Off course, excepting the Lorica Musculata. I thought they were made of bronze, however, some people insist that the romans made them from leather. The reproductions made of steel are obviously not true to the original material.. Some pictures here to provide an idea to what I am talking about:
The Bronze/Leather debate has been raging for years. I doubt we'll see an end to it anytime soon. Of course, this is all irrelevant. Reread what I said -- when speaking about medieval history and things related to it, it's snarky to come in and point out that 'plate armour existed in so and so a time' because people speaking of plate armour in this context are specifically referring to the development of the late 13th century onward.
In order for what you're saying here to be in any way relevant, you must be able to draw a clear line from the 'plate armour' used by Greeks and Romans to 'plate armour' used by 13th century Western Europeans. But you cannot, because they are different and there is no direct link between them. That's what I'm saying here.
The Romans used armour made of metal plates (in varying sizes and styles). They did not use plate armour as the term is intended when talking about the medieval era.
Obviously not a historian?
One could go either way on that, since what he's saying is 'armour made from plates' and not the medieval concept of 'plate armour.' Different things, you know.
Further, it's one historian. I can also find you the name of a historian that regularly uses the terms 'broadsword' and 'chainmail.' Anyone in the field, however, will tell you right off that these are not appropriate terms. It happens, from time to time.
I, for one, am not an historian by trade and do not pretend to be one either.
How does one 'pretend' to be a historian by trade? Wouldn't that require outright lying, as you would have to actually make the explicit claim that you are a degree-holding historian. There's a difference between being a historian, and being one by trade. Actually, nothing in the definition of 'historian' requires it to be a trade. Any writer of history or expert on history is considered a historian. Of course, one could debate how one becomes an 'expert.'
Not entirely true. You see, what is commonly known as "iron" these days is more correctly "wrought iron", iron with less than 1% carbon. Steel is, as you correctly describe it, iron with more carbon, 2-3%, and usually some other ingredients
Actually, steel has been .2 and 1.8 percent carbon. Wrought Iron is less than .2 percent carbon (generally less than .15 percent). When speaking of medieval and ancient 'iron' -- yes, people are referring to wrought iron. As we agree - it's an entirely different substance from steel.
However, the ancients wasn't entirely stupid and quickly discovered that mixing wrought iron, which was good for plows, with brittle iron (which had high carbon content) they could make an iron which was superior in strength to bronze, but very costly to produce compared to normal iron.
Mixing wrought iron with more iron of a high carbon content creates a form of mild steel (or pig iron - which is a useless substance for armour and weapons, so I'm assuming you're not talking about that).
Not discovering something does not make people stupid. And most ancients did not 'quickly discover' this. Wrought iron is still what's being found throughout most of the ancient world's military relics. Every Greek kopis and xiphos, for instance, is iron (wrought) - not mild steel. The 'quick discovery' you are talking about happened in very specific parts of the world, generally at entirely different timeframes and was not widely known at all in the ancient world. Only the Chinese and possibly the Indians are thought to have understood what you're talking about, in the Ancient world. And even then - Indian and Chinese ancient military artifacts are almost exclusively iron rather than mild steel.
The development you refer to is a Great Migrations/Late Rome (essentially, bordering on early medieval) era development, not a truly Ancient one.
Also, most historians I am aware of make a point of saying that ancient peoples used iron early on because it was FAR cheaper and easier to get, and make a further point of saying that iron at the time was NOT stronger than bronze. Bronze is extremely expensive to produce given that it requires both tin and copper. Meaning, you have to mine for two ores that are almost never found together in one place - neither ore being nearly as common as iron ore, to point a fact. Trade, huge money expenditures -- bronze was an expensive way to go, and while iron wasn't as good (at the time), it was immensely cheaper and easier.
Warfare loves cheap and easy - just look at early firearms.
