Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Dervag]

Note: I shouldn't have called Archimedes the first scientist in any case. I should have called him the first physicist (not the same thing; a physicist whose scientific methods are poor may still make useful discoveries, in principle). Archimedes was, so far as I know, the first to apply mathematical models to physical phenomena and come up with useful insight about how they operate by doing so.

He had to take on religion, because the church, which had widely accepted Aristotle, attacked his discoveries. If he made his discoveries known, he would have to deal with the church. There was no way around that issue.

...It's not that simple. Galileo didn't restrict himself to addressing matters of fact; he got personal. As in, he insulted the Pope.

One of the things that got him painted into a corner and brought to trial was his tactless and tone-deaf handling of potential allies within the Church, including Pope Urban VIII himself. It wasn't just the faith versus science debate it's classically presented as; after all, Catholic clergy could use a telescope as well as anyone else.

Of course, the Aristotelean-Scriptural aspect was important, and it was one of the mian reasons there was any trouble for Galileo to get into; it's just that setting Galileo up as the Hero of Science battling the Demons of Superstition is a poorly supported game.

He also popularized science in a way that had never been done before. His dialogues were designed so that any educated person (in Italy, originally) could read them, and not just philosophers. To be sure, he would cast the occasional horoscope when asked; that was part of his job as an astronomer, but there's little evidence that he actually believed in it (unlike Kepler).

I don't think that's fair to Kepler; he's also known for making the best defense of astrology I've ever heard:
"Ye otherwise philosophers, ye censure this daughter of astronomy beyond her deserts! Know ye not that she must support her mother by her charms?"

(translated from Latin into 1840s-vintage English, hence the strange phrasing)

He's probably more responsible for launching modern science than anybody else, if it's fair to point to a single person.

I'd really have to think that over. I also submit that the biggest booster of a given field is not necessarily the first person to work in it.

[fusilier]

Buildings really aren't the protection people think they are.

A trench will protect you, sandbags or a decent berm will, but wood, brick or cinder block really doesn't do a very good job.

I would think that even a building faced in brick would have a decent chance of stopping M16 rounds? Let alone one actually made from brick. Likewise, while I'm not too familiar with construction techniques in Iraq, something like an adobe wall will probably do a pretty good job of stopping a rifle round. Then's the question of where are the soldiers going to aim? Probably at the exposed part of the target. You can't be certain that they haven't fortified that house on the inside with sandbags, etc.

Helmets were designed to prevent shrapnel injuries, and fragments dropping into a trench. Most will not stop a rifle or machine gun bullet. They were a reaction to shelling, not sniping.

Right . . . mostly . . . The German Stalhelm of WW1 had big lugs on the side of it to take an extra piece of armor called the "stirnpanzer." It sat on the front, and was enough to stop a rifle bullet. It was heavy and awkward, an not well liked, although it may be used by a sniper or sentry. But yes, the introduction of helmets was primarily to reduce head wounds caused by shrapnel.

[fusilier]

Note: I shouldn't have called Archimedes the first scientist in any case. I should have called him the first physicist (not the same thing; a physicist whose scientific methods are poor may still make useful discoveries, in principle). Archimedes was, so far as I know, the first to apply mathematical models to physical phenomena and come up with useful insight about how they operate by doing so.

A physicist is a scientist. So why wouldn't you call him a scientist? While Archimedes was a good mathematician, and he "invented" some very clever devices, that doesn't make him a scientist. Same thing for Leonardo Da Vinci . . . an inventor, certainly, but he doesn't figure as a scientist. There's a distinction between science and technology.

...It's not that simple. Galileo didn't restrict himself to addressing matters of fact; he got personal. As in, he insulted the Pope.

Galileo's insult of the pope was probably unintentional. When it came down to it, he could be brash, and probably wasn't as tactful as he thought he was.

One of the things that got him painted into a corner and brought to trial was his tactless and tone-deaf handling of potential allies within the Church, including Pope Urban VIII himself. It wasn't just the faith versus science debate it's classically presented as; after all, Catholic clergy could use a telescope as well as anyone else.

Of course, the Aristotelean-Scriptural aspect was important, and it was one of the mian reasons there was any trouble for Galileo to get into; it's just that setting Galileo up as the Hero of Science battling the Demons of Superstition is a poorly supported game.

I absolutely agree. It's a lot more complicated than most people realize; the Church has never been the monolithic organization it is often portrayed as.

