arrows piercing even plate and the flesh beneath), while Roman's were able to beat some very elite archers at their own game. Dunno, just throwing an idea out there!
If you increase the weight of the Roman shield to take into account powerful ranged weaponry like large crossbows, you should forget about carrying it into battle in one hand.
That cannot very well be compared to the shields that crossbowmen carried into battle because those were not held, they were set up. That is not an option for an army that plans to engage in melee.
Further, even if you increase the mass of the shield, that still doesn't fill in the gaps in the Roman armor style. So you have slowed down your reaction time with your shield but kept the openings for the enemy to attack (via in melee or with ranged weapons).
And as I said before, there is nothing stopping somebody in full plate from carrying a shield while closing the distance to the enemy before discarding the shield (and opening the visor) and using a big weapon to lay waste to the enemy.
The total weight is also deceptive because your "Roman" style soldier carries a huge shield in one hand, while the full plate armor is supported in places that are good at supporting weight. Then you imply that you would not feel the arrows hitting the shield, even though the shield is much more likely to actually stop rather than deflect the arrows than the plate armor is. With the armor, you have the added advantage that the force is dispersed over a larger area and then softened up by your gambeson.
Finally, if you like to see where you are running while not getting hit with arrows in the face, would you prefer to wear a helmet with tiny slits for vision (limited vision), or shakily try to keep your shield halfway in front of your face (limited vision) but it's bobbing up and down while you are running so at times you are totally exposed and at other times you are totally blind?
Erm, you would not be looking over your Roman shield if you're moving against active archers, you'll be looking down on the ground to see where you can step.
I agree, you can't make it too heavy, but you can either change the material a bit (IE make the 'plywood' a bit thinner and put a layer of thin metal sheeting on top to significantly improve it's durability), or make it a tiny bit thicker. It's already curved remember, so it will likely deflect many arrows as well as absorb them. I've heard the shields could actually become weighed down by arrows btw, in campaigns vs archer based armies, so I do acknowledge that a testuto couldn't travel very far under a constant barrage of arrows and still be in fighting form, but I would argue you'd never be able to get infantry of any kind to walk under that barrage other than those able to form a testuto. Knights did not fair particularly well vs archers, even on foot.
I still say getting pelted with a descending arrow would really hurt, just like getting shot with a gun hurts, and can even result in very serious injury or death, through a bullet proof vest. You won't get a broken rib from an arrow, but it'll rattle your helm pretty awful I bet, and be very disorienting, and possibly concussing.
Looking down under the shield makes sense. I hear medieval soldiers also lowered their heads when approaching archers (because visors are weaker than the rest of the helmet). But holding your shield like that would still leave you vulnerable. Archers can change the angle of their arrows, and while you are covering your face (and unable to see them) they can take aim at your unprotected legs. Are you really sure you do not want any armor there?
Now this tactic is limited twofold. Alternating the angle requires the enemy to be close enough to you so that you can reach them even with a relatively direct shot. Also, anyone who is not in the first two lines of the formation of archers would still have to shoot indirectly. But that does not mean that you should just dismiss the danger.
You speak of the shield getting heavier as arrows plant themselves there. That is because these arrows are not deflected. Trying to make the curvature of the shield significant for deflection would increase the weight again. And you can't use the deflection curvature to decrease the thickness of the shield because then any shot from somewhere other than the expected direction would just break through.
I never said getting hit with arrows while wearing armor would not hurt. I said that when the shock of every arrow goes directly to your left hand, that is going to hurt too.
Shields are good. No question about that. And they are efficient in that you are in control over where you deploy your defenses, meaning you can field a smallish total of defense to relatively large effect. But that tactic always comes with a "but". "But" whenever somebody gets past your limited defense strategy, you are screwed. Every army ever has had to allocate resources to some variation of this strategy, but leaving your body exposed in the chaos of battle has historically been shown to lose out to tactics of covering your body in metal - until gunpowder weapons make armor largely useless.
In fact, I would argue that covering your torso would not be people's second priority for covering with metal (after the head) if not for the ease in which it can be done. The right hand is much more exposed. You typically cover it with your shield, but it still is the part of your body most likely to be injured. Once protecting your hand was a real thing, there was no going back to Roman-style protection philosophy. Heavy gauntlets were however superseded by elaborate guards on the swords themselves, and so it is less obvious. But by covering your hand, the post-medieval sword does a very similar job as a shield in a limited defense strategy.
I really liked how scholagladiatoria described the falchion as a knight's weapon. It is used for going up against groups of people who have no armor. You can go against them with a weapon that is so bad at defending yourself with because you have armor. Similarly, a long sword is a sign of status because it is a sword that requires two hands to use.
I'm not greaves averse, but in a proper testuto, it is normal for the very front to have their shields pretty nearly vertical, with those behind them setting theirs right on top actually, which offers a small covered 'window' to see out from, rather nice I suppose, as the shields are curved. The testuto itself isn't very vulnerable actually, even to a melee rush, as chariots can be driven over one apparently, so even a surprise charge isn't instant defeat or anything.
So, if the troops have time to form a testuto, they don't need greaves, but if they don't have time, I agree greaves would be handy, as would armoured boots, at least with protection on the top. It's not like war-sandals are the ideal footwear for battle!
Well, it should be remembered that I don't think Roman scutum used any covering, just a metal boss, while a medieval shield used a cover over the wood usually, which actually greatly increases it's protective qualities, and Roman shields were quite curved actually in normal use, as it helped a soldier hide behind the shield while not getting in the way too badly of their closely packed neighbours. I think a metal covering would be just dandy actually, if leather or linen could prevent damage to the wood (and it did), then a thin, beaten metal facing would deflect even better. Your point about angles is valid, but really, Romans tended to line up straight with their enemies where possible, facing them, and this is one of the benefits of their maniple system over a standard line or block system, it lets the troops adjust their positions much more quickly.
Well, I'm not convinced that a shield blow would hurt your hand, after all the Romans did punch with them in battle normally, so they are clearly designed to take blows comfortably, but I can't test arrows this way, so my position is really not any more valid.
I dunno, even before people were really using gunpowder that heavily, the early professional armies didn't field most of their troops with full plate, they favoured using a breastplate and helm, and usually a bit more here and there, but these regular troops didn't use full plate, and they were effective. I think you do have a point about the chaos of battle, but one of my key points remember was that the troops must be very disciplined, IE there can't be any chaos in battle, or they'll be screwed, I agree. I also do agree that metal was still pricey in the 16th century, so it's not like it would have been anywhere near the same price to outfit full plate vs torso protection + helm, so this is a problem for my position. I think the general trend was that even before firearms, knights were on their way out as the dominant force on the battle field (debatable I am aware), giving way to the power of infantry armed with polearms and missile weapons, and these troops did not wear full plate.
Well, I know the Roman gladiators had armour like that, and even used big shields that were quite hefty, carrying often gear that was much sturdier than a legionnaire was provided with, yet I've never heard of a legionnaire WANTING gladiator armour. I do think it'd be nice to have some sort of gauntlet on your sword arm, but I think it was less of a problem for the Romans (since they could have adapted a gladiator's hand protection remember) because they tended to keep their sword and arm behind their shield until they struck.
I honestly wonder if part of the 'success' of swords in cultures that use serious armour was simply what people on the web call 'Rule of Cool', wherein something impractical is not only tolerated, but loved, due to it being cool enough to put up with. This usually is used to explain away things in movies/books/shows that don't quite make sense, but are really cool, but the same principle might be at play here, with people liking swords despite them not being a practical weapon. They are much more elegant than a mace, and are more biblical I'd say, which would appeal to Christians maybe. Swords made great sense when most people wore light or no armour, but vs a plate armoured knight? Yeesh, I'd rather have a mace or axe I think.
You know, I wonder how effective a slinger would be vs plate mail... I know you're not going to get penetration, but a sling bullet hits really hard, and if that hit your head, I think that'd be worse than an arrow, despite neither getting any penetration. I would wonder if you'd get concussed by such a slung stone.
First of all, once you set up your testuto, you are rather immobile. That in itself is a weakness. It means you do not get run over immediately. But unless you have more mobile allies, it also means that you surrender the choice of engagement to the enemy. The enemy will therefore only engage where he has the advantage. Horse archers are so famed because they can enforce this sort of situation so easily. (what people often forget is that horse archers have a lot of trouble defending positions)
To spell it out: If you go up against archers, and your formation blocks out 95% of their arrows, but you cannot catch up to them because their troops move faster than yours, then you get hit by 5% of their arrows until your lines collapse.
