Armour in combat

[lawrenceg]

Isn't the point in FOG(AM) re protection in melee about " relative " protection? And the V2 changes make armour less critical as does the treatment of heavy weapons in both versions.
( I have had some exchanges with a researcher and writer in the US who has examined Hittite bows and and arrow heads in the museum of his institute suggesting they were pretty ineffective and that thick sheepskin would stop them!).

Lucky they didn't have to rely on hunting wild sheep for food. Or maybe that's why they are extinct (the Hittites,that is).

[lawrenceg]

Is there not also a consideration about the strategic change in warfare? I thought hoplites lightened their armour during the Peloponnesian war because greater mobility was required. Similarly during the Thirty Years War the armoured pikemen ditched their armour because of the distances they were covering and they got fed up with lugging it around. If everyone, including your likely opponent, does the same thing then you are not at a disadvantage tactically.

I've seen the hoplite thing attributed to the concentration of wealth to the wealthy and impoverishment of the less well-off members of the hoplite class. In the 30YW I would think the lack of protection against musketry would also have been a factor - no point in wearing armour that doesn't protect you.

[MikeHorah]

Is there not also a consideration about the strategic change in warfare? I thought hoplites lightened their armour during the Peloponnesian war because greater mobility was required. Similarly during the Thirty Years War the armoured pikemen ditched their armour because of the distances they were covering and they got fed up with lugging it around. If everyone, including your likely opponent, does the same thing then you are not at a disadvantage tactically.

I've seen the hoplite thing attributed to the concentration of wealth to the wealthy and impoverishment of the less well-off members of the hoplite class. In the 30YW I would think the lack of protection against musketry would also have been a factor - no point in wearing armour that doesn't protect you.

Found this in a web blog :

It's is by William Shepherd who studied classics at Clare College, Cambridge, in the 1960s and later worked for Osprey, retiring as the chief executive in 2007. He i wrote The Persian War (Cambridge1982) translated from Herodotus.

“Weapons Research
The start of a new Persian War project and some comments in Amazon reviews on points of detail in my Plataea book have caused me to take a critical look at one or two “facts” that I confidently include in my descriptions of hoplite weaponry.
For example, I say that vase paintings clearly show that the linothorax (linen cuirass) progressively superseded bronze body-armour from the latter part of the 6th century. But it’s actually impossible to tell what material the painters were depicting and a strong case can be made that leather was much more widely used than linen (glued in layers) in place of bronze. Leather was the least costly, the most easily worked of the three (bearing in mind the process of manufacturing linen fabric) and, if less resilient, could easily be reinforced with metal scales, as “composite” cuirasses often were. To strengthen this case, the few mentions of linen armour I have so far been able to find in the literature (two in Homer, one in Herodotus and one in Xenophon, and there the noun, linothorax, does not appear anywhere) make it sound quite special and exceptional.”


Other web sites and comments etc, including by folk who have reproduced the kit suggest that leather was indeed more common/likely than linen and that the bell cuirass of Bronze weighed about 6KG so not as much as some might think so maybe not a heaviness and mobility thing. That said no examples of linen or leather cuirasses have been found it seems - presumably organic materials have only survived if they were in Egyptian tombs ! Perhaps it is more likely that even in the early period only the most well off wore bronze and many others composite cuirasses and that over time the later superseded the former in popularity as more cost effective and not needing tin and copper to be sourced to make it. So maybe the hard break off time in between armoured and protected in many ancients rules lists is overstating it a tad?

[MikeHorah]

Isn't the point in FOG(AM) re protection in melee about " relative " protection? And the V2 changes make armour less critical as does the treatment of heavy weapons in both versions.
( I have had some exchanges with a researcher and writer in the US who has examined Hittite bows and and arrow heads in the museum of his institute suggesting they were pretty ineffective and that thick sheepskin would stop them!).

Lucky they didn't have to rely on hunting wild sheep for food. Or maybe that's why they are extinct (the Hittites,that is).

Yes

I was a little sceptical when he said that! But then think of Sean Connery in " The Man Who Would be King"?w hen the arrow stuck in his bandolier.