I don't think that's fair to Kepler; he's also known for making the best defense of astrology I've ever heard:
"Ye otherwise philosophers, ye censure this daughter of astronomy beyond her deserts! Know ye not that she must support her mother by her charms?"

(translated from Latin into 1840s-vintage English, hence the strange phrasing)

Kepler was actually a pretty sad person. He had a bad marriage, and Tycho Brahe essentially teased him, by only giving away only tidbits of his data. He was brilliant in that he was able to take all that data (after Tycho's death), and figure out the actual paths of the planets. But he had a strong mystical bent. After figuring out the elliptical nature of the motion of the planets, he then put together a theory of the planets based on concentric crystals shaped like platonic solids that ignored the elliptical paths. He would also calculate the time of his conception, to cast horoscopes showing what a lousy life he would have . . . He wrote what could be called the first work of science fiction, and it led to his mother being tried as a witch! Maybe he took some sort of solace in his mysticism? I don't know. On the other hand Galileo was so disdainful of mysticism that he came up with a wrong-minded theory of the tides, that ignored the moon.

I'd really have to think that over. I also submit that the biggest booster of a given field is not necessarily the first person to work in it.

Thanks for the consideration. I was thinking over what you said, and I can certainly see how the next generation of "scientists" can really be considered the first "modern" scientists. But I think that people like Galileo and Descartes provided a transition, and helped lay the frame work that scientists like Newton were able to operate in. I call Galileo the first modern "scientist" more in terms of his attitudes towards science, than necessarily the conditions under which he operated. He performed detailed experiments in controlled circumstances (like using ramps to study the motion of falling objects). He clearly felt that he needed to defend science, and this probably took him down paths that would seem weird for a modern scientist. If you put Descartes' philosophy about the mind-body problem in the same context you can see the same situation.

I've studied a fair amount about Galileo, and even wrote a secondary sources graduate paper about Galileo and the Telescope, which I should probably publish somewhere: it's the only paper I wrote for school, that *I* like to re-read from time-to-time. :-)

[Stephen_E]

A physicist is a scientist. So why wouldn't you call him a scientist? While Archimedes was a good mathematician, and he "invented" some very clever devices, that doesn't make him a scientist. Same thing for Leonardo Da Vinci . . . an inventor, certainly, but he doesn't figure as a scientist. There's a distinction between science and technology.

What do you define as a scientist?

Stephen E

[fusilier]

What do you define as a scientist?

Stephen E

Uh oh. :-) Now I have to try to answer a difficult question . . . Science is the understanding and formulating of natural phenomena. Technology is the application of science, but doesn't necessarily require the understanding and formulating of nature as a starting point. Watch makers didn't have to have a mathematical expression for springs, to be able to use them.

However, even I would admit that this is just one distinction. And things that wouldn't necessarily meet modern definitions of science (like performing detailed experiments in a controlled environment), could still be called science, or at the very least science-like. A broader definition for science could involve attempting to describe or understand natural phenomena.

What I meant to say, is that Galileo can arguably be called the first "modern scientist." In the way in which he conducted experiments, etc.

[Stephen_E]

Uh oh. :-) Now I have to try to answer a difficult question . . . Science is the understanding and formulating of natural phenomena. Technology is the application of science, but doesn't necessarily require the understanding and formulating of nature as a starting point. Watch makers didn't have to have a mathematical expression for springs, to be able to use them.

I think it's fairly clear that both Archimedes and DaVinci were into understand and formulating natural phenomana, but they also went further and then applied that science. They couldn't have done what they did without having the understanding, because they sure as hell couldn't get the principles off anyone else.

Galileo was a theorectical scientist. That's because he could afford to be. People would pay him for his theorectical ideas. No one was paying Archimedes or DaVinci simply to come up with interesting theories.
U could indeed call Galaleo 1 of the 1st modern scientists becuase he was paid simply to think.


Stephen E

[Dervag]

A physicist is a scientist. So why wouldn't you call him a scientist? While Archimedes was a good mathematician, and he "invented" some very clever devices, that doesn't make him a scientist. Same thing for Leonardo Da Vinci . . . an inventor, certainly, but he doesn't figure as a scientist. There's a distinction between science and technology.

I have a somewhat different definition; I consider "physicist" to be a separate category from "scientist." Being a scientist makes a physicist enormously more effective, to the point where it is now impossible to be a competent physicist without being a scientist.