Are you serious about your doubt that your hand would hurt if it got hit with something that you think would hurt somebody wrapped first in very thick clothing and then metal? Yes, there are 2 factors that aid the hand: The arm is not rigid, so it will be pushed back and serve as a suspension. Further, the shield will move in the hand and have the same effect. BUT since your shield needs to stay in position to protect your body you will tense your muscles to the limit in order to keep the shield where it is. This is exhausting and painful at the same time. Leaning the shield against your shoulder would be much more tolerable (actually I suspect that this is what Roman soldiers would do, rather than keeping the shield at a distance). And that is what armor is. A thin layer covering your shoulder (and other areas), except real armor is better at it because it is designed to do that.
Armor never spread throughout the entire populace of Europe. It was too expensive for most.
Pikes were nothing that the knights were not used to. Archers were nothing that knights were not used to. Agincourt which is so famous for having archers wrecking so many knights is fascinating in that those knights did not die from the archery. Their horses did. The English king got his hands on so many prisoners that he panicked and murdered them.
But then there was Jan Žižka with his Wagenburg tactics at roughly the same time. That, the knights were not prepared for, and that is the reason why knights and full plate went out of fashion and carriages (and later cars) came into fashion.
As for Roman soldiers wearing gladiator armor to protect their arms, there are historical sources telling us that it happened. You have to keep in mind that you cannot keep your hand behind your shield when you are attacking somebody. In a duel it is possible to keep your shield between your hand and your opponent's weapon, but battles are not duels.
On the topic of swords, their primary popularity comes from the fact that they are so easy to carry around. It was the best weapon that you could just have with you, like a pistol is nowadays. It was not about how cool the sword was. It was the fact that it did not stop you from going about your daily life like carrying around a spear would. So civilians had swords with them if they had any weapons at all, and any soldier who could afford to buy a sword would have a sword, as a side arm. Having an extra weapon (that does not bother you) is better than not having one, even if that weapon is not terribly effective.
As for how Christian the sword is, it is not. Priests specifically did not use swords because it was deemed to go against the will of God. (that is why to this day, clerics in DnD use blunt weapons)
In general, if thing A is a certain percentage more effective than thing B, A will replace B. I cannot say what that percentage is for sure. But I assume it is around 2-5%. "Coolness" and culture are relevant below that. But once somebody routinely outdoes you, they just have no leg left to stand on. Losing is not cool and you cannot maintain a culture when you get raided on a regular basis.
Do you have any sources that back up a testuto being immobile? Most of what I read refers to them being mobile, and used to approach areas that are well guarded by missile troops. I do agree that a testuto is definitely less mobile than regular formations. You are wrong though if you think legionnaire's never fought and defeated horse archers, they defeated the Parthians many times.
In testuto formation, you wouldn't likely notice any given arrow strike, unless it was able to punch through the shield partially, as you share support with everyone. I don't know exactly how the Roman's carried their shields while in testuto, but I do know that in porting, it is prefered to carry a load above the head with arnms essentially straight, as this is the easiest way to carry even very heavy loads. People that carry weight on the shoulder can carry more weight, but it much harder on the back, as you aren't absorbing as much shock with your arms/shoulders. So, I doubt the Romans used their shoulder that much, but I can't really prove it.
Armour was standard actually by the later middle-ages, with very few troops being deployed with none in western europe. Even archers would often wear surprisingly substantial armour. Erm, you can argue all you want, but it's a known fact that armourers, elite ones anyways, literally started to make different armour after bows became prominent, and marketed it as being arrow proof. Arrows piercing plate armour may not have occured on every arrow, but it is documented to have occurred, so your point here is spurious.
IMHO, I think its likely that carriages came into fashion mostly because they were more comfortable than riding, and they were faster than a wagon. Carriages offer shelter, and you can chat with a companion or two, making for a much better experience.
I agree with a short straight blade you have to get your hand out, but that doesn't mean you are especially vulnerable. I'd love to see any sources you could provide of legionnaire's using gladiator equipment, as I've never heard of such, though I know the Romans had a very adaptive military.
Pistols today IMHO are also squarely rule of cool unless you're a cop, actively hunting in grizzly country, or in the army. Civilians carrying pistols for 'self-defence' are full of **** IMO, they carry to intimidate or to make themselves more confident. Violence is extremely rare in the US, depsite what people may think, and most people will not have a relevant adult-age conflict at all during their lives where a gun would be warranted. Heck, very few adults have even been in a scuffle as an adult it's so rare. NOW, I do agree that swords when they were carried were much more likely to be used, and were reasonably practical to wear around (IE throw on a girdle and hang your sheath, you're good to go), but their battle-field presence in regions that use armour widely was 'rule of cool', as most swords are very useless vs armour as I understand it.
Well, I agree up to a point that people will update what doesn't work, but come on, there are COUNTLESS times in history cultures have kept using an idea or tool long after it was outdated. For an extreme example, look at the Mennonites for one. Comfort with something makes us gravitate towards it, and it usually takes a catastrophic failure or two before we accept there is something wrong, and if you're catastrophic failure was carrying a sword into battle, you probably died doing it, and couldn't learn from it. I think people are pretty stubborn.
The testuto is less mobile than other troops simply because they need to keep their shields in line. You yourself described the Roman soldier charging while looking at his surroundings from below his shield. This is mutually exclusive with the testuto. You do not need to be completely rooted to the ground for the enemy to have the advantage of mobility against you. And I never said or implied that horse archers would always defeat Roman armies. I have no idea where you got that from. Besides, Roman armies were supported by cavalry. I specifically made a point about having more mobile allies. Read before you reply.
Also, you seem to have a weird picture of the Roman soldier in your mind. The historical Roman soldier is larger than his shield. The shield is also curved. There are definitely gaps for an archer to target, especially when the Roman is trying to close the distance to the archer.
As I said, if you are not using your shoulder to support your shield (or whatever other part you might be leaning the shield against), every single 150+pound punch is going to go directly into your left hand. How long can you keep that up?
About arrows piercing plate armor, that was normally really cheap garbage armor, or it was in one of those weaknesses that a lucky arrow managed to connect with. It was not the rule. If you are interested, there are a few videos of experiments of how much historical plate armor could actually take. In fact, there are experiments showing that even cloth armor is pretty good at stopping arrows. So, since a medieval knight wore both, there is very little chance of him actually dying to arrows - and Agincourt proved just that.
There was armor that was advertised as bullet-proof, which is another league from just arrow-proof.
No, the spread of carriages is definitely connected to their success on the battlefield. Prior to that point, fighting men were not supposed to ride on any sort of vehicle. They either rode on a horse, or they walked.
There is a medieval tale about Sir Lancelot and how he once hitches a ride with a peasant, and how afterwards no one respects him anymore.
For sources on Roman soldiers using manica, you need venture no further than wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manica_(armguard)
I am not sure why you cannot understand that if you extend an unprotected limb towards somebody who has an interest in hurting you, that they might take advantage of that gesture. Hands (and arms) are the most common target in just about any sort of sword fight.
Your point about pistols squarely misses the mark. It is not wrong as such, but the point about pistols is not that they are the best weapon that you could buy. It is that they are the best weapon that you can carry around with you all day. Even better than a sword, in fact. It is the amount of fighting potential you can add to your body without sacrificing convenience.
You cannot stop a tank with a pistol. Does that mean that soldiers should not carry pistols or knives?
You cannot cut through plate armor with a sword, but you can use mordhau and halfswording. It is not a perfect weapon. But it is a weapon. When your primary weapon is broken, would you rather have nothing or a sword?
That is the question that you fail to ask yourself, and the answer to it is the reason for the popularity of swords in most cultures.
And an unrelated point, because you like to think of the Roman being so much lighter armored than the late medieval knight. Yes, the Roman armor is was about 10 kg lighter than the late medieval full plate armor. But by sheer coincidence the Roman shield weighed 10kg, and it was supported by hand. So the Roman style armor is not lighter than full plate armor. It just has more gaps to exploit.
I have thought a little about the implications of those 10 kg that the shield weighs. I retract my statement that they would lean the shields against their shoulders. The only way I can see somebody holding a weight like that for a longer period of time is by pushing the elbow into the pelvis. I can see that stance working out, in my mind. Your left side becomes the axis around which you pivot to deliver your attacks and go back to safety.
Romans used mixed unit tactics, and did employ archers and cavalry and siege equipment, which is how they could beat the Parthians sometimes.
An arrow doesn't have to pierce plate mail 100% of the time. If you pepper a battlefield with arrows, some of them can get through, but as was noted at Agincourt, they killed far more horses.
Generally in warfare, archers would fire in an arc and not straight at their opponents. If they're that close to your archers, you've probably already lost, so generally having your shield in front of you wouldn't have helped with archers. There's always exceptions, this is a generality. The idea is you cover a large area of the battlefield with arrows and not aiming specifically for a target.
Horses were not ridden originally. Chariots were the first use of horses in warfare. It actually took awhile for somebody to think of just climbing up on the horse itself. They also were much smaller, originally, and it's only with selective breeding they became large enough to ride. A few years ago I got to see an exhibit with some of the terracotta warriors from Qin Shi Huang Di's tomb. Everything's life size, but it's striking how small everything is. All the people are probably around 5 feet tall, and the horses are tiny. Granted at the time the terracotta army was built, they had started to breed horses that were large enough to ride in other parts of the world, but it's a good indicator of how small they used to be.
