The percussive effect and plate armour

[katana]

Hi,
after Jim's thread on armour and heat....I noticed that as armour developed the sword became more and more ineffective. Leading to the evolution of percussion type weapons, like the war hammer. Other than those that had sharp points ( to obviously pierce the armour), the hammer could cause severe internal injuries by the 'shock wave' effect in human tissue. I wondered if anyone had any further information or thoughts.

Regards David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi,
after Jim's thread on armour and heat....I noticed that as armour developed the sword became more and more ineffective. Leading to the evolution of percussion type weapons, like the war hammer. Other than those that had sharp points ( to obviously pierce the armour), the hammer could cause severe internal injuries by the 'shock wave' effect in human tissue. I wondered if anyone had any further information or thoughts.

Regards David

Hi David,
Another excellent angle to consider as we study various types of armour in development. It really is interesting to try to understand technology that today would be viewed as archaic or rudimentary, yet in those times it was state of the art, and incredibly important as not only lives were at stake, but keeping the soldier effective in battle.

I had not considered the 'shock wave' effect that must have been a notable result of those 'war hammers', but it seems it would carry certain potential as you describe. While probably a relatively exaggerated analogy, it seems that in auto accidents, the dramatic forces on the individuals in even low speed collisions often result in surprising injuries, typically internal. How much is from inertial force or actual contact and compression seems unclear except to trained medical persons. Obviously the spiked war hammers which penetrated the armour would result in the expected penetration wounds.

It seems to me most of the fatal wounds received in armoured individuals were through vital openings sought by the opponent in combat, and that the hammers and other innovative weapon features were ideally trying to unhorse the opponent.

I'd like to look more into the shock wave idea though....great thought!

All the best,
Jim

[Ed]

Armor thickened and evolved primarily because of the development of gunpowder weapons.

[Pukka Bundook]

Hello David.

In a topic like this, it always must come down to what we "think' might happen, without first hand accounts....so I would 'think' that with the padding layers under the armour, shock waves would be minimised, and damage would be caused more by concussion on skull, or from crushing, as caused by mace, flail or war hammer....or as Jim has stated, sharp things piercing the weak spots.
I suppose with crushing weapons, the results could be fatal but could take a lengthy time to become so, through resulting infections.

just my two pennorth worth!

Richard.

[katana]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Hello David.

In a topic like this, it always must come down to what we "think' might happen, without first hand accounts....so I would 'think' that with the padding layers under the armour, shock waves would be minimised, and damage would be caused more by concussion on skull, or from crushing, as caused by mace, flail or war hammer....or as Jim has stated, sharp things piercing the weak spots.
I suppose with crushing weapons, the results could be fatal but could take a lengthy time to become so, through resulting infections.

just my two pennorth worth!

Richard.

Hi Richard ,
thanks for your input. I think you have to ask yourself why the war hammer became very popular (in Europe) during the 15th C ...and why it was improved at that time. I believe, in a way... I do have 'first hand' knowledge due to this. Weapons and armour are intrinsically linked, if one improved...the other had to evolve to compensate. The 'hammer' evolved to counter the improvements in the armour. You could 'thicken' the padded under-garments ...to help compensate...but then you would loose movement. The armour would also have to be a number of sizes 'larger' to accomodate the extra thickness of 'padding' .. not only would movement be more restricted.....heat build up would be increased.

Kind Regards David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ed

Armor thickened and evolved primarily because of the development of gunpowder weapons.

Well said Ed! that is indeed the short and popularly held version. If I have understood correctly however, the development of firearms and various explosives was rather a long and tedious path. In its infancy, it is my impression that firearms themselves were considered almost a novelty, obviously with great potential, but regarded as quite secondary in many ways in the business of war.
Even by the time of Frederick the Great, who held considerable disdain for the firearm in battle, it was well known that after the shock effect of the first shot...guns were spent, and combat in melee was focused on swords and hand held weapons.

I think the development of armor still continued, as David has noted, with consideration for impact of these weapons such as axes and hammers, and others despite firearms arrival on the scene. If multiple shot guns and machine guns were present in earlier times it would be one thing, but the slow development confining to single shot and reloading difficulty remained until the 19th century.

Best regards,
Jim

[katana]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Well said Ed! that is indeed the short and popularly held version. If I have understood correctly however, the development of firearms and various explosives was rather a long and tedious path. In its infancy, it is my impression that firearms themselves were considered almost a novelty, obviously with great potential, but regarded as quite secondary in many ways in the business of war.
Even by the time of Frederick the Great, who held considerable disdain for the firearm in battle, it was well known that after the shock effect of the first shot...guns were spent, and combat in melee was focused on swords and hand held weapons.

I think the development of armor still continued, as David has noted, with consideration for impact of these weapons such as axes and hammers, and others despite firearms arrival on the scene. If multiple shot guns and machine guns were present in earlier times it would be one thing, but the slow development confining to single shot and reloading difficulty remained until the 19th century.

Best regards,
Jim

Yes Jim , my sentiments exactly.

There came a point where armour was almost totally arrow proof and swords were much less effective. The war hammer and associated weapons became more popular, even with the padding worn under the armour, impacts from such weapons could have devestating affects to the victims body. The shafts of the 'hammer' were later extended and a hardened spike fitted to the 'butt' (15th Century). This allowed greater 'leverage' and power in the strike and the point butt allowed use as a short spear to jab at the enemy. Old manuscripts detailing the use of these, also employed techniques whereby the shaft was used to gain 'leverage' on an opponent, to 'throw' them to the ground....with a quick follow up of the hammer strike (full force) to the now 'fallen' (momentarily defenceless) knight.

In Cameron Stone's 'A Glossary...of arms and armour'... he states that the war hammer was "never as popular in the East as in Europe, as the armour was generally lighter and more flexible and covered the body less completely, making a smashing weapon less essential....."

Tests have been carried out on a 'ballistic gel' torso encased in breast / back plate with quilted material between the two. (ballistic gel is a material that has the same qualities as human flesh) Slow motion footage of the 'full bloodied' blow from a 15th C war hammer demonstrated , (clearly visible) the 'shock waves' passing through and rebounding back within the torso. Because our body's have a large percentage of water content, the effect is similar to an explosion underwater. It is common that 'modern' naval warfare (with exploding shells) have decimated the fish swimming nearby during the battle....killed (internal injuries) or stunned by this shockwave effect.

It is likely the internal injuries suffered by the 15th C knights were not fully understood at the time as there was little external symptoms/ signs....I also suspect that a number 'survived' the battle only to die later due to organ damage/failure.

As a footnote.....thinking about gunpowder......why didn't someone invent the 'limpet' mine or 'sticky' bomb ..... I'm sure a fast runner could have 'planted' a few to the backs of enemy knights......the medieval 'tank'

Regards David

[Ed]

The apogee of plate was, as commonly accepted, with the Gothic Armor of the latter part of the 15th century. Up to that point I agree, firearms were of little danger (aside from provoking a panic induced rout I suppose). I was really referring to the period post, say, 1500 when armor was in decline (degenerate was the term used by Dean, I think). Armor after that time got heavier and not because of man-powered weapons: they had sort of maxed out by the end of the 15th c.

By the end of the 16th c you are seeing either absurdly heavy siege pieces or relatively useless parade pieces.

I guess my contention is that armor development after the first quarter of the 16th century was in response to the improvement of firearms not because of better non-gunpowder weapons.

Interesting question though.