But you can try to derive mathematical natural laws based on observation and derive results with testable consequences without being a scientist, apparently; because that's what Archimedes did and surely he was not a scientist... Anyway, given that Science! had not been invented yet, Archimedes had to make do with the intellectual toolkit he had at hand. And he did, managing to do a physicist's job.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who does a physicist's job is a physicist, even if they double as an engineer. Now, I'll freely concede that Galileo was the first of the theoretical physicists, though I'm not familiar enough with his work to be sure of this. But that's a different story.

Kepler... had a strong mystical bent. After figuring out the elliptical nature of the motion of the planets, he then put together a theory of the planets based on concentric crystals shaped like platonic solids that ignored the elliptical paths. He would also calculate the time of his conception, to cast horoscopes showing what a lousy life he would have . . . He wrote what could be called the first work of science fiction, and it led to his mother being tried as a witch! Maybe he took some sort of solace in his mysticism? I don't know.

In the early 1600s, the dividing line between what we now call mysticism and what we now call science was very, very hazy. Up until that time, practically all efforts to apply math to the natural world wound up falling into the territory of mysticism (geometry-based cosmology, trig applied to astrology, that sort of thing). There simply wasn't enough known to separate the truth from the wild fancies.

So I give people of that era a free pass on mysticism (Kepler's astrology, Newton's alchemy), because they couldn't reasonably be expected to dismiss it out of hand the way we would on the evidence available. Even given rigorous methods of testing, they would still have been the first people to do the testing, after all.

I've studied a fair amount about Galileo, and even wrote a secondary sources graduate paper about Galileo and the Telescope, which I should probably publish somewhere: it's the only paper I wrote for school, that *I* like to re-read from time-to-time. :-)

I have a similar one on the history of optics pre-Maxwell.

[fusilier]

But you can try to derive mathematical natural laws based on observation and derive results with testable consequences without being a scientist, apparently; because that's what Archimedes did and surely he was not a scientist... Anyway, given that Science! had not been invented yet, Archimedes had to make do with the intellectual toolkit he had at hand. And he did, managing to do a physicist's job.

This is why I backed off from calling him not a scientist altogether. He wouldn't necessarily meet the modern definition of a scientist, although that's clearly debatable. I didn't mean to/shouldn't have said, that Archimedes wasn't a scientist, but that I don't consider him to be a scientist in the modern sense.

In the early 1600s, the dividing line between what we now call mysticism and what we now call science was very, very hazy. Up until that time, practically all efforts to apply math to the natural world wound up falling into the territory of mysticism (geometry-based cosmology, trig applied to astrology, that sort of thing). There simply wasn't enough known to separate the truth from the wild fancies.

So I give people of that era a free pass on mysticism (Kepler's astrology, Newton's alchemy), because they couldn't reasonably be expected to dismiss it out of hand the way we would on the evidence available. Even given rigorous methods of testing, they would still have been the first people to do the testing, after all.

I mostly agree with you, but it's another thing that makes Galileo appear more modern, than even people like Newton that came after him. Galileo did reject mysticism, (and I honestly don't know where he lies on alchemy, I don't think it interested him much). I think that Kepler may be considered to have an unusually strong attraction to mysticism, even more so than many of contemporaries. That's not meant to diminish his accomplishments.

I have a similar one on the history of optics pre-Maxwell.

Cool. Optics is clearly a field that had been studied for a long time, although I'm not sure when good rules about refraction and reflection were understood. That's something that appears to be debated too.

[fusilier]

I think it's fairly clear that both Archimedes and DaVinci were into understand and formulating natural phenomana, but they also went further and then applied that science. They couldn't have done what they did without having the understanding, because they sure as hell couldn't get the principles off anyone else.

Galileo was a theorectical scientist. That's because he could afford to be. People would pay him for his theorectical ideas. No one was paying Archimedes or DaVinci simply to come up with interesting theories.
U could indeed call Galaleo 1 of the 1st modern scientists becuase he was paid simply to think.


Stephen E

I'm not so sure about Da Vinci, and the only reason I say that is because he seems to have had more of the "watchmaker's" understanding of how things worked. Much more intuitive than theoretical -- not sure if that's the right way to express it. Also, he didn't really communicate his ideas. Although I think he's actually quite important, as he appears at the beginning of a time where observation (not yet experimentation) was starting to gain more weight. There seems to be a line between Da Vinci and Galileo with the studies of Mechanics in 16th century Italy, through people like Tartaglia. It is speculated that Cardano may actually have seen Da Vinci's manuscripts.

