The Armour Archive

What would constitute a LEGAL and ETHICAL test of weapons vs. armour?


1. First, we don’t want to be in trouble with the law and ethical principles…so no putting a LIVE person, cadaver (dead person), live animal, etc in the suit to find out how badly weapons damage flesh and bone.

2. Of course, we need this digitally videotaped from at least three angles, with sound included.

3. We will need ALL types of armour, including SCA plastic, butted mail, stainless steel, high carbon steel, etc. This should put many “invincibilityâ€

for consistancy I would limit the test to one piece of armour. Lets say chest protection because it is easier to aquire. I say one piece because you would need to replace the piece after each weapon is used. You wouldn't want a cumulative damage affect throwing off your test. You would also need to make sure that each piece of armour is almost identical so that quality does not affect your test.

Check the weapons for damage after each test. if the weapon is damaged it must be replaced with an identical weapon.

Each weapon (of the same type) should be thrown in the same manner. ie, every shot with the broad sword thrown the exact same way. Each shot with a weapon should be thrown in the appropriate manner. ie rapier should be thrusted, axes should be swung, etc.

Every shot should be thrown by the same person. If he gets tired then have him rest. The test should take several days to complete. If a side of beef (or other animal) is damaged by a test it should be replaced with an undamaged piece.

Each type of armour should have a control group. A standard to compare it too. If the test is primarily for SCA purposes then use how well the armour protected against a standard SCA broadsword. swung by the same man of course.

The idea is to reduce the variables as much as possible. All in all, if done properly it looks like it will be very, very expensive. You risk buying lots of beef and ruining several pieces of perfectly good armour.

As for rating the trauma to the body, I dunno. Is there a doctor or forensic scientist in the house?

Hi Aaron,

Most importantly, to get the best result, you would have to have the closest possible approximations to the armour and weapons in question to get an accurate result. You would need someone like Erik Schmidt or Steve Belden providing the mail for the test, and someone like Mac providing the plate. Then you would need someone like Thomas Powers providing the early, wrought iron plate, and making the arrowheads.

I have long thought that the best test of armour under fire and combat conditions of the 14th & 15th centuries would be to set up a dummy (perhaps on the order of a crash test dummy) standing on a modern, light cart (ridgedly or semi ridgedly fixed so it won't fall over), and either drawn toward a mark by cables, or remotely piloted toward an archer at a steady rate of speed. The archery employed must be the clout shooting techniques employed on the battlefield. Idealy, one would end the test with a dozen or so archers firing using these techniques as the dummy was propeled toward them. A camera, or several could be set on the cart in armoured housings, deployed covering specific areas of the harness.


For hand blows, perhaps a suspended dummy, so it may have "give", and not be a ridged target. This would be the beginings of a scientific examination of the subject.

------------------
Bob R.

To Add,

If you want the test to be taken seriously, leave the SCA specific weaponry and armour, or out of period and place weaponry to the harness in question.

What Vladimir proposes in good for a hand weapons test, and I think my proposal is the only way to remotely test the effectiveness of the longbow against various entire harness.

For testers, you will need people who are known in the field for the hand weapons test (i.e., the interpreters at Leeds, or a well known martial artist), and they will have to employ weapons that are as accurate reconstructions as the armour. The people at Leeds can provide the armoured lancers as well.

I hate to say it, but if you do this on your own hoof, instead of orginizing and backing a scientific experiment, and what you do has any SCA connotations or connections, the end results will not be taken seriously by people in the field. No reenactors either, but people who are professionaly employed in the field. That is what is required if you want a scientific test of any weight whatsoever,

------------------
Bob R.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
You would need someone like Erik Schmidt or Steve Belden providing the mail for the test, and someone like Mac providing the plate. Then you would need someone like Thomas Powers providing the early, wrought iron plate, and making the arrowheads.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, I need Bill Gates to grant me his fortune to make this test possible... I thought so, but I was hoping that substandard (ie, made by yours truly) armour would cut it for the test...to save on money.

How about a Great Helm of period weight and dimensions vs. weapons of the time? That may be cheap enough to start.

I agree that the SCA connection will tarnish the test, no matter how scientifically correct we would be. The "bunny fur bikinni" reputation of the SCA proceeds us...


Alright, lets try the Great Helm and Coat of Plates idea. The cost will not be prohibitive, the materials could be made to a reasonable authenticity standard inexpensively.

Now, the Great Helm and COP faced what weapons? From the Battle of Wisby book, I know of:

Lance
Arrow (longbow?)
Mace
Sword (long)
Axe

Would this work? It seems cheap enough...I just have to make the equipment and ask Chef (pretty please?...) to take Merlin out and run a lance through a target dummy with beef-parts in it.

Oh.....with the lens leads for two digital cameras in the eyes of the Great Helm!!! Now you two can feel the power of a charge!

