Griveton | 14 Jan 2016 8:09 a.m. PST |
Hey guys, I couldn't find the answer to this. Why did most ancient and biblical armies not wear much armour? A linen robe can't be that much protection against spear, bow or sword. Heck, the majority of the Persian army was unarmoured. Very few biblical armies had units that were armoured too. You'd think the casualty rates would be astronomical with no armour. Cheers! |
GurKhan | 14 Jan 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
Because armour is expensive, and peasant conscripts are cheap. |
Doms Decals | 14 Jan 2016 8:16 a.m. PST |
Yep, expense, pure and simple. |
John the OFM | 14 Jan 2016 8:17 a.m. PST |
|
Dave Jackson | 14 Jan 2016 8:17 a.m. PST |
Depends who was responsible for its purchase to a degree. In Greek armies, for example, it was the soldiers' responsibility. Armour is expensive and not that many could really afford a full kit. Linen armour, stiffened, offered the best protection/cost ratio. Again, for national forces, armour is expensive and generally not needed that much depending on your enemies. Persians for example, first off usually fought lightly armed opponents, like Skythians, Medes etc, so, you needed to be agile and keep up with them. In other armies, depends on the main force. Egyptians main force was the chariot arm….kind of like battlecruisers….armed with heavy guns, but sacrificing armour for speed. A Macedonian phalanx, however, was another thing. I'm sure others can add more as this is only a cursory response! |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 8:25 a.m. PST |
The most important "armor" in ancient warfare was shields and helmets. Many warriors had this type of protection. In addition, some type of non-metallic protection was often worn on the torso. Ancient warriors were usually the elite of society. They could afford these items. The notion of peasant or levy "warriors" is mostly overstated. A shield was relatively simple to make, and didn't necessarily require any metal. BTW, if you believe him Herodotus says that Persian infantry wore scale armor. |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 14 Jan 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
Armor is expensive. Armor is heavy. In the desert (Egypt, Persia) armor is hot. Even allowing the expense, having overheated, exhausted, slow troops is setting one's self up for failure. |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 8:29 a.m. PST |
>>>Armor is heavy. In the desert (Egypt, Persia) armor is hot. It appears some were able to overcome this disadvantage: Parthians, Palmyrans, Sassanids, etc. |
zippyfusenet | 14 Jan 2016 8:32 a.m. PST |
Understand that metal was scarce in ancient times, very scarce and precious in the bronze age, more common in the early iron age, but still very scarce compared to modern times. In the bronze age, a peasant would probably own no metal at all in his entire household. He would use wood and stone farming tools. He would fight with a wooden club, and stone points on his arrows and spear. A noble chariot warrior with a bronze helmet, a cuirass, a bronze sword and spear-head, would have an enormous advantage, but the city might maintain only 20 or 50 of them. When the Assyrians mastered iron, they could equip all of their regular infantry soldiers with a (relatively) cheap iron helmet. It was heavier than bronze, it needed constant maintenance to keep off rust, but every man could have one. And a cheap iron sword, vs. long hair and wooden clubs. Result – Assyrian conquest! I think it's been estimated that in most places in Dark Ages Europe, there was less than a kilogram of metal available per person. Of course the nobles would have nearly all of this, and a peasant would be lucky to have an iron tip on his plowshare and an iron axe-head to chop wood. Hence – Viking axemen! Biting in fury on their wooden shields, going baresark because they had no sarks. Hence – Saxons! The tribe where pretty much every adult male owned a sax, a heavy chopping knife, not quite a sword, and that's what they settled arguments with. Not much metal available at all. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 14 Jan 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
The Persians relied mostly on missile weapons; after they came up against hoplites,they hired--hoplites! |
wminsing | 14 Jan 2016 8:43 a.m. PST |
I'm sort of surprised by this question; mining and refining is hard and time intensive, so it's no surprise that metal armor would be in short supply. You'd have to be an extremely wealthy and powerful culture to equip more than your elite with extensive armor protection. -Will |
dsfrank | 14 Jan 2016 9:27 a.m. PST |
Expense is the major factor – another would be the restriction of movement versus the protection afforded not being worth the trade off |
Edzard | 14 Jan 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