Of course, we are applying the term "scientist" to people who lived hundreds of years before the term was ever coined! :-) So arguing about whether or not person X is a scientist but not a theoretical scientist, I suppose can get pretty arbitrary.

Galileo really had to play the system to get into a position where he was merely paid to think, and once there he had to work very hard to stay there.

[Ellye]

I've got a weapon/armor related question.
I've been doing some research for a setting of mine loosely based on the late 17th Century, and so far I managed to find good information about the non-gunpowder based weapons that were still used and about the Arquebus and its variants.
But, unless I'm mistaken, one-handed single-shot firearms already existed around that time, but I can't seem to find information regarding them. Anyone have some info on what a 1650~1700 pistol was like?

Also, what type of armor or protection was used during that period? I see that chainmail was still used, but I'm not sure if it sill was common.

[fusilier]

I've got a weapon/armor related question.
I've been doing some research for a setting of mine loosely based on the late 17th Century, and so far I managed to find good information about the non-gunpowder based weapons that were still used and about the Arquebus and its variants.
But, unless I'm mistaken, one-handed single-shot firearms already existed around that time, but I can't seem to find information regarding them. Anyone have some info on what a 1650~1700 pistol was like?

Also, what type of armor or protection was used during that period? I see that chainmail was still used, but I'm not sure if it sill was common.

Things changed a bit during this time, but as far as armor is concerned, breastplate (some kind of cuirass), tassets, and a helmet were still common for pikemen, at least in the front ranks. 3/4 plate could be found in 1650, but would have been really unlikely by 1700. Heavy cavalry could also be well armored. Basically, armor use was in decline during the period.

As for firearms. The true "arquebus" was being replaced by the updated "caliver", although some languages continued to use the equivalent of "arquebus" to describe the weapon. Muskets also existed, and by 1700 matchlocks were just about gone in Europe (although the transition date is typically given as 1700). Flintlocks were becoming more common. There were also other weapons that were more like carbines, they tend to come under a variety of names. And then there "light muskets" like fusils, hunting rifles, etc.

Single-shot pistols (no revolvers), would have been typical. Probably most would be wheellock in 1650, but flintlock by 1700.

[Ellye]

Thanks, that clear some things up!

[Mike_G]

I would think that even a building faced in brick would have a decent chance of stopping M16 rounds? Let alone one actually made from brick. Likewise, while I'm not too familiar with construction techniques in Iraq, something like an adobe wall will probably do a pretty good job of stopping a rifle round. Then's the question of where are the soldiers going to aim? Probably at the exposed part of the target. You can't be certain that they haven't fortified that house on the inside with sandbags, etc.

Bricks will crumble after one or two rounds. High velocity bullets have a ton of energy. Most city buildings in the Middle East, if you look at bomb damage, are cinder block. Cinder block fares very poorly against bullets.

Some guys did a fun ammo penetration test which can be found here:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Concrete blocks specifically:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot6_2.htm

The Marine Corps trained me to aim center mass, even if the center of mass was behind concealment. Now, if you have a good firing position, and time to aim, and nobody is shooting directly at you, wrecking your focus, sure, take that head shot. Chances are, in a city, your target isn't that far away. But quickly returning fire coming from a window, I'd aim below the sill and use a few short bursts. Chances are you won't hit a head shot under pressure. Rushed shots are usually high, so aiming low improves your odds.

Right . . . mostly . . . The German Stalhelm of WW1 had big lugs on the side of it to take an extra piece of armor called the "stirnpanzer." It sat on the front, and was enough to stop a rifle bullet. It was heavy and awkward, an not well liked, although it may be used by a sniper or sentry. But yes, the introduction of helmets was primarily to reduce head wounds caused by shrapnel.

I didn't know that.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those lugs on WWI helmets. I didn't know what they were for.

I've seen a lot of helmets with bullet holes in them. I didn't know any WWI era helmsts were able to stop a rifle round.

[Spamotron]

A while back on this thread series there was talk about the U.S. Navy's Railgun program. Curious I tried looking for recent updates. I found this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...un_deal_inked/ but that was almost a year ago. I was wondering if anyone knew of anything more recent?

