.
I wrote in the skirmishing blog post that pre-absolutism skirmishers seemed to have been skirmishers because they were low budget (and if self-equipped: poor) troops. At some times you didn't need more than a primitive sling and picked-up stones to be an effective skirmisher (albeit the mercenary skirmishers often used more effective lead projectiles and small cheap shields).
Heavily armoured troops tended to be expensive professionals of nobles whose life, horses and equipment were supported by multiple farming households.
- - - - -
The often-reported problems and ineffectiveness* of present-time armoured infantry (armoured as wearing bulletproofing body armour, even including shoulder guards and somewhat bulletproofed helmets) made me think.
What if this is not something new, what if this is how it always was? Were more heavily armoured infantrymen of the classical and medieval period really of superior military value?
I suppose the easiest example to look at are late republican / early imperial Roman legionaries, for we know that they had very few servants and pack animals compared to heavily armoured infantry of other periods.
The reputation of these legionaries is still extremely high about two millennia later, but there's something odd:
The biggest and most important expansion of Rome's power happened from the last years of the First Punic War (about 240 BC) to the end of Augustus' reign (until 14 AD). The reforms of Marius that created the all-heavy infantrymen (which always needed reinforcement by dissimilar mercenaries) army of late Republican and early imperial Rome happened only in 107 BC.
The defeat of Carthage, conquest of Greece and conquest of half of Iberia fell into a period during which the Roman army had severe quality issues and was far from the now-common idea of Roman legionaries. The decades of warfare and neglect of family farms since around 260 BC had ruined the base of Roman power; the citizenry (and socii citizenry). Their army was divided into three classes of middle and upper class men, separated by wealth. By about 215 BC there was little left of what we would call middle class now.
The army was at the time about 30% lightly armed velites, skirmisher infantry no better equipped than most enemies (previously about 15%). Velites used for all we know no body armour. It's even questionable whether many of them used helmets. The role of velites and later particularly lightly protected hastati apparently kept growing until the Marian reforms, as Roman society became increasingly economically unequal and the middle class kept eroding through warfare and exploitation of the upper classes. The sum of light troops (including mercenaries) may have exceeded 50% rather often on Roman campaigns.
 | |
| The classical trio of triarii (few rich men, mostly held in reserve), hastati (main infantry and velites (skirmishers, poorest men able to afford any regulation infantry armament at all)** | |
So Rome's empire was in large part built not by the famed heavy infantry legionaries stomping their opposition by their own, but by armies which were in large part light infantry without body armour. The Roman demographic, economic, organisational strengths and certain details*** were almost certainly much more important factors in Roman military success than heaviness of arms and armour.
- - - - -
I understand that heavy body amour was and is often preferable in pitched battle from the point of view of the user. Or at least it seemed so to those who had no heavy body armour, a phenomenon that we were able to observe during the early years of the Iraq occupation.
You could hardly motivate men to sign up for decades of legionary service without protecting them well. They had neither tetanus vaccine nor penicillin. There was no proper military pensions or disability benefits system for crippled discharged soldiers until the 20th century. They would turn beggars and probably starve real quick. There were historical mercenaries with little or no armour, but those were short-time mercenaries, hired only for a specific campaign.
The question remains whether heavily armoured troops were really more effective. I picked an example in which they could be compared almost 1:1 to light troops. Heavily armoured infantry of other eras had such a train of servants, pack animals, carts and other support that they could hardly be compared 1:1 to light troops. In some cases (mounted knights) it would be appropriate to compare them 1:3 or more.
I've read way too many books on historical warfare, but rarely have I encountered the notion that light troops might have been superior to heavy ones. The outstanding exceptions were (Parthian) light horse archers and that one victory of peltast skirmishers over Spartan hoplites. Then again, I am very confident in my assumption that not one modern author of those books has experienced a pre-firearms battle.
I remember only one source from antiquity urging the use of body armour to troops who did not use it; Vegetius****. It's worthwhile to note that he writes about body armour as the solution to military problems because the infantry of his day apparently did NOT use it. So it may be that he was a believer in body armour without actually being able to fully assess the military value upsides and downsides of the same.
