[TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet

[Leon Wu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com 
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Paul
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
> 
> Actually that is overly simplistic. There is plenty of 
> evidence indicating that maille was often worn with no under 
> padding. Padding is not mentioned in sagas, inventories, or 
> the language itself for a long time. As long as the mail 
> itself is rather loose on the person it does have some 
> energy-absorption ability. The weapon has to move the maille 
> into contact with the body. It will end up dragging maille 
> from well outside the area being struck and that changes the 
> amount of energy that is applied to the target.
> 
> It says something about the cultures that used maille with no 
> padding and it addresses the force of blows that are being 
> employed. Very forceful blows would have rendered the maille 
> useless, therefore some restraint in commitment or delivery 
> must have been evident. This is actually consistent when 
> viewed through the lens of available choices and consequences 
> available to most of those that fought. Maille was a premium 
> defense, highly valued, and worn by few. The great mass of 
> the rest of the combatants wore little to no armor and relied 
> on a shield to protect them. Making a mistake by 
> over-committing to an attack that does not immediately 
> cripple or kill the foe may leave a very naked hide exposed 
> to counter-attack. Blows are therefore very conservative and 
> are not necessarily as forceful as they could be.

Hm, I may disagree with you on that. I think mail would have to be worn
with an under-armour. I'm wondering if some authors may not have
considered an under-garment as "armour". And yes for the majority of
history the vast bulk of soldiers wore no armour and depended on a
shield. Hollywood has lead us to believe mail shirts were sold at the
local wal-mart for 2 eggs... I read an interesting book on the late
republican/early imperial roman army where the author developed a theory
on battle. It was to address who armies could "fight" for hours and how
winning armies had very few casualties considering the amount of time
spent hacking at each other. He proposed that when two sides charged
each other one of which would happen:
a) one side lost nerve at the last second and fled, other pursues
b) both sides charge in and proceed to hack merrily at each other
c) both sides shamble to a halt a safe psychological distance away when
they realize they're about to run into hundreds of men with sharp
objects
He thinks that most battles went to either a or c. With option c, both
sides would try to build up enough morale to cross that final stretch,
they'd yell, curse, insult, etc... Eventually the most aggressive (in
his model most likely the centurions of each cohort) soldiers would move
forward, the soldiers on their sides would have to come along to protect
their comrades flanks. The aggressor would move up and actively try to
kill his opponent(s) while the less aggressive soldiers would do the
more cautious fighting. Eventually the aggressor would tire and they'd
pull back to their lines to rest. Rinse and repeat until one side
finally looses nerve and runs.