-Aaron

PS: Chef, if I made the Great Helm and COP, do you think you MIGHT do it?

So, we would need a seperate Great Helm and Coat of Plates for:

Lance
Sword
Axe
Arrow (fired in groupings as done in war)
Mace

That's five Great Helms and five Coat of Plates. That's do-able by me. Besides, afterwards we can salvage any armour and repair it.

-Aaron

My Advice?

Okay, If you *really* want to do this, think BIG.

Put up (or find someone to put up) a professional-looking website, detailing your idea: Destructive Testing of Various Medieval Armour Types via Period Consistant Weapons.

Then, start contacting people at AEMMA -since this is more up their ally than it is ARMA's now -but contact them anyway to give them a heads up. (ARMA used to be HACA -they changed their name and their focus)

The then-HACA scholars have used pieces of meat to simulate human flesh; looks to me like they used beef shanks. This seems an acceptable substatute.
I do not think entire pieces of armour would be necessary in the testing, rather, smaller, shaped pieces -perhaps with removable strapping- could be used to simulate different portions of the armour: a shallow dish for the breastplate, a domed skull for the helmet, a series of articulated plates for the pauldron. These pieces would be easier, quicker, and cheaper to manufacture than a replica of an entire period piece, however I concur with Chef in saying the pieces should come from reputable armourers, and Chef gave you a darn good list.

Organize, Organize, Organize!
Set up a fund for donations to the cause, or better, take orders for video copies of the testing. Hell, for documentaion of an authorataive test, I'd gladly pay $20 or $30. Interest the serious scholarly community enough and you can get a lot of Umph to get things done.
SCA participation is not a bad thing, by all means invite a few authenticity-concious Dukes to the test/Bar-B-Q. However, SCA presence must be ballanced by other, more Scholarly organizations. If your big enough, and seemingly non-partizan enough, you might be able to get a few people from the Royal Armoury to fly in.

I would suggest holding the test in a centeral location, in or very near an internationaly known city. (one with an airport) This will aid in drawing your big names, and will and an additional stamp of authenticity to the test. (even though perhaps it shouldn't)

Since there will be a (perhaps large) group of qualified testers, I would suggest holding a lottery as to which man will do the testing. An arbitrary decision will cause grumbling amongst warring factions within the armed combat community; luck of the draw is simply luck of the draw.

Hire a camera crew. "Home video" just won't cut it. You may be all right with getting a student crew from a local college to do teh camera work, but if this is shot on three camcorders with fuzzy sound, you will not have the autoritative work you set out to accomplish, no matter how well the test was performed. Professional quality pictures (which are somewhat easier to arrange) should also be taken, of the test pieces, weapons and armour, before and after each test. (redundancy is probably necessary). To come to autoritative conclusions, you must have proper documentation. It would be well to have several microphones set up to catch any important dialogue and compile a minutes of the testing as well. Copies of all the information can then be bought by anyone or any group that wants them for a small price. (should be different than the video offer.)

Consider contacting Swordforum.com and organizing through them.

There's probably other stuff I shuld have mentioned, but There's a start.

as some one whos has done these tests in the passed and recieved nothing but grief for my trouble, here is a few hints . though i suspended all mt old plate by making an old tire into a dummy and hanging it from a tree, that was to rigid to simulate a person. that said you mmust find a way to securely anchor the feet with about 100 ponds of presure each. the swrds in question where made of cold forged high carbon steel. i dont know how you get more reel but that was poo pooed too. the steel industry has a historical archive on line( the addy isnt hand but it was the first hit on a search) and according to them, steel came about in the mid to late 14th century, and the say that the wrought iron and steel function about a similar as modern steel as pickles and catsup would, so do what you can there. they do however give places you can get the right thing at. i used 1018 weldable steel to simulate late gothic munitions armour. it sounded close by the stats but it was shot down too so good luck 'cuz i for one wish you luck and would like to hear your results. oh i appalogise for the lack of capitals and good spelling, i currently have a hand full of stitches. if you are interested in the sight, let me know, i will look for it.

Testing of the nature being proposed is long overdue,and likely to stay that way for a while.

Lots of excellent point are being made,the one suggestion that comes to mind is: moderation.

Don't try to test everything all at once,try to "eat the elephant"in small bites.

------------------
... whatever contributes to knowledge is required to be true...

I might have to disagree there.

Doing it individualy, yes, of course you would have to. However, to borrow your metaphore, if you have an army, an you all bite at the same time... well, you just ate yourself an elephant. The bigger you are, and more organised you are, the better and more authoritative your reults will be.

Do it by yourself -like randy- and you'll satisfy yourself, but other "scholarly" types who may have a vested interest in making you out to be wrong will never be convinced. Frankly, the probably won't ever be convinced if they think like that, but the fewer weaknesses in your testing the stronger your arguments become, for the sake of other people.