I strongly suppose that investigating the true military utility of body armour in history is something that military historians should do. Modern armies should be aware that we might very well exaggerate passive protection at the expense of tactical mobility and endurance.
related:
/2017/09/hard-body-armour-possible-compromise.html
/2020/04/military-theory-of-skirmishing_18.html
S O
*: Slow, quickly exhausted, thus moving little during firefights
**: The sources are not clear and this trio may have been rather about age brackets (age 15-46 overall, velites youngest and triarii oldest), with varying equipment quality within the age brackets. It is especially doubtful whether the most or even all Triarii used mail armour, as it was very expensive. In the end, it doesn't matter to this text, for a larger share of the poor among the levied meant a larger share of troops who could not afford good arms and armour (even though those were in the late Republic purchased from the centrally procuring state). There's no source known to me claiming that anyone but proletarii (the citizens normally too poor for service as infantry) got much equipment provided by the state.
The rise of the share of velites was either driven by performance considerations or by the poverty of the levied men. Either way, the share of light infantry increased according to the known sources.
***: An example is that Romans built field camps on hills rather than close to rivers or lakes (where there's high risk of diseases) because they simply dug wells for water supply. Even in battle this was an advantage, as hills offered vastly superior positions and the Romans could wait for enemies on a hill even in Mediterranean summer heat. I have never seen mention of their enemies digging wells on campaign. The Roman armies had many such detail strengths.
****: See section "The arms of the ancients" here
.
Armour made out of hides, such as double layered half tanned hides were widespread and equivalent to thin bronze. The velites probably had padded or basket-woven caps that protected against sling stones. Such caps were also constructed to upgrade helmets against powerful sling stones.
ReplyDeleteThe Gundestrup cauldron shows La Tène/Celtic influenced warfare with organic body armour covering torso and upper legs and thick padded hats for the infantry with metal helmets being used by the elite such as the swordfighters and the riders, not the spearmen and the musicians. The scene is interpreted as a god rebirthing brave spearmen into a superior social standing as riders. Despite the believe in rebirth thru bravery, which is also attested for the Carthaginian forces in the Second Punic War, people did wear organic body armour. A major problem with such armour in reenactment is stamina due to increased body heating and a slowdown by the requirement to access carried water for cooling. Some organic armour might have been wetted from the start to serve as a heatsink(discussed among reenactors for the linothorax).
From close combat experience in mock combat, such an armoured guy can be paired with a number of lighter armoured fighters, who act more defensive and the armour increases the effectiveness of the group by being difficult to wound during risky offensive action. Such a pairing of armoured with lighter fighters can probably be observed with the thorakitai among thureophoroi. Even among the Romans few had mail, most had a bronze pectoral which covered the most threatened area and was good for heat management of the body. This model might be similar to the combination of tanks with infantry.
How much and which kind of armour was beneficial probably depends on the climate with the North using thick layers of organic armour for simple troops without incurring significant losses due to heat stroke. This might have been a problem when a northern army moved south.
"Heavily armoured infantry of other eras had such a train of servants, pack animals, carts and other support that they could hardly be compared 1:1 to light troops."
ReplyDeleteThat only tells me that the organisation of the support train was deficient in comparison to Romans, the funny thing is that despite having a high share of heavy infantry in the 2nd/1st century BC, the Roman legion had a quite small support organisation. And the pack animals did not carry the armour.
Or from a different perspective: Only if you could prove that the higher mobility of light infantry compensates for the disadvantages in field battles and sieges your thesis makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThe northern border of the Roman Empire overlaps with the northern extent of what is considered true La Tène/Celtic culture. There might be a number of factors at play that the Romans, who were heavily influenced by La Tène equipment also had this border. The Roman helmet was often a copy of La Tène designs with a beak at the back to prevent swordcuts to the back of the neck. Also mail armour was a Celtic invention and the re-enforcement at the shoulders is against downward swordstrikes. By contrast the pectoral bronze plate worn on the chest protected the main target area of spear thrusts and
ReplyDeletejavelin throws. So the changes in Roman gear are an adaptation to threats by swords instead of spears and javelins. The La Tène culture played an important role spreading longer iron swords and their use, the word gladius might be of Celtic origin, but the Romans adopted not the longest swords, but the generally preferred length in the Mediterranean of a double edged design.
