Historial Armor Thread

Terrible and ground warfare. Great at siege. Neatest armor in the biz.

*blocks your path*

Imagine how my brotha hannibal felt when he saw 2 million of these bad ass motherfuckers storming Gaul on elephants

You are a nigger

>scared.jpg

In all honesty, it would be pretty brutal for someone from this century to go back in time and actually see how things were.

It would probably be like an alternate universe because honestly we know so little of it all.

I mean, Romans had enough technology to invent the steam engine.

I honestly think seeing armors from the middle ages after rome as an evolution might actually be wrong. Maybe the scraps ad pieces we find are not all there is to it.

Maybe the city that managed to have 1 million people (fact only replicated in 1810 by london in the west) actually was pretty different than what we currently see it as.

Humans love to tell stories, and most of what we have are stories of the stories told.

A toy that spins is not a steam engine.

In the 1st century AD, Heron of Alexandria created the aeolipile, a basic steam engine. Using the technology he created 'automated' doors for an Apollian temple. It was pretty useless but still.

If they had this at 1AD then they had the ability at least to jump forwards to what would be the years leading to 1712.

They had pistons, valves, gears, and pulleys.

That's all you really need to build a steam engine.

Unfortunately, the emperors came along and destroyed classical civilization.

>That's all you really need to build a steam engine.

no you faggot shut up forever

All they needed for an industrial revolution to take place was coal. If only they had put the two together we might be speaking today from an united Roman Europe with Rome as the capital of the world.

Okay.

What technology, other than gearing, valves, or pistons do you need?

To build a basic steam engine? Yes thats all that is required.

durable enough metals which in turn require hotter forges, and the mechanics to actually control and harvest the energy of an engine in a safe, practical way

The Romans had Damascus steel though.

Also, do you think the Savery and Newcomen engines were made out of tool steel?

Metal is of absolutely no issue. There is not much difference from what they had to what would be used later on on machinery. The steam has the temperature of boiling water, no more.

And as i told you, all that was lacking was the coal.

youtube.com/watch?v=ESfSG2OlQYQ

They`d start by using it to make flour in small scale.

>The steam has the temperature of boiling water, no more.
The temperature of the steam isn't the issue. The issue is the heat that's going to be producing the steam in the first place. You'd need a metal chamber to hold the water being heated, and, given the ridiculous heat capacity of water versus metals, you're going to have the chamber itself heated to a ridiculous degree long before the water itself will get to boiling point.

That, combined with the high pressure of the system, is where the issue is going to come in - the metal probably won't melt, but it very well could get to the point where the metal is dangerously weakened.

So did the Romans have the same metallurgical technologies as Europe in the Industrial Revolution?

Wikipedia is telling me

>In Roman Britain, the Romans were exploiting all major coalfields (save those of North and South Staffordshire) by the late 2nd century AD.[7] While much of its use remained local, a lively trade developed along the North Sea coast supplying coal to Yorkshire and London.[7] This also extended to the continental Rhineland, where bituminous coal was already used for the smelting of iron ore.[7] It was used in hypocausts to heat public baths, the baths in military forts, and the villas of wealthy individuals. Excavation has revealed coal stores at many forts along Hadrian's Wall as well as the remains of a smelting industry at forts such as Longovicium nearby.[citation needed]

I'd wager that the real problem was the lack of corporate and patent law in Roman times.

If I'm not mistaken, damascus and noric steel had pretty similar material properties to the crucible steel available during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.

Also, I'm like 90% sure that before the invention of the Bessemer process and open hearth process, steam engines were made out of cast iron.

The boiling water should cool the metal in the heating chamber enough to prevent structural failure.

This being said, early steam engines also tended to explode and kill people because there was some metallurgical defect in the pressure vessel. Didn't stop people from using them.

Well we are also talking Britain and then Alexandria.
I think they coudnt place the to together because it was harder to find it in africa. Either that or they were just uninterested due to more pressing political concerns. But it damn well could have been the case that lacking patents were the problem.

Pretty much they did have it, yes. I dont know about a major change in forging. I know about changes in the scales of it, as in much more being able to be forged and faster, but nothing that would be too significant to an engine`s construction. You could even use bronze for most of the parts.

Yes there would be accidents, however i am talking here to the leading years to the revolution, not the revolution itself. I am saying they could have very well be going in that direction very soon had the situation not been disturbed and innovation kept on happening.

Keep in mind that you can totally run steam engines on wood.

If I recall correctly, this was standard practice in parts of the US before imports and domestic sources of coal showed up.

If the Roman Legion had continued to exist and be financed (lets say, as an arm of the Papal State) and kept all its arms and armour correct to the Roman era, at what point would they be obsolete?

Would Roman Legionaries be effective during the Crusades?