I never thought about metal being scarce, I just thought making anything of metal to be very expensive. (big amounts of coal and an workshop with a guy that knows what he is doing..) It has given me a new perspective on how much a Roman Legionary cost the state. Cool stuff guys, thanks. |
Frederick | 14 Jan 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
Heavy, hot and costly; especially in the early Middle East, not that much metal around (and, as noted, lots of peasants to conscript) Plus at least for the early Egyptians, no matter how little armour they were wearing, it was still more than their opponents! |
goragrad | 14 Jan 2016 2:53 p.m. PST |
And as to the Persians and others, they wore clothing over their armor so it is difficult to determine exactly who is wearing armor in sculpture or paintings. Just as the Crusaders added surcoats in the Middle East due to the effects of the Sun. |
Tony S | 14 Jan 2016 3:27 p.m. PST |
If I remember correctly, the Gaesati fought naked as they felt that a warrior was fated to die on a certain day, and therefore they would die, armoured or not. I also remember reading somewhere that armour does not really protect the user, but rather makes the user feel protected. A subtle distinction, but an important one. I'm not sure where I read that, but honestly I'm a trifle dubious. Admittedly, as armour became better, so did weapons, so one could argue that the net physical effect was about the same. Only the moral impact of feeling well protected and therefore perhaps more likely to take risks would change. However, I have read primary sources of the Crusades, where some European foot soldiers had so many Saracen arrows sticking out of their gambesons, that they resembled hedgehogs. I would presume that without the quilted armour, they would have been in rather worse shape! |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 4:44 p.m. PST |
The Romans at the height of the empire had about 30 legions, roughly 150,000 men. Protection is assumed to consist of metal body armor, metal helmet, and heavy shield. In addition, most historians credit the empire with an equivalent force of auxiliaries. Many of these are assumed to be in protection similar to the legions. Even if it was only 1/3 of the auxiliaries this would mean Rome had 200,000 heavily armored foot soldiers. In addition, any less protected auxiliaries would mostly have metal helmet plus shield (with metal bose). To this we must a add a reasonably strong force of cavalry, protection probably being similar to the auxiliary foot. Rome didn't seem to lack metal armor. |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 14 Jan 2016 4:52 p.m. PST |
I've worn the modern stuff for job-related reasons. It takes a very high level of physical fitness to run around all day in armor, which would require a level of professional drill simply not present until the advent of the phalanx. Peasants aren't built like you – a rough childhood diet means that they tend to have a fairly weak musculo-skeletal setup. Marching in armor would break them slowly. The primary killers on campaign were injury and disease until WWII. Armor sort of protects the user – it forces you into a higher class of opponent. It forces the opponent to use a relatively slower, heavier, and often more expensive weapon, or to wait for opportunities to strike at the vulnerable areas (and you might get killed waiting). A Roman Legionary fighting naked Gauls can pretty much stab center mass. It's an advantage, and like all advantages can worked around under the right circumstances. |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 4:55 p.m. PST |
Heavy, hot and costly; especially in the early Middle East, not that much metal around From Ammianus Marcellinus on Persian armor: "all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze". If anything, the Persians were pioneers in body armor. In the case of the Parthians and Sassanids the true warriors were very heavily armored cataphracts. Their retainers would be horse archers. Parthians horse archers didn't use much armor, because mobility was their protection. As the retainer horse archers lost their nomadic style of warfare, they became more static and they also became more heavily armored under the Sassanids. The notion that any warrior society would depend on levies of peasants in warfare is somewhat humorous. |
Henry Martini | 14 Jan 2016 5:10 p.m. PST |
I suspect that Griveton is using the word 'ancient' in the academic sense, Delbruck, in which case the Romans properly belong to the classical era. |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 5:15 p.m. PST |
Ancient history usually is defined as ending at the fall of the Roman Empire. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 14 Jan 2016 5:34 p.m. PST |
And I would add that I was referring to the Achemenid Persians,rather than the much later Sassanids. I agree completely with the statement about the masses of peasant levies |
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 5:49 p.m. PST |
Until their formation was broken into the Persian infantry would be fairly well protected.