North of the La Tène culture, finds such as Nydam show a preference for spears, including the use of short throwable spears for fencing. It might be that you are right that in the swampland of the North metal armour could be detrimental to the fighting capability. This is an observation from later battles, where wet ground becomes slippery in battle and lighter armoured fighters triumphed over heavier equipped opponents.
The Eastern and Southeastern border of the Romans are in the transition area from the use of javelins to bows, which are assumed to be have been used in more open terrain, where an archer could avoid being rushed in close combat, unlike javelinmen who had to be equipped for this due to the limited range of their missiles. It's not just mounted archers, but also the massed archery armies of the Nubians, who defeated the Romans and the wealth of Nubia made it a more tempting target than the whole of Germania.
The Sahara was definitely easier to cross unarmoured, but mail or the lorica segmentata are collapsible and might have been only worn as required, while being carried collapsed and oiled in a waterproof bag. The insurrection of Tacfarinas in North Africa shows the insurgents going to great length to have a core with legionary equipment among their more numerous light armed guerrilla fighters. At least a modicum of armoured combatants increased overall effectiveness compared to a purely light armoured force.
While I agree with you that wearing heavy stuff decreases physical capabilities, having some with heavy armour increases overall effectiveness, but there's certainly a tipping point above which more heavy gear has no benefit. This might have been realized early on and mail might have been popular, because it could be stored for transport and quickly be put on for engagements, such as reported from the crusades. But fighters might also have chosen to not wear mail. Whether Roman soldiers always walked around like in the Ahernobarbus relief clad in mail armour with huge shields, is doubtful, we do have hints that at least some of them had lighter gear than the others, but we can't pinpoint when that practice started. Other than armour, the divide between archery and javelin preferring geographies also played a role in limiting the Romans, who took centuries to improve the archery capacity of the legions.
I hope this makes my point better than the first comment I wrote.
"So the changes in Roman gear are an adaptation to threats by swords instead of spears and javelins. The La Tène culture played an important role spreading longer iron swords and their use, the word gladius might be of Celtic origin, but the Romans adopted not the longest swords, but the generally preferred length in the Mediterranean of a double edged design."
ReplyDeleteIt was even more, the contact with the Celts led to military defeats and the sack of Rome, as an result the tactical system of the Romans changed from more hoplite-like fighting - spear as main weapon and proper phalanx as formation - to javelins for softning-up the enemy and then fight at very short distance with heavy shield and sword, the phalanx was replaced with a different formation of spaced maniples.
The Hoplite-like style has been called into question. There's ahrdly any evidence that the Romans ever fought like hoplites. Maybe like Thureophoroi, but use of the Aspis shield (which very much coins behaviour with its weight) is unsupported. One should also remember that the Romans were quite inaccurate with terminology. Caesar described Germanic Suebes as using a phalanx, for example (IRIC).
DeleteLong story short; other factors than superior military effectivenes may have driven the use of much body armour at times. Great conquests were made with armies that used little body armour or used a heavy/light mix.
What phalanx means to modern readers and what the ancients meant with phalanx can be two different things.
DeleteSpearmen need a much closer formation than javelinmen. When we have records by Polybius, he points out that the Romans are spaced with twice the space of spearmen. The Etruscans, Italian Greeks and Phoenicians are all documented using formations of spearmen with aspis like shields, making it likely that the Romans also experimented with a similar formation, but most of their troops, like in the Greek phalanx were not so armed, but had centergripped shields and either fighting spears, javelins or slings and some armour and head protection.
Gallic warbands with their longer swords and mail armour were quite influential in changing warfare in Europe, West Asia and North Africa. Whether the lost battle of the Romans was that influential is unknown, influences for equipment changes can be more complex than single events.