[Stephen_E]

Galileo really had to play the system to get into a position where he was merely paid to think, and once there he had to work very hard to stay there.

The same could be said of scientists today.

Galileo was a successful example of this, but he wasn't entirely on his own.
Mypoint is that various scoieties were coing into been where people gathered to look at and discuss/critique what could loosely be called scientific ideas, and weathy people would fund to some degree the more sucessful/impressive of these.

While I think it would not be entirely unfair to call Galileo the 1st modern scientist, I think it would be more accurate to say that he is the most renowned member of the early proto-scientific communities, that became the scientific community that we now commonally call science.

This is an important point because modern science isn't an individual; activity. We give out individula awards ect, but modern scince isn't about individuals. That famous line "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." sums up modern science very well.

Before that each scientist type person had to start almost from scratch because it was often in the practical interests of previous thinkers to hide critical section, if not entire books, of their works. Also with little if any critical review what previous works that came down had to be rigoursly tested to find out if it was based on reality or airy flights of fantasy.


Stephen E

[randomhero00]

So shields- I'm pretty sure they could only take a few hits before being destroyed, since the common shield was made of wood with a thin layer of brass or copper, ya? For weight reasons I'm guessing. Were there any nearly indestructible shields, something more expensive and heavy a knight might carry?

How quickly would plate armor be destroyed after taking direct hits from a good mace?

[Dienekes]

So shields- I'm pretty sure they could only take a few hits before being destroyed, since the common shield was made of wood with a thin layer of brass or copper, ya? For weight reasons I'm guessing. Were there any nearly indestructible shields, something more expensive and heavy a knight might carry?

How quickly would plate armor be destroyed after taking direct hits from a good mace?

Don't be too quick there. While sure many shields would be broken wooden shields were also used to get weapons like swords caught in them.

As to indestructible shields, not really. Most shields I know of were wooden. For its time the Greek aspis was very strong as it was largely bronze in an era of bronze weaponry (well the more expensive kind were anyway, most hoplites used wood as well)

[fusilier]

Bricks will crumble after one or two rounds. High velocity bullets have a ton of energy. Most city buildings in the Middle East, if you look at bomb damage, are cinder block. Cinder block fares very poorly against bullets.

Some guys did a fun ammo penetration test which can be found here:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Concrete blocks specifically:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot6_2.htm

The Marine Corps trained me to aim center mass, even if the center of mass was behind concealment. Now, if you have a good firing position, and time to aim, and nobody is shooting directly at you, wrecking your focus, sure, take that head shot. Chances are, in a city, your target isn't that far away. But quickly returning fire coming from a window, I'd aim below the sill and use a few short bursts. Chances are you won't hit a head shot under pressure. Rushed shots are usually high, so aiming low improves your odds.

Thanks for the clarification. I know that cinder block typically does very little to stop rounds, I figured brick would do better, especially if it's a real brick wall, and not simply brick facing. I know that stuff like .50 AP could even make short work of that though. On the other hand, I know a friend of mine put an 8mm Lebel round clean through 3" of concrete, and then they had to find the bullet . . . which was "kinda" deformed. For some reason the French used a solid lathe-turned brass bullet!

--EDIT--
That was solid concrete, and not something like a cinder block. None of the other military rounds (30-06, 8mm mauser) could go through it.
---------

I didn't know that.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those lugs on WWI helmets. I didn't know what they were for.

I've seen a lot of helmets with bullet holes in them. I didn't know any WWI era helmsts were able to stop a rifle round.

Google "stirnpanzer" and you can find plenty of pictures of it. It was part of a general body armor issue. I don't know if it could stop a rifle bullet at close range. Such body armor was typically only given to soldiers who weren't expected to be moving as much. Like sentries or machine gunners. The Italians used Farina armor for wire cutting parties, but even they eventually abandoned it because it slowed them down.

[Fhaolan]

So shields- I'm pretty sure they could only take a few hits before being destroyed, since the common shield was made of wood with a thin layer of brass or copper, ya? For weight reasons I'm guessing. Were there any nearly indestructible shields, something more expensive and heavy a knight might carry?

How quickly would plate armor be destroyed after taking direct hits from a good mace?