Romans used mixed unit tactics, and did employ archers and cavalry and siege equipment, which is how they could beat the Parthians sometimes.
An arrow doesn't have to pierce plate mail 100% of the time. If you pepper a battlefield with arrows, some of them can get through, but as was noted at Agincourt, they killed far more horses.
Generally in warfare, archers would fire in an arc and not straight at their opponents. If they're that close to your archers, you've probably already lost, so generally having your shield in front of you wouldn't have helped with archers. There's always exceptions, this is a generality. The idea is you cover a large area of the battlefield with arrows and not aiming specifically for a target.
Archers always arc. Ballistic physics. You can get stronger bows and shoot at closer targets, but you are always going to be aiming at least slightly high. It takes practice, lots of practice to know how much higher depending on bow power and distance. It's been years since I shot, but I was used to shooting a 30# bow about 1-2 inches above a target at 10 yards, but at 30 yards I was aiming several feet above the target.
A massive portion of archery training is learning consistency, and having consistent ammunition. You have to draw the bow back to the same distance and release the same way every time (or at least in a way that you know will achieve your shot). You arrows must weigh the same, be balanced the same, and have the same spine (flexibility/stiffness, because the arrow is being pushed from the rear which makes the arrow flex and vibrate as it travels).
Firearms are no different. The thing with firearms and ammunition is that the consistency is built into the system through the guns and ammunition manufactured to varying degrees of tolerance. This is why match-grade ammunition exists for people who need precisely the same ammunition with precisely the same ballistics characteristics for each shot for making ludicrously long shots in competitions and fighting. For casual shooters, less consistent ammunition might be unnoticed.
And yes, the goal historically was massed fire. When you don't aim for long, you can fire a bow every 6-10 seconds easily. This also has secondary goals. To be effective, classical/medieval armies need to act as a cohesive unit (a clustered mass). Lobbing tens of thousands of arrows at that group as it approaches is going to play hell on that cohesion.
@DrHappyAngry One arc is not necessarily like another.
At a bow's maximum range, there is just one angle that you can shoot at. But for closer targets, there are an upper arc and a lower arc that your arrow can travel through with the same initial energy and arrive at the same target. The closer the target is to you, the greater the difference between those two arcs. You don't need to aim for individuals to make use of the lower arc.
I made a possibly erroneous exaggeration when I spoke of aiming for the legs, but I am confident that groups of archers would mix up the angles of their shots so that the enemy would have a harder time protecting against the arrows with their shields.
I can't find where I said a testuto could be used to charge, but I did find me saying it wasn't overly vulnerable to being charged, which leaves me a bit confused. I might be missing something I typed though. I'm not always 100% awake when I'm posting! I agree either way, a testuto is not meant to be used to charge, it's meant to be used to approach enemies using missile weapons.
Romans definitely used their shields to bludgeon and push enemies around, and I think the average adult man that is in good shape can punch pretty hard compared to an arrow's strike. Push daggers are illegal in many countries in part because they can punch through heavy clothes, jackets, and likely through bone if you punch hard enough, making them pretty effective. Most places will let you carry even a large knife, if you open carry, because they aren't really that dangerous. Now, I think the ease of hiding push daggers also plays a role, but I think you'd get more force with a push dagger and a hard punch than someone would with a bow, barring very high draw weight bows. Anyways, I really don't think absorbing blows on a shield is all that arduous, though I do agree that holding the shield up for long periods of time is likely not going to work, but we also know that Romans regularly used the testuto, and it was known to be useful, so I'm not sure what to say to you.
Well, why do you think the majority of suits of armour were especially well made? Most of the surviving suits were not being used in battle I suspect, being meant more as showpieces. I suspect most armour wasn't especially arrow proof (as in, you could expect that if you get hit by X number of arrows, Y arrows will cause injury due to faulty design/weak points), because as I have noted armour was adapted specifically to be more proof vs arrows. Nobody starts marketing arrow proof armour if nobody thinks an arrow can penetrate armour.
AFAIK, one of the most effective arrow/bullet proofing materials is silk, which was used by Mongolians and American Gangsters to enhance survivability. It wouldn't help with the impact, just prevent penetration. Anyways, designing bullet proof vs arrow proof is essentially the same thing actually, with the caveat that arrows in battle were more likely to be descending vs guns, which were used to fire more straight on. Both rely on deflecting a metal projectile, and early guns were not exactly amazing pieces of equipment, they mostly just scarred people/horses and created chaos from what I've read. Gun vs crossbow proofing would be even more similar. Note, modern firearms fire at a wildly higher velocity than the first guns did, and this actually completely changes the way the projectile interacts with metal, and deflection becomes much harder to do, but vs early medieval guns the designs would be pretty similar.
Erm, have you ever read about Chariots?? They were used to both move to a battlefield, with many disembarking after they arrive. Chariots also were used in battle itself, with archers or spear throwers being given mobility from this, so there is a european history of using vehicles to go to and from battle, to say nothing of the use of boats/ships for heaven's sake.
It's no secret that such equipment was solidly non-standard, and if it wasn't standard, there are probably good reasons for it. Exploring your link for example reveals that manica were only depicted in the Dacian wars, and it isn't even clear how common they were in that campaign. Pretty much every other big monument to their soldiers consistently features some kind of torso armour, and usually a helm/shield. It's not universally depicted, so we should probably conclude that they were rarely used. Personal theory, but if they were used vs the Dacians, it was likely because Romans were worried about getting their arm lopped off, but that wouldn't be as big a fear vs any other enemy army, because nobody else used falx, or anything all that like it really. Realistically, if manica really were a worthwhile addition, they would doubtlessly have been supplied to at least the elites of the army after they were trialed, but they weren't as far as we know. Heck, we don't even know if they were actually effective, just that they were apparently used in 1 campaign.
If you're curious, there is a reason arm protection is significantly less popular throughout history vs torso, one of the reasons is that you can, while standing and fighting, freely move your arms around, and do so quite quickly, even for a fairly slow person. Arms don't require protection as much because they can move, avoiding a blow to your torso requires significantly more energy, and is much less likely to be successful. The other big one is you do not want to weigh down your sword arm, and you shouldn't need to weigh down your shield arm. A slower sword arm could literally cost you your life, and since battles weren't always short, this was a real concern. Romans were very efficient soldiers, and if they didn't think arm protection was worth bothering with, I'm not sure I want to disagree with them.
I'm not sure all scutum weighed in at 10 kg, some lighter examples of the imperial curved rectangle style have been found, but even a 6-7 kg shield would be noticeable weight I think, though if you've practiced with it long enough, it won't feel nearly as cumbersome. I agree they didn't hold them straight in front of them with their arm extended through a whole battle, or their arms would fall off; I'm reasonably strong and I know I'd be exhausted within a couple minutes, if not less, though I'm not trained for a shield. Using your pelvis might be viable, but even just bending your elbow would help a ton. I don't know if I'd want to be resting my elbow on my pelvic bone though if I'm trying to stop a blow though, because that's pretty close to your liver, and you do not want to have a blow to the liver AFAIK. Still, it's not like the alternative of full plate armour isn't heavy to carry/wear around too, including for your arms. Honestly, I'd love to see examples of actual legionnaire's from different eras, to see exactly how they used their gear, since there is a fair bit of guesswork here.
Dr. Happy, you have a good point, it's not like you were taking only one or two arrows always on your best protected area, you were getting pelted continuously for likely awhile before you could close, and probability alone dictates somebody is going to get an arrow right in the damn eye-slit.
I remember reading that at Hastings the Normans spent most of their time shooting arrows pretty much straight on, until they finally started firing up and letting them drop, which apparently was quite devastating, and quickly ended the battle. Who knows if that's accurate though!
I watched a funny video, I think it was by Lindeybeige, and he was making light of the fact that he knew of people that didn't realize horses were not remotely suitable for battle originally, being small for riding (chariots allowed one rider to be pulled by multiple horses, and this meant they could go FAST), being easily spooked herd animals, and not likely to fight in the first place. Horses run away from threats generally.
War bows generally had a much, much higher draw than modern target practice bows, and could probably fire straighter, but there is no secret that a bow is not going to out range a long gun, even quite a ways back, so the bow will be descending significantly more than a gun. This is why archers are generally depicted firing upwards, while guns aren't.
@DrHappyAngry One arc is not necessarily like another.
At a bow's maximum range, there is just one angle that you can shoot at. But for closer targets, there are an upper arc and a lower arc that your arrow can travel through with the same initial energy and arrive at the same target. The closer the target is to you, the greater the difference between those two arcs. You don't need to aim for individuals to make use of the lower arc.