"A storm of spears" is a PhD thesis on hoplite warfare that studies the location of wounds with on the armour from battlefield trophies retrieved from Olympia. spears wounded the head and the chest. Swords have a different injury profile, requiring different armour, which could be solved via organic armour or mail.
I agree that changes in bodyarmour can have had multiple reasons for changes other than increasing effectiveness.
"The Hoplite-like style has been called into question."
DeleteSorry, that is not plausible. If you have a shield and a spear you get something very different from the maniple system. If you do not like hoplite-like use something else.
Fact is that the Roman tactics changed dramatically after contact with the Celts, in this context armour makes sense. Or do you assume a shield and a short sword without armour would be better?
"other factors than superior military effectivenes may have driven the use of much body armour at times. Great conquests were made with armies that used little body armour or used a heavy/light mix."
It was about Romans. The rapid expansion happend 200BC-40BC, a period which was chracterised by heavy infantry as battle winners for the Romans.
"Whether the lost battle of the Romans was that influential is unknown, influences for equipment changes can be more complex than single events."
DeleteBut the fact is that after contact with the Celts and the sack of Rome we see a very different equipment and tactics. What is your explanation?
What we see are snippets of what was actually happening. Etymologically "gladius" is assumed to be of Celtic origin, so Celtic influenced longer swords were getting more popular, but the transformation of sword lengths was still ongoing during the Punic Wars. It probably speeded up with the expansion of the heavy infantry thru lowered property qualifications in the Second Punic War, when new soldiers were issued state supplied gear and some others trophy weapons. Before it was still an army based around heirlooms that slowly phased out.
DeleteThe use of aspis shields on the Italian peninsula is well documented, both with thrusting spears and throwing spears.
The grave mural of Nola shows Samnite warriors with round shields and two spears/javelins. https://www.bonculture.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Tomba-dipinta-Nola.jpg
This combination was also used by the contemporary Greeks. It developed in Greece into a close order formation with thrusting spears, but the term phalanx is Homeric and was already used for this fluid earlier formation. Phalanx is best translated as formation line infantry and even all Roman legions thru the ages could be termed a phalanx by the ancients according to their use of the term, which is not our modern use of it. In case of the Romans it probaby descried thrusting with spears and round shields, but can have included also throwing these spears, pretty similar to the Samnites, Etruscans and Punic naval raiders that all fought over Italy.
Those Samnite shields could be booty, or be flat. The Greek Aspis was of unique construction just as the fully-developed Scutum was unique. The curved shape, reinforced surface, weight and straps led to a certain way of using the Aspis, which necessitated a good helmet.
DeleteThe Greek colonies in Italy no doubt knew and very likely used the Aspis. It's doubtful whether the Romans ever used it and used true hoplite-style tactics.
Using spearmen in closed order is something very different from using hoplite phalanxes. The Persians used spearmen and closed order tactics as well, nobody calls that hoplite phalanx AFAIK.
The etruscians used greek aspis shields which is proven from archaeological funds. As rome was part of the etruscian world for quite a wile and because of the structure of its army into five classes it is quite likely that at least the first roman class used the aspis. The etruscian influence was very high in early rome. With the end of the etruscian rulership over rome the first class became quite weak as many nobile etruscian families leaved. In the latinian war the romans therefore changed their military structure and the use of the aspis became uncommon or ended there.
DeleteKRT:
Delete>>>>spears wounded the head and the chest. Swords have a different injury profile, requiring different armour, which could be solved via organic armour or mail.>>>
The injury profile is the same if you use the sword for thrusting, simple as that. And especially organic armour can much more easily be pierced by a thrust, regardless if it comes from a spear or a sword. If you fight with sword and bigger shield, thrust with a sword are better than thrusts with a spear because you have more control over the thrust with the sword (one handed). It is then more likely that you hit the enemy with the thrust around the shield which is much more difficult with an spear. But then you have to come closer to the enemy and voila, you need thrust resistant body armour as the enemy can then do the same to you.
With mail it depends highly on the quality. High quality mail cannot be pierced by thrusts with normal muscle power from the arm. Especially as mail was combined with organic armour under it in roman times and before. The idea of romans wearing mail without organic armour under it is wrong. There is even an latin word for this under-armour.
