Armoury of Antiquity: Questions regarding archaic arms and armor

[Lord Carnifex]

Or scavenged it off of dead comrades or enemies who didn't need it anymore. Or deserted and ran off with it, or were left for dead on a battlefield and went home with it.

[Captain Spaulding]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I think this was covered in a previous thread. Properly cast and work hardened bronze is as good or better for making blades and armour than wrought iron and low carbon steel.

There was a fascinating documentary on the BBC earlier this year, the title of which sadly escapes me, where they "tested out" bronze swords against iron ones. All of them were short swords, with a leaf-shaped blade

What they found, much to the surprise of one of the archaelogists on the programme, who had been predicting that the bronze blade would shatter into fragments, was that the bronze blade actually stood up better than the iron one did. With contact, both blades were blunted and had chips taken out of them, but the iron one actually came off much worse in this respect.

The big difference was that the iron blade was apparently much easier to repair afterwards than the bronze one was. I also seem to recall, though I'm not any kind of expert, that once a culture had iron-working sussed out, it was much cheaper to make iron implements than bronze ones.

[Captain Spaulding]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

How many US soldiers are allowed to keep their state-issued armour and weapons after they leave service?

One of the major factors in the British government introducing the 1920 Gun Control Act was the large number of state-issued rifles and pistols that had somehow managed to find their way back home in private hands after the end of the First World War.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

How many US soldiers are allowed to keep their state-issued armour and weapons after they leave service? Why would the "viking" bother keeping it anyway? He would have earnt more than enough to buy a decent mail byrnie. Lamellar was a poor substitute.

I think a much as in the german arms, nil, otoh the sweden and the swiss are a different thing.

I think a good lamellar offers better protection than maille, and AFAIk the officers were usually byrnies in the varangian guard, the soldiers not, and therefore the char would`ve used the lamellar.

Maybe I got my sources wrong but many bycabntean soldiers must come with their own equipment or their equipment was part of their payment from the state.

[Verjigorm]

Also, does anyone have a good idea for representing the Solenerion? You know, the lil' tube attached to a bow, so you could fire "mice"?

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I'm not sure mail would work well in copper/bronze. Their tendency to work-harden would make for brittle rings, I think. However, given the relative ease with which you can make good bronze plate, there's no real need for mail anyway.

Bronze is easy enough to anneal. Even iron mail was annealed at least twice to eliminate work hardening during the manfacturing process. There are surviving examples of Persian mail made entirely of bronze dated to the 12th century. They were found along with several iron examples so it is likely that they were intended for battle and not "ceremony".

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

If you could afford the bronze for body-armour, why not have plate rather than scale?

The two main reasons are flexibility and coverage. Scale is more flexible than a solid cuirass. Scale also offers more coverage than a solid cuirass. It is able to cover joints such as armpits and elbows. It can also protect the lower stomach and groin. Plate can't do that.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

I think a good lamellar offers better protection than maille

Only the ones that are significantly heavier than mail. Compare two examples of similar weight and mail will provide the best protection. It also provides much much better coverage since it is flexible enough to cover the whole body. Lamellar leaves significant gaps in the elbows, armpits, neck, etc and requires overlapping panels to cover the lower stomach and groin which still leave exploitable gaps.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

This raises a significant question. An iron scale corselet contains about as much iron as an iron plate cuirass. It is cheaper because scales are less work to forge than a cuirass is.

That's true once you can make steel that's of sufficient quality. However, low grade steel/iron does not allow the manufacture of decent cuirasses, as iron tends to crack along edges when they are put under repetitive stress, and then tear from the cracks. There are techniques that reduce this tendency (rolled edges, etc.) but it is a problem that's not really avoidable with poor metal, and it's one that bronze doesn't suffer from. It also means that iron plate doesn't protect as well as it might because the metal, once pentrated, will tend to tear in front of the penetrating object, making it expend less energy than it would if the metal didn't tear. Again, bronze doesn't do this as readily, so it provides better protection for the same thickness (and weight, though as bronze is denser than iron it's not quite as marked). I suspect this is why large plates of iron/steel weren't in common use until the late middle ages or renaissance, and why iron plate tended to be reinforcing (or reinforced, depending on your POV) for other armour.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Bronze is easy enough to anneal. Even iron mail was annealed at least twice to eliminate work hardening during the manfacturing process. There are surviving examples of Persian mail made entirely of bronze dated to the 12th century. They were found along with several iron examples so it is likely that they were intended for battle and not "ceremony".

It wasn't merely during manufacture that I was considering, but in use. However, if there are extant examples of combat sets of bronze mail, obviously I'm wrong.