At the 11th century they would be the equivalent to the muslims.

However, the tactical advantage of a Legion would be fun to see.

At this point in history people have dished out discipline and order and instead opt for personal strength. So an organized professional trained and orderly legion would be a very odd thing to battle. I believe it would work in the Legion`s favor.

Massed heavy infantry went out of style before they were obsolete in the technical sense.

For example, in the tenth century, a legion could be effective, but it would be very hard to raise and outfit given the extreme decentralization of the era, and it would suffer tremendously from the new, stirrup using knights.

During the later stages of the WRE, and throughout the history of the ERE, you see infantry become less relevant compared to cavalry.

Heavy infantry got sidelined by doctrine, not so much by technology.

The Romans didn't know how to make Damascus/Crucible steel, what they had was imported from India. That supply relied on the Parthian/Sassanid empire not nicking all the good stuff for themselves.

The critical thing about the "classical era" steam engine is that it doesn't have an expansion chamber. Without the sealed chamber, it generates power from pure thrust, which is extremely inefficient.

I'd say that steam power is not the most important thing at first. First they need good water wheels that can take advantage of rotational motion. The Song Chinese some 5-600 years later had that, but they didn't get to go farther before getting invaded by the Jurchens and shifting their focus onto military inventions.

back on topic, cunts

What are you talking about? The Legion as an organisational unit didn't tangibly exist by the end of the WRE, there's no reason it would've existed after.
>kept all its arms and armour correct to the Roman era
They didn't stop using that equipment for financial reasons or any other esoteric reason you might be thinking of. They stopped using it because it stopped being useful.

Roman Legions, in the classical sense of the late Republican and early Imperial legions, were obsolete by the end of the 3rd century. They'd get steamrolled by a Crusader army.

But the mobile field armies of the later Roman Army would do comparatively very well, considering how they were equipped and organised.

What specific advantages would a crusader army have over a traditional late Republican Army?

Would better heavy cavalry play that much of a difference?

seconding the first question

And a ching-chong nip-nong to yall.

...

...

Shame most of their metal armor was mass produced and not of the highest quality.

You are seriously overestimating the chance of a cut becoming infected. You can potentially take dozens of sword wounds over the term of your career and not die.

That and Caesar himself literally stated he had up to 90% of his soldiers wounded at times. Battle scarred veterans are a trope because they actually existed.

>All they needed for an industrial revolution to take place was coal.

Some people actually believe this.

Tell me, was all that was needed for the invention of the car gasoline?

Better cavalry for one.

Horse breeding, saddle development, couched lances, extensive mail armor and a stirrup would give your Crusader knights and Sargaents an advantage over their Roman peers.

As far as I know the Romans only began experimenting with heavier cavalry around the Dacian wars of Trajan.

Burger in sushi armour.

Was he a manlet or did they make custom made shit for him>

useless without a shield and something on that besegew mount

*chops your toes*

>useless without a shield and something on that besegew mount

What did he mean by this?

Hey, it's Ken-Sama

>What specific advantages would a crusader army have over a traditional late Republican Army?
The same advantages Pyrrhus' armies had over Rome's, plus higher quality weapon and armor.
It's really an issue of usage, Rome needs versatile armies ready to be deployed in any situation, from garrison duty to bigass wars, from mountain passes to fucking deserts. The crusaders had one playground and one kind of confrontation, so they were specialized.

SEA had armor

Feudal Japan is underrated af
>Emperor and his posses are so into art and so disconnected from the country that you establish a military dictatorship over him to keep things in order

It's Ken-Sama's great-great grandfather, George-Sama.

"Gomenasai, my name is George-Sama.

I am of 35 years of age, and an American Japanophile (Lover of Japanese culture for all you gaijins). I practice calligraphy on rice-paper, and spend my days perfecting my arts practicing Japanese arts. (Kenjutsu, Tea ceremonies etc.)

I practice with my Katana every day, this magnifiscent sabre can cut clean through three confederate necks in a row because it is folded over a thousand times, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on this earth. I commissioned my sword to a local master two years ago, and I have been getting better with it every day.

I speak Japanese fluently, both Kanto and the Osakan dialect. I know everything about Japanese history and the bushido code of honor, which I follow to the fullest.

I own several sets of armor, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them, so I can fit in easier with the locals. I bow to my elders and and speak Japanese as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond to me.

Wish me luck in my oriental endeavors!"

Too bad they destroyed Carrhae completely, we'll never get records of their thoughts

Ottoman armour

...

...

People really don't get how much complexity there is in industrial era machines.
This series is one of my favorites in describing all the innovations that were required for the industrial revolution to really begin. Its a good watch

youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ-f1Ax_Pg&list=PLBwC0sil0vDlO828OYQfPiSBHivdePxNK

>What are you talking about?
A completely hypothetical question. Hell, the Vatican still keeps pikes around.