I made a possibly erroneous exaggeration when I spoke of aiming for the legs, but I am confident that groups of archers would mix up the angles of their shots so that the enemy would have a harder time protecting against the arrows with their shields.
You can, but shooting at a lower arc is shooting at the most protected part of the enemy, and also requires they be at a closer range. You also can't hit as many people in the formation in a lower arc, and only the front few rows could fire effectively in an archer formation at a lower arc. Part of the effectiveness of archers is to rain down arrows on an enemy formation, creating chaos and getting the formation to break. Once again, not saying they always did this, but it was the way they generally were used in warfare.
I've not heard about silk working against bullets before, but I know what @DreadKhan said about the mongols using a silk shirt was true. The spinning arrow could get wrapped up in the silk and transfer some of it's energy to the shirt, as well as soften the impact by wrapping the tip up in the silk. The silk had to be really loose and billowy, and needed additional padding underneath, like leather, to have a chance of stopping the arrow. You could still easily end up knocked over or with broken bones, but it's better than getting an arrow through you.
From what I've read, the silk was actually found to be particularly reliable at preventing any break in the skin from forming, which apparently was pretty near a death sentence due to a lack of hygenic conditions for the wound, especially if filthy fiber from non-silk clothing got forced in. Apparently the arrows would twirl in the silk, and to unravel the arrow you simply straightened out the silk. Indeed, this sounds way better than the alternative of death!
Silk is actually incredibly strong, but I think everyone here know that. I don't know how effective the silk clothes were for the gangsters, but I've read it in a couple sources. I think they were a bit desperate for any solution, and I think they were mostly facing small caliber guns, and not long guns.
@DreadKhan The point about the testuto not being able to charge is about how quickly it can approach those archers. The longer they need, the more time the archers have to pelt them with arrows. And if their protective measures actually make them slower than the archers can retreat, then the testuto will never catch up but always be showered with arrows until either the archers run out of arrows or the testuto disintegrates.
A good longbow arrow comes at the full strength of a heavily trained man. There is of course a difference between getting hit by that at 200 meters as opposed to 10 meters. Arrows with really high arcs would have mostly gravity behind their kinetic energy, and those arrows would not be dangerous unless they hit you in a completely unprotected place.
Google tells me that we can expect an arrow to weigh about 65gram and its initial velocity to be around 250 meters per second. E = 1/2 * m * v² = 1/2 * (0.065 kg) * (250 m/s)² makes about 2000 Joules when the arrow leaves the bow.
For the energy of a punch, I googled a little and found http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=821
According to John Jones, an average person produces less than 100 Joules. However that assumes that you don't use your full body. John then makes a very helpful calculation that says that if you manage to lift your opponent off his legs (not just knock him down), then you probably produced around 1000 Joules. Still, that is only half as much as that arrow.
(for comparison, the lance comes at a footman at roughly 1/2 * 150kg * (40m/s)² = 120000 Joules)
My guess is that the arrow is going to have less energy than an average punch for as long as the archers feel comfortable with their distance to your soldiers, and it's going to start having more energy around the time when they feel uncomfortable.
In war you use warbows, which means 100+ pounds of draw weight. That is more powerful than any modern sport bow. Dedicated archers use more powerful bows yet.
Yes, cavalry bows were less powerful than infantry bows. But if you wish to compare the Roman armor's effectiveness against archery to full plate armor's effectiveness against the same, then I do not see the point in limiting yourself to the equivalent of hunting bows.
As I said, it is possible to get past full plate if you are lucky. But usually you are not. I imagine the knights captured at Agincourt would not have scared the English king so much if they had all been at death's door. He could have demanded a lot of ransom for them and made a great amount of money if he had kept them alive. And yet he had them killed. I deduce from this that the armor of 1410 was effective at protecting the wearer from arrow fire; and 1410 was far from the end of the evolution of plate armor.
Plate armor was not specifically arrow-proofed. It was proofed against everything. War hammers, maces, pole axes etc, these were all threatening existences to full plate armor to the end. Arrows were only marginally so.
Chariots were not used during the middle ages. In fact, as early as during the height of the Roman empire the Romans observed that while chariots were awesome, they were not very good weapons. But the Romans liked wheeled vehicles. It was the Germanic tribes that came in and changed the culture of Europe that turned Europe anti-wheels (it's ironic that Germany is now known as a big car manufacturer).
Seriously, no chariots on medieval battle fields. None.
As for ships, I did not mean to include those in my statement. From what I know, people were fine with those, probably out of necessity.
If you had actually explored the link and not stopped reading as soon as it seemingly agreed with your opinion you would have noticed that there is plenty of evidence that shows that manica were used at other times.
Despite the mobility of your hands, your weapon hand is generally in front of your body. Given that armed combat usually consists of people trying to stay out of each other's reach except when launching an attack of their own, that means, that your hands are the part of your body that spends the most time in reach of the enemy. Seriously, hands get hit a lot. If you can make your hand safe from harm, even if that means that it moves a little slower, you have a whole slew of new offensive options available to you, which means that despite less dexterity you are both safer and more dangerous than before. From what I can tell, the main reason steel gauntlets were not more common is because they were very expensive if they were any good at all. A good guard on your saber does the same thing but is much simpler to construct.
You are right, the Roman standard armor does not include arm protection. That is not an argument in itself though. Otherwise you must also support the idea that the ruthless Roman approach to politics must be the way to go, simply because the Romans did it. The Romans were not perfect, and neither was their armor.
Full plate armor gets a lot of bad press for making you slow - which is wrong. A person in full plate can move pretty quickly. However, the endurance of the person suffers. In a battle that goes on for too long, then you run out of steam. A similar (but limited) statement would have to be made about arm protection. But when your armor gives you a significant advantage over your opponent, then you can end the battle faster. And in a deep formation like the Romans have, you can get plenty of rest when you get switched out to the backrow.
At Agincourt, the French knights got stuck in the mud and were slowed down with an endless rain of powerful arrows. When they finally reached the English lines, they were too tired to fight properly. Had they not worn their armor, they would have been too dead to fight.
You call the full plate armor heavy to wear around. But the difference is that the weight is distributed very well and to places that can support weight well (not your shoulders - and certainly not 10 kg to your hands).
@DrHappyAngry I didn't say to have everybody shoot at the low angle. I said that you should mix angles up. If only the first two rows can employ the low angle, even better. That means that the enemy first row has to choose to either ignore the more numerous arrows coming from above, or ignore the more powerful arrows coming in low.
This is not a sure-win super strategy. I wasn't arguing for how to employ archers, but I was trying to figure out what an infantry unit might have to deal with when approaching a unit of archers. The Romans have reinforced shoulder protection and helmets. For all I know, arrows coming down at them from too steep an angle have no chance of penetrating their armor (even if they hurt like hell).
You can do that, but it's still a less than ideal situation, and those first couple rows are still shooting at the most protected part. Normally you'd want your infantry between your archers and their infantry. A lot of the helmets and shoulder protection the legion used was more to protect from rocks and and slingers, the tortoise formation with shields was generally used to approach archers and make them break and run if they could get to them, but really required cavalry to chase them down and actually kill them, especially since an archer was normally less encumbered than infantry men. While written earlier than the Roman wars, Xenophon's Anabasis really gets into this, since it's the moment the Greeks figured out they needed mixed unit tactics to deal with the situation, and only having hoplites wasn't going to cut it. The hoplites could protect themselves and charge the peltasts (slingers, archers and other ranged attackers), but couldn't really ever catch up to them. So they'd just have to fight them again later. The strategy was to convert any horses carrying stuff to cavalry to chase down broken formations, and a box formation of hoplites around the supplies, cavalry and peltasts as the army moved.
I am not sure what you mean by "shooting at the most protected part". Ignoring the shield (which I should not ignore), a low angle does not predetermine the body part that an arrow is going to hit. Further, with lower angles, the body profile is larger, so you have a better chance of hitting somebody than with high angles, and I do not see how all the vulnerable parts are magically excluded from that. What protects the legs in this scenario in your opinion?
Now, the shield. If the first lines of Roman soldiers raise their shields, their upper bodies are basically hidden behind those. Depending on their distance and the way they are holding their shields, there is more or less of their lower bodies for the arrow to hit. This begins with the legs. Again, what protects the legs in this scenario in your opinion?
Comments
The Snake - felt more like they buffed his DEX through the roof, to pit against STR+CON buff. Looked pretty artificial to me.
Dothraki - a few moments when the charge hit the shield wall looked pretty fine. Dothraki there seemed rather savage with little knowledge of tactics other than banzai charge, so the wall was holding them ok and only taking moderate casualties in the process. Still, Lannisters iirc have been greatly outnumbered, so it was just a matter of time and bodies to dwindle their line, dragon has merely sped up the process.