It is likely that the the Early Achaemenids depended on their cavalry to defeat the enemy wings. The central formation of archers (protected by large shields) was to pin and wear out the enemy infantry. From: Herodotus: "The Persians, who wore on their heads the soft hat called the tiara, and about their bodies, tunics with sleeves of divers colours, having iron scales upon them like the scales of a fish. Their legs were protected by trousers; and they bore wicker shields for bucklers; their quivers hanging at their backs, and their arms being a short spear, a bow of uncommon size, and arrows of reed. They had likewise daggers suspended from their girdles along their right thighs". On Persian cavalry: "The Persians, who were armed in the same way as their own footmen, excepting that some of them wore upon their heads devices fashioned with the hammer in brass or steel". Like the Assyrians before them, the Achaemenids troops seem fairly well protected. If the Persians used auxiliaries as described by Herodotus, these contingents were probably very small compared to the main body of Iranians. |
Ragbones | 14 Jan 2016 6:32 p.m. PST |
|
Delbruck | 14 Jan 2016 7:06 p.m. PST |
I think it is fair to say that as we go back in history we find warriors wearing less armor and using inferior weapons. It is also fair to say that in all periods of history only the very rich could afford the latest developments in weapons and armor. This is probably why Biblical chariot warriors and Medieval knights dominated the common warrior of their respective periods. And it is probably why armies like the romans were so powerful – the mass of their armies had some of the best armor and weapons of their period. |
Leadjunky | 14 Jan 2016 9:42 p.m. PST |
The Romans had a huge conquered population to mine all that ore to arm the legions. |
Ivan DBA | 14 Jan 2016 11:11 p.m. PST |
Because they were fools, and if they had just listed to some modern wargamers, they would have known to wear armor. |
Dexter Ward | 15 Jan 2016 3:00 a.m. PST |
Delbruck wrote: Ancient history usually is defined as ending at the fall of the Roman Empire. ------------------- So 1453 then? :-) That's a bit later than most people would consider. |
MajorB | 15 Jan 2016 5:17 a.m. PST |
Peasants aren't built like you – a rough childhood diet means that they tend to have a fairly weak musculo-skeletal setup. But unlike us, they had a tough mostly outdoor, highly physical lifestyle, so probably a lot fitter than most of us modern couch potatoes! |
HANS GRUBER | 15 Jan 2016 5:58 a.m. PST |
So 1453 then? :-) That's a bit later than most people would consider. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: Calling the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire "is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his". |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 15 Jan 2016 6:20 a.m. PST |
MajorB – not really. That's a modern romantic myth, along with the one about how we could all just go back to the land and become subsistence farmers. These folks did and still do drop dead from illnesses that we would find merely inconvenient. If you google the issues that the US had with attempting to turn Afghans and Iraqis into soldiers, you get a pretty good picture of how poor childhood nutrition generally ruins people. |
MajorB | 15 Jan 2016 7:53 a.m. PST |
MajorB – not really. That's a modern romantic myth What do you mean "not really"? Are you saying they did not lead a much more physical outdoor lifestyle than we do? along with the one about how we could all just go back to the land and become subsistence farmers. Well I agree that it would be hard for some modern people to return to being subsistence farmers. Although having said that, my wife's parents grew an awful lot of their own food. And that was just after the War, so it would not be untbinkable to return to subsistence farming. These folks did and still do drop dead from illnesses that we would find merely inconvenient. Mainly because we now have antibiotics, pain killers and so on to combat such illnesses. |
colin knight | 15 Jan 2016 9:00 a.m. PST |
Egypt with massive wealth was slow to catch up in arms and metal technology for warfare. It is believed that because their ememies e.g. Nubians and Nomads etc. were lightly armed there was no need to develop further. Better equiped enemies was what forced the change (arms race). Also the richest and best troops kept the good stuff. So the larger the army then he percentage of armoured troops goes down. The best way for normal troops to get some armour was from palace workshops of richer states. |