Wood is actually quite tough, if the shield is constructed properly. Many shields were made of very strong (but not necessarily hard) wood, and was made of laminating thin sheets on the bias so that the grain didn't all run the same way. Basically tough plywood. Also the edges of many shields had rawhide or metal on them to make it easier to damage or trap weapons that struck those edges. While you can punch through a sheild like that with heavy crossbow bolts, or the pick of a poleweapon, it's not trivial. Most shields were made to last through an entire battle (they may need to be replaced afterwards, of course.)

Heavy metal shields were common during the early 'Jousting' periods where it wasn't expected to need to move the shield very much because it's not like you can vary the targets much in a tilting run. These sheilds eventually got just bolted to the arm and to the side, and mutated into a fixed piece of armour on later jousting harnesses.

As to how quickly plate will get destroyed by a mace, there are a lot of variables. It depends on how well the mace hits, and where, and the quality and style of the plate armour. The joints are always a bad place to take a hit, which is why they tend to have extra armour flanges and thicker and better tempered plates on those areas. If the armour is of poor quality, or has been repaired too many times, it can simply crack under impact. I've seen tests where they've taken a period-quality helmet and struck it with a two-handed high-power strike with a mace, and it dented it enough to give the wearer serious problems, but not necesarily kill them. I've also seen breastplates shatter when struck by a blunted break-apart lance because the armourer used really poor metal that had crystalized during the shaping process.

Armour, even full plate harnesses, can be very variable in the level of protection depending on the types of combat the wearer was predicted to be in. If they were a horseman doing a lot of jousting, but not full-on battle, the armour would be designed a specific way. If they were a footman who commonly fought against mixed archer and pike, their armour would be designed differently. While armour tends to follow styles and forms, only some were made to generic patterns, and those were usually for export to nations with less skilled armourers that you really didn't want to have the 'good stuff' in case they showed up on the other side of the battlefield. Nothing like the stuff the rich elite were wearing.

[sircarp]

Metals are, by their nature, crystalline materials. The breastplate you saw shatter likely did so due to either composition or construction. If it was an iron or steel breastplate too much phosphorus or sulfur is the likely material culprit, small amounts can make an alloy very brittle, and they're a pain to remove from the metal too. Another possible explanation is that the plate was formed with too much cold work. If it was shaped cold without annealing it's possible that the material would become brittle enough to shatter with impact.

[Fhaolan]

Like a lot of the snapped sword blades I've seen, the breaks showed obvious large granularities in the metal due to poor (or lack of) annealing, as you said.

While metals are a crystal matrix, the nondirectional metalic bonding due to delocalized electrons give metals ductility. Grain growth like this promotes crystal fragmentation by reducing the points of contact between grains instead of the normal homogonious mass. The blacksmiths I deal with call this 'crystalization' because to them, that's what it behaves like at a macroscopic level. It's possible this is a local trade term though.

[Matthew]

As to indestructible shields, not really. Most shields I know of were wooden. For its time the Greek aspis was very strong as it was largely bronze in an era of bronze weaponry (well the more expensive kind were anyway, most hoplites used wood as well)

Apparently, the aspis was mainly wood with a thin sheet of bronze fronting; however, it was quite a heavy and sturdy shield.

[Galloglaich]

During the late Renaissance they were making small steel shields called rotella in Europe, which became quite popular for certain light infantry called rotella men. The Ottomans even had bullet-proof shields in this period.

The earlier wooden type shields while tough, could be easily damaged. In the viking sagas, they are frequently described as being hacked to pieces with one or two blows, it was common to issue three shields to each combatant in a duel.

That said, a shield was an active thing, not like you see in SCA fighting or movies, you would displace with a shield and not just meet a blow statically. This video can convey some kind of idea perhaps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI_yH...eature=related

G.

[Dienekes]

Apparently, the aspis was mainly wood with a thin sheet of bronze fronting; however, it was quite a heavy and sturdy shield.

Really? I always heard it a pretty large metal to wood ratio when compared to most shields.

I'll take your word for it, I am by no means an expert.

[Fhaolan]

The earlier wooden type shields while tough, could be easily damaged. In the viking sagas, they are frequently described as being hacked to pieces with one or two blows, it was common to issue three shields to each combatant in a duel.

A lot of the early Norse, Celtic, and African shields were a lot thinner and lighter than shields from other periods and areas, as they were pretty much giant bucklers. These kinds were center-punch, meaning they were held purely by a handle in the center of the shield and depended a lot on the wrist and arm strength to be held out from the body with an even more active defense than other shields. It's possible that the sagas refer to this specific form of shield when they describe those duels.