The other one you didn't mention is Bronn vs Ser Vardis. Also looked fine, as Bronn was actively taking advantage of obstacles in the room. In the open he probably wouldn't succeed.
I would have mentioned that last one if I'd thought of it. It seemed like Bronn was waiting for Ser Vardis to tire himself out using obstacles and mobility as you said. How long could a knight in platemail or especially full-plate keep fighting before tiring?
Brienne did knock Arya on her ass with a kick if I recall. If they weren't just sparring that would have been the end of Arya (and one of my favorite characters).
It's not really possible to say exactly when, but true heavy cavalry like how we think of knights wasn't really in heavy use till around the 1100s. By then they had the higher backed and pomelled saddles and stirrups. Stirrups not being so much to keep them on the horse, but to provide leverage when striking down with a sword after their spear/lance was broken or stuck in something. Keep in mind you couldn't get too many strikes out of a spear before it'd break or get stuck in something, so giving an edge with your sidearm was helpful. Even then they weren't really around for too long, and a few centuries later, they were getting off their horses to fight and just using them for transportation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages#Horses_in_warfare
I'm not that well educated, I just watch lectures and read history books like how people consume Game of Thrones. I find Plutarch to be almost like reading fantasy.
Curious about lancers. Did they charge with their lances and then dismount when they broke enemy lines?
I recommend, if you have some time to spare, to look up Schola Gladiatorii on YT. He does excellent reviews of medieval weaponry etc but also some fan-requested reviews of fights like these in movies and shows.
Check out this video list, he covers several of those you list above:
I was curious since you seem to have made a disntiction between 'classical' and 'ancient' times with regards to how cavalry was used with your remark on that Partian cavarly was later and thus more advanced. For me, I don't know the different eras by heart, so I tend to clump up the time before medieval times as one huge chunk of time with a kinda similar way of warfare.
I've played many, many hundreds of hours of Rome: Total war, including many more 'historically correct' mods, and even in the latter which are made from history nerds, cavalry use charges. I know games is not the best input to draw conclusions from, so it has made me curious about your statements since I had assumed heavy cavalry was indeed used to charge, though not the full head-on charge of medieval knights, but still a charge.
This is giving me food for thought, I find it interesting to ponder on such things.
Eras are kind of fuzzy, some people actually push the classical period back to the 800s BC, others will put it to the Hellenistic era onward through the fall of Rome. In the former case they'd be in the same era, but there were a lot of technological changes between the rise of the Achaemenid empire and the Parthian empire. A recognizable saddle being in wide spread use for one thing. Iron working became good enough and cheap enough you could put scale mail all over your horses and troops, like that picture from the catapharact article. A few super rich people could have done it during the earlier Persian dynasties, but it was not cheap to outfit a horse in armor like that and have a large force equipped that way. Over time horses got bigger through selective breeding, too. A lot of the siege and fighting techniques from Alexander's wars were picked up, and enhanced. There's a lot more sharing of knowledge and philosophy through libraries and academies. More trade routes were opened up and made safe to travel. I really shouldn't use arbitrary era names, since they differ depending on who you talk to, and what region you're talking about. Sort of like how the renaissance didn't happen in all of Europe in the same time, and there was no rebirth in other regions, since they didn't lose their knowledge like in Western Europe. I mainly wanted to distinguish that there was a difference in time and technology and techniques between them.
Cavalry did use charges in earlier times, it's just generally not a head on crash through the lines that a lot of people picture like a late medieval knight. In a lot of cases they'd turn right before getting to the line and stab as they rode by. Alexander would charge into gaps with a V shaped formation, and use the charge to further open up the gap further and collapse the formation with the foot soldiers attacking the enemies front and cavalry splitting them and attacking the sides. In those cases it was a ride into the gap and stab away. Keep in mind, I'm only talking about dealing with formations. While attacking a loose group, it was possible to charge through. It's probably more difficult to depict Alexander's style of charges in a video game, so that might be part of why they did it that way in the Rome mod you mentioned.
A lot of my info on ancient/classical warfare comes from the lectures of Kenneth Harl and other teaching company lectures. Check them out sometime. He also has a great set of lectures on central asia, centering on the Huns, Mongols and other central Asian powers. Plutarch and Xenophon are great places to start if you want to learn about Greek and Roman history from people who actually lived it. Plutarch you have to take with more of a grain of salt, since he's clearly telling heroic stories, and he gets less into the military techniques. Some parts from Xenophon's Anabasis are debatable, but it's a great read, and clearly when the Greeks learned mixed unit tactics. Xenophon was also a general, so you get more into how fighting was actually done and what equipment they had.
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/bcJgPp6
That is amusing, though the large boob-like projections raise issues that we've mentioned about force distribution and deflection. A sword isn't heavy, but you don't want to have that concentrated on your sternum by directing the blow to it with boob-like projections.
Anyways, I had a thought about the full plate vs legionnaire style (as in not actual if I wasn't clear, not literally Roman tech vs Late Medieval/Early Ren tech, which wouldn't be fair) gear, and it occurred to me that one of the big pressures on full plate design was actually arrows and bolts, and when they came to prominence in the later half of the middle ages armour design did change to protect better vs these projectiles. Now, I know the Romans had some serious success vs serious archers that also had the advantage of mobility that medieval archers lacked, but I strongly suspect the bows of the Parthians wouldn't be as strong as a medieval longbow or crossbow. Such a bow just doesn't seem practical from horseback, especially if you plan to fire backwards, and if you're a Parthian, you did just that.
So, in short, would you rather have a big shield or plate armour vs a large number of archers? We know medieval crossbowmen often carried massive shields to take cover behind while reloading, dwarfing even Roman shields, but a Roman shield could provide cover I think, and enable you to protect your neighbours, whereas with plate you will maybe be protected, but you'll feel the thwacks, and these are hefty projectiles, so this will likely hurt enough to distract you. Now, I suspect you'd need to increase the weight of the Roman shield for it to be useful vs a longbow or crossbow, but it should be possible to have a bossed shield that is very arrow resilient, and allow you to wear (and carry) much less total weight into battle, making it easier to approach the archers, and to not be in constant pain while doing it. I don't think the shield sounds like a bad idea really, and might explain why knights seemed to find archers so vexing, despite there being many accounts of plate and even chainmail being pretty proof vs arrows (thought there are exceptions to this, including many accounts of arrows piercing even plate and the flesh beneath), while Roman's were able to beat some very elite archers at their own game. Dunno, just throwing an idea out there!
That cannot very well be compared to the shields that crossbowmen carried into battle because those were not held, they were set up. That is not an option for an army that plans to engage in melee.
Further, even if you increase the mass of the shield, that still doesn't fill in the gaps in the Roman armor style. So you have slowed down your reaction time with your shield but kept the openings for the enemy to attack (via in melee or with ranged weapons).
And as I said before, there is nothing stopping somebody in full plate from carrying a shield while closing the distance to the enemy before discarding the shield (and opening the visor) and using a big weapon to lay waste to the enemy.
The total weight is also deceptive because your "Roman" style soldier carries a huge shield in one hand, while the full plate armor is supported in places that are good at supporting weight. Then you imply that you would not feel the arrows hitting the shield, even though the shield is much more likely to actually stop rather than deflect the arrows than the plate armor is. With the armor, you have the added advantage that the force is dispersed over a larger area and then softened up by your gambeson.
Finally, if you like to see where you are running while not getting hit with arrows in the face, would you prefer to wear a helmet with tiny slits for vision (limited vision), or shakily try to keep your shield halfway in front of your face (limited vision) but it's bobbing up and down while you are running so at times you are totally exposed and at other times you are totally blind?
I agree, you can't make it too heavy, but you can either change the material a bit (IE make the 'plywood' a bit thinner and put a layer of thin metal sheeting on top to significantly improve it's durability), or make it a tiny bit thicker. It's already curved remember, so it will likely deflect many arrows as well as absorb them. I've heard the shields could actually become weighed down by arrows btw, in campaigns vs archer based armies, so I do acknowledge that a testuto couldn't travel very far under a constant barrage of arrows and still be in fighting form, but I would argue you'd never be able to get infantry of any kind to walk under that barrage other than those able to form a testuto. Knights did not fair particularly well vs archers, even on foot.
I still say getting pelted with a descending arrow would really hurt, just like getting shot with a gun hurts, and can even result in very serious injury or death, through a bullet proof vest. You won't get a broken rib from an arrow, but it'll rattle your helm pretty awful I bet, and be very disorienting, and possibly concussing.
Now this tactic is limited twofold. Alternating the angle requires the enemy to be close enough to you so that you can reach them even with a relatively direct shot. Also, anyone who is not in the first two lines of the formation of archers would still have to shoot indirectly. But that does not mean that you should just dismiss the danger.