But I'll reiterate, at no time in the Ancient world was the iron produced in a way that made it structurally superior to bronze, and the art of making mild steel would not be widely known for thousands of years after the beginning of the Iron Age. The first mild steel weapons I am aware of come from the 5th (?) century Spanish/Portugese - back when it was called the Iberian Peninsula.
Then we have crucible steel and various other forms of steel showing up sometime after the 7th century.
Steel wasn't invented in 1300 AD, it was made more than 1500 years earlier.
I didn't say steel was invented in 1300 C.E. I said that plate armour as it pertains to the medieval period began its development only a short two or three decades prior to 1300 C.E.
Which is why I come with additional information. I am not contradicting you. If you for some reason feel your position as these foras fountainhead of historical knowledge is challenged in some way by additional, supporting information I am afraid I cannot help you.
Clearly I misunderstood your intent in that particular comment. But don't be snarky, there's no need for it. Taking little jabs like that is only going to lead to a little pissing match - is that what you want to instigate?
It also aids velocity.
Contrary to popular opinion rifling does not, in itself, make a round go further or faster. Better material for the barrel > stronger loads > faster bullets > better penetration.
Rifling, so far as I am aware (feel free to provide a source and quote to contradict this, I'm willing to learn) does aid in increasing velocity. However, we're moving away from the point. You claimed that stronger barrels increased velocity. I was simply pointing out that barrel material is NOT going to change velocity. It may allow you to use other things that will, but itself, it does nothing for velocity. That's what I was contesting. I can quote you, if you like:
One had to have strong enough barrels to get high enough velocity
You make a direct parallel between barrel strength and velocity -- completely missing the other stuff that -actually- affects velocity. That's what I was pointing out.
Oh yes, they could and tried, but they never held together for long.
Oh no, they couldn't, and didn't.
Historian Nicholas Michael discusses this exact thing in Armies of Medieval Burgundy, and specifically states that at the advent of cannon, the making of iron cannon was simply not possible. He discusses the gun-manufacturers of Jacques and Roland of Majorca (may have spelled that wrong) and how just prior to 1370 they were contracted to cast (bronze) a dozen large-calibre cannon. He further notes that for increased strength they were supported by several iron rungs. He even refers to the cannon bursting after being fired on some occasions -- bronze cannon, that is.
He further mentions the specifics of cannon-building, that they were cast of bronze or forged hoop and stave. Perhaps this latter type is what you are talking about - but it should be noted that these were not solid iron cannon - they were composite items. The most important thing to note about the historical texts is how they refer to cannon as being cast. Iron could not be cast at this early period, because the technology just wasn't there. It wouldn't be until roughly the first few decades of the 16th century that casters could reliably work with iron.
A lot of books are crap too. Books are not instantly available and definitely not updatable except by printing a new edition. Wikipedia is all these things and, as you say, good at giving a broad view of the field.
I'd rather have a book that's a year out of date than a website which can be edited by -anyone- that chooses to write in it, especially when their errors aren't likely to be noticed unless someone either knows the subject better (AND sees fit to change the entry). In effect, reading Wikipedia is even less useful than reading, say, this very thread. Typing it doesn't make it true, right? Otherwise, you couldn't contest anything I've said.
That said, books are a better source not because they are infallible. They're a better source because they're backed by a person's name whom you can research to find out how they are generally percieved in their field. A book is more 'solid' so to speak, if you get what I'm saying. And no, it isn't immediately available over the Internet, but you can always name the book and page - and provide quotes, or just name the book and provide an overview of what's included. After all, if I'm not willing to believe you when you say a book says a certain thing, you can always go edit an entry on Wikipedia to say the same thing, right?
1: You don't hack through a shield from the front to the back with a sword.
I didn't say you should. I was stating the difference in thickness between the haft of the pike and the thickness of the shield, which is relevant to how much material is present when you strike the edge of the shield, of course.
2: Shields are supposed to be reinforced with a steel band around the edges. If you don't, or use a softer iron edge on a round shield, then you have a shield of the type vikings used in which swords would often be lodged in so the owner of the shield could twist the weapon and disarm his opponent.