A few advances like the assembly line or Bessemer process didn't require technology outside the reach of the Medieval era.

The first generation of steam engines were pretty different from the golden age of steam ones.

As long as you can create a feasible technology to pique interest, incremental improvements tend to optimize the concept over time

>All they needed for an industrial revolution to take place was coal
no there's a lot more to it than that, roman banking and business law were extremely primitive

I imagine it would have been possible for a much more gradual industrial revolution to happen during the Roman Republic or Ming Dynasty China.

The Industrial Revolution had the benefit of coming during a Scientific Revolution, and a revolution in trade triggered by trans-oceanic navigation.

So if steam engines, railroads, or blast furnaces had been implemented earlier, you'd expect to see a more piecemeal introduction, along the lines of waterwheels and windmills during the Middle Ages.

More of an Industrial Evolution if you would.

They probably don't require that much technology, but the need for capital, the population demographics at the time, the legal framework of the early britian at the time. Along with the needs and demands. The Newcomen was needed to pump water out of coal mines, because coal was the new fuel used to heat homes, because there were scant few forests left in Britan for wood.

This is also a very important point. The idea of a joint stock company, was still on the wrong side of a millennium away. These financial institutions were a key part in allowing for industry to thrive in the way it did.

For the bessemer process specifically, it wouldn't be that hard to implement with the technology of the time if the basic principle was understood.

Then again, I don't know how easy it was to get pig iron before the blast furnace.

>it wouldn't be that hard to implement with the technology of the time if the basic principle was understood

They didn't even have fucking coke yet. How do you expect them to get to the bessemer process?

This is classic alt his fantasy wank designed solely to see DA INDUSTRAILZIED RUMANS!!!1one without any consideration for the sheer timescale involved. Might as well have fucking aliums deliver the blast furnace and the Bessemer process to Rome.

I'm not saying that the product would be good quality or high quantity.

But with enough charcoal, and enough fan air, it would be technically feasible.

The problem is that technically feasible is very much different then economical or valuable. We've had the technology to send a man to mars since the Apollo program, but we haven't because it's too fucking expensive. Besides unless someone had pre-knowledge of the value of industrialization or they were the most forward thinking person in history, no-one would invest time energy or money into industry. The fucking sumerians could have invented gunpowder, but they didn't because no-one was pushing for it, and if they had they would have had few uses for it and it would have been lost to history. Innovation and technological advancement requires a purpose

>if they had they would have had few uses for it

Bruh, you can totally build cannons out of bronze.

Gunpowder is the posterchild for world changing technologies that were discovered by random change, and not as a logical development of some other technology.

>with charcoal

No, it wouldn't. Charcoal doesn't burn nearly hot enough for the Bessemer process even with convection. You can melt iron in a blast furnace but you're not getting to Bessemer steel. Are you high or just that retard who thought he could build an internal combustion engine with Iron age tech? What the hell are you, even? MacGyver of the 1st century AD?

It's a fucking joke. Lay off the meds.

Good point that was a bad example, but the principle still stands

Charcoal burns hotter than coke?

Aren't they both essentially pure carbon?

>Charcoal burns hotter than coke

What the fuck am I reading

Oh shit, that wasn't the question I was trying to ask.

Coke burns hotter than charcoal? Aren't they chemically very similar?

why do the roman era scale armors tend to have the ring of scales around the shoulders like in ?

also reminder that peasant armor is best armor

MUCH better metal quality

What the fuck are they doing?

Praying before battle

I don't know the specific n an email for it but it acts as a little extra protection for your shoulders and upper torso, I'm assuming because that's where you have the least fat so a blow from above that hits you there would be very painful.

>n a email
This should be "name"

That's what I get for phoneposting

Since the development of warfare in formation, there haven't been many examples of individualist tactics. The superiority of tightly packed warriors forced their opponents to adopt to that.

It took a few centuries before they weaponized it though, didn't it?

The Roman infantry tactics were generally quite individualist compared to others.

They deliberately used some cobsiderable spacing to give individual soldiers the room they needed to employ the gladius properly. Without room to move they were susceptible to being kept at bay and vulnerable to longer weapons.

Hoplites had this problem. When engaging phalangites or peltasts they were outranged and too rigid to do anything about it.

...

>Rome wassuper advanced meme
They took what was given but did not invent
Also the one million was only kept because of the free grain that's it

Which is why their shields weresolarge

She's totally 'mirin the 'stethics

>consul trumpus
I know it's an armour autism thread but at least use the Latin translation of trump rather than being an alt right kneckbeard

...

What would you use? Not OP, but I'm interested

...

...

...

...

...

...

...