You speak of the shield getting heavier as arrows plant themselves there. That is because these arrows are not deflected. Trying to make the curvature of the shield significant for deflection would increase the weight again. And you can't use the deflection curvature to decrease the thickness of the shield because then any shot from somewhere other than the expected direction would just break through.
I never said getting hit with arrows while wearing armor would not hurt. I said that when the shock of every arrow goes directly to your left hand, that is going to hurt too.
Shields are good. No question about that. And they are efficient in that you are in control over where you deploy your defenses, meaning you can field a smallish total of defense to relatively large effect. But that tactic always comes with a "but". "But" whenever somebody gets past your limited defense strategy, you are screwed. Every army ever has had to allocate resources to some variation of this strategy, but leaving your body exposed in the chaos of battle has historically been shown to lose out to tactics of covering your body in metal - until gunpowder weapons make armor largely useless.
In fact, I would argue that covering your torso would not be people's second priority for covering with metal (after the head) if not for the ease in which it can be done. The right hand is much more exposed. You typically cover it with your shield, but it still is the part of your body most likely to be injured. Once protecting your hand was a real thing, there was no going back to Roman-style protection philosophy. Heavy gauntlets were however superseded by elaborate guards on the swords themselves, and so it is less obvious. But by covering your hand, the post-medieval sword does a very similar job as a shield in a limited defense strategy.
I really liked how scholagladiatoria described the falchion as a knight's weapon. It is used for going up against groups of people who have no armor. You can go against them with a weapon that is so bad at defending yourself with because you have armor. Similarly, a long sword is a sign of status because it is a sword that requires two hands to use.
So, if the troops have time to form a testuto, they don't need greaves, but if they don't have time, I agree greaves would be handy, as would armoured boots, at least with protection on the top. It's not like war-sandals are the ideal footwear for battle!
Well, it should be remembered that I don't think Roman scutum used any covering, just a metal boss, while a medieval shield used a cover over the wood usually, which actually greatly increases it's protective qualities, and Roman shields were quite curved actually in normal use, as it helped a soldier hide behind the shield while not getting in the way too badly of their closely packed neighbours. I think a metal covering would be just dandy actually, if leather or linen could prevent damage to the wood (and it did), then a thin, beaten metal facing would deflect even better. Your point about angles is valid, but really, Romans tended to line up straight with their enemies where possible, facing them, and this is one of the benefits of their maniple system over a standard line or block system, it lets the troops adjust their positions much more quickly.
Well, I'm not convinced that a shield blow would hurt your hand, after all the Romans did punch with them in battle normally, so they are clearly designed to take blows comfortably, but I can't test arrows this way, so my position is really not any more valid.
I dunno, even before people were really using gunpowder that heavily, the early professional armies didn't field most of their troops with full plate, they favoured using a breastplate and helm, and usually a bit more here and there, but these regular troops didn't use full plate, and they were effective. I think you do have a point about the chaos of battle, but one of my key points remember was that the troops must be very disciplined, IE there can't be any chaos in battle, or they'll be screwed, I agree. I also do agree that metal was still pricey in the 16th century, so it's not like it would have been anywhere near the same price to outfit full plate vs torso protection + helm, so this is a problem for my position. I think the general trend was that even before firearms, knights were on their way out as the dominant force on the battle field (debatable I am aware), giving way to the power of infantry armed with polearms and missile weapons, and these troops did not wear full plate.
Well, I know the Roman gladiators had armour like that, and even used big shields that were quite hefty, carrying often gear that was much sturdier than a legionnaire was provided with, yet I've never heard of a legionnaire WANTING gladiator armour. I do think it'd be nice to have some sort of gauntlet on your sword arm, but I think it was less of a problem for the Romans (since they could have adapted a gladiator's hand protection remember) because they tended to keep their sword and arm behind their shield until they struck.
I honestly wonder if part of the 'success' of swords in cultures that use serious armour was simply what people on the web call 'Rule of Cool', wherein something impractical is not only tolerated, but loved, due to it being cool enough to put up with. This usually is used to explain away things in movies/books/shows that don't quite make sense, but are really cool, but the same principle might be at play here, with people liking swords despite them not being a practical weapon. They are much more elegant than a mace, and are more biblical I'd say, which would appeal to Christians maybe. Swords made great sense when most people wore light or no armour, but vs a plate armoured knight? Yeesh, I'd rather have a mace or axe I think.
You know, I wonder how effective a slinger would be vs plate mail... I know you're not going to get penetration, but a sling bullet hits really hard, and if that hit your head, I think that'd be worse than an arrow, despite neither getting any penetration. I would wonder if you'd get concussed by such a slung stone.
To spell it out: If you go up against archers, and your formation blocks out 95% of their arrows, but you cannot catch up to them because their troops move faster than yours, then you get hit by 5% of their arrows until your lines collapse.
Are you serious about your doubt that your hand would hurt if it got hit with something that you think would hurt somebody wrapped first in very thick clothing and then metal? Yes, there are 2 factors that aid the hand: The arm is not rigid, so it will be pushed back and serve as a suspension. Further, the shield will move in the hand and have the same effect. BUT since your shield needs to stay in position to protect your body you will tense your muscles to the limit in order to keep the shield where it is. This is exhausting and painful at the same time. Leaning the shield against your shoulder would be much more tolerable (actually I suspect that this is what Roman soldiers would do, rather than keeping the shield at a distance). And that is what armor is. A thin layer covering your shoulder (and other areas), except real armor is better at it because it is designed to do that.
Armor never spread throughout the entire populace of Europe. It was too expensive for most.
Pikes were nothing that the knights were not used to. Archers were nothing that knights were not used to. Agincourt which is so famous for having archers wrecking so many knights is fascinating in that those knights did not die from the archery. Their horses did. The English king got his hands on so many prisoners that he panicked and murdered them.
But then there was Jan Žižka with his Wagenburg tactics at roughly the same time. That, the knights were not prepared for, and that is the reason why knights and full plate went out of fashion and carriages (and later cars) came into fashion.
As for Roman soldiers wearing gladiator armor to protect their arms, there are historical sources telling us that it happened. You have to keep in mind that you cannot keep your hand behind your shield when you are attacking somebody. In a duel it is possible to keep your shield between your hand and your opponent's weapon, but battles are not duels.
On the topic of swords, their primary popularity comes from the fact that they are so easy to carry around. It was the best weapon that you could just have with you, like a pistol is nowadays. It was not about how cool the sword was. It was the fact that it did not stop you from going about your daily life like carrying around a spear would. So civilians had swords with them if they had any weapons at all, and any soldier who could afford to buy a sword would have a sword, as a side arm. Having an extra weapon (that does not bother you) is better than not having one, even if that weapon is not terribly effective.
As for how Christian the sword is, it is not. Priests specifically did not use swords because it was deemed to go against the will of God. (that is why to this day, clerics in DnD use blunt weapons)
In general, if thing A is a certain percentage more effective than thing B, A will replace B. I cannot say what that percentage is for sure. But I assume it is around 2-5%. "Coolness" and culture are relevant below that. But once somebody routinely outdoes you, they just have no leg left to stand on. Losing is not cool and you cannot maintain a culture when you get raided on a regular basis.
In testuto formation, you wouldn't likely notice any given arrow strike, unless it was able to punch through the shield partially, as you share support with everyone. I don't know exactly how the Roman's carried their shields while in testuto, but I do know that in porting, it is prefered to carry a load above the head with arnms essentially straight, as this is the easiest way to carry even very heavy loads. People that carry weight on the shoulder can carry more weight, but it much harder on the back, as you aren't absorbing as much shock with your arms/shoulders. So, I doubt the Romans used their shoulder that much, but I can't really prove it.
Armour was standard actually by the later middle-ages, with very few troops being deployed with none in western europe. Even archers would often wear surprisingly substantial armour. Erm, you can argue all you want, but it's a known fact that armourers, elite ones anyways, literally started to make different armour after bows became prominent, and marketed it as being arrow proof. Arrows piercing plate armour may not have occured on every arrow, but it is documented to have occurred, so your point here is spurious.
IMHO, I think its likely that carriages came into fashion mostly because they were more comfortable than riding, and they were faster than a wagon. Carriages offer shelter, and you can chat with a companion or two, making for a much better experience.
I agree with a short straight blade you have to get your hand out, but that doesn't mean you are especially vulnerable. I'd love to see any sources you could provide of legionnaire's using gladiator equipment, as I've never heard of such, though I know the Romans had a very adaptive military.
Pistols today IMHO are also squarely rule of cool unless you're a cop, actively hunting in grizzly country, or in the army. Civilians carrying pistols for 'self-defence' are full of **** IMO, they carry to intimidate or to make themselves more confident. Violence is extremely rare in the US, depsite what people may think, and most people will not have a relevant adult-age conflict at all during their lives where a gun would be warranted. Heck, very few adults have even been in a scuffle as an adult it's so rare. NOW, I do agree that swords when they were carried were much more likely to be used, and were reasonably practical to wear around (IE throw on a girdle and hang your sheath, you're good to go), but their battle-field presence in regions that use armour widely was 'rule of cool', as most swords are very useless vs armour as I understand it.