It was in the context of the composite bow used by the chariot archer versus the self bow used by most infantry at the time of Kadesh ( and earlier) . Given he is a great Hittite fan it was a little odd for him to say it but he is a bit unorthodox describing infantry from Sumeria and up to that time as "phalanxes". But he is not a wargamer so some of our distinctions and their significance to us maybe pass him by!

I guess the main thing is that the technological battle between edge and point and protection ( which is but one of the elements in the story) can be very " chicken and egg" with one gaining the ascendancy and then the other even within what we see as clearly defined eras.

[ravenflight]

So maybe the hard break off time in between armoured and protected in many ancients rules lists is overstating it a tad?

In the case of the Hoplite, to me I feel that you have to take into account several factors.

1- they have a shield so large that it covers the entire area that would be covered by any thorax armour;
2- they fought in a formation that allowed mutual support by neighbours; and
3- they have a spear so long that any enemy not similarly equipped will not be able to get even close to shields let alone armour, and those similarly equipped will end up in a spear against shield contest.

The only time I can see armour having a huge advantage in Hoplite warfare is when the FoG equvalent of the bg going disrupted. The shield is then less effective, there are enemy in the ranks so the hedgehog of spears do not lend mutual support etc.

I've said it before, but I believe ALL hoplites should count as disregarding the enemy armour POA whilst steady. That would mean that (in Hoplite vs Hoplite combat) the POA's would only come into effect once either side disrupted, and once they disrupt they are pretty much finished anyway.

If the above is true, I can see why a Hoplite may lighten his armour.

I'm not suggesting a rule change, just my opinion on how armour evolved.

[dave_r]

So maybe the hard break off time in between armoured and protected in many ancients rules lists is overstating it a tad?

In the case of the Hoplite, to me I feel that you have to take into account several factors.

1- they have a shield so large that it covers the entire area that would be covered by any thorax armour;
2- they fought in a formation that allowed mutual support by neighbours; and
3- they have a spear so long that any enemy not similarly equipped will not be able to get even close to shields let alone armour, and those similarly equipped will end up in a spear against shield contest.

The only time I can see armour having a huge advantage in Hoplite warfare is when the FoG equvalent of the bg going disrupted. The shield is then less effective, there are enemy in the ranks so the hedgehog of spears do not lend mutual support etc.

I've said it before, but I believe ALL hoplites should count as disregarding the enemy armour POA whilst steady. That would mean that (in Hoplite vs Hoplite combat) the POA's would only come into effect once either side disrupted, and once they disrupt they are pretty much finished anyway.

If the above is true, I can see why a Hoplite may lighten his armour.

I'm not suggesting a rule change, just my opinion on how armour evolved.

The problems for the hoplites started (and quickly ended) when an enemy overlapped them - in that scenario the shield was useless and they had to rely on their army. This normally meant they got either hamstrung or stabbed in the shoulder.

I suspect this is why the Romans managed to beat the pike blocks by simply being wider than the opposition.

[MikeHorah]

The point about the significance of the hoplite shield is well made of course. It was big and heavy by many era's standards ( the early Roman shield is comparable in those terms) but I guess one has to look at the whole package in the panoply "cap a pied" when setting the level of comparative protection for wargaming .

As I have read it ( can't recall where) the back few ranks positioned their shields into the hollows of the backs of the men in front and shoved . This was not something the Macedonians with the sarissa could have done with the smaller shield and pike needing both hands . But there does not seem to be a view that the pike phalanx was inferior to the spear phalanx for want of that . In the "push" case maybe the type of armour has less importance when the shield is being used as an offensive tool not just for protection.

But is there maybe a difference between hoplite v hoplite warfare and hoplite v Persians etc whose spears are shorter and who are not using the push tactic? Might having the front ranks made of men with harder armour have been more useful in the first case rather than the other as some of the opposing hoplite's spears will get through ?

I can also see that when the push of the hoplite phalanx ceases as the line of battle breaks up or the flank is overlapped then the value of better body protection versus swords etc may be more material. Then again not all warfare in this time was pitched battles between phalanxes, and away from that environment , better armour may still have been worth having if you could afford it or had Dad's kit handed down .