zippyfusenet | 15 Jan 2016 11:30 a.m. PST |
Egypt, with massive agriculture and population due to the Nile floods (population unparalleled anywhere else in the ancient world) pursued a tactic of outnumbering their enemies through the bronze age. Their regular army was fairly small, but the nomes could call out massive numbers of, yes, peasant militia against invasion or in civil war, all armed with wooden or hide shields, wooden warclubs/throw-sticks, flint spearpoints, self bows with flint arrow-heads, and with their hair braided to give some modicum of protection against blows to the head. Egypt is one of the few places on earth lacking iron ore. When the iron age came in, Egyptian military power collapsed and never recovered. The country ever since has been a prey to better-armed conquerors, starting with the Persians, then the Macedonians, Romans, etc. |
Ottoathome | 15 Jan 2016 4:14 p.m. PST |
Metal has nothing to do with it. The metal for armor could easily be gotten. It was a mark of social status to wear armor. Armies in the ancient world were NOT artificial creations like our modern regiments. They were a reflection of the society they came from. Those hordes of Persia and Egypt were driven to the ends of the earth by the ego of their rulers, the whip, and the cudgel, and quite useless. The movie "300" has much hype, but a lot of truth. In the near east no one cared a damn about the peasants. They were there to die and be slaughtered and slain in the thousands and ten thousands. But the peoples of the City States, or the Nobles of Persia, they meant something. Consider the words of Mardonius, recounted here with comment by Victor Davis Hanson from his "The Western Way of War: Infantry battle in Classical Greece" ISBN 0-394-57188-6 "It is this Western desire for a single, magnificent collision of infantry, for brutal killing with edged weapons on a battlefield between free men that has baffled and terrified our adversaries from the non-western world for more than 2500 years. "these Greeks are accustomed to fighting in the most senseless way" remarked Mardonius in 490 B.C. According to Heroditus Mardonius was the nephew of Darius and commander of Xerxes armada on the eve of the Persian Invasion of Europe. "For as soon as they declare war on each other, they seek out the fairest and most level ground , and then go down there to do battle on it. Consequently even the winners leave with extreme losses; I need not mention the conquered for they are annihilated. Clearly since they all speak Greek, they should exchange heralds and negotiators and therefore settle differences by any means except battle." Heroditus account suggest awe, or perhaps fear, in this mans dismissal of the Greek manner of battle and the Greek desire to inflict damage whatever the cost. Perhaps he is suggesting that these men of the west for all their orderd squares, careful armament and deliberate drill were really quite irration and therefore quite dangerous. All the various contingents of the Grand Army of Persia, for all their threatening looks and noise, had a very predictable outlook on battle In Heroditus view here, the Persians suffered from that most dangerous tendency in war: a wish to kill but not die in the process. Gruesome physical evidence for this is immediately at hand. I remember once I was in the Morris Museum which had an exhibit on the Etruscans. There in one part they had a life-sized statue of a hoplite in full panoply with spear, armor etc. Also there was an Etruscan breastplate excavated by chance from an Italian field, still intact though of course heavily corroded. There was a school field trip there and one of the tykes asked what those odd small square regular holes in the breastplate were. The teacher said "Maybe it was from the farmers pick when he dug it up." I said, no, see how the interior of metal is as corroded as the outside. Those aren't recent holes. Look at the bottom of the mans spear. You will see there is an square iron spike used to stick the spear into the ground and allow the bearer to rest."I then described the close in sholder to shoulder, shield to shield wall, with hoplites jabbing at the enemies face, just a foot or two with their own. "The man