SO:
Delete>>>Maybe like Thureophoroi, but use of the Aspis shield (which very much coins behaviour with its weight) is unsupported. >>>
The Thureophoroi used oval shields (therefore the name) and Plutarch clearly stated that they could fight as an Phalanx. It is even possible that this kind of troops resulted from the wars of phyrrus of epiros in italy and was heavily influenced by italian style warfare. Also the Thorakitai fought in an identical way, but with heavy body armour (therefore the name here).
Subarmalis
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-KuNdWc4o
"What we see are snippets of what was actually happening. Etymologically "gladius" is assumed to be of Celtic origin, so Celtic influenced longer swords were getting more popular, but the transformation of sword lengths was still ongoing during the Punic Wars."
DeleteNo problem with that, however, we see that the very traditional Romans changed dramatically their tactics together with their main weapon after contact with Celts. Therefore, the Celtic influence is very likely the driving force and as long as there is no better explanation.
Then we come to the interesting question whether heavy armour brings more advantages. Here we can use different approaches:
1) One can talk to people who do actually fencing with historic weapons, some of them tell you, that in case of very close combat armour provides advantages in battle, more for sword fighter than for spear fighter.
2) We can compare the Roman situation with European armies in the 15th/16th century. Spanish and Austrian infantry found the same "Roman" solution with their rondachiers. These guys were heavily armoured.
3) And we can see weapons and armour as evolutionary pressure, they kill and they produce survivors which analyse the situation. It is for me as scientist completely unplausible that a successful army like the Roman uses heavy armour without clear analysis of cost benefit ratios for generations.
No, point 1 is worthless. Maybe if you let them hike for hours in full gear and then let them fight there might be a reasonable appreciation of body armour. But even then it would only be melee in a duel situation - not representative of warfare that might include lots of missile attacks.
DeleteThe Rundtartschiere were mostly tasked to provide shield protection against arquebus for the pikemen. Their melee abilities were secondary AFAIK. The somewhat bulletproofed shield -not body armour- was the key element in their equipment.
3) Read the text again. It's very possible that the equipment is suboptimal for campaign success if only this lessens recruitment issues.
Similar for today - hardly anyboy claims that having had nearly immobile infantry in Afghanistan with about 15 kg of body armour and about 35 kg total combat load was optimum for combat success. It was a political necessity.
I think we have a slight communication issue. Mail armour seems from the start to have been worn as an addition above organic armour, which is documented also as stand alone armour in Celtic influenced warfare.
DeleteThe sword or knife is used in cut and thrust attacks, where against a shielded opponents you often reach around and attack his back with the false edge or stab him at the back of the neck in between body armour and helmet. Depending on your fencing practice, you will be able to observe this.
Thureophoroi use the thureos shield with its innovative, often vertical, grip that allows to turn the shield sideways and block enemy weapons in a 1 vs 1 fight. This is probably not the grip used on older centergripped shields that have, if depicted, two straps that are grabbed with the hand, which allows to hold in the same hand additionally a bundle of javelins. In Greek, Punic and Etruscan warfare this was replaced with the Argive shield that was strapped to the arm, while the Samnite shield developed a horizontal center grip out of wood to carry a large long shield. It's not certain if many Romans during their phalanx days already had shields with Argive grips, but neither did they have the thureos which came together with the Celtic swords and armour.
The Persian formation has its own technical term, sparabara, with long roots in a warfare that tried to mix spears and missiles, but it could be called a phalanx by ancient sources, albeit not by modern works that created a distinction not found in the ancient use of the term.
To summarize the point, close order formation and/or long distance close combat allowed for an observable reduction of armour, but the Romans chose the opposite fighting style for their legion and increased armour to counter swords and knives that have more angles of attack at short distance, because they have far shorter minimal distance. Such an increase in armour might have been beneficial against a certain profile of enemies as a component within a much lighter armoured force. The lighter armoured troops serving with the legion are underrepresented and underappreciated, despite probably being crucial due to speed and endurance. Modern reenactment combat is deficient in including missiles, marching, diarrhoea and other factors. I think the role of the pilum and the gladius switched, with using javelins necessitating less armour. With this transformation towards heavier swordfighters, the legions also become less utilized for combat operations, with lighter armed and cheaper units shouldering more of the everyday tasks of combat, while the legions become skilled engineers.