"..I might have to disagree there.
Doing it individualy, yes, of course you would have to. However, to borrow your metaphore, if you have an army, an you all bite at the same time... well, you just ate yourself an elephant. The bigger you are, and more organised you are, the better and more authoritative your reults will be.

Do it by yourself -like randy- and you'll satisfy yourself, but other "scholarly" types who may have a vested interest in making you out to be wrong will never be convinced. Frankly, the probably won't ever be convinced if they think like that, but the fewer weaknesses in your testing the stronger your arguments become, for the sake of other people..."

I see your point.What I was getting at was to make it more a series of tests.Definitivly study one aspect at a time.

For instance,the old Butted vs Riveted arguement.Take a selection of both types and run them thru the gauntlet,so to speak.Then publish the result on the website that was talked about.This could then lay to rest,for those who'll let it,the misconceptions on both sides of the debate.

I envision this as a series of on-going trials,say on a quarterly basis,to provide good info for everyone in the WMA community.The piece-mealing of the testing would allow a period of debate after each one,and would not be as fiscally challenging.It would also provide a "common ground" from which reasonable debate could spring from.



------------------
... whatever contributes to knowledge is required to be true...

Hi Aaron,

I'd be glad to help your tests. Unfortunately, you have both Bascot and myself confused. My mount is Normandie, and he has only a years worth of being ridden under his belt, and is still in training. I haven't begun training with a lance yet.

Bascot no longer has Merlin, and his new mount Barrok is still a baby, and will need several years more training. At least he has trained with a lance, but your reproduction of a lance needs to be as good a one as your reproduction of the CoP is the test is to carry any weight.

If you are serious about this test, what you need to do is make an exacting duplicate of one of the surviving Wisby CoP - no shortcuts atall allowed. I would recommend getting Thordmans book, and picking one to copy exactly. You will need to find wrought iron sheet of appropriate thickness - as exacting as possible to the original. Write to the museum holding the specific CoP, get conservation photos to work from, and ask them to take a micrometer to the plates to get a reading (that is assuming the pertinent information isn't already in the Wisby book). Use no synthetic materials in the reconstruction - I cannot stress enough how exact a copy it must be for the test to be considered valid.

Float the test by the Royal Armouries - they may be more receptive than you might think to the idea. If you get the backing of an institution like this in your experiment, your test will carry a lot more weight.

If you are serious, and you want to take the scholarly route with this idea, I will be happy to help. While I can't make a lance pass currently, I can give you introductions to people within these institutions that can help you with your project. If you follow this route, there is no reason that your experiment might not be written up in the Royal Armouries Yearbook.

------------------
Bob R.

no offense, but I don't think it will ever work. Here is why:

Movement.

Anyone that has studied martials knows that there is a body movement associated with "catching" a blow and dissipating it to make it non-effective and move the opponent into a postion prime for counter-attack. Most of those movements use the muscles natural flex/reflex to minimalize effort. How this applies to your test is this:

Suppose its medieval warfare, and I am out there. You come at me with a lance. Am I going to stand there and let you hit me? No, I am going to try to dodge/deflect the lance and counter attack. Now we know that tons of people died, so obviously it didn't always work. BUT... I would be willing to be they tried.

So basically, what your test subjects would be lacking is the ability to move and the desire to stay alive. You'll be testing the damage on a stationary object, which is inconclusive to damage of a moving object.

But like I said, thats just my opinion....

Chef,

By your last post, would you think replica portions of the armour would be insufficient?

Hi Aiden,

Actually, no test can ever exactly duplicate combat conditions unless it is subjected to combat. Your "stationaly target" objection can be overcome by the expediant of placing the object on a sandbag (of bag of wood shvaings, or what have you) and suspending it from a beam by a rope. The object will definitely move (away from the blow) when stuck, giving a reasonable approximation of a fellow trying to duck away.

Since the objective is to test the armour resisting a solid strike by a given weapon, this should suffice.


Destichado ,

If you want a scientific test, then yes, a portion is insufficient to give an overall picture . The CoP should be over an akeaton and mail to truley test the efficiency of mid 14th century defensive armour. The only thing the CoP alone will accomplish is the likelyhood of a penetration of what is probably a wrought iron plate of a given thickness.

If you want a scientific test, you need to go the distance.

------------------
Bob R.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>If you want a scientific test, then yes, a portion is insufficient to give an overall picture . The CoP should be over an akeaton and mail to truley test the efficiency of mid 14th century defensive armour. The only thing the CoP alone will accomplish is the likelyhood of a penetration of what is probably a wrought iron plate of a given thickness.

If you want a scientific test, you need to go the distance.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch!

That's something rather pricey already!

$1195.00 for a riveted mail hauberk from Steve of 4th Castle...and remember, we need a NEW one for every weapon test! The Great Helm and COP become pocket change to that.