who wore that breastplate went down with a wound, probably to the eye, or the arm, and as the line was pressed back the enemy moved over him, and there, writhing on the ground the enemy used that spike to puncher his armor.. not how they start with small holes and progress on up in a curve toward the top of the breastplate, where at last they found the chink in the armor and the drove the spike into his neck, several times till they could get the jugular, or break a vertebrae, and he died under agonizing and tremendous pain." The kiddies were quite green by then. "He could not run away you know, he was packed in there and if he turned to run he would have abandoned his friends, his family members in the ranks next to him. Anyway, he would be cut down all the same. …" "I speak of the victors… the vanquished are annihilated." Non Europeans fighting the Romans or the Greeks, except for historical anomalies like Carrhae is like bare-knuckle boxing with a bush chipper. But to really understand this you have to read Fustel De Coulanges "The Ancient City." |
zippyfusenet | 15 Jan 2016 5:01 p.m. PST |
Hoplite warfare, particularly in the Italian peninsula, is nearly 1000 years later than the bronze age Old-to-New Kingdom Egyptian warfare I referenced above. Hoplite phalangists were generally yeoman farmers who could afford defensive armor, and their style of warfare was very different than that of the chariot age, 1000 years earlier. In fact, your source Hanson suggests that it was the development of well-equipped, effective infantry (though not yet hoplites) that ended the age of chariot warfare in the great collapse of 1200 BC. Prior to the collapse, Mycenaean Greeks also practiced chariot warfare, much the same as the Asiatic Hittites. I'll credit Herodotus and Victor Davis Hanson as sources without necessarily agreeing with everything either of them wrote. But really, Otto, "300"? Fundamentally, Otto, I think you and I have different perspectives, that go beyond disagreements on particular facts. You are a romantic and seek romantic answers. I am a materialist and seek material answers. Dramatic literary passages and gruesome physical evidence carry less weight with me than dry statistics compiled over decades of archaeological surveys. But I don't have to convince you, and I doubt you'll convince me. |
The Last Conformist | 16 Jan 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
Well I agree that it would be hard for some modern people to return to being subsistence farmers. It's not that some individuals would find it hard to return to subsistence farmers. It's that if we all tried to, billions would starve because subsistence farming is inefficient and there isn't enough arable land to feed us all that way. |
TKindred | 16 Jan 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
I agree with some of the above that armor was worn by those who needed it. Armor,especially in the Middle East,Greece, Italy,etc , is hot and you need to be VERY fit to not become exhausted right quickly. Hydration is also a real problem. So, although armor is expensive to make, early on, there are many other factors that come into the equation as well. My son commented a LOT about his experiences in Afghanistan. He was an infantryman in the 173rd Airborne. His armor,weapon, ruck and gear all combined to at least 80lbs. In that heat, it was brutal. He noted that the desire of the military to armor-up the troops was not always a good thing, as the added weight cut down on mobility and maneuver. Being able to move quickly under fire could be more of a lifesaver than body armor. |
PHGamer | 17 Feb 2016 9:15 a.m. PST |
Bronze is not heavier than iron! I am not sure where this idea comes from, but I have been hearing it for decades. Looking at this link, link Iron is between 7.8 and 8 grams per CC, while bronze is between 8.7 and 9.3 grams per CC. Also, since iron is stronger, it could be made thinner than bronze, saving more weight. |
Kenntak | 17 Feb 2016 10:23 a.m. PST |
As a clarification, I do not believe that normal iron (wrought iron) without added carbon is any stronger than bronze. The added carbon creates steel, which is stronger than bronze. |
Plasticviking3 | 13 Mar 2016 4:15 a.m. PST |
Shields were the most important defensive item. After that, armour only made sense if you were a professional thug or member of a maintained armed force. My take here.. netvike.com/armour.html |