Firstly, shields are not
supposed to be reinforced with anything. We have no idea how many shields were treated in such a way, since virtually no medieval shields survived to the present day. Comparatively few items have been found that could even be iron/steel rims. So the likelihood here is that they actually were not very common at all.
Likewise, most of the rims we DO have are from Viking shields. So you've got it a bit backwards. You've also got it wrong with how it works. No sword is going to sink deep enough into the edge of a shield to get stuck enough to be disarmed from its wielder. According to the texts, shields without rims could be used to 'catch' the blade by allowing it to dig into the edge of the shield. It would not be stuck, but the jarring 'catch' of it for that brief moment would allow you to counterattack (
not wrench the sword away from your opponent).
4: If your statement that swords can't hack through wood was true there should have been a market for wooden armour for use when fighting people armed with swords. I have never heard anyone wanting to use armour made of wood. But that might just be me. So much for theory.
Someone without any common sense might assume that, yes.
However, a person with the ability to use logic and reason would readily recognize that just because something cannot be easily cut by a sword does not mean it would make for good armour. By that logic, of course, medieval knights should have dressed themselves in worked limestone and granite.
5: Using this replica,
http://shop.fencing.net/Practical_Hand_and_a_Half_Sword_p/ca-2106.htm
me and my cousing split wooden logs, length 30cm, diameter 8-14 cm. And, you know, those training replicas are supposed to be inferior to the real thing and they are definitely not sharp.
Without knowing the specifics, I have no choice but to call that absolute bull. Every test I have ever performed or witnessed (largely by ARMA) bears out that this is simply not plausible. I'll take a dozen tests witnessed with my own eyes and attested to by established men in the field over your word. No offense, of course.
I assume langets are used to protect the pole-part of a polearm. Obviously, to protect a longer polearm, like a pike, the langets must cover a bigger area. And hence weigh more. That is simple physics.
Yeah, that is simple physics. The problem is that you can't use physics to make an argument when those physics are not applicable. Nothing requires the langets of a pike to be longer than the langets of any other polearm. The only need to be long enough to dissuade opponents from lopping off the end of the weapon, or trying to otherwise damage it. Thus, you only need to protect a certain portion. Most langets were about a foot long or a little less. That would be more than sufficient for a pike.
Uh, ok. Longer weapon, less cuts. I don't get the reasoning why here.
It's quite simple really. A shorter weapon is a weapon being actively used. A man with a pollaxe is actively fighting a man with a longsword. His weapon is consistently exposed to the other man's sword.
A pike, on the other hand, is all or nothing. The enemy will take one shot at it and that's all it needs. Once the pike is out of the way, you are dead. He simply does not have the dynamic aspect of personal combat in his favour with which to make multiple strikes at your weapon, or make multiple strikes which are defended by your weapon (because a pike is FAR too long to use defensively).
Well, sir, I can do this, so you must be misinformed. Or perhaps I am some kind of freak of nature, gifted with unnatural speed and strength.
Or perhaps there is some other issue at play that is not being taken into consideration which would make your feat of arms vastly different from what would be accomplishable in medieval battlefield conditions. Or perhaps you are lying outright. Or or or. Can't know, because you didn't exactly provide video and a lengthy list of statistics on the situation. And I wasn't there to witness it.
Hey, maybe your cheapy (I mean that term with respect, among the ARMA circles I travel in 'cheapy' refers to a throw-away sword used for practice) simply has a cross-section and weight similar to an axe rather than a REAL sword. Perhaps you hadn't considered that. Actually, judging from the description on the website, that weapon would have virtually nothing in common with a medieval battle-worthy sword.
No one is contesting that axes can't cut wood. But a medieval greatsword is not an axe. And your theatrical blunt likely has more in common with an axe than with a medieval greatsword. I own some practice blades like that, myself. I'd be willing to bet more than one of my practice blades could break some of my real swords outright.
You have hurt my feelings, sir. I demand satisfaction!