Well, I agree up to a point that people will update what doesn't work, but come on, there are COUNTLESS times in history cultures have kept using an idea or tool long after it was outdated. For an extreme example, look at the Mennonites for one. Comfort with something makes us gravitate towards it, and it usually takes a catastrophic failure or two before we accept there is something wrong, and if you're catastrophic failure was carrying a sword into battle, you probably died doing it, and couldn't learn from it. I think people are pretty stubborn.
Also, you seem to have a weird picture of the Roman soldier in your mind. The historical Roman soldier is larger than his shield. The shield is also curved. There are definitely gaps for an archer to target, especially when the Roman is trying to close the distance to the archer.
As I said, if you are not using your shoulder to support your shield (or whatever other part you might be leaning the shield against), every single 150+pound punch is going to go directly into your left hand. How long can you keep that up?
About arrows piercing plate armor, that was normally really cheap garbage armor, or it was in one of those weaknesses that a lucky arrow managed to connect with. It was not the rule. If you are interested, there are a few videos of experiments of how much historical plate armor could actually take. In fact, there are experiments showing that even cloth armor is pretty good at stopping arrows. So, since a medieval knight wore both, there is very little chance of him actually dying to arrows - and Agincourt proved just that.
There was armor that was advertised as bullet-proof, which is another league from just arrow-proof.
No, the spread of carriages is definitely connected to their success on the battlefield. Prior to that point, fighting men were not supposed to ride on any sort of vehicle. They either rode on a horse, or they walked.
There is a medieval tale about Sir Lancelot and how he once hitches a ride with a peasant, and how afterwards no one respects him anymore.
For sources on Roman soldiers using manica, you need venture no further than wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manica_(armguard)
I am not sure why you cannot understand that if you extend an unprotected limb towards somebody who has an interest in hurting you, that they might take advantage of that gesture. Hands (and arms) are the most common target in just about any sort of sword fight.
Your point about pistols squarely misses the mark. It is not wrong as such, but the point about pistols is not that they are the best weapon that you could buy. It is that they are the best weapon that you can carry around with you all day. Even better than a sword, in fact. It is the amount of fighting potential you can add to your body without sacrificing convenience.
You cannot stop a tank with a pistol. Does that mean that soldiers should not carry pistols or knives?
You cannot cut through plate armor with a sword, but you can use mordhau and halfswording. It is not a perfect weapon. But it is a weapon. When your primary weapon is broken, would you rather have nothing or a sword?
That is the question that you fail to ask yourself, and the answer to it is the reason for the popularity of swords in most cultures.
And an unrelated point, because you like to think of the Roman being so much lighter armored than the late medieval knight. Yes, the Roman armor is was about 10 kg lighter than the late medieval full plate armor. But by sheer coincidence the Roman shield weighed 10kg, and it was supported by hand. So the Roman style armor is not lighter than full plate armor. It just has more gaps to exploit.
Romans used mixed unit tactics, and did employ archers and cavalry and siege equipment, which is how they could beat the Parthians sometimes.
An arrow doesn't have to pierce plate mail 100% of the time. If you pepper a battlefield with arrows, some of them can get through, but as was noted at Agincourt, they killed far more horses.
Generally in warfare, archers would fire in an arc and not straight at their opponents. If they're that close to your archers, you've probably already lost, so generally having your shield in front of you wouldn't have helped with archers. There's always exceptions, this is a generality. The idea is you cover a large area of the battlefield with arrows and not aiming specifically for a target.
Horses were not ridden originally. Chariots were the first use of horses in warfare. It actually took awhile for somebody to think of just climbing up on the horse itself. They also were much smaller, originally, and it's only with selective breeding they became large enough to ride. A few years ago I got to see an exhibit with some of the terracotta warriors from Qin Shi Huang Di's tomb. Everything's life size, but it's striking how small everything is. All the people are probably around 5 feet tall, and the horses are tiny. Granted at the time the terracotta army was built, they had started to breed horses that were large enough to ride in other parts of the world, but it's a good indicator of how small they used to be.
Archers always arc. Ballistic physics. You can get stronger bows and shoot at closer targets, but you are always going to be aiming at least slightly high. It takes practice, lots of practice to know how much higher depending on bow power and distance. It's been years since I shot, but I was used to shooting a 30# bow about 1-2 inches above a target at 10 yards, but at 30 yards I was aiming several feet above the target.
A massive portion of archery training is learning consistency, and having consistent ammunition. You have to draw the bow back to the same distance and release the same way every time (or at least in a way that you know will achieve your shot). You arrows must weigh the same, be balanced the same, and have the same spine (flexibility/stiffness, because the arrow is being pushed from the rear which makes the arrow flex and vibrate as it travels).
Firearms are no different. The thing with firearms and ammunition is that the consistency is built into the system through the guns and ammunition manufactured to varying degrees of tolerance. This is why match-grade ammunition exists for people who need precisely the same ammunition with precisely the same ballistics characteristics for each shot for making ludicrously long shots in competitions and fighting. For casual shooters, less consistent ammunition might be unnoticed.
And yes, the goal historically was massed fire. When you don't aim for long, you can fire a bow every 6-10 seconds easily. This also has secondary goals. To be effective, classical/medieval armies need to act as a cohesive unit (a clustered mass). Lobbing tens of thousands of arrows at that group as it approaches is going to play hell on that cohesion.
At a bow's maximum range, there is just one angle that you can shoot at. But for closer targets, there are an upper arc and a lower arc that your arrow can travel through with the same initial energy and arrive at the same target. The closer the target is to you, the greater the difference between those two arcs. You don't need to aim for individuals to make use of the lower arc.
I made a possibly erroneous exaggeration when I spoke of aiming for the legs, but I am confident that groups of archers would mix up the angles of their shots so that the enemy would have a harder time protecting against the arrows with their shields.
Romans definitely used their shields to bludgeon and push enemies around, and I think the average adult man that is in good shape can punch pretty hard compared to an arrow's strike. Push daggers are illegal in many countries in part because they can punch through heavy clothes, jackets, and likely through bone if you punch hard enough, making them pretty effective. Most places will let you carry even a large knife, if you open carry, because they aren't really that dangerous. Now, I think the ease of hiding push daggers also plays a role, but I think you'd get more force with a push dagger and a hard punch than someone would with a bow, barring very high draw weight bows. Anyways, I really don't think absorbing blows on a shield is all that arduous, though I do agree that holding the shield up for long periods of time is likely not going to work, but we also know that Romans regularly used the testuto, and it was known to be useful, so I'm not sure what to say to you.
Well, why do you think the majority of suits of armour were especially well made? Most of the surviving suits were not being used in battle I suspect, being meant more as showpieces. I suspect most armour wasn't especially arrow proof (as in, you could expect that if you get hit by X number of arrows, Y arrows will cause injury due to faulty design/weak points), because as I have noted armour was adapted specifically to be more proof vs arrows. Nobody starts marketing arrow proof armour if nobody thinks an arrow can penetrate armour.
AFAIK, one of the most effective arrow/bullet proofing materials is silk, which was used by Mongolians and American Gangsters to enhance survivability. It wouldn't help with the impact, just prevent penetration. Anyways, designing bullet proof vs arrow proof is essentially the same thing actually, with the caveat that arrows in battle were more likely to be descending vs guns, which were used to fire more straight on. Both rely on deflecting a metal projectile, and early guns were not exactly amazing pieces of equipment, they mostly just scarred people/horses and created chaos from what I've read. Gun vs crossbow proofing would be even more similar. Note, modern firearms fire at a wildly higher velocity than the first guns did, and this actually completely changes the way the projectile interacts with metal, and deflection becomes much harder to do, but vs early medieval guns the designs would be pretty similar.
Erm, have you ever read about Chariots?? They were used to both move to a battlefield, with many disembarking after they arrive. Chariots also were used in battle itself, with archers or spear throwers being given mobility from this, so there is a european history of using vehicles to go to and from battle, to say nothing of the use of boats/ships for heaven's sake.
It's no secret that such equipment was solidly non-standard, and if it wasn't standard, there are probably good reasons for it. Exploring your link for example reveals that manica were only depicted in the Dacian wars, and it isn't even clear how common they were in that campaign. Pretty much every other big monument to their soldiers consistently features some kind of torso armour, and usually a helm/shield. It's not universally depicted, so we should probably conclude that they were rarely used. Personal theory, but if they were used vs the Dacians, it was likely because Romans were worried about getting their arm lopped off, but that wouldn't be as big a fear vs any other enemy army, because nobody else used falx, or anything all that like it really. Realistically, if manica really were a worthwhile addition, they would doubtlessly have been supplied to at least the elites of the army after they were trialed, but they weren't as far as we know. Heck, we don't even know if they were actually effective, just that they were apparently used in 1 campaign.