KRT:
Delete>>>>The sword or knife is used in cut and thrust attacks, where against a shielded opponents you often reach around and attack his back with the false edge or stab him at the back of the neck in between body armour and helmet. Depending on your fencing practice, you will be able to observe this.>>>>
That depends very much of the question what kind of combat you are looking here. If you fight in tight mass formations - mass combat - this will naturally become the case. In a skirmish, in an open fight, a duell like situation the situation is different it is quite difficult to achieve a thrust to the back or from above.
It also depends heavily on the kind of shield you have and if youre opponent has body armour / helmet or not. For expample an highland warrior of the 18 century with broadsword and targe is here an complete different thing in comparison to an roman legionary of the early emperors.
A cut with the "other side of the blade" has also often not realy manstopping power, in this case it is more efficient to attack the face area or to use such an attack as an feint to the face then attack the legs - especially the knee.
>>>To summarize the point, close order formation ....allowed for an observable reduction of armour, >>>
That is not correct. In close order formation armour is an tremendous advantage against any other close order formation without such armour. There were of cause close order formations without much armour, espeically in the late hellenistic era or the landsknechts, reisläufer etc, but that had not the reason that in close combat the armour is not superior, but resultet from other reasons.
Therefore armoured mercenaries of the landsknecht era received higher payment (Doppelsölner). And for the same reason the roman legions destroyed the late hellenistic phalanxes completly easily without any serious losses.
>>>>>With this transformation towards heavier swordfighters, the legions also become less utilized for combat operations, with lighter armed and cheaper units shouldering more of the everyday tasks of combat, while the legions become skilled engineers.>>>>
That is partly an missunderstanding of what happened. The heavily armoured legions were necessary to beat any opponent in close combat and therefore the enemies could not stand the ground against them in battle. From the resulting moving living "fortress" then the light troops of the romans attacked and retreated behind and between the cohorts against enemy close combat troops which would otherwise kill them in close combat. So the romans shoot the enemy down and he could not attack the roman missile troops because of the presence of the heavy armoured legions. That was the war winning combination against most barbaric tribes and militarily / technologically inferior people. The heavy armour and big shield were absolutly necessary to be always superior in close combat against enemy close combat troops which because of that usually become useless.
And it is possible to march long distances in heavy armour (without other marching baggage like backpacks). It depends of cause of the climate, heat etc, but in many cases you can march the whole day and then fight in close combat. The reason for this is also that close combat in most cases did not last long enough that the body armour become a problem. Most times one side or the other would quit the fight and begin to flee. That mechanism was the core of the phalanx tactic and is the core of any mass combat.
My backpack in the army on a march was much more exhausting than wearing my mail and helmet the whole day. In great heat you also can (as it was mentioned here) put down the helmet and the mail and simply equip yourself with your body armour short before battle. If you have enough water to cool you down you can fight then quite long if you are experienced how to do that and if you are acclimatisesd.
There are records of lightening of armour such as the development of the hoplite phalanx from open order fighting of hoplites interspersed among light armed to a close ordered phalanx of hoplites with light armed supporting from behind. The coverage by bronze was greatly reduced in this development and bronze body armour was replaced with organic armour. Famous are the reforms of Iphicrates, who got rid of all bronze except the helmet. He developed special boots, introduced linen body armour, an oblong shield and most importantly longer weapons for his lighter armoured hoplites/heavier peltasts. This is generally taken as a precursor for the later Macedonian phalanx, but as a reform of naval infantry it persisted independent of land warfare and was also adopted in the Roman navy that used long spears/pikes already during the Punic Wars.