There does not seem to be much debate about whether the change in type of body armour happened but how early and whether it was a question of relative cost effectiveness, or absolute cost, or whether there were positive trade-offs in battle.

Like others I am not arguing for for a FoG(AM) rule change although there is no reason in scenarios and historical refights for not making adjustments if they are thought to be appropriate for that purpose.

[pyruse]

The point about the significance of the hoplite shield is well made of course. It was big and heavy by many era's standards ( the early Roman shield is comparable in those terms) but I guess one has to look at the whole package in the panoply "cap a pied" when setting the level of comparative protection for wargaming .

As I have read it ( can't recall where) the back few ranks positioned their shields into the hollows of the backs of the men in front and shoved . This was not something the Macedonians with the sarissa could have done with the smaller shield and pike needing both hands . But there does not seem to be a view that the pike phalanx was inferior to the spear phalanx for want of that . In the "push" case maybe the type of armour has less importance when the shield is being used as an offensive tool not just for protection.

But is there maybe a difference between hoplite v hoplite warfare and hoplite v Persians etc whose spears are shorter and who are not using the push tactic? Might having the front ranks made of men with harder armour have been more useful in the first case rather than the other as some of the opposing hoplite's spears will get through ?

I can also see that when the push of the hoplite phalanx ceases as the line of battle breaks up or the flank is overlapped then the value of better body protection versus swords etc may be more material. Then again not all warfare in this time was pitched battles between phalanxes, and away from that environment , better armour may still have been worth having if you could afford it or had Dad's kit handed down .

There does not seem to be much debate about whether the change in type of body armour happened but how early and whether it was a question of relative cost effectiveness, or absolute cost, or whether there were positive trade-offs in battle.

Like others I am not arguing for for a FoG(AM) rule change although there is no reason in scenarios and historical refights for not making adjustments if they are thought to be appropriate for that purpose.

The 'push' tactic (Othismos) is a myth. It was invented by 19th century academics who'd been in Rugby scrums.
Othismos isn't used by Classical historians to describe hoplites in lines, but it *is* used when there's a big scrum (e.g. round Leonidas' body at Thermopylae).
Common sense should tell us that having someone shoving a shield in your back while you are trying to fence with a spear is not helpful.
It's been pretty comprehensively demolished recently.

[batesmotel]

Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armour provides a plausible means of constructing linen armour for the Greeks and tests conducted by the authors do seem to show that it would approximately as effective against contemporary weapons as would bronze armour of the period, and almost certainly more comfortable and lighter to wear.

The protected versus armoured hoplite differentiation in FoG is really an army list issue rather than a rules one. IT does appear to be true that with increased force sizes that appeared during the Peloponnesian war that many hoplites may not have been as well equipped as the best in earlier periods so it does make sense to allow protected as well as armoured hoplites in that sense. But I think the biggest reason why armoured hoplites are disallowed after a particular date is to give Macedonian pikes a clear advantage against hoplites (whether or not this is actually justified in terms of historical accounts of Philip's and Alexander's battles.

Chris

[pyruse]

Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armour provides a plausible means of constructing linen armour for the Greeks and tests conducted by the authors do seem to show that it would approximately as effective against contemporary weapons as would bronze armour of the period, and almost certainly more comfortable and lighter to wear.

The protected versus armoured hoplite differentiation in FoG is really an army list issue rather than a rules one. IT does appear to be true that with increased force sizes that appeared during the Peloponnesian war that many hoplites may not have been as well equipped as the best in earlier periods so it does make sense to allow protected as well as armoured hoplites in that sense. But I think the biggest reason why armoured hoplites are disallowed after a particular date is to give Macedonian pikes a clear advantage against hoplites (whether or not this is actually justified in terms of historical accounts of Philip's and Alexander's battles.

Chris

There's very little (in fact no) evidence for linen armour. There's quite a lot of evidence for leather armour, which is much easier to make, and probably more effective than layers of linen glued together.
I'm sure linen armour can be made - the question is why would it be made when you can just use thick leather, which is much cheaper and easier to make?