If you're curious, there is a reason arm protection is significantly less popular throughout history vs torso, one of the reasons is that you can, while standing and fighting, freely move your arms around, and do so quite quickly, even for a fairly slow person. Arms don't require protection as much because they can move, avoiding a blow to your torso requires significantly more energy, and is much less likely to be successful. The other big one is you do not want to weigh down your sword arm, and you shouldn't need to weigh down your shield arm. A slower sword arm could literally cost you your life, and since battles weren't always short, this was a real concern. Romans were very efficient soldiers, and if they didn't think arm protection was worth bothering with, I'm not sure I want to disagree with them.
I'm not sure all scutum weighed in at 10 kg, some lighter examples of the imperial curved rectangle style have been found, but even a 6-7 kg shield would be noticeable weight I think, though if you've practiced with it long enough, it won't feel nearly as cumbersome. I agree they didn't hold them straight in front of them with their arm extended through a whole battle, or their arms would fall off; I'm reasonably strong and I know I'd be exhausted within a couple minutes, if not less, though I'm not trained for a shield. Using your pelvis might be viable, but even just bending your elbow would help a ton. I don't know if I'd want to be resting my elbow on my pelvic bone though if I'm trying to stop a blow though, because that's pretty close to your liver, and you do not want to have a blow to the liver AFAIK. Still, it's not like the alternative of full plate armour isn't heavy to carry/wear around too, including for your arms. Honestly, I'd love to see examples of actual legionnaire's from different eras, to see exactly how they used their gear, since there is a fair bit of guesswork here.
Dr. Happy, you have a good point, it's not like you were taking only one or two arrows always on your best protected area, you were getting pelted continuously for likely awhile before you could close, and probability alone dictates somebody is going to get an arrow right in the damn eye-slit.
I remember reading that at Hastings the Normans spent most of their time shooting arrows pretty much straight on, until they finally started firing up and letting them drop, which apparently was quite devastating, and quickly ended the battle. Who knows if that's accurate though!
I watched a funny video, I think it was by Lindeybeige, and he was making light of the fact that he knew of people that didn't realize horses were not remotely suitable for battle originally, being small for riding (chariots allowed one rider to be pulled by multiple horses, and this meant they could go FAST), being easily spooked herd animals, and not likely to fight in the first place. Horses run away from threats generally.
War bows generally had a much, much higher draw than modern target practice bows, and could probably fire straighter, but there is no secret that a bow is not going to out range a long gun, even quite a ways back, so the bow will be descending significantly more than a gun. This is why archers are generally depicted firing upwards, while guns aren't.
You can, but shooting at a lower arc is shooting at the most protected part of the enemy, and also requires they be at a closer range. You also can't hit as many people in the formation in a lower arc, and only the front few rows could fire effectively in an archer formation at a lower arc. Part of the effectiveness of archers is to rain down arrows on an enemy formation, creating chaos and getting the formation to break. Once again, not saying they always did this, but it was the way they generally were used in warfare.
I've not heard about silk working against bullets before, but I know what @DreadKhan said about the mongols using a silk shirt was true. The spinning arrow could get wrapped up in the silk and transfer some of it's energy to the shirt, as well as soften the impact by wrapping the tip up in the silk. The silk had to be really loose and billowy, and needed additional padding underneath, like leather, to have a chance of stopping the arrow. You could still easily end up knocked over or with broken bones, but it's better than getting an arrow through you.
Silk is actually incredibly strong, but I think everyone here know that. I don't know how effective the silk clothes were for the gangsters, but I've read it in a couple sources. I think they were a bit desperate for any solution, and I think they were mostly facing small caliber guns, and not long guns.
Kinda relevant?
A good longbow arrow comes at the full strength of a heavily trained man. There is of course a difference between getting hit by that at 200 meters as opposed to 10 meters. Arrows with really high arcs would have mostly gravity behind their kinetic energy, and those arrows would not be dangerous unless they hit you in a completely unprotected place.
Google tells me that we can expect an arrow to weigh about 65gram and its initial velocity to be around 250 meters per second. E = 1/2 * m * v² = 1/2 * (0.065 kg) * (250 m/s)² makes about 2000 Joules when the arrow leaves the bow.
For the energy of a punch, I googled a little and found http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=821
According to John Jones, an average person produces less than 100 Joules. However that assumes that you don't use your full body. John then makes a very helpful calculation that says that if you manage to lift your opponent off his legs (not just knock him down), then you probably produced around 1000 Joules. Still, that is only half as much as that arrow.
(for comparison, the lance comes at a footman at roughly 1/2 * 150kg * (40m/s)² = 120000 Joules)
My guess is that the arrow is going to have less energy than an average punch for as long as the archers feel comfortable with their distance to your soldiers, and it's going to start having more energy around the time when they feel uncomfortable.
In war you use warbows, which means 100+ pounds of draw weight. That is more powerful than any modern sport bow. Dedicated archers use more powerful bows yet.
Yes, cavalry bows were less powerful than infantry bows. But if you wish to compare the Roman armor's effectiveness against archery to full plate armor's effectiveness against the same, then I do not see the point in limiting yourself to the equivalent of hunting bows.
As I said, it is possible to get past full plate if you are lucky. But usually you are not. I imagine the knights captured at Agincourt would not have scared the English king so much if they had all been at death's door. He could have demanded a lot of ransom for them and made a great amount of money if he had kept them alive. And yet he had them killed. I deduce from this that the armor of 1410 was effective at protecting the wearer from arrow fire; and 1410 was far from the end of the evolution of plate armor.
Plate armor was not specifically arrow-proofed. It was proofed against everything. War hammers, maces, pole axes etc, these were all threatening existences to full plate armor to the end. Arrows were only marginally so.
Chariots were not used during the middle ages. In fact, as early as during the height of the Roman empire the Romans observed that while chariots were awesome, they were not very good weapons. But the Romans liked wheeled vehicles. It was the Germanic tribes that came in and changed the culture of Europe that turned Europe anti-wheels (it's ironic that Germany is now known as a big car manufacturer).
Seriously, no chariots on medieval battle fields. None.
As for ships, I did not mean to include those in my statement. From what I know, people were fine with those, probably out of necessity.
If you had actually explored the link and not stopped reading as soon as it seemingly agreed with your opinion you would have noticed that there is plenty of evidence that shows that manica were used at other times.
Despite the mobility of your hands, your weapon hand is generally in front of your body. Given that armed combat usually consists of people trying to stay out of each other's reach except when launching an attack of their own, that means, that your hands are the part of your body that spends the most time in reach of the enemy. Seriously, hands get hit a lot. If you can make your hand safe from harm, even if that means that it moves a little slower, you have a whole slew of new offensive options available to you, which means that despite less dexterity you are both safer and more dangerous than before. From what I can tell, the main reason steel gauntlets were not more common is because they were very expensive if they were any good at all. A good guard on your saber does the same thing but is much simpler to construct.
You are right, the Roman standard armor does not include arm protection. That is not an argument in itself though. Otherwise you must also support the idea that the ruthless Roman approach to politics must be the way to go, simply because the Romans did it. The Romans were not perfect, and neither was their armor.
Full plate armor gets a lot of bad press for making you slow - which is wrong. A person in full plate can move pretty quickly. However, the endurance of the person suffers. In a battle that goes on for too long, then you run out of steam. A similar (but limited) statement would have to be made about arm protection. But when your armor gives you a significant advantage over your opponent, then you can end the battle faster. And in a deep formation like the Romans have, you can get plenty of rest when you get switched out to the backrow.
At Agincourt, the French knights got stuck in the mud and were slowed down with an endless rain of powerful arrows. When they finally reached the English lines, they were too tired to fight properly. Had they not worn their armor, they would have been too dead to fight.
You call the full plate armor heavy to wear around. But the difference is that the weight is distributed very well and to places that can support weight well (not your shoulders - and certainly not 10 kg to your hands).
@DrHappyAngry I didn't say to have everybody shoot at the low angle. I said that you should mix angles up. If only the first two rows can employ the low angle, even better. That means that the enemy first row has to choose to either ignore the more numerous arrows coming from above, or ignore the more powerful arrows coming in low.
This is not a sure-win super strategy. I wasn't arguing for how to employ archers, but I was trying to figure out what an infantry unit might have to deal with when approaching a unit of archers. The Romans have reinforced shoulder protection and helmets. For all I know, arrows coming down at them from too steep an angle have no chance of penetrating their armor (even if they hurt like hell).
Now, the shield. If the first lines of Roman soldiers raise their shields, their upper bodies are basically hidden behind those. Depending on their distance and the way they are holding their shields, there is more or less of their lower bodies for the arrow to hit. This begins with the legs. Again, what protects the legs in this scenario in your opinion?