ReplyDeleteThis shows two conditions for lighter equipment, longer combat distances and closer formation. Both were met with the Late Roman army that had shields, which unlike the semicylindrical scutum could strike edge first, due to being flat and oval or round. Correspondingly they utilized slightly longer swords and thrusting spears. Spears have a minimal fighting distance under which they become useless, edge strikes with the shield improve the capability to control this distance. Also the Late Roman army is supposed to have fought in closer order, have been more cost effective and according to Vegetius often ditched armour as impediment.
By contrast both Rome and Carthage experimented with legionary combat style and came to the same conclusion. Hannibal armed his African infantry with Roman shields and mail armour before Cannae, after their underwhelming performance in prior battles, where they had leather armour and Spanish scuta. This legionary combat was an open order formation that improved missile support by the ranks further back, while protecting against spears and missiles with large shields. These large shields with their short punching distance, probably required fighting at a close distance which in turn made the combatants want heavy metal armour.
So changing the weight of armour in an environment of threats by swords might have more fundamentally affected combat dynamics than the Roman's were willing to change with their incremental reforms. The armour was a path dependent solution.
Lets talk only about body armour for itself as i have personal experience with it from several perspectives, even in real combat:
ReplyDelete>>>>The question remains whether heavily armoured troops were really more effective. ...... I strongly suppose that investigating the true military utility of body armour in history is something that military historians should do. >>>>
If you ask about the effectivnes, the question is: effective in which part of combat / warfare. And also the question is if you are talking about warfare in earlier times and combat in modern times. In Close Combat with swords, axes, spears, clubs etc body armour gives you an tremendous advantage over any opponent without body armour. If you have body armour and the other have none, in most cases / circumstances you will win the close combat fight. For that simple reason the unarmoured fighter had to flee or leave the terrain in other ways (retreat etc) and you get the terrain. Or if the enemy cannot flee he will be slaughtered. This even applies in mass combat, with pole arms and whatever.
So body armour is an tremendous advantage in close combat against unarmoured (!) opponents. On the other side it is expensive and exhausting and war is not only one fight in close combat and thats it. So in an longer campaign body armour can be an hurden to the point in which you will loose the war or the battle because of it (Carrhae for example).
The reason why the roman armies for example became dominated by heavy armoured infantry was simply, that the fought barbarian tribes like the celts and the teutonic tribes which had an schwerpunkt in close combat, but not sufficient body armour. In an normal battle this leads always to roman victory against such enemies. And at the same time the romans were able to manage the logistical problems of an heavy army. But this cannot be compared to the situation today as the circumstances were completly different:
>>>>Modern armies should be aware that we might very well exaggerate passive protection at the expense of tactical mobility and endurance.>>>>
Body Armour in earlier times was mainly against close combat (for arrows, throwing spears, slingstones etc shields were better overall). With todays firearms hard and heavy body armour has the target to protect against bullets, and this is an complete different world in comparison to the advantages of heavy body armour in earlier times in close combat. It is therefore not realy possible to compare this complete different circumstances and mechanisms.
Lets take an modern example: Police wearing body armour for street battles, demonstrations and close combat stil uses today concepts of armour very similar to roman armour. And the reason is still the same: the armour gives an tremendous advantage in close combat and against thrown stones and other primitive weapons. The advantage is so great, that an trained police unit with such armour could if it would be allowed easily win against any not armoured mob. For that reason the mob in kiev for example started to use body armour too.
But against bullets it is an complete different concept and a complete different world. The advantage here is imo more psychological and not real. And the disadvantages are heavy in comparison. Therefore one should not answer the question if body armour is useful today not from looking in history, but from the circumstances today for them own.
Police using shields and armour has some detrimental effects as well.
DeleteI remember an episode when an unprotected higher-ranking police officers walked in front of a police shield wall that was under heavy attack by stone throwers. They didn't attack him.
Their point wasn't to hurt badly, it was to express frustration.
In Anabasis, Xenophon talks about the Greek Merceneries, who were almost entirely heavy infantry. They actually converted some of the heavy infantry to slingers because they lacked light infantry. So maybe they don't show a preference for light infantry, but the ancients knew that you needed at least some light infantry.
ReplyDelete