When the shield is basically hung on the arm with a strapping system, the way most people think of when they imagine shields, the strength and weight can be much higher. As you say, the defense is still more active than it's given credit for, but less so than the buckler/center-punch style.

Then there's the bizarre two-handed dueling shield that showed up in Europe at one point. It had hooks built into it's shape and was meant for judicial duels. I've never seen one of these in RL, let alone seen how you actually use it, but it must be fascinating.

[Dervag]

So shields- I'm pretty sure they could only take a few hits before being destroyed, since the common shield was made of wood with a thin layer of brass or copper, ya? For weight reasons I'm guessing. Were there any nearly indestructible shields, something more expensive and heavy a knight might carry?

Wood isn't actually all that easy to break apart with muscle-powered weapons, you know; it's not as if people were normally fighting with giant mauls or other demolition tools.

Like a lot of the snapped sword blades I've seen, the breaks showed obvious large granularities in the metal due to poor (or lack of) annealing, as you said.

While metals are a crystal matrix, the nondirectional metalic bonding due to delocalized electrons give metals ductility. Grain growth like this promotes crystal fragmentation by reducing the points of contact between grains instead of the normal homogonious mass. The blacksmiths I deal with call this 'crystalization' because to them, that's what it behaves like at a macroscopic level. It's possible this is a local trade term though.

Hmm. Solid state physics isn't my bailiwick, but it seems like a good name for the process to me. Since you're working with mostly-iron, the individual 'grains' are what I think the real solid-state guys would call "domains," but it amounts to the same thing since we don't actually care about the magnetization of the iron, except as it affects the material properties.

I am going to guess, tentatively, purely from the physics, that the way to avoid this has something to do with the cooling rate of the piece you're working on as it passes the Curie temperature at 770 degrees Celsius. Am I right?

[Fhaolan]

I am going to guess, tentatively, purely from the physics, that the way to avoid this has something to do with the cooling rate of the piece you're working on as it passes the Curie temperature at 770 degrees Celsius. Am I right?

Pretty much. That's why one of the tricks of blacksmithing involves natural magnets. While heating and cooling the steel, you use magnets to determine the exact point when the metal gain/loses magnetic adhesion, rather than going off of colour which can vary enough by exact alloy composition to throw you off.

[Subotei]

I recently read up on the Zulu Wars, and the source stated that the Zulus learned to attack with their shields (basically stiff hide) held at an angle, as they were then capable of deflecting musket rounds at longish range - 100m or so. Useful against muskets, but not so much use in the 1879 war when they came up against the Martini Henry rifle.

Made me think about the possible effectiveness of the ECW buff coat type armour against similar musket rounds - may have been effective at long-ish ranges, or a least against the stray balls flying around a battlefield.

Also on another recent topic here - range of accurate fire - a study by the British after 1879 campaign showed that though the Martini Henry was accurate up to 600+ metres, very few Zulu casulties from rifle fire were noted beyond 200m, and this was fire from experienced trained infantry capable (in some regiments) of 15+ rounds/minute volley fire.

[Dervag]

Pretty much. That's why one of the tricks of blacksmithing involves natural magnets. While heating and cooling the steel, you use magnets to determine the exact point when the metal gain/loses magnetic adhesion, rather than going off of colour which can vary enough by exact alloy composition to throw you off.

And which, come to think of it, wouldn't give a very precise measure unless you're a really good judge of color. The peak frequency of blackbody radiation doesn't vary that much around the Curie temperature.

Which is not to say that practiced people couldn't do it, but if I were inventing from scratch, God knows I'd rather use a magnet.

[Ogremindes]

When the shield is basically hung on the arm with a strapping system, the way most people think of when they imagine shields, the strength and weight can be much higher. As you say, the defense is still more active than it's given credit for, but less so than the buckler/center-punch style.

Then there's the bizarre two-handed dueling shield that showed up in Europe at one point. It had hooks built into it's shape and was meant for judicial duels. I've never seen one of these in RL, let alone seen how you actually use it, but it must be fascinating.

Based on what I've seen and read, 'centre-punch' shields were very much the norm, even with large shields, with strapped shields only used for very specific fighting styles, rather than melee in general. The aspis used in the Greek phalanx formations is the only strapped shield that comes to mind.

The duelling shield was covered briefly by Weapons That Made Britain, including a demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7dsFIlPj8#t=2m10s.