Alright...how about just a Great Helm?

Chef, without compromising your integrity, can you help me out here with advice on how to make an honest, INEXPENSIVE test?

What about a later period? Would the inexpensiveness of steel make the test more bearable?

-Aaron

"...That's something rather pricey already!

$1195.00 for a riveted mail hauberk from Steve of 4th Castle...and remember, we need a NEW one for every weapon test!..."

One thing you could do is repair the mail armor between tests,it should be feasible.

As far as the initial cost of the items tested....
Donations,anyone?


------------------
... whatever contributes to knowledge is required to be true...

Hi Aaron,

There is absolutely no reason not to reuse the mail itself. All that would be necessary is for any rent to be repaired with new rings, and these can be obtained easily and cheaply from Steve.

You are also assuming armor penetration, which isn't necessarily going to happen. If a plate does not fail on the CoP, there is no reason not to reuse it either. The likelyhood of any attacks striking the exact same spot are fairly minimal.

------------------
Bob R.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant if the armour was damaged it would need replacing.

I was afraid you were going to say that, Chef.

Well, my cost-cutter idea went out the window. But I still say -ORGANIZE!

Why don't we hire the ballistics people. You know the ones the cops use and the weapons research use. Since they have the equipment or will be able to build the equipment.

I'm having a "why didn't I think of that" moment...

Chef,

I really don't see why we couldn't have a "beta-test" run with this using mild steel. Yes, it is not authentic, but it MIMICS the real material.

I think 1500s armour would be a better test than Wisby now that I think about it...the Wisby graves gave the ULTIMATE test of the armour vs. arrows etc... It was just a matter of analysis of the wounds and armour damage. We may be doing unnecessary work.

What are the "big questions" regarding armour? Is it primarily "did arrows of the time penetrate armour of the time"?

-Aaron

I just bought a Sig Mauser M2 .40 S&W pistol, Id be happy to Proof any pieces of armor you wish:-)

( Armorers, wouldnt it be cool to post a sticker on that new 12g bascinet saying " shot by Sir Samuel here") course that may be construde as rattan and I be officially barred from combat forever:-) hehe

from what i have read, the armour that was proof came at a latter date and has softer to be proof.

I have to agree that the amour and weapons used, should be made with period materials, and techniques.

Good solid evidence, done in a solid scientific method should interest muesums and history buffs alike. That should help funding further research.
A good place to start would be Arrows vs. Plate. Once that arguement is put to rest I think you would get more help from other sources.
For arrows, I would suggest attacks made enmass. Say 25 archers in a volley, or one archer and 25 shots, range 250 yards. And direct fire. (1 archer, one arrow. Range 35 yards)
Obviously, a better study would be created if done with ranges of say every 5 yards. (But who has time for that!)

This is not something we can contribute to on the short term. Well documented research is needed into every item used in the tests, right down to the rivits and leather tanning methods. Preferably from primary sources.
Things like sizes, weights, material composition, and creation method all need to be recorded to the test is can be replicated exactly.

As a side note: I would do the entire test in metric measurements.

in his book viking wepons & warfare, the author J.Kim Siddorn wites about witniessing a spear being thrown through the carcass of a pig.the spear peirced through the chest cavity and out the other side, and when maille was placed over the carcass the spear stabbed in to it at a depth of 5 inches.
and when a spear was thrown from horse back at a gallop it went through a sheild and a dummy, pinning both to the ground. of course both targets were stationary. but does give an idea of the wepons effect.

------------------
It would seem fitting for a Northern folk, deriving the greater and better part of their speech, laws and customs from a Northern root, that the North should be to them, if not a holy land, yet at least a place more to be regarded than any part of the worldbeside, that howsoever their knowledge widened of other men, the faith and deeds of their forefathers would never lack intrest for them, but would always be kept in remembrance.
- William Morris

[This message has been edited by ENGENULF (edited 03-30-2002).]

Re: the test:

If an inferior material is substituted, the results are only valid if the test is either extraoplated, or if the test subject performs in a manner that is sufficient.

EX of extrapolation: A period arrow is fired at a mild steel breast plate, and it pierces it. statistical analysis shows that 300 psi is exerted over 3 square inches, etc. this is then compared to the properties of a piece of tempered armour.

Ex: of sufficient performance: A mild steel breast plate is unscathed by period arrows fired from bows of greater than period strength. it is logical to assume that a superior period peice would perform as well.

-+G

Rev. George has brought up a good point.One of the things I really can't stand is when someone makes a claim about medieval weaponry,and what it's capable of,and they say "yeah,I went out in the back yard and did it.".They don't bother to provide ANY specific information about their so-called "test",and when asked to back up their claims,they just get huffy ,and act like you called 'em a liar.

Good test=Good data=Good results

------------------
... whatever contributes to